⟐ as the symbol of the philosophy of Epicurus

>>Why is that so bad? I could generalise it, and it would remain true: "most people would have no clue what Epicurean philosophy is" — and, as far as the general public is concerned, the same would also hold true for Epicurus' face. <<

I couldn't get the darn quote feature to work. This is my third attempt.

Most people aren't interested in philosophy either, but if they are, the ancient Greek philosophies are all represented by the images of their namesakes.

>>You see, it's probably true that in some parts of the world most of the local people there would have no clue what the christianist fish symbol means — but some people would know, some people would recognize it, and it could be the beginning of a bond over shared values.<<

Yeah, but they'd mostly know an image of Jesus.

Now that I think about it, human beings are wired to respond to faces. Maybe the easiest way to identify an ideology.

>>And also, those who use the symbol would know what it means to themselves, it would be a reminder, a little non-supernatural ritual or charm, which is also something valuable.<<

LOL!!! You'd have to promote your symbol! Epicurus! He gets us!

He Gets Us - Wikipedia

I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent here, but it's adjacent to ...

Quote from kochiekoch

You'd have to promote your symbol!

From my perspective (*broadly* generalizing to the point of stereotyping - there: caveat stated), the majority of humans - or at least *many* humans - don't like ambiguity. It's easier to live a world with cut and dried rules. Rules also make it easier to enforce a structure, a hierarchy, and in-group and an out-group. This also relates to this current thread...

Thread

What Makes Someone "An Epicurean?"

In a nearby thread the question was raised about who should be considered to be an Epicurean. No one has the authority to give such a list, and probably no one after Epicurus himself, or the last head of the Epicurean school in Athens in the ancient world, ever had that authority. But we ought to give thought to what the key components of the philosophy are, so we can consider how many of them fit the person we're considering labeling as an Epicurean.

My own first question is "Does the person…

Cassius

March 30, 2019 at 7:49 PM

Epicurean philosophy, as it's advocated for on this forum (and I think the interpretation here is generally in the right direction), is big on ambiguity, personal responsibility, contextual application of practice, etc. One does not find a Ten Commandments, A Five Pillars, etc. There is no cosmic authority or priesthood asserting "my way or the highway." People who want to point to a prooftext for their position will find it a little more difficult in the extant writings. For these reasons, it will always be difficult to get a wide community. That said, I also think there are "levels" of understanding that could benefit people of many inclinations. The contextual nature of the philosophy also could lend itself to misunderstanding and shallower and deeper students. But then we get into the "no true Epicurean" would do ABC that we got into in the other thread linked above. Who gets to name the "true Epicureans"?

Quote from kochiekoch

He gets us!

If we did have "He Gets Us" Super Bowl ads, what would that mean? IF we marketed WWED bracelets (What Would Epicurus Do? - It should be SFOTSE in my opinion but I digress), what *would* Epicurus do in any given situation (other than seek the most pleasure)? But what would that mean? And he "gets us"... what does that mean?

Okay, I'm admittedly being a little provocative.

From what I understand, Epicurus calls us:

• to see the material universe for what it is: atoms and void (in the widest possible modern sense)
• to understand there are no gods doling out punishment or gifts; our behavior is up to us, chance, or necessity
• to judge every desire in light of pleasure and pain
• to understand death exists only after we no longer exist; death is no thing for us because we aren't there when it is
• to understand that justice is a man-made construct; "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of expediency, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another." There are no universal rights - only what agreements to neither willfully harm nor to be harmed that can be agreed to at any given time and place (This is the BIG difference between Epicureanism and Humanism. And, I admit, I still struggle with this one.)
• And so on...

Epicureanism has a lot of gray areas, not a lot of black and white answers. There is no "Thou shalt not" list. If someone is even interested if they would see a "He Gets Us" commercial or sees a WWED/SFOTSE bracelet, where do you start?? AxA 's meet-ups are a great real-world example of the benefits (and potential hazards) of opening up an Epicurean social gathering for discussion.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I look at the way the Stoics have cornered the market for ancient philosophy reborn... So... I guess... if they can do it... Why not the Epicureans?

LOL... I may have talked myself out of a pessimistic perspective... then again.... (insert more pondering here )

In looking to turn that post in a more optimistic direction I would first start by focusing on the "ambiguity" part, because I think that could be stated better. I don't admit that Epicurus is ambiguous about the things listed in the post about the nature of the universe. Epicurus very precisely says that there are no supernatural gods and there's no existence after death, no eternal ideal forms, etc.

While we do have lists here and I think it is important to see how they are derived, I very much agree that it is not a good idea to focus on things like "THE four cures" to imply strict formulas which we today package as headliners but which are not well founded in the literature in that kind of way. There are all sorts of combinations that apply in different contexts.

I would say that even if a person were only to embrace the "no supernatural gods", "no life after death," "no eternal forms/essences," "not virtue but pleasure," and "ground reasoning in the senses (and maybe one or two more I am forgetting) then even a simple set of views like that would be ample to serve as a unifying perspective for considering oneself an Epicurean fellow-traveler. Even this list could be shortened - you have to start somewhere.

