Blessed and Imperishable?

Dewitt makes the comment in EAHP that while other Epicureans did, he did not believe that Epicurus himself called the gods immortal, only having the capacity to continue to live if they so choose.

Page 249

I think this issue of deathlessness of an individual god would also be related to the question of whether an individual god has also existed for eternity, or became "godlike" through some process which had a beginning. While the universe itself would need to be eternal under the atomistic theory, no individual thing within the universe would be subject to that same eternality requirement, and the reverse is probably true - all things that are composed of atoms at some point came together from the atoms. I don't myself have an opinion on when or how, but I presume this is a function of the eternal universe that Epicurus said to consider.

As to this:

Quote from Eugenios

Epicurus was adamant that philosophy had to be practical and to improve one's life. Re-examining the connotations of ἄφθαρτος allows us to see that that idea doesn't have to be a mystical iimperishability but one rooted in the here and now

Now here I would be reluctant to go so far. I think that especially in an issue like the nature of divinity, Epicurus might consider that an attribute of divinity such as deathlessness (for the gods) might have application to us as reassurance of the overall doctrine that the gods do not interfere with us, even if we as humans are never able to achieve deathlessness ourselves.

I am going to have to look further into this but it appears that he translates the phrase as incorruptible, and ultimately his reasoning is pretty much what I remembered, that it is an elementary principle of physics that only the elements are eternal, and any combination of elements will eventually come apart.

As far as making reasonable sense out of KD1, I don't see an issue there. If you are saying that you should set as your human goal never to suffer any pain whatsoever, that is obviously impossible for a human, and Epicurus would have realized that impossibility himself, which is why the focus is on pleasure obtained even at the cost of pain. As far as the model of what the best human life can be, there is a more clear and detailed statement of that in "On Ends"

Quote

XII. The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.

As far as the gods being "thought constructs" I certainly realize that modern scholars favor that, but that is not what Epicurus appears to have held, or that Velleius describes in "On the Nature of the Gods." The Epicureans took their view of gods seriously, and whether we agree with it or not would not change what they thought or how we should understand their position before we decide what to adopt as our own. Focusing on thought constructs is one of the tangents of modern commentators that in my personal view (not in everyone's) undermines the possibility of understanding Epicurus thoroughly and on his own terms.

I think the main aspect of DeWitt's analysis of the immortality issue starts on page 267. I am not wedded to taking DeWitt's side in every position he takes, by any means, but I agree with his approach that in order to duplicate Epicurus' approach we much always start with the basics and then never let a basic rule (like nothing exists except atoms and void, in motion, etc) ever be violated in any subsequent speculation - so that if a passage or commentary appears to contradict an earlier foundation, then that interpretation of the passage is incorrect:

This is an excellent detailed discussion Eugenios so thank you for it. People will not always agree on every detail but it helps everyone to dig into the primary material and then display their reasoning about how to interpret it. Otherwise every discussion is just arbitrary assertion.

Probably there are all sorts of other considerations in your mind in starting the thread so there are lots of directions this can go.

Eugenios - you bet. I will also say this: I try to be very alert to never taking anything on "authority" and so I do not like to reference DeWitt as much as I do. HOWEVER while I am perfectly sure that he may have made mistakes in certain areas (although I cannot currently cite anything major) I firmly believe that his approach merits great attention, so if you don't have a copy of that please let me know so I can point you to places you can find it if you don't have it already. But sounds like you are well equipped already!

You'll see elsewhere on the site here that on the issue that I think is most profound - the "ataraxia" / tranquility argument, I think DeWitt is also correct, but to go further his conclusion is bolstered by the applicable chapter in Gosling & Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure" and by the Nikolsky article "Epicurus on Pleasure."

Given how central I see that argument to be, it's almost amusing to me that DeWitt treats it almost as a sideline rather than one of his pet issues. He was much more interested apparently in anticipations, and the "all sensations are true" issue, and numerous other points -- but his interpretation of Epicurus as not focusing exclusively on katastematic pleasure foreshadows the conclusions in the other books and articles I just mentioned.

There are numerous technical details (anticipations is a great example, along with nature of the gods) that I don't think are of "life and death" centrality to making Epicurus important to us today, but to me, I simply could not accept for a moment that my life is so short, that there is no life after death, that pleasure is the guide of life, that there is no absolute morality or virtue or divine revelation --- and THEN be told that the best thing for me to do with my time is live on bread and water in what amounts to a cave with a couple of friends????

There is NO WAY I believe Epicurus taught that, and no way that I believe that the ancients, who had access to all his texts and loyal followers, interpreted him in that way. I am convinced that the message I draw from all these presumptions is the same that the ancient Epicureans drew: that we should indeed "seize the day" and make the most of whatever opportunities of pleasure are available to us for as long as we live, each in our own circumstances.

