Reverence and Awe In Epicurean Philosophy

    Quote from Cassius


    I should have figured Don would like PAIAN ANAX :)


    Ok so what does that mean?

    Pain Xanax is an awesome translation! 😁


    It’s on page 78 of DeWitt, second to last paragraph.

    Quote from Cassius

    so Susan do you prefer Glory Be! Or O Lord Apollo?

    It’s a toughy! The original meaning is so layered. Maybe “Lord and Healer” would work. 🤔 I’d stick with the original Greek, myself.

    OK I have gone ahead and rearranged the forum structure as per the discussions, and since this topic has so many subissues where I would expect comment in the future, I did go ahead and split it off from Physics. No doubt more fine-tuning will be needed so as always let me know what changes people propose.

    OMG's, I am so buying this book now:
    Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition Paperback – May 14 2015 by Jeffrey Fish (Editor), Kirk R. Sanders (Editor4 - Epicurus on the gods

    • Edited by Jeffrey Fish, Baylor University, Texas, Kirk R. Sanders, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
    • Publisher: Cambridge University Press

    SummaryIn this chapter, I defend (once again) the view that the Epicurean gods are real, in the sense that they exist as atomic compounds and possess the properties that pertain to the concept, or prolêpsis, that people have of them. The contrary view – that the Epicurean gods have no objective existence, and that the notion of them is a consequence of ‘psychological processes…within the human soul’, was proposed in the nineteenth century and revived in the twentieth by Jean Bollack; more recently, it has received support from Long and Sedley and Dirk Obbink, and, most forcefully, in the chapter by David Sedley in this volume. The physical existence of the gods has been reasserted, in turn, by Jaap Mansfeld, Gabriele Giannantoni, Maria Carolina Santoro and Michael Wigodsky.Given that Epicurus, in the Letter to Menoeceus (123–4), flatly declares that ‘there are gods’ (θεοὶ μὲν γὰρ εἰσίν), and that this dictum is echoed by all subsequent Epicureans who have pronounced on the matter, I venture to say that no one would ever have proposed that they were mere ‘psychological processes’ or ‘thought-constructs’, had it not been for two difficulties that appear to beset the Epicurean theory. Both are evident in the same passage from Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus.

    I just checked and we have that volume in the library. I'll be checking it out today. Right now, I fall into the Sedley camp (if I remember his position correctly), but I'm looking forward to re-reading his chapter and Konstan's.

    Quote from Don

    @Susan Hill : Are you aware of Academia.edu? https://www.academia.edu/ I know they have some of Konstan's papers there for download. Not sure if it's accessible in Canada but worth a try.

    Yes. Thank you for reminding me I have a lot of digging to do in there too.

    Just a note to Susan and everyone who hasn't run into this before: If you paste directly from other programs you'll sometimes get the font transferred as well, such as this:



    While it is not always true, I think it's probably best for the forum if we try to keep the font styles to the default, so I'll sometimes go in and edit a post to remove the extra fonts.


    If you paste something and see that the font is different than the norm, the way to fix it is to use the dropdowns such as "A" for font family and T for size and choose the last option to "remove" that characteristic.


    Again, no issues, and I'll sometimes go ahead and make this change without mentioning it just in the interests of time. Thanks!


    EDIT: I meant to mention, more important even than font style and size is COLOR. Some people use dark themes ("styles") here for the forum, and others use "light" themes. Color can make a dramatic impact on readability, so above all please be sure to remove any "color" attributes when pasting.

    So....there's a lot going on here. 😆


    Cassius mentioned somewhere the question of the Epicurean theory of images vs the modern theory of light. It is a settled fact that Epicurus got this wrong—objects do not 'shed' atomic films that impinge on the optical nerve. Instead, photons (a particle or a wave, depending on the math/model) strike the object and are reflected to the eye.


    Epicurus was wrong, but in comparison to his contemporaries he was more nearly right. His theory was still one of intromission—a stream from without touching on the senses. Empedocles, and later Plato, seem to have believed in extramission—that light originates in the eyes and flows out in a stream, revealing the object to the mind.

    _______________________________


    Elayne mentioned the penalty for impiety that Epicurus might have suffered had he professed atheism. Certainly in the early days of the same century Socrates was tried and executed on those charges. If we accept that as an excuse, we must accept that Epicurus was in this respect a fraud. He didn't just 'go along to get along'. He wrote, published and instructed an untruth, over the course of his whole life, with the intent to deceive the multitude. He had less courage than Socrates, than Bruno. His mockery of Plato in calling him The Golden must then be the rankest hypocrisy, for he is then a partner in Plato's crime—the project of telling the people a 'useful lie' for political peace.


