For my epicurean friends of here I translated into the English language some pages of the article entitled “Epicurean philosophy or Epicureanism”, by Dimitris Altas a physician cardiologist and member in the Garden of Thessaloniki.
In a recent debate in the Garden of Thessaloniki a question was placed : If the Epicureans could be a political party on the political scene of the country. Our friend George Kaplanis was the first that replied that this could not be done, because the Epicurean philosophy is not an ideology, but philosophy and as philosophy is be or it should be located in the political background itself, as in the same way that philosophy as it is not a science is located in the background of all the sciences .
If philosophy provides at the science the method of research , thus provides to the policy the method of analysis of the political and social affairs and the moral framework of the decisions taken.
The background of the policy of the Newgreek state -and NOT only the New Greek state - is purely idealistic since the dominant religion and the Platonism and the Stoicism which surviving through the religion have a strong influence on the political scene of the country. But the materialist philosophy of Marxism which is affecting the Left part has also strangely mutated in an idealistic ideology.
But from what does the ideology qualifies ? According to Theodosis Pelegrini’s dictionary of the philosophy in the corresponding entry with the word “ideology” generally meant a set of ideas, concepts and positions, operating as a single system, which is displayed as the true picture of the reality. Those who adopt it are required to think and regulate their lives in accordance with it. All ' ISMS' are basically ideologies and are inherently dogmatic and metaphysical i.e, they are based on unproven mental schemata (patterns of thought) which perceive as a reality relegating the material reality at the level of a caricature of these mental schemata.
The ideologies are necessarily causal and teleological. This means that they admit a purpose which necessarily tends the universe, and by extension the society and the human . The purpose has been placed by a Creator or a dire necessity in the sequence of events. As owners of the absolute truth the ideologues do not tolerate and do not discuss the opinion of the others in the sense that if someone is not with us is against us . This is the logic of the black and white of good and evil that flows from the principle of the excluded third of Aristotle. So it is common that the ideologues are using in their confrontations the " wooden " and negative language to sloganeering and give at their opponents characterizations and "signs" that have nothing to do with reality, leading of the demonization of them .
So the frequent outcome of the ideologies and the religions which are also ideologies, is the obsession and the fanaticism, leading to the blind passion and hatred against any claims and opinions different from their own beliefs.
The ideologue simply believes in his chimeras without seeking evidence and documentation for the object of his faith. The result of this attitude of ideologues and their inability to submit events to the suffering of sober calculation and judgment, based on the reality data that are available. They are the same people who become easy victims of propaganda or interests that the ideologies exploit to gain social and political power promoting their selfish purposes.
At the level of politics, the ideologues discounted each real problem of society as an ideological resulting sterile and endless debates with their opponents, so eventually the real problem to drag on, to be forgotten and remain unresolved. (Eg the immigration issue)
Another principle by Aristotle which is also in the background of Modern politics and not just a perception, is the Golden mean or the middle way that someone should choose to resolve issues and avoid extreme judgments. This translated into politics issues, as the tendency to round the things and issues in order to gain common acceptance. Or taking vague positions on the key issues, and requiring groundbreaking solutions. The proposed solutions, usually foggy and long fruitless, to leave ostensibly at least, just to be all the people satisfied. Always follow the consensus and not to go into ruptures. Always take into account in decision making so-called political cost. Ultimately they're doing nothing! Other expressions deriving from the Golden Rule is the non-existent average person, the apolitical middle ground and so on. The decision by that politician Metaxas to dismiss the Italian ultimatum and put Greece in the throes of war was an extreme decision. But how many Greeks would argue that it was a correct decision? But it is true that it would be grossly unjust if Aristotle ascribed to him the apotheosis of mediocrity that characterizes Modern society!
And the Epicurean philosophy? This is not an ideology. There is not Epicurean-ISM. Because this philosophy is neither inspired the Modern politics but often defamed when was not ignored by the spiritual leadership. Never in the Constitution of Greece has provided as the purpose the Wel-Being citizens, as it has provided in the US Constitution. It is true that the Epicurean philosophy has been characterized dogmatic because it rejects apri ori divine intervention in Nature, divine providence and the immortality of the soul. But this conclusion leads after thorough research and observation of Nature. Certainly the Epicurean position is less dogmatic than the position of Plato and the idealists through the centuries of the purely mental constructs and have supported their whole philosophical edifice on unsubstantiated beliefs.
