Reverence and Awe In Epicurean Philosophy

I am very late commenting in this thread because the topic does not interest me that much and religion can be very divisive. Here is my addition to some aspects of the discussion:

Epicurus saw no sensory evidence of gods, attributed the knowledge humans claimed to have of them to inner perceptions and stated that the gods were not supernatural. 2300 years ago, this did not constitute a contradiction.

Meanwhile, we have dramatically extended our senses with corroborated detailed scientific models and reliable instruments. As material beings, gods are not excluded from scientific examination.

Todays science refutes Epicurus' internal imagery of gods because no such special image particles are detectable.

Moreover, the spread of information through particles, waves or fields is essentially diluted by a law following the inverse of the square of the distance.

With the huge distances to the neighboring galaxies, solar systems and even planets in our own solar system, large telescopes are needed to produce images as demonstrated by our astronomers.

Our fairly detailed knowledge of anatomy leaves no space for such inner telescopes for internal perception.

The religions which have arisen in different cultures may have some overlap but they are mutually exclusive.

Taking the inner sensations of something god-like as relating to some actually existing being has produced thousands of cults contradicting about every other belief over the course of history and more cults keep springing up.

This indicates that there are no actually existing gods to which the religions/cults refer, no matter whether the gods are considered to be natural or supernatural.

Even within the same culture/religion, reasoning of different "priests" has typically lead to a further splitting into more and more mutually exclusive sects.

The strength of the inner sensation of a god by people who have been or have themselves conditioned for this has probably been the driving factor of the waves of atrocities committed by religionists who misinterpret these inner sensations as factual evidence.

The global occurrence of religions is indicative of a genetic disposition to look for awe-inspiring beings. This science-based explanation refutes the claim that the perceived gods actually exist.

Modern science is a branched out further development of some parts of Epicurus' philosophy. Applying these principles of Epicurus' philosophy has lead to the refutation of Epicurus' imagery of gods into a supersensory brain as of today's science (with no claim on what future science may reveal in an unexpected twist).

Pleasure is central to Epicurus' philosophy, not the divine. Therefore, abandoning the conclusion from inner perceptions to existence of gods is preferred over keeping a revealed major inconsistency in the philosophy. This is similar to the much less controversial abandoning of other refuted parts of Epicurus' physics.

Other than postulating the existence of alien species (for which we might find tentative evidence at best but which would most likely be too far away to communicate with or travel to) and interpreting gods conceived by humans as symbolism, there is nothing credible left in Epicurus' gods.

In conclusion, there is nothing important left in Epicurus' gods other than the historic aspect for complete understanding of ancient Epicurean philosophy.

This does not need to prevent us from joyful participation in religious ceremonies and deriving pleasure from inner perceptions of imaginary gods.

This is just an interim comment while I am thinking about it. I'd like to comment on this key sentence:

Quote from Martin

Epicurus saw no sensory evidence of gods, attributed the knowledge humans claimed to have of them to inner perceptions and stated that the gods were not supernatural.

In being clear about what Epicurus' position was (rather than my own) I would like to address each clause there:

(1) Epicurus saw no sensory evidence of gods,

(2) (Epicurus) attributed the knowledge humans claimed to have of them to inner perceptions and

(3) (Epicurus) stated that the gods were not supernatural.

Of these, I think (3) is absolutely and emphatically correct and any assertion to the contrary would hardly be worth the time of discussing.

Item (2) I think is quite likely incomplete. As written, it is likely a reference to "anticipations/preconceptions" despite the choice to use the term "inner perceptions." I am not sure that "inner perception" is an adequate way to refer to the full scope of anticipations, but more so than that, this presumes the answer to the debate and presumes that anticipations are the result of images. It seems to me the texts are pretty clear that there are two separate phenomena to consider (1) the receipt of images by the brain, and (2) a faculty which per the Velleius text is more of an "unfolding" or "etching" present at birth and prior to experience. I am thinking that these are distinct phenomena, and that "anticipations" are not simply something created by experiences after birth, so as written I would say item (2) is accurate so far as it goes, but incomplete.