    For my part, I prefer to presume that he was genuine, even if I thought he was wrong.


    So upon reflection, this is my procedure;


    1.) Everything I think I know about Epicurus' character and system of philosophy dissuades me from believing that he would engage in an elaborate and protracted dissimulation. I take it for granted that he meant what he said.

    —1a.) For that reason, I'll continue to study and reflect on his teachings about divinity. I'll try to grasp it as best I can, and to share it with others who are interested.


    2.) Nothing in his divinity is particularly anathema to me, or to my senses, or my philosophy. So long as it is not construed to involve creation, or meddling, or miracles, or an afterlife, or the fear of death, or a denial of the senses (or of pleasure), it doesn't present any real problems.

    —2a.) For that reason, I'll continue to remain open to the possibility that he may have gotten some of it right—even though in practical terms, I am, and remain, an atheist.


    And lastly, I'll link to a poem by the English poet Philip Larkin called Church Going. It was referred to my attention by the autobiography of Christopher Hitchens, and does capture a sense of my own feelings on the subject.

    Quote from JJElbert

    So....there's a lot going on here. 😆

    That's an understatement! ;)


    But having a lot going on is a GOOD thing. It means we're processing information, formulating new ways to articulate it, and presumably gaining pleasure from it - either now or in the future pleasure that will come from dealing with these issues now.

    And on another note, I am especially interested in where Horace's mind was on this subject. I was attempting to work through his Odes in Latin last night. I need to improve my Latin considerably!

    Joshua, thank you for your posting. It is a beautiful and moving poem and essay.


    I certainly identify with the ache of something lost or never quite found. My whole life, I stared longingly at cathedrals or beautiful churches, wishing I could believe, so that I could feel a part of that magnificent sweep of history, art, tradition, and destiny. I finally did come to believe for a period of 10 years, before I no longer could again.


    I still adore religious art, music, and architecture above all others, but being “outside” again comes with a sadness. Those beautiful things no longer belong to me and me to them. I am only a spectator again.


    I may be done with Christianity, but I would not wish to live in a world entirely bereft of any kind of god or idea of divinity, for what secular inspiration could replace such a muse?


    I would love to see more examples of art of any kind that people feel expresses their own lived Epicureanism. It feels very meaningful.

    JJ, I want to be clear on what I mean about the death penalty issue. I think DeWitt explains that there were no tests of faith for these rituals, just a duty to participate. I'm not saying he lied about anything-- I was just referring specifically to attending the rituals. I think it was brought up as evidence of him having personal religious practices, and I was saying well, that may not be evidence of a religious practice the way we would think of it-- hard to know. I'm an atheist and have attended rituals-- I've been to churches. I don't consider that dishonest!


    Susan, I can see how that would feel sad... as a "cradle atheist", my sense of awe never got connected to anything I had to let go of. For me, it's more the awe of existence, that we and the universe are here at all-- it's breathtaking. I hope you can connect to that particular pleasure in a new way. That loss is one of the things I find tragic about religion.

    Quote

    JJ, I want to be clear on what I mean about the death penalty issue. I think DeWitt explains that there were no tests of faith for these rituals, just a duty to participate. I'm not saying he lied about anything-- I was just referring specifically to attending the rituals. I think it was brought up as evidence of him having personal religious practices, and I was saying well, that may not be evidence of a religious practice the way we would think of it-- hard to know. I'm an atheist and have attended rituals-- I've been to churches. I don't consider that dishonest!

    I understand you perfectly! A similar example would be his compulsory two-year military service. The fact that he served shouldn't be taken as conclusive of anything philosophically, since he didn't have a choice.


    In general terms, I'm more comfortable saying 'I think Epicurus was wrong about that' than I am diagnosing his motives. I don't actually like to presume to understand anyone's motives, unless given very good reason.


    In Horace's case we are given good reason; he was a defeated and dispossessed rebel granted a tenuous clemency, and compelled to sing for his supper. Which is probably why I find him to be such an interesting character.

    Quote from Elayne

    Susan, I can see how that would feel sad... as a "cradle atheist", my sense of awe never got connected to anything I had to let go of. For me, it's more the awe of existence, that we and the universe are here at all-- it's breathtaking. I hope you can connect to that particular pleasure in a new way. That loss is one of the things I find tragic about religion.

    I was also a cradle atheist. There was not one person in my family that was remotely spiritual. I went to a secular school. So, I was at no time indoctrinated into a religion growing up. I was oriented towards wanting a connection to the divine anyway.