An Epicurean Understanding of Valentine's Day: Love, Romance, and Free-will

  • Valentine's Day is one month away...how do we make sense of romance and love within the "Epicurean worldview". Is romantic love in direct opposition of the wisdom of free-will?


    Quote

    Diogenes Laertius :

    Book 10, Sections 84-154

    "They do not think that the wise man will ever be in love, nor that he will be anxious about his burial, nor that love is a passion inspired by the gods, as Diogenes says in his twelfth book. They also assert that he will be indifferent to the study of oratory. Intercourse, say they, is never any good to a man, and we must be quite content if it does no harm; [119] G and the wise man will never marry or beget children, as Epicurus himself lays it down, in his Problems and in his treaties on Nature. Still, under certain circumstances of life, he will forsake these rules and marry."


    Diogenes Laertius: Principal Doctrines of Epicurus


    And yet, is Venus standing at the center of the Epicurean Garden?


    Lucretius begins his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) with a dedication to Venus:




    Aphrodite of Menophantos, a Venus pudica ("modest venus") the best-known copy type of the Venus of Cnidus, here bearing the signature of the sculptor Menophantos: "work by Menophantos, after the Aphrodite in the Troad". Marble, Greek artwork, 1st century BC. From the church San Gregorio al Celio, Rome. https://commons.m.wikimedia.or…:Venus_pudica_Massimo.jpg


    Is this to be seen as a reverence for nature and the natural world, rather than a reverence for romantic love?

  • The Internet Classics Archive | On the Nature of Things by Lucretius

    We should always remember that Lucretius is using the Greek gods' names metaphorically, as he describes in Book 2 above.


    Aphrodite and the Gods of Love: Worship (Getty Villa Exhibitions)

    This is the first time I've ever seen one aspect of Aphrodite be named "Aphrodite en kepois" (Aphrodite in the gardens).

    https://www.theoi.com/Cult/AphroditeCult.html

    This page seems to imply there was a shrine of Aphrodite kepois in or near the Kerameikos district of ancient Athens. Where was the Garden of Epicurus? In the Kerameikos. Coincidence? Pausanias was writing in the 2nd c. CE.


    I realize this is a bit of a tangent so I apologize for that. To get back on track, here's my take on the characteristics of the sage as it pertains to this topic:

    Epicurean Sage - Sexual Relationships
    I have tried to use the most literal translations of the Greek words here for more impact. Some translations use "marriage" or "fall in love" for words in the…
    sites.google.com


    PS: Having looked at that Pausanias excerpt closer, maybe I spoke too soon. Here are the two sections in Pausanias where he talks about Aphrodite in the gardens:

    Pausanias, Description of Greece, Attica, chapter 27


    Pausanias, Description of Greece, Attica, chapter 19

  • Thank you Don for sharing your "Epicurean Sage" translations...very helpful to read.


    So...we could do an intellectual assessment of the historical context of male/female (or even male/male) relationships back in Epicurus' time...because it's quite fascinating how different things were, for people in ancient Greece and ancient Rome.


    But for now maybe let's stay with love and romance in modern times...


    Here is an interesting song by a band called "Sweet" that I came across just last year (this song was shortly before my generation of music)...I am focusing specifically on the chorus (and not on the verses).


    External Content m.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    "Love is like oxygen,

    You get too much,

    You get too high,

    Not enough,

    And your gonna die."


    So thinking about just these words...this talks about a human need. And also the need for having the best amount of love. But there is "sexual love" and "non-sexual love"...romance or friendship...and in modern times we can sometimes have a mix of both (a very rare thing in the form of a "situationship"). And certainly for married couples the best hoped for situation is a mix of romance and friendship.


    Since we are talking about Valentine's Day, I am excluding from this discussion "family love" which would be a type of friendship, such as between sibblings, or adult parents being friends with adult children. I am also excluding the "non-sexual" -- "love-as-a-duty"...when there is a mix of the feeling of duty and caring...the feeling of caring but not necessarily loving. (Yet there could be a mix of caring and loving).


    The word "love" itself becomes very complicated because of all it's forms.


    Also it is important to exclude "love as infatuation" since this is based on the imagination and is not based on reality...except...wait a minute :/ ...isn't this what Valentine's Day is all about??? And so many millions of modern love songs, are all describing the "love as infatuation" kind of romantic love. Is this "passionate love" the very thing of human sexual reproduction...we must submit to this inaccurate mixed up state of mind in order to procreate? Perhaps this is how it is for us now, but back in Epicurus' time marriage was not for love and romance, but only for having children.


    Now popping back into thinking about the original Epicurean Garden...was there an emphasis on friendship as a substitute for "romantic" entanglements? Was there an emphasis on friendship based on the study of philosophy? Were there rules against the kind of romantic entanglements that might have been going on back then...romantic relationships with courtesans and also paiderastia (yikes! way too complicated for me).


    So maybe we better bring it back to modern times...would a modern Epicurean think: if you are married, then that's fine...stay married (if your marriage is working out fine) and if you are single, then stay single because you will find more "love" (of the friendship variety) amongst a group of friends than by going off with one person.


    But then this does bring up the question of friendship. As in modern times we can have very deep friendships, or just very shallow superficial friendships.


    Does anyone know if Philodemus wrote anything on friendships?


    Would love to hear comments on anything I have written here :)

  • At some point we need to bring in the specific text material from Lucretius. Also, in terms of marriage in Epicurus' own context, we need to be sure we keep grounded in Epicurus' will, in which he provided for the marriage of Metrodorus' daughter.


    As for "Sweet" being before your generation, that's one of the burdens of being old like I am. I remember very clearly that song playing on the radio when it first came out!

  • The word "love" itself becomes very complicated because of all it's forms.

    Couldn't agree more on that. I always come back to the ability of English to say each of the following:

    I love ice cream.

    I love my spouse.

    I love my children.

    I love my grandma.

    I love my friends.

    I love reading.

    etc.


    An abundance of nuance is packed into that one four-letter word "love." It does a lot of heavy lifting in our language!

  • in terms of marriage in Epicurus' own context, we need to be sure we keep grounded in Epicurus' will, in which he provided for the marriage of Metrodorus' daughter.

    That is not a lot to go on. To expand the view to the earliest Epicureans, I submit this excerpt from Metrodorus's Wikipedia entry (emphasis added):

    Quote

    Metrodorus died in 278/7 BC, in the 53rd year of his age, seven years before Epicurus, who would have appointed him his successor had he survived him. He left behind him a son named Epicurus, and a daughter, whom Epicurus, in his will, entrusted to the guardianship of Amynomachus and Timocrates of Potamus, to be brought up under the joint care of themselves and Hermarchus, and provided for out of the property which he left behind him. In a letter also which he wrote upon his death-bed, Epicurus commended the children to the care of Idomeneus, who had married Batis, the sister of Metrodorus. The 20th of each month was kept by the disciples of Epicurus as a festive day in honour of their master and Metrodorus. Leontion is spoken of as the wife or mistress of Metrodorus.

  • in terms of marriage in Epicurus' own context, we need to be sure we keep grounded in Epicurus' will, in which he provided for the marriage of Metrodorus' daughter.

    That in itself doesn't prove any position on marriage. It was just the prudent and compassionate thing to do, because back then all