Item (1) involves for me the definition of the word "sensory." This is pretty much the same issue as just discussed. Did Epicurus consider what we refer to in the word "sensory" to be limited to taste, touch, sight, sound, and smell? Or would the other two legs (anticipations and feeling) constitute something that we should consider under our own contemporary use of the word "sensory"? Since I am not ready to take a position on what we should consider the full meaning of the word "sensory" I am not able to say that I fully agree with item (1).

I am even "more" late commenting. I was tied up earlier in November then in December I caught the infamous virus that put me out of commission for two weeks...awful...just awful.

The "god" discussion has been one that I've taken part in for the last few years. So much has been written about it, but often leaves us divided. For my part I have vacillated greatly in what I believe Epicurus thought about the gods. I think truly, as it was in his time, exactly as he posited: the being (if it exists) is blessed and indestructible has no trouble, therefore gives no trouble.

What a person does with this information beyond this first premise is entirely up to them. If believing in the idea of a god gives you comfort and pleasure...so be it. But you may potentially end up speculating or imagining a deity that may evolve into something that does not give you pleasure, therefore ruining a very specific Epicurean idea.

I don't do much speculating on this subject anymore since it becomes fruitless very very quickly and leaves parties divided unnecessarily.

Quote from Matt

I am even "more" late commenting.

That's the benefits of having a forum for all those asynchronous conversations

I wanted to say that your point about "what a person does with this information" is an important one. Thanks for phrasing it that way!

That's one of the reasons that I'm personally working through Obbink's Philodemus On Piety. I think it's important to get a better idea of both what Epicurus and the founders thought and what they did with it. Did they participate in the festivals? Why? What practical application does the "existence" writ large of the gods have for the early Epicureans? For us?

I find it both a practical as well as a pleasurable academic exercise.

Quote from Matt

I am even "more" late commenting. I was tied up earlier in November then in December I caught the infamous virus that put me out of commission for two weeks...awful...just awful.

Good to hear from you Matt and sorry to hear you have been sick.

And I second what Don says about asynchrony. We have been missing for a while @Susan Hill here on this topic but if she drops back in it would be interesting to see you two exchange ideas given that this is such an area of interest to you both.

Absolutely, I would enjoy reviving the discussion if the mood hits everyone.

After a long couple weeks of feeling so unbelievably bad, I have had some time to reflect on what “pleasure” means to a healthy life. I will post in the forum a little later on the subject.

Quote from Susan Hill

I really think a mystic must look elsewhere..

Now that part at least I think is probably true!

Quote from Susan Hill

I’m afraid I have to essentially agree with Matt at this point. I have not found anything further that makes Epicurus’ theology more robust, integral, or informative to human life. He does not seem to have developed much by way of a praxis, so any further development would require comparison with other, possibly complementary theologies, or innovation. Epicureanism is missing the kind of in-depth philosophy of mind and consciousness that eastern schools have, so I do see anything like transcendence, moksha, or enlightenment being part of this package. I really think a mystic must look elsewhere..

Hi, @Susan Hill . It's good to see your posting. I would encourage you to take a look at some of the posts I've been making on Obbink's Philodemus On Piety if you're interested. There's more there than I expected. But I do hear what you're saying when you write "anything further that makes Epicurus’ theology more robust, integral, or informative to human life." A huge problem is that we have SO many texts missing. If we had all 30+ volumes of On Nature and Philodemus's library and... But *if*. And we don't.

I also concur with your desire for praxis. I believe we can infer some things. We know Epicurus encouraged memorization. And there are ways to memorize texts by study, recitation, copying/writing. I think all these would be acceptable Epicurean praxis. There's also keeping a Gratitude journal given the importance of gratitude in Epicureanism. I also don't see a contradiction in some mindfulness practices and Epicureanism. I think getting a better handle on your mind would increase one's ability to discern the proper path to pleasure and make better choices and rejections. It should also allow one to enjoy pleasure in the moment: carpe diem! The places in On Piety that talk about forming correct views/notions/convictions of the gods may have some praxis-related options whether we decide they physically exist or not.

Quote

I do [not] see anything like transcendence, moksha, or enlightenment being part of this package.

I'm assuming you left out a "not" in there, and I would agree. But I would say the reason there is no "transcendence, moksha, or enlightenment" is because there's nothing to transcend, nothing to be enlightened of. If anything, we need to unlearn our acculturation, see the physical cosmos as that which only exists, and make our choices and rejections wisely in the full recognition that we only have one life.

