Dead Reddit / The "Isms" Thread

On "Epicureanism" and "Epicurean Philosophy"

I've been researching ancient Greek etymology, and have thought a lot about this over the last few days (especially with the anticipation that I'll be collaborating with Charles and Hiram, and release the aforementioned meme on r/Epicurean_Philsophy, knowing that the 9,000+ members of the r/Epicureanism group on Reddit will have questions regarding the differences between our chosen vocabularies).

Herein, I conclude that "Epicureanism" is NOT an appropriate expression of our natural philosophy, and – especially rendered through modern English – "Epicureanism" is NOT an appropriate expression of Epicurus' observations.

Our Greek friends Harris Demitiadis and Elli have presented us with valuable insights into the origins of our terminology, thus, providing us with additional tools through which we can examine our discourse. Admittedly, I have NOT really grasped the key nuances of their points (which I now believe I have come to understand), so I took it upon myself to deconstruct our terminology with the intention of gaining a fresh perspective toward the natural world.

I'd like to start with an etymological investigation. I hope that this investigation provides insight to my fellow English-only-speakers (I, myself, am monolingual), and – please – Elli, if I misinterpret the language, re-direct my mistakes!

-ISMs

As Alex Rios once observed, our English suffix, "-ism" is – correctly, according to both common and academic usages in Modern English – employed to mean a distinctive "doctrine", "theory", "attitude", "belief", "practice", "process", "state", "condition", "religion", "system", or – as he has cited, with fair reason – "philosophy". According to this widespread definition, it is not unreasonable to suppose that adding a simple "-ism" at the end of "the philosophy of Epicurus" should, appropriately and accurately, render the word "Epicureanism", (or even "Epicurism").

In more succinct terms, we can visualize "Epicurean-ism" as "Epicurean-philosophy".

This works for practical purposes, and – as I'm sure you would agree – no one in this thread, or this forum, or this webpage will be mislead by my meaning if I replace "Epicurean-ism" as "Epicurean-philosophy", or vis a versa. HOWEVER, in doing so, I propose that we are missing out an an important teaching opportunity that has been lost in translation.

-ISMVS

Our tradition of adding "-ism" to the end of words – in which we express distinctive "philosophies" – begins in the post-Classical period, corresponding to the Renaissance, the cultural "rebirth" of systems and ideas from the ancient world, translated through the Latin language, using the Roman alphabet, sheathing ancient Greek observations.

(I'm going to call this tradition – in which ALL English-speakers partake – the "Ism-ism", or, in other words, "the systemic practice of adding '-ism' to idea-expressing words". We are ALL, necessarily, Ismists in some respect.)

From the perspective of the contemporary world, the suffix "-ismus" was borrowed from the Old Latin language of the Romans, and appropriated by post-Classical (and Modern) peoples when using New Latin and Contemporary Latin. For centuries, our adherence to Ismism has been helped European thinkers minimize the losses that occur in translation. We find an abundance of "-ism" and "-ismus" in both Romance and Germanic language families, and – as with Latin – they express the meaning of distinctive "doctrines", "theories", "attitudes", "beliefs", and "philosophies".

Here, however, is where we note a difference that our Mediterranean friends have often observed: while the Greek language, like Celtic, and Indic languages, has evolved from a common Indo-European root, these languages have NOT adopted Latin conventions the same way that have Romance and Germanic languages. In the unique case of the Greeks, Latin was – as I'm sure is more than obvious to us all – heavily influenced by the parent of ancient Greek.

-ῐ́ζω | -izō | -ize

According to my research, we receive the Latin "-ismus" from the ancient Greek "-ισμός" ("-ismós"), which, itself, is a bracketing of two other ancient Greek words, those words being "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō") and "-μός" ("-mós"). We'll start with the former word, first. The suffix "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō") was added to nouns to form new verbs. Let's look at (x3) examples:

1. κανονίζω – kanṓnízō – canonize

κανων (kanṓn) – literally referred to a “reed”, and connotatively implied a “measuring rod” or “standard”.

+ "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō" or "-ize") renders "κανονίζω" or "canonize", meaning "to make standard".

2. ἑλληνίζω - Héllēnízō - Hellenize

Ἕλλην (Héllēn) – literally referred to that which is “Greek”.

+ "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō" or "-ize") renders "ἑλληνίζω" or "Hellenize", meaning "to make Greek".

3. συγχρονίζω - súnkhronosízō - synchronize

σύγχρονος (súnkhronos) - literally referred to “synchronous”

+ "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō" or "-ize") renders "συγχρονίζω" or "synchronize", meaning "to make synchronous".

The key point with "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō") – and our Modern English suffix "-ize" – is that we can turn any word into a verb, or, in more philosophically interesting terms, we can ACTIVATE it.

-μός | -mós

The second suffix from which the ancient Greek "-ισμός" ("-ismós") was bracketed is "-μός" ("-mós"). Contrary to the convention of ACTIVATING a word that represents a concept, adding ("-mós") ABSTRACTS an action. We can demonstrate this convention through (x3) more examples that translate well into Modern English:

1.σαρκασμός - sarkasmós - sarcasm

σαρκάζω (sarkázō) – literally, and figuratively meant "tearing apart" or "to tear off the flesh”.