Epicurus said that philosophy is action that serves the happy and pleasurable life. (Sextus Empiricus To Mathematicians XI 169). It is a personal and selfish philosophy. Epicurus is not primarily interested in the society as a whole, but the constituent unit of the person. A persons stripped of titles, social status, sex, material possessions. Epicurus was trying to protect the person towards of his most primordial fears of the gods, natural phenomena and death, but also against the most deadly passion of greed,and his primordial fears that are caused insecurity to the person. A central element of the Epicurean philosophy, helps the person to evaluate his needs with prudence and sober calculation. Enjoying the pleasures that are available to him, and to avoid those that would lead to a greater pain. The friendship is a virtue, but it also has selfish motives and seeks the feeling of personal safety. Beyond the social contract friendship and justice which it imposes between people and ensure the safety living in the wider society.
(to be continued)
The Epicurean philosophy does not deal with political ideas. Because ALL the political ideas, as it has been proved for a million of times, are consisting of de...
Panos Alexiou If not, then something that provides safeties such as good healthcare, access to education and work, coverage of basic needs (eg a UBI) community services etc and based on material analysis of society as a natural phenomenon and not as ideology would probably be more appealing.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:33am
Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou "What is necessary is easy to get." This is more true today than ever, unless one is among those unfortunates who has been raised to believe the world owes them a living. Such people are owed nothing, though they will probably be saved through charity.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:48am
Panos Alexiou I don't know how easy it is to get what is necessary if you don't have a job or healthcare and you get sick, or if you are made to work most of the day in uncertain conditions etc.
I think that any collective decision we make should be based on an ana...See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:56am
Elli Pensa Mr Ron Warrick the social contracts with such kind of laws and constitutions is not good to be based on fortuna - fate and the charity ! These are words of the stoical cosmotheory.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:57am · Edited
Panos Alexiou And so as not to be confused, I'm not talking about charity, I'm talking about organized efforts to effectively alleviate real dangers. No one person as strong and individualistically proud they are can save themselves from eg nuclear war. Shouldn't ea...See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:02am
Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I think anyone who is willing to make themselves useful to others will get by. Any disincentives in this regard are likely to lead to societal collapse. At the moment we can see that the Social Security, Medicare, etc. that so many are dependent upon are unsustainable. I shudder to think what will happen politically when this becomes widely apparent. We can already see the war of all against all beginning.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:13am · Edited
Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I don't see any collective dangers worth my putting a lot of effort into avoiding, though I do try to avoid the flu. I think classical liberals are as interested in avoiding nuclear war and environmental problems as any collectivist, and more likely to come up with the best response.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:24am · Edited
Elli Pensa The solution would not come from any political party. This is the epicurean perspective based on evidences (historical facts) with all the consequenses.
Doctrine 27. Of all the things which the wise man seeks to acquire to produce the happiness of a complete life, by far the most important is the possession of friendship.
Doctrine 28. The same opinion that encourages us to trust that no evil will be everlasting, or even of long duration, shows us that in the space of life allotted to us the protection of friendship is the most sure and trustworthy.
Doctrine 29. Of the desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural but not necessary, and some are neither natural nor necessary, but owe their existence to vain imagination.
Doctrine 30. In the case of physical desires which require intense effort to attain and do not lead to a sense of pain if they are not fulfilled, such desires are due to idle imagination. It is not because of their own nature that they fail to be dispelled, but because of the empty imaginings of the man.
Doctrine 31. Natural justice arises from a covenant between men for their mutual advantage to refrain from harming one another.
Doctrine 32. For those living things that are unable to enter into a covenant to refrain from harming one another, nothing is just or unjust, and this applies also to those men who are either unwilling or unable to enter into such a covenant.
Doctrine 33. Justice has no independent existence, but results only from the agreement of men to enter mutual covenants to refrain from harming one another.
Doctrine 34. Injustice is not evil in itself; it is evil because fear of not escaping punishment necessarily arises from it.