One of my favorite sayings is (to paraphrase): "Flee from all indoctrination, and set sail on your own little boat."

I also had mystic tendencies for a time, investigating Christian mysticism (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing , etc.), Buddhism (especially Zen and Tibetan varieties), and others. It all came down to the theology that I couldn't believe. Rebirth and karma seemed viable for a time to me, but I became disenchanted. That's also one of the things that turned me off from Stoicism and how I eventually discovered Epicurus. I'm not saying I'm 100% sold on the Epicurean Garden path, but I've found it fruitful both from a philosophy of life perspective and as an academic hobby.

I hope you continue to engage in the discussion whether or not you decide to think of yourself as an "Epicurean." I think you have an interesting and valuable perspective.

I tried for a time to combine my inherent interest of divinity and mysticism with Epicurean philosophy. Because Epicurus left it so open ended, I ended up trying to fill in the gaps between the atoms and void.

I found that for my own purposes, EP would never have a system that would compete with Christian theology or Neoplatonism etc. but the question becomes...do I want it to? Other more concrete systems give theological formulas about gods, Epicurus says for me not to worry about the gods.

I have to imagine that during the time of Epicurus, the local traditional religious cults filled the vacuum and provided all the holidays, feasts and observances for Epicureans, Stoics and the non-philosophical alike. Today the closest thing we have to that is our Abrahamic and Dharmic religions that are philosophically different from the Hellenistic traditional religion....so much so that some are religiously exclusive and EP has no place among them. It seems to me that Epicurean ideas appeared at a very specific time in history where poets were still telling heroic tales of Zeus and Poseidon, and the two worlds were not necessarily mutually exclusive. You could have an “Epicurean” or “Stoic” view or interpretation of these gods or tales.

Epicurus did not have Christian or Muslim apologists to compete with to the extent that we have today. That was a later evolution. And truly it becomes it’s own discussion per modern religion involved.

In my opinion, a person accepting Epicurus and his theology is someone who is no longer seeking mysticism and is entirely comfortable with not really discussing the gods in any meaningful way. This may not appeal to all, and I personally understand that. But each person must ask themselves...”do the gods of other systems give me pleasure?” “Give me peace?” Or do they place you on a journey back into the heart of speculative metaphysics?

Also, it’s not to say that the gods conversation isn’t “meaningful” to many people. It’s just that expectations should be set as to what type of conversation we would be having. Comparing the metaphysical and apophatic theology of Philo of Alexandria with that of Epicurus, where the majority of the Epicurean texts are lost on the subject will necessarily be fruitless. Philo has literally volumes to say while Epicurus has one or two vague things to say in Menoceus.

It’s just that the expectation of what will be discussed needs to be on display. I don’t think anyone will find anything mystical about EP. If you try to make it into a pantheistic situation you’ll find yourself in the heart of Stoic theology. If that’s where you want to be then perhaps you are an Epicurean that finds pantheistic Stoic theology interesting? Or perhaps you are a Stoic that finds Epicurean philosophy intriguing. Either way, the expectations simply should be that “theology” is not a hallmark of EP in its own right (or at least what we know of it) and wanting too much from it will only cause a person distress.

Quote from Matt

Either way, the expectations simply should be that “theology” is not a hallmark of EP in its own right (or at least what we know of it) and wanting too much from it will only cause a person distress

I think the "expectations" part is key. I personally find meaningfulness and substance in "both" of the perspectives: (1) As a "star trek" kind of person, I think it is useful for at least people like me to have a view that life exists in other parts of the universe, and we are not the highest, and to have "expectations" as to what the nature of a "highest" life would be. (2) Maybe the second bleeds into the first, but I also think that the idealization / visualization of an actually-achieved goal provides sort of interim goalposts that we can shoot for ourselves, and that the setting of goals is an important part of mental health.

I think your comments Matt about the state of religion in ancient greece and rome are very correct. The lack of exclusivity makes it much easier to be friendly with different perspectives in way that any kind of "chosen people" religion is going to rule out.

So I do think that there is a lot more that can and should be developed in the study of an "Epicurean Theology" but we do have to manage the expectations to avoid disappointment.