+ "-μός" ("-mós") renders "σαρκασμός" or "sarcasm", meaning "(figuratively) tearing apart".

2. συλλογισμός - sullogismós - syllogism

συλλογίζομαι (sullogízomai) – literally meant "to compute" or "to infer”.

+ "-μός" ("-mós") renders "συλλογισμός" or "syllogism", meaning a "computation" or an "inference".

3. κατακλυσμός - kataklusmós - cataclysm

κατακλύζω (kataklúzō) – literally meant "to wash away”.

+ "-μός" ("-mós") renders "κατακλυσμός" or "cataclysm", meaning a "great flood".

The key point with "-μός" ("-mós") is that the ancient Greeks could turn any active verb into a word that expressed an abstract concept, or, in other words, it could systematize phenomenal activity into an idea.

-ισμός | -ismós | -ism

As I have come to understand it, the re-bracketing of the suffix "-μός" ("-mós"), appended with "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō") presents us with "-ισμός" ("-ismós") or "-ism", a convention which systematizes a verb that has been activated from a noun. I was only able to identify five instances of this in ancient Greek, only (x1) of which provides a suitable example:

σάββατον - sábbaton - literally, the “Sabbath” (borrowed from the Hebrew "שַׁבָּת" or "šabbāṯ")

σαββᾰτῐ́ζω - sabbatízō - meaning “to make, observe, or keep the Sabbath”

σαββατισμός - sabbatismós - meaning “the making, observing, or keeping of the Sabbath”

As I mentioned before, unlike the "-ismus" of Latin, and the "-ism" of Modern English, the ancient Greek "-ismos" is almost NEVER used. The ancient Greeks – whose tremendous influence on our own intellectual conventions cannot be overstated – do not seem to have shared our tradition of Ismism.

Here, I'll employ a phrase I first read in a translation of Heidegger's Being and Time: that phrase is originary language. Based on my above research, it seems to me that the ancient Greeks – when faced with the need to express a NEW word with FRESH meaning – built the words that would fill their minds and guide their anticipations from either (1) the names of people and objects they observed, or (2) active forces they experienced, but NOT (3) abstract systems.

So, why NOT "Epicureanism"?

The path to wisdom demands that we experience nature directly and NOT indirectly as an abstract system. In other words – to connect the last few paragraphs – we should NEVER reduce the immediacy of our experiences to a mere "-ism"; were we to make the mistake of -isming our individual experiences, and the anticipations that develop from that FRESH experience, we will have stunted our own development on the path to wisdom.

Furthermore, while we may all sincerely admire the person of Epicurus, and delight in the historical texts that resulted from the activity of his Garden, our path to wisdom – unlike every other -ismic school of thought – is neither dependent upon allegiance to a centralizing leader, nor upon a golden age of history, nor upon a doctrinal institution. Christianity could not have existed without Christ and his mythic Kingdom of Heaven. Platonism could not have existed without Plato and his mythic World of Forms. Stoicism could not have existed without the Stoics and their Cosmic Virtue. Were these figures never to have existed, no one would have ever truly experienced the fantasies of their mythic promises.

Our EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHY – the natural, undeniable pursuit of pleasure – is not dependent upon Epicurus to have ever existed, because, Nature, itself, is so much larger, more important, and more fundamental than his historical personage. Without the man we call "Epicurus", we still would have sensed the energetic environment of particles around us, felt the churning of feelings of pleasure and pain within us, and anticipated the consequences of our choices. Even if the "Epicur-" part of our philosophy were missing from our language, the philosophy, itself, would be the same. Vocabulary aside, the wise person would still engage the natural world, and pursue pleasure to its fullest.

"Epicureanism" (or, also, "Epicurism") carries a connotation – albeit very slightly – that our path to wisdom is just another -ism, comparable to other doctrinal institutions, that is useful ONLY as an abstract system, advertised to misguided masses who must accept unverifiable truths that have been promised by an unknowable super-person. It is not quite as purposeful to call ourselves "Epicureanists" who follow "Epicureanism" as it is to identify as "Epicureans" who pursue "Epicurean philosophy", the natural path to wisdom. The tools for our endeavor rest within our own, natural bodies; Nature, itself, is the greatest teacher, not "religion", or any other idealisms.

Now, all this being said, for practical purposes, there most certainly isn't anything inherently wrong about employing the term "Epicureanism". The "Epicurean-" part is still the same, and an "-ism" could just mean a "philosophy" which, in Modern English, correctly indicates our loving of wisdom, apart from any oath to a mythic principle. Nonetheless, I will personally choose to write "Epicurean philosophy" whenever possible, to keep my anticipations FRESH, to indicate to other, natural beings that our interactions are bigger than disembodied souls paddling ideas back and forth in a court of Mind, and to remind myself that our path to wisdom is not a map that has been given to us from an eternal place of perfection, but that we each carry a well-calibrated compass within ourselves that knows the world, and guides us to happiness.