At least from my own perspective, having friends with those general viewpoints would be more than sufficient reward for the effort we put into studying Epicurus.

As to the bracelets and symbolism I see that as useful but differing widely by context.

Quote from kochiekoch

Yeah, but they'd mostly know an image of Jesus.

Well, yes. Like mostly everyone anywhere in the world knows Coca-Cola now, nobody knew Coca-Cola on day one. Today's organised Christianists operate something similar to an international corporation, which, in the past, was an integral part of the military-industrial complex and even operated a private military for aggressive conquest… I mean. I don't know. I think we should define our target audience.

What I am looking for is something that clicks with Epicureans, and which can be used in the manner of the Star of David, a cross, and so on -- as a symbol around the house, as a piece of jewelry, and so forth. To this end, it shouldn't be overly lewd, offensive or anything else that would make it hard to fly the banners due to backlash from the general public. I can see myself wearing or publicly displaying a 20er moon with four dots on it, for example.

But other than that, I really don't care if non-Epicureans know what it means. They will know with time, just like we all know what someone means when he says "In the Meditations, it says…" -- the Stoics have sort-of captured an ordinary English word. What if that diary was commonly known as "Aureliatum"? Well, then you'd know that word. What if that somehow clicked with them, and they'd all start using that word starting today? You'd learn it with time.

Quote from Don

the majority of humans - or at least *many* humans - don't like ambiguity. It's easier to live a world with cut and dried rules. Rules also make it easier to enforce a structure, a hierarchy, and in-group and an out-group.

I agree. (This also applies to modern wild Gorillas and Chimpanzees, as well as pre-historic humans, from what I know.)

Quote from Don

Who gets to name the "true Epicureans"?

I'd like to counter by example: Two anarchists meet by chance, they recognise each other by use of the anarchist's symbol of an A in a circle Ⓐ. They might exchange numbers, meet, and discuss anarchism, often in a heated debate, often disagreeing on what the right way is -- but they'll still be connected. Two christianists meet by chance, recognise each other by use of a cross. Two judaists meet by chance, regonise each other by use of a star of david. Same thing. Just because we look for and propose a symbol that we hope will click with most Epicureans of the general persuasion we have on this forum, as you outlined does not mean we register a trademark and start policing who calls themselves Epicurean… (Even though I'd love to make all those overpriced "Epicurean" wineries pay trademark royalties into a fund towards preserving the Herculaneum papyri )

Quote from Kalosyni

an Epicurean symbol must have an interface between feeling and usefulness.

Quote from Cassius

There are all sorts of combinations that apply in different contexts.

Quote from Cassius

As to the bracelets and symbolism I see that as useful but differing widely by context.

Quote from Don

From what I understand, Epicurus calls us:

to see […] to understand […] to judge […] And so on...

In my opinion, these aspects are all symbolised in the waning gibbous (20er moon) with four atom dots. Let me recap, in no particular order, the symbolism as far as it was outlined:

• The four dots represent the atoms, and the space between/around them, is the void
• Historically, the moon and the stars (which the four dots can also be) have provided literal guidance to traveling humans, just as they provide figurative guidance to us
• The celestial bodies have inspired art, poetry, and scientific research
• The four invisible lines between the dots represent the quadrifugaco, the lines of the tetrapharmakos
• The four lines are invisible, because abstract concepts stem from the biochemical reality material atoms form in our brains, but they don't have a literal, direct existence in the sense of a Platonic realm of ideal forms
• The space between and around also points to where the Gods live.
• The different size of the atoms alludes to both the Epicurean ideas about not every atom being equal, as well as the shibboleth about the size of the sun
• It could also be seen as an eye, as in Sic Fac Omnia Tamquam Spectet Epicurus.
• The moon ties back to an ancient tradition as well as The Man himself, and…
• also to the Epicurean emphasis of friendship and community, and with that, it ties into
• to Epicurean ideas of justice (because without it, we couldn't be friends for long…)
• The dots can be a birds-eye view of four people in the garden (represented by the moon)
• Because they're "on the moon" an emphasize of lathe biosas can be seen, too
• The points at the top (a triangle pointing up) and bottom (a triangle pointing down) of the diamond shape represent Pain and Pleasure.
• The points to the left and right (triangle pointing left and right) represent Choice and Avoidance
• They can also be Right and Wrong, as in ethics and justice
• The four atoms can be: Physics, Atomics, Canonics, and Ethics
• The lower three atoms can be Sensations, Anticipations and Feelings, leading to the upper one: our Judgement about what is true in the world
• The four atoms are arranged in a diamond, the most durable natural physical substance (we currently know of), representing for the unshakable enduring trust in the Canon and the physical nature of the Cosmos with no supernatural intervention.
• The 20th moon is perpetually "born", "grows up" and "dies" again, which can be seen as a circle of life
• However, in moving through it's cycle, moon might fade from view, but it never truly disappears: nothing comes from nothing.
• It can also represent the linear, steady, forward-only passage of time (we cannot turn back time, not can we pause it)
• The space around the moon is as infinite as the universe itself
• Three atoms can be the canon, with the fourth being
• Even on nights we cannot see the 20th moon, anywhere on the night sky we can usually find four stars roughly arranged in a diamond on both hemispheres; this symbolises the eternal wisdom in what the four atoms represent, how they're there every day of the week, at any time of the day, and can offer us guidance through life even when it's not a time to celebrate
• This is also represented by the earth's moon looking that same way on earth practically forever (100 million years from now, human descendents will look back at me with an amused chuckle)
• because any constellation will do, it also says that there is no special meaning to the stars, symbolising the stance against superstitions (as can be found in like today's zodiac signs, ancient Babylonian / Hellenistic astrology, religionism, etc)
• …