Matt I think I see where you're coming from, but I had to react to your quote here:

Quote from Matt

In my opinion, a person accepting Epicurus and his theology is someone who is no longer seeking mysticism and is entirely comfortable with not really discussing the gods in any meaningful way.

I would probably agree with the first part. We aren't asked to become one with the Divine as in some forms of mysticism, but Epicurus and other texts do call us to emulate or even "imitate" (e.g., in On Piety) the gods. I'm still not sure what to do with that, although it seems I should continue to understand its significance. Which brings me to your second point.

The "not really discussing the gods in any meaningful way" point though strikes me as missing an opportunity in Epicurus's thought. The gods/divinity/theos was obviously a paramount concern of Epicurus. It's in the first Principal Truth. It's right at the start of the Letter to Menoikeus. Epicurus, the founders, Philodemus (or possibly Phaedrus) who wrote On Piety, etc., all wrote entire treatises on the right relation to and conception of the gods. The gods or divinity or "that which is blessed and imperishable" were obviously of grave concern to the classical Epicureans, and I maintain it behooves us to understand why. As modern people with a secular, scientific mindset, many of us (myself included) often disregard religious "superstition" or "mysticism", and Lucretius certainly lambasted religio as a source of evil. But, if we "sweep" the gods under the rug within Epicureanism, we run the risk of becoming cafeteria Epicureans, picking and choosing the tasty morsels only without understanding the work that went into the meal. Okay, I admit that I belabored that analogy to the breaking point And some may say "I'm just choosing and avoiding." But I think we run the risk of the modern Stoics when they sweep the quasi-religious Logos under the rug as almost an embarrassment. When someone brings it up, they obfuscate and rationalize and re-interpret the Logos away. I am coming to believe that Epicurus and the founders had a much more nuanced, complex, and sophisticated notion of the "divine" than the Stoics or other contemporaries had. A notion that wouldn't necessarily have to be shut up in a drawer or swept under the rug. That's "coming to believe" btw; I'm not there yet.

All that being said, I wasn't around when you were active before, and I welcome your perspective and participation! It's a pleasure to virtually meet you

For sure Don, I think it is important that we get as much out of the original texts as we can. It sounds like you are doing detailed research on the subject, and I’d be interested to hear about what you find. I’m certain that there are volumes that are missing. So sadly we may not ever know what was originally intended as far as Epicurean theology goes in its entirety.

I agree 100% that the modern stoics who avoid the originally critical aspect of the Logos are doing themselves an enormous disservice. I personally cannot even envision what Stoicism is without a theological/pantheistic element. If God isn’t the arbiter of their virtue then who or what is? If the answer is man, then they are left in a swirling world of relativism. God/Zeus/Mind/Logos is as much tied to Stoicism as atoms and void are to EP.

My original technique to fill in the theological gaps with non-Epicurean concepts ended up disastrous. So I am mostly inclined to just avoid it and discuss differences between systems and schools as entirely separate entities rather than attempt to bolster one over another. So I’ll always be more than happy to discuss the One of Plotinus from a Neoplatonic perspective, the Logos from a Stoic perspective or the Trinity from the Christian perspective.

And yes! It’s a pleasure to meet you here! I’m glad to be able to find some time and engage with folks here. It’s a part of my life that has been missing for awhile.

Quote from Don

I am coming to believe that Epicurus and the founders had a much more nuanced, complex, and sophisticated notion of the "divine" than the Stoics or other contemporaries had. A notion that wouldn't necessarily have to be shut up in a drawer or swept under the rug. That's "coming to believe" btw; I'm not there yet.

Yes, that's my position, absent the "not there yet"

Quote from Matt

My original technique to fill in the theological gaps with non-Epicurean concepts ended up disastrous.

I can't recall our precise discussions in the past Matt, but I think the recent discussions we've started are much more thorough than we had the opportunity to do in the past, so I think this time we're going to make more progress on something that is both helpful and makes sense.

It is true, Susan, as you say; Epicurus did not formulate a philosophy of mind that would impress a Gautama, or a Shankara. But neither did these two develop philosophies of nature that would have engaged the attention of an Epicurus. And if there be any room for mysticism in this tradition, it must necessarily be a mysticism of nature, and not of mind.