(One more, quick, closing thought: no one on this planet deserves the title of "Epicurean" more than a happy dog, and – ironically – they will always be incapable of assigning that title, or receiving it).

Joshua identifies an important objection – I also anticipate that ANY and, most likely, ALL members of those -isms will refute my analysis. As Joshua succinctly expresses, they would no doubt say: "Stop calling [my belief] an -ism!"

I'm taking on a sensitive issues with people, because, in an enormous way, "Anti-ismism is a cottage industry!" It REALLY is. In fact, as far as ideologies go, I suspect that this idea is rooted at the foundation of all traditions.

Early Christians referred to their philosophy as ἡ ὁδός or "The Way"; it was a non-Christian, Greek community in Antioch that first coined the term Χριστιανός "Christianus". Within 70 years, the early Church Father Ignatius of Antioch employed the term of Χριστιανισμός or "Christianismos" to refer to the tradition revealed by Christ.

The isming of the religion of post-Classical Arabs has been seen by both modern academics and practitioners as offensive for the exact same reason. Until the 19th or 20th centuries, "Islam" was almost universally referred to by non-Arabs as "Mohammedanism", mistakenly framing Muhammad as being divine, like Christ is to "Christianity"

Our rendering of "Buddhism" is a Germanization of the original Pali बुद्ध धम्म or "Buddha Dhamma", meaning, approximately, "The Awakened One's Eternal Law". The first recorded use of "Buddhism" was sometime in the late 18th, or early 19th centuries, after Europeans romanized Indic vocabulary (Merriam-Webster suggest 1800).

The same is also true of "Hinduism", the Germanization of the Sanskrit or सनातन धर्म "Sanātana Dharma" meaning "Eternal Order". In fact, the word "Hindu", itself was used by non-Indians to refer to people living around the Indus river. Indic populations would have referred to themselves as "Sanatan" or "Arya" (from which we get the term "Aryan".

The term "Atheism" (rendered in its modern form in 1530 as "atheonism", from the ancient Greek ἄθεος "without god[s]") was, in fact, first used by "Atheists" to refer to themselves as a neutral, philosophical; however, as Joshua identified, the term is also used by their detractors to compare their philosophical position to a blind ideology.

I also note that people have taken the philosophical position denoted by "atheism" for millennia, since, at least, pre-Greek (pre-employment of the term ἄθεος), heterodox traditions in ancient India. Along this line of thinking, we should remember that every other belief, tradition, attitude, or religion will apply the same sort of linguistic revision: for Christians, Adam and Eve were the first Christians; for Muslims, they were the first Muslims; and in the example listed above, modern atheists will happily identify members of the ancient Indian tradition of चार्वाक or "C(h)ārvāka" as "atheists", even though some of the contextual nuances of Cārvāka will be lost in translation. For that matter, many of our friends who have adopted the term "atheist" may misinterpret ancient Greek philosophers who were not using ἄθεος, which, at the time, would not have been explicitly used to refute the idea of "God" as we understand it (being framed in a Christian world).

In out effort to identify FRESH expressions from – what I mentioned Heidegger called – originally language, all -isms will necessarily be removed from the context of the language in which they first arose. They will ALWAYS be rooted in the the Modern European tradition of Ismism, the tradition of categorizing other peoples' cultural traditions from the "enlightened" perspective of "objective" academics. Therefor, referring to any wisdom tradition around the globe (whether it be the offensive "Mohammedanism" or the much more neutral "Buddhism"), will usually be seen, in one way or another, as being derogatory to practitioners of that religion, adherents to that tradition, or philosophers of that position.

So, like Josh mentions, my analysis can also – quite reasonably, and responsibly – be applied to the other -isms, especially if we're trying to analyze our misinterpretations using linguistic deconstruction. That being said, for the purposes of using Reddit as a forum to introduce others to our pleasure-based tradition, I still think it would be good practice to avoid using Epicureanism whenever possible, as a means of confronting the fact that the study of nature using our feelings, senses, and anticipations is far-removed from the idealism of every other tradition. In this case, I think we can argue without seeming derogatory to others, that our tradition is NOT an ideology, just like the enterprise of science is not an ideology; whereas Abrahamic, Dharmic, and Platonic traditions require a sense of faith that an eternal, identity exists that is separate from the world of physics, only accessible to us NOW as an idea contained within our minds.

Hiram has used this critique before, but I'll re-iterate, that a succinct way to condense the lengthy points I've explored is simply to say that "we reject ideology" (defined as "systems of the ideal"). In this case, if you'll excuse my continued isming, "Idealism" can be seen as the prototypical -ism amongst all other -isms.

...all THAT being said, I think I may need to think on this a little more deeply to digest the terms "Realism", "Naturalism", "Materialism", and "Hedonism", since – according to my own definition – those, too, should be "systems of the ideal" if they are "-isms" at all, which they most certainly are, but also, are not. I think all of my thinking should be tempered against the fact that we can still employ "Epicureanism" in an appropriate, and meaningful way, without succumbing to Idealism.