That lesson or realization, if you will, is tremendously difficult for many people to accept, indoctrinated as they are from all sides that there is either a god or ideal virtue to which we all must conform. Sometimes I find it interesting to consider how Epicurus himself confronted the issue of choosing between "truth" as we understand it, versus "pleasure" which he concluded was the guide and goal of life, because it is easy to argue that happy fool is a better life than an unhappy "wise man." But I am convinced that he concluded to embrace both, and I don't think he accepted any contradictions after his basic understanding of nature was established. Better that the life be short, while confidently embracing whatever pleasure is available, than long and ultimately miserable from embracing foolishness, which so rarely ends up being pleasant or happy.

This may be a bit of a detour, but the attached article on the invocation of Venus in Lucretius is a brief discussion of religion among the early Epicureans. This is the only thing that I've read on the subject other than what's in DeWitt; my main takeaway (as someone with minimal knowledge of early Greek and Roman religion) is the importance of understanding context in interpreting ancient doctrines. DeWitt's book is very good at addressing the philosophical context of Epicurus, but this points to a different subject of context.

It also touches on early practices and might have some relevance to other threads involving practice.

The article doesn't address blessedness or imperishability, but does perhaps offer some additional context to the discussion.

Argh I hate of when people quote Latin or Greek and don't provide a translation

Godfrey I just read that article and as far as I am concerned it is OUTSTANDING and one of the best I have read. I could kick the writer, however, for saying on page 191 that there are "many contradictions" in Lucretius, but other than that comment my own views of the Epicureans' sincerity are very close to this. Thank you!

Also, that looks to be an "old" article, which probably helps explain why I like it. Do you have the source citation?

EDIT -- Well gee whiz I guess I had it already, cause I have the cite:

And yes it's over 100 years old -- which appears to suit the age when I was more in harmony with the commentators on Epicurus. It even significantly pre-dates DeWitt!

In this PD 1, Epicurus does not mention for gods any kind of characteristics with words such as imperishable or deathless or immortals. For Epicurus, Gods are such beings as "άφθαρτα", and in english the right word is given with "incorruptible" which and in greek also means "untouched" or else "without having any communication at all" by us the humans. And that also means that gods are such beings that can't be touched by our corruptible "virtues" that are synonym with our hypocritical morality which indicates that from the morning till the late hours at night, the hypocritical moralists (usually the believers of Abrahamic religions) in their prayers are throwing curse to each other and to all the infidels of this world, being always ready to make wars in the name of their absolute true god.

So, the fact for Epicurus and epicureans is that humans can't overpass their chimpanzee and gorillas DNA. For all humanity living totally in bliss/makarioi and pleasantly or else like gods among men, it is a mission impossible since from Epicurus era ==2400 years have passed == and our species still is doing wars without end. And for being a little pessimistic this will never happen forever and ever and till all the things on this planet will collapse and will be created again by atoms/ particles and the void (quantum field) and this is our FIRST and the most important PRINCIPLE.

OK Elli so does that mean that you agree with DeWitt's translation of the letter to Menoeceus, also using the word INCORRUPTIBLE?

This below is the clip from DeWitt's personal translation of the Letter to Menoeceus, in the apppendix to his "St Paul and Epicurus. Same word as PD1, same "incorruptible"?

Here is Inwood & Gerson's "Epicurus Reader, who weigh in for "indestructible" which is actually pretty close to DeWitt:

Yes, I agree totally with the word as used by DeWitt. The word in english and greek for "άφθαρτα" is "incorruptible" or "untouched" by the corruptible, and on the basis of Ethics I explained - as much as I could - the reasons why this word is the accurate one.

So the Epicurus WIKI actually admits that the word is indestructible, but chooses to transmute it into imperishable!

OMG - the Epicurus wiki does EXACTLY the same thing with the letter to Menoeceus:

I suppose they get a "C" for "Consistency"!

Eugenious I am not sure I understand your comment. As far as getting hung up, the original point, was it not, was whether an Epicurean god is "immortal" or not by nature? And your secondary point was that you were concerned that "immortal" might mean that this attribute was irrelevant to humans, since humans are not immortal? And perhaps an even more subtle point was whether DeWitt was correct in not using "immortal" in his translation?

I think ultimately Dewitt is indicating his value by pointing us in the direction that you are looking, which is not what "immortal" conveys. DeWitt's view is at least in part that like humans, gods too must act to sustain their lives and happiness; they are not mystically immortal.

Quote from Eugenios

We know we are mortal. Epicurus and Lucretius proclaim that. So interpreting how we mortals can be imperishable beings isn't readily apparent at first. But this doctrine - all the Principal Doctrines - have to be applicable to our lives, otherwise of what use are they to us? Epicurus was adamant that philosophy had to be practical and to improve one's life. Re-examining the connotations of ἄφθαρτος allows us to see that that idea doesn't have to be a mystical iimperishability but one rooted in the here and now.