That's a total of 27 interpretations already (I'm sure more could be found), and I argue that is not a weakness, but a strength: The symbol offers something for everyone, making it viable for broad adoption, and leading to the 28th interpretation: There is no universally agreed-upon authority issuing decrees about what "a true Epicurean" is. The symbol itself is a space for exploration, it is what your senses and judgement tell you it is, and that meta-level is itself Epicurean

(Copy & Paste from Don in this post.)

That list of connections is interesting in itself.

Of these, how many are distinctly Epicurean?

I'm asking in general now, what widely-known positions of Epicurus are distinctly Epicurean?

1. The Swerve (anyone disagree?)

2. ?

3. ?

Quote from Julia

wearing or publicly displaying a 20er moon with four dots on it, for example.

I think that this is an interesting investigation. Everyone will have unique ideas for what symbolizes Epicurean philosophy. It may take time for those who feel similarly (to wear or display) to discover what feels right for them. Perhaps everyone has their own personal "Epicurean symbol". We can have multiple symbols, but I think all "Epicureans" should be able to recognize the symbol without further explanation - because the symbol "should" (lol, in my opinion) clearly reflect an Epicurean idea. And so I think the four dots requires one Epicurean to explain to another Epicurean what it means, so for me personally it doesn't work (just my opinion).

Here are some more ideas for symbols (ideas rather than finished symbols, and so the atom could end up being rendered differently):

The atom itself:

The atom in the 20er moon:

Quote from Kalosyni

The atom itself:

This symbol reminds me of the famous three body problem:

Quote from Wikipedia

Unlike the two-body problem, the three-body problem has no general closed-form solution, meaning there is no equation that always solves it. When three bodies orbit each other, the resulting dynamical system is chaotic for most initial conditions. Because there are no solvable equations for most three-body systems, the only way to predict the motions of the bodies is to estimate them

This characteristic might allude to the swerve, the motion of atoms, (after some generalisation) the shibboleth about the size of the sun, the fact that there are no absolute truths, that there is no "ten commandments" list, no universal authority for being "a true Epicurean", that the only way to solve Choice and Avoidance is to estimate the future, to predict in each moment, and so forth.

On the other hand, there are some stable three-body systems, many of which draw out simple yet beautiful patterns, thereby linking sciences and art, and some look not unlike the symbol Kalosyni just used, which is quite universally recognised as "an atom". Those stable systems might also be seen as representing the Epicurean path towards eventually mastering the contradicting aspects of life to find one's way, the duality of kinetic and katastematic pleasure (the bodies move but the system remains stable), and so on. Again, many many different interpretations are possible.

Here are some patterns of stable three-body systems (taken from Wikipedia):

→ CLICK HERE FOR ANIMATION ←

The one in the top-left corner draws a pattern similar to the four dots we discussed at length so far. The one at the bottom-left might be friends facing each other in a walled garden — but it could also be a nuclear core with a layer of electrons around it.

Numbered left-to-right, top-to-bottom: top-left is #1, top-right is #5, bottom-left is #16, bottom-right is #20.

All those 3-body systems with a circle could use the moon's circumference to represent said circle -- but they don't have to. I think we should avoid those:

#3: too complex

#10: looks like an infinite sign ∞

#13: just a circle…

#18: too complex

#19: too complex

Which are your favourites? What do y'all think about the idea in general?

Martin, do you have a suggestion?

I asked an AI bot called Co-Pilot to draw me a symbol of Epicurean philosophy.

Seeing how these things have come out in the past, I thought it would be AWFUL!

But you know, it's not half bad.

The American Atheists symbol.

Our Logo

An international symbol for atheism has long been needed. When American Atheists was formed in 1963, a contemporary scientific symbol was chosen; this…

www.atheists.org

@Steve - As far as I am concerned that is one of the best line drawings I have seen Steve. Can you get it to reprint with the word "Epicurus" under it - which might make it more usable in more situations? I know in my experience it's not easy to get an AI to redraw from an original.

Coming right up courtesy of Copilot. In living color!

Quote from Cassius

one of the best line drawings I have seen

Indeed!

You did specify a line drawing. So here it is.

I despise AI for artwork on a number of levels... But that's not bad. I'd certainly prefer someone using that as a prompt and not using that.

Quote from Don

I despise AI for artwork on a number of levels... But that's not bad. I'd certainly prefer someone using that as a prompt and not using that.

Perhaps a typo there Don ? Not sure what you mean....