Posts by briefvacation

Quote from Don

Quote from briefvacation

about what the Jewish and Christian reactions were to Epicureanism.

You might be interested in this thread:

Thread

On Use Of The Term Apikoros / Apiqoros / Bikouros Against Epicureans

Admin Edit

This thread came back to life in 2024. Unfortunately I can't remember the context in which it was first written. it starts with a paste of a comment from someone else, and I believe that comment itself was in response to the "What if Life Were All About Pleasure?" article. As a result the original thread was a little disjointed, although the intent is clear - to focus on the friction between Epicurean philosophy and certain of its opponents. I am therefore cleaning up the original

…

Cassius

December 17, 2018 at 9:14 AM

Thanks, this thread is great.

Epicureanism

I think this article is interesting, not sure if this characterization of the points in common with Epicureanism are accurate characterizations of Epicurean beliefs.

Quote

Agreements, however, both in content and literary form, between rabbinism and Epicureanism are striking: study for its own sake (Vatican fragment 45 and Avot 6:1); removal of doubt (Life 121b, Doctr. 22 and Avot 1:16); mortality and urgency (Vat. fr. 10 and Avot 2:15); acquisition of a companion (To Menoeceus, end, and Avot 1:6); diet of bread and water (Bailey, fr. 37 and Avot 6:4); satisfaction with one's lot (Bailey, fr. 69–70 and Avot 4:1); and avoidance of public office (Bailey, fr. 85–87; Vat. fr. 58; Doctr. 7 and Avot 1:10–11; 2:3; etc.). Epicurus anticipated Judaism's denial of astral divinity and rule. With the general rise of the lower classes he accorded human dignity even to the prostitute, an evaluation continued in the Midrash (Sif. Num. 78; Gen. R. 85:8) and the Gospels (Matt. 1:3; 5, etc.). In Hellenism and Christianity, too, denunciation of Epicurus together with partial adoption of his ethics is frequent. The centrality of the sage in post-Socratic ethics and rhetoric facilitated such developments.

Quote from Cassius

I wrote my last post in a hurry and probably i should go further. Earlier today I had been reading David Hume's "Dialogues on Natural religion, and one of the characters in that Dialogue was a strong mystic who was focused on suffering in life as the main reason for being concerned about "gods." I observe over time that there is a significant tendency in some circles to focus on "escaping pain" rather than "obtaining pleasure," and even though in Epicurean terms those end up being the same thing, anyone who does not think strictly in Epicurean terms (and that is 99.9% of people today) will not realize that since there are only two categories of feelings, "absence of pain" measures out to have precisely the same meaning as "pleasure." Rather than knowing Epicurus' equivalency of terms, they tend to think that he is prioritizing organizing one's life to 'minimize pain" rather than to "maximize pleasure." Again those turn out to be the same thing in Epicurean terms, but ask any Buddhist or Stoic or someone else who is focused on the idea that "life is suffering" or that "suffering is good" and they are likely to think that you mean something else.

Epicurus clearly focuses on the view that life is short, and only life gives an opportunity for pleasure, and that nature's calling is to maximize pleasure. Nature gives us huge numbers of ways to do that, and given Epicurus' expansive way of viewing pleasure, the wise man will always have more reason for joy than for vexation.

So that distinction between "running from pain" vs "pursuing pleasure, even when some pain is required" is what I wanted to emphasize.

If Epicurus had thought that you could submit to a supernatural god and thereby obtain an eternal life of pleasure, he would certainly have done so. He wanted to know the truth, and he concluded that pleasure in life is the best we can hope for, so he developed a theory that allowed him to do that. But the starting point was wanting to know the truth, and only then did he decide that pleasure and pain are the way to measure the best life. He didn't start with a preferred conclusion and a willingness to bend the truth to what he wanted.

Thanks for the response, you got to the core of what I was asking which was: is understanding truth an end in itself, or a way of getting to pleasure.

Hi all!

I'm trying to explore different philosophies and understand how they have influenced intellectual history. I am reading Lucretius with a group right now and was hoping to more deeply understand the Epicurean philosophy on it's own terms, in order to consider it as a way of living my own life and to see how it may have influenced thinkers later on down the line. I'm especially curious about the relationship between Epicureanism and Hume, and about what the Jewish and Christian reactions were to Epicureanism. I'm posting from the New York City metropolitan area.

Thanks for having me on your forum!

Hi all, thanks for having me here on your forums.

I was reading Lucretius books I-III and I had a question occur to me.

It seems that the main reason Lucretius advocates for right understanding is so that one can avoid being lead astray to false beliefs about the afterlife which lead to pain and distress.

My question is does Lucretius have any grounds for advocating right understanding over any other understanding which would similarly take care of concerns about the afterlife?

Curious to hear what you think.

BV