When I contemplate the cosmic scale—when I consider, from my humble vantage point, the deepness of time, the incomprehensibility of the twin eternities that stand in apposition on either side of my short life—then do I feel something of the mystic's ultimacy. We are, as Lucretius put it, "all sprung from celestial seed". There is an ineffable kinship in this; that we share a like beginning not only with the animal, but with the vegetable and mineral.

That while poring over these ancient texts I also breathe, and so literally 'con-spire', in one atmosphere that spans distant oceans, with the humble grassy reeds of the Nile Delta, whose forgotten ancestors were made into the papyrus scrolls upon which these books were first written down and copied—and that we alike were mothered by the same earth, and we alike shall die here, our atoms in some later age to mingle in forms equally kindred, and yet half alien—that in this there is something encouraging and almost transcendent.

This is all poetry and metaphor, of course. And there will be those who say that the Epicurean cosmos is terribly cold, heartless and bleak. I have no answer for this, except to say that I do not share that view. Upon the Universities of the West are draped the name of Alma Mater. The credit for this coinage belongs to Lucretius—and yet for him this Mother was the whole generative power of nature. If you can look at another human and see at once the man, the material, and the animal, and see also the boundless world of Nature that it took to make thus much, you may find a glimmer of something mystical in these kinships.

Quote

We are star stuff harvesting starlight. -Carl Sagan

Quote

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. -Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Mystical is one of those tricky words, because it's usually used to refer to some form of non-material reality. My own philosophy has nothing like that. But I value the pleasure of practicing, for lack of a better term, non-conceptual awareness... fully apprehending my aliveness within a magnificent universe. Awareness that neither I nor any other part of the universe can be fully contained within or signified by any concept or symbol, and on top of that, everything is changing and interacting-- but more than what I can put in words, because experiences are always more than concepts. Not anything that fits into a real Buddhist framework.

I think only material reality has this property. If the "true reality" were abstract/ideal, it would fully be encompassed by ideas and language-- and we know from experience that this isn't the case, that material reality is always more than anything we can say about it, because of subjectivity, qualia. For me, it's not that reality is transcendent of materiality but the very materiality itself which produces ineffability.

Metaphors can be useful as an evocative tool... but any attempt to literalize a metaphor about reality, to make the idea more important than material reality, takes the life out of things.

Whenever people start talking about piety, I feel a strong desire to goose them in the ribs. I feel like they are missing the point somehow. Metaphorically, they need a dose of a trickster god. Reality has too much of a ... playful feeling, maybe... for me to adopt piety as a goal. Imo there is enough humorousness in Epicurus' own words that I think he completely got that. Philodemus... I'm not so sure.

This discussion is filling the void of this rather quiet and somber Christmas Eve day. I’m very happy that I came back when I did.

Glad to be here with you folks!

Quote from Elayne

Whenever people start talking about piety, I feel a strong desire to goose them in the ribs. I feel like they are missing the point somehow. Metaphorically, they need a dose of a trickster god. Reality has too much of a ... playful feeling, maybe... for me to adopt piety as a goal. Imo there is enough humorousness in Epicurus' own words that I think he completely got that. Philodemus... I'm not so sure.

I generally agree with what you've posted, Elayne . I did want to say again (ad nauseum, mea culpa) that I think "piety" is SUCH a loaded word to use for ευσέβειας (eusebeia), the word the author (let's say Philodemus) of On Piety (let's call it ) uses in the text. Eusebeias is the "proper observation of tradition in relation to the gods." And Philodemus's text is an apologia of Epicurus's and the founders' eusebeias to counter those who would accuse them of acting otherwise. This was deadly business back then, so Philodemus is deadly serious.

I've read excerpts from some of Philodemus's other works (especially in Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus) and see echoes of Epicurus's style there. Likewise, some of Epicurus's quotes on On Piety sound like he took his eusebeias seriously, too, so context is important in these things, too.

Quote from JJElbert

And there will be those who say that the Epicurean cosmos is terribly cold, heartless and bleak. I have no answer for this, except to say that I do not share that view.

And neither do I !

Quote from Elayne

experiences are always more than concepts

A GREAT way of saying it!