Doctrine 35. It is not possible for men who secretly violate a mutual covenant not to harm one another to believe that they will always escape detection. Even if they have escaped it ten thousand times already, so long as they live they cannot be certain that they will not be detected.
Doctrine 36. In general, justice is the same for all, for justice is a mutual advantage in the dealings of men with each other, but in different nations and under different circumstances, the application of justice may differ.
Doctrine 37. Among those actions which the law sanctions as just, that which is determined to be of mutual advantage is in fact just whether or not it is universally regarded to be so. But if a law, once established, is determined not to be mutually advantageous, then it is by nature unjust. As to those laws which were at first just, but later become unjust, such laws were in fact just for the period in which they were of mutual advantage, at least in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty words, but look to the actual facts.
Doctrine 38. Where actions which were formerly considered to be just under former circumstances are seen not to accord with the general concept of mutual advantage, then they are seen not to have been just. But actions which were in fact of mutual advantage and therefore just at one time under former circumstances, but cease being of mutual advantage under new circumstances, cease also being just.
Doctrine 39. He who desires to live tranquilly without having anything to fear from other men ought to make them his friends. Those whom he cannot make friends he should at least avoid rendering enemies, and if that is not in his power, he should avoid all dealings with them as much as possible, and keep away from them as far as it is in his interest to do so.
Doctrine 40. The happiest men are those who have arrived at the point of having nothing to fear from their neighbors. Such men live with one another most pleasantly, having the firmest grounds of confidence in one another, enjoying the full advantages of friendship, and not lamenting the departure of their dead friends as though they were to be pitied.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:33am
Panos Alexiou You 'think' that everyone will get by. I'll take a wild guess that you've never been in a society that collapses economically as many of us have seen in Greece.
As with the fear of God that is alleviated by knowing nature through natural science, so fear of the large social phenomena can be alleviating by studying social science. We are collectively pretty decent at fighting against natural disasters (eg relief for tsunami victims, building of huge sea walls to keep the Netherlands dry etc) but we don't even want to hear about looking at social phenomena. Because of ideological taboos.
Social security and Medicare are indeed impossible in a classical liberal world because they produce better quality of life and not profit. They cannot exist within this system, and that's why we can't have nice things for all in this system. If your whole world theory is based on profitability I don't see how it can be used to put a break or a steering wheel to where we are heading fast, which is sociatal collapse and war. Pretending nothing is wrong is ideologically soothing, pretending it's the fault of social programs is profitable for some and devastating for the weakest among us.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:33am
Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa these are all fine if the person that can harm you is at most your next door neighbor or the guy 5 city states away, but how do you reconcile this with me and all my friends losing my job to a robot created to produce more profit?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:36am
Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I'm not familiar with the situation in Greece, but my impression is that the government made economic decisions that no government is qualified to make. The same has happened here, and similar problems will eventually happen here.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:37am
Panos Alexiou The government, the banks, the people in power, the owners, put it any way you want. The economic decision they shouldn't have made was to take part in the farce of the world financial system, bailing out banks and following orders from international economic vultures such as the IMF. But of course this is not a realistic choice since it would create more pain to the people because these vultures are strong and love punishing anyone that tries to keep them far away for their own safety.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:43am
Panos Alexiou My point here being that you personally can do everything right and try to be safe but since we are forced in this specific ruleset we are going to suffer as the rich play their game. We have a little power to change the ruleset maybe we should try and do it. And that's all politics boil down to imo.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:45am
Elli Pensa The problem is not in a robot. my friend Παναγιώτης. And 10 million robots to be constructed the human brain can't be changed to be opened seing with prudence the reality and where are the chances to grasb these chances. It is sad that there are not many resourceful Odysseus to construct a Trojan horse again.The system as you say has its weak points. Find them with your friends.
Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou As I understand it, you are free to move anywhere in the EU where things might be better for you. With your excellent knowledge of English, I would think you could make a living. Of course it is hard to leave one's homeland.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:48am
Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa the resourceful Odysseus that finds the magic solution needs the thousands of poor dead soldiers that were dragged to Troy without having a say.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:49am
Elli Pensa I am unemployed too Παναγιώτης but I do not growl saying around that a fantastic system is false. I do not recognize any system ! This is a closed thing and the Nature is vast opened. There are many causes that provoke many effects too. This is not chaotic, this is to understand that you have many options to chose.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:50am
Panos Alexiou Ron Warrick I've already emigrated to the US. It's actually my 3rd time moving to a foreign country. But I don't think I can always outrun the collapse. I move and I see the same thing happening around me.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:50am
Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou You will be fine. You would be better off if the governments did not tax you and throw the money away on useless things. Yes, we are in the process of destroying the system of liberty that produced the standard of living we have (or had).
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:53am
Panos Alexiou I would rather pay more taxes and have a safety net personally. Liberty didn't get you the standard of living, being the sole country not destroyed by world war and being the financial hub of half the world did. Empire is a dangerous game!
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:55am
Elli Pensa I hope this collapse would be the collapse of any ISM of every political system that has not any solution. It is in our hands to know each other better and with much more attention. I posted somewhere this. And this is my solution too. https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1246761308706160/
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:59am · Edited
Panos Alexiou Ron Warrick not really... My most important asset which has kept me ahead of the game is my education. Which was given to me free in Europe. I've used this education opportunity to work. My parents could have never afforded the US system for example....See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:01am
Robert Stock I am learning about the Epicurean philosophy and am a member of the Libertarian Party USA. I see no contradiction. Although most Libertarians I know follow Objectivism. There is also a large group of Christian believers. I am not aware of Epicurean philosophy being promoted by Libertarians.
For those who think only the wealthy are members of the Libertarian Party. I am relatively poor for an American. I make between 18 to 20 thousand dollars a year. I am happy with what I have. To make more money than that would bring stress and headaches that would diminish my tranquility.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 7 at 10:13am · Edited
Panos Alexiou I don't see a contradiction either, I just don't think it's the most closely fitting ideology beyond the surface.
There's definitely an anarcho- thread running through epicurean teachings, but the part that comes after the dash is the most important one...
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:07am
Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης where do you see anarcho-thread in friendship as a mean, where do you see in prudence, and where do you see anarchia in the pleasure as a goal ??? This is natural things and issues to consider, I suppose.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:11am
Elli Pensa Mr Robert Stock The more you study carefully the epicurean philosophy so much more you will find contradiction with any political Party that exist in your country too.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 10:19am
Panos Alexiou Elli I find the thread in the 'no baseless authority' that is at the base of every anarchism. Also at the autonomist and self reliant aspects of the philosophy which fit pretty well with most anarchisms.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 10:25am
Panos Alexiou Robert Stock agreed, politics imo is a necessary evil that has to do more with protection from some pain rather than bringing happiness. Politics is the fence that allows breathing space to cultivate your plot of happiness.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 10:27am
Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης No, there was not anarchy inside the Garden. Maybe you did not study "the frankness of speech" by Philodemus. There were rules inside the garden, and they were persons that placed and some rules. There was respect to the older friends from t...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 11:00am · Edited
Cassius Amicus Robert Stock for a fan of Rand who is into Epicurus check here -http://stpeter.im/writings/rand/nietzsche-rand.html and there are a couple of other similar resources
Nietzsche, Rand, and the Ethics of the Great Task
This essay traces a trajectory of ethical thought from Epicurus through Friedrich Nietzsche to Ayn Rand. Nietzsche originally celebrated Epicureanism as a form of refined heroism but subsequently repudiated Epicurus for being overly concerned with mere happiness. Out of Nietzsche's turn away from Ep...
Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa I believe you are not very familiar with what anarchy entails. It's not 'no order' it is 'no order without a practical reason for it to be there'. For example, 'I'm accepting the doctors authority to tell me what medicine to take because I accept that they know better how my disease works' but I don't need to have some random authority figure such as a politician, a priest, a king, a boss etc what to do because I don't believe they do know better. When it comes to them, they have to use force to impose their authority (do this or else ...)
It's a misconception that anarchy advocates for 'no rules at all'. In reality it advocates for no rules without a real reason for them to exist. And here you may see the similarity of using method/canon to identify DEMOCRATICALLY what rules/authorities are useful within each community as a debated and decided social contract. This is the thread that I see running through both philosophies/ideologies.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 11:43am
Panos Alexiou For example in this here group people listen more to the people that have read more, the kathegemones as you say. And they do exactly because they know more. But if you made a rule that said 'every member needs to defer to the knowledge of everyone that joined before them' then you would have created an authority without practical base which in my opinion would be illegitimate.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 11:45am
Robert Stock Cassius Amicus thank you for the link to the article. It is very helpful. I am finding Epicurus superior to Rand. Rand's disdain for emotion was always troubling to me. Since human emotions are part of human biology isn't repressing emotions denying re...See More
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 12:14pm · Edited
Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Frankly, I do not understand the meaning of your phrase : "every member needs to defer to the knowledge of everyone that joined before them"
Do you mean to refer to the knowledge of everyone that joined before them ??
Like · Reply · March 7 at 12:10pm
Panos Alexiou Yes Elli Pensa I will write the same in Greek if its easier.
Η αναρχία δεν έχει να κάνει με το να μην υπάρχει καμία αρχή, αλλά με το να μην υπάρχει καμία αρχή χωρίς πρακτικό λόγο ύπαρξης. Δηλαδή πχ. εδώ μέσα αποδεχόμαστε την γνώμη κάποιων μελών περισσ...See MoreSee Translation
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 12:30pm
Elli Pensa Στην ουσία δεν διαφωνούμε Παναγιώτη καλέ μου φίλε. Εκεί που λες αρχή δίχως πρακτικό λόγο ύπαρξης συμφωνούμε απόλυτα. Αρχή στην επικούρεια φιλοσοφία είναι ο σοφός Επίκουρος που με τη φιλοσοφία του μας λυτρώνει από τους φόβους και τα καταστροφικά πάθη τ...See MoreSee Translation
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 12:47pm · Edited
Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Read this phrase to see what were the greeks during the Roman empire: HUMBLES. <<A humble Greek instructing a powerful Roman aristocrat may pose ticklish problems in a hierarchical society>>. ====> For this I hate this word. "Humble" becaus...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:08pm
Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa agreed, I don't think we disagree either. I was more trying to expand on the ideology/philosophy of anarcho- things and how they fit within epicurean thought and not the other way around.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:17pm
Panos Alexiou In the same way that I don't think there should be a Marx-ism but Marxi-an economics or not Darwinism but Darwinian evolutionary theory, yes I agree. Meaning that framing something as an open system that studies phenomena scientifically. I would not as...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:33pm
Write a reply...
Elli Pensa Are those persons of this political party talking about Epicurus and his philosophy ? If yes, how many of them know about the epicurean philosophy and what is their real goal ?? Do you know many of them in person Mr. Ron Warrick ???
Like · Reply · March 6 at 5:37pm
2016 Platform | Libertarian Party
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign…
Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa in Greece that party is led by one Tzimeros and is pretty small (less than 1%). Libertarians within bigger parties are Andrianopoulos, Stefanos Manos, and to a smaller extent the Mitsotakis clan (Bakoyanni, Kyriakos etc).
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:05am
Write a reply...
Elli Pensa Hi my friend Dimitris Altas I did not manage yet to translate in english all your remarkable and outstanding article if the Epicurean Philosophy could be called as any ideology Epicurean-ISM. However, there is a need that many of the discussed and written issues has to be translated in english too. Many kisses to all the friends.!= Γειά σου φίλε μου Δημήτρη, ακόμη δεν κατάφερα να μεταφράσω στα αγγλικά όλο το αξιόλογo και εξαιρετικό άρθρο σου εάν η Επικούρεια φιλοσοφία μπορεί να λέγεται όπως κάθε ιδεολογία Επικουρισμός. Ωστόσο υπάρχει, όπως φαίνεται, μια ανάγκη να μεταφραστούν πολλά θέματα των εισηγήσεων σας και στα αγγλικά. Πολλά φιλιά σε όλους τους φίλους. See Translation
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 5:49pm
Dimitris Altas Γειά σου Έλλη μου! Με τιμάς ιδιαίτερα και με συγκινείς που διάλεξες το άρθρο μου να το μεταφράσεις στα Αγγλικά! Κάνεις πολύ καλή δουλειά. Είσαι η γέφυρά επικοινωνίας μας με τους ξένους φίλους μας. Σε αγαπάμε και σε έχουμε πεθυμήσει πάρα πολύ. Μας λείπει το ταπεραμέντο σου και η σπιρτάδα σου! Εύχομαι να βρεθούμε σύντομα να απολαύσουμε ένα κρασί μαζί σου!Hello my Ellie! Honor me especially and I'm touched that you picked my article to translate it in English! You're doing a great job. You are the bridge to our communication with our foreign friends. We love you and we miss you very much. We're missing your temperament and your wit! I hope we meet soon to enjoy a wine with you!Automatically Translated
Elli Pensa Dimitris Altas wrote to me : Hello my friend Elli ! I am honored and very touched that you chose one of my articles to translate it in the English language! You do a very good work. You're our bridge of communication with our foreign epicurean friends. We love you and we miss you too much. We miss your temperament and your brilliance! I hope to meet together soon to enjoy a glass of wine with you !
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 7:06pm
Elli Pensa Look how the epicurean friends are speaking to each other !! Look how they're practicing their philosophy in their real life !! It is true that many of us, here in the internet, we cant share a glass of wine or a dish with some food. But we' ve exchan...See More
Unlike · Reply · 6 · March 6 at 7:20pm
Write a reply...
Haze Elle I am an epicurean and an anarchist, and I not only see these two goals as inked, but inextricable. I base my anarchism on VS13, which shows that mutual advantage is the base of all justice, and justice, as VS12 and VS5 say, is necessary for a life of a...See More
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 6:21pm · Edited
Cassius Amicus Haze Elle I agree with much of what you wrote but how do you propose to protect yourself from criminals and enemy invaders who do not wish to be your friend?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:21pm
Haze Elle I take my guidance on this from PD14: "Protection from other men, secured to some extent by the power to expel and by material prosperity, in its purest form comes from a quiet life withdrawn from the multitude." So there are two things going on here. The first is that we have the right to self-defense, and self preservation? This seems obvious to me in light of the sensual basis of epicureanism. We don't fear death, and are secure from it, but neither should we depend on luck. We should make ourselves secure against it how we can, in this case community self-defense (a militia of friends perhaps?)
The second thing happening here is material prosperity - to me this means the communism of simple needs. (PD15 is useful here) We don't need much, but still, much of what we call crime, theft, murder, comes from a confusion of natural and necessary desires, but also from a lack of the natural desires. If we all provided these to all of us, then the second isn't possible, and if we have little, but are prosperous in it, then others will have no need of our simplicity.
The third part is that very rarely do those who do not know you trouble you. Fame, being wealthy, these cause issues, not living simply and without contact with the great mass of people.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 6:28pm · Edited
Cassius Amicus Well I personally totally agree with your first paragraph, but disagree that your second and third paragraph assertions would be effective. You are aware that Epicurus told his students not to hold their money in common, because that is not how friends treat each other?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:37pm
Jason Baker I too agree with the first without reservation.
Could the second be rephrased to "having no access to fulfillment of natural and necessary desires?" I think there is a systemic lack of access in our society that needs to be addressed, but I'm not 100>#em###...See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:49pm
Haze Elle Cassius Amicus Another answer to your first point is in PD 39. "The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even t...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 6:57pm
Cassius Amicus Haze Elle - Diogenes Laertius: " He adds that Epicurus did not recommend them to put their belongings into a common stock, as did Pythagoras, who said that ‘Friends have all in common.’ For to do so implied distrust: and distrust could not go with friendship.http://www.newepicurean.com/epicureandocs/lifeofepicurus/
The Life of Epicurus - EpicureanDocs.com
Haze Elle Cassius Amicus On the other hand, in his last will he writes that "none of those members of the school who have rendered service to me in private life and have shown me kindness in every way and have chosen to grow old with me in the School should, so far as my means go, lack the necessaries of life."
I also think that Epicurus is, there, arguing for an even more expansive form of sharing than holding in common, where we always have the trust that what our friends have will be shared with us, and we dont need to bank on it being in common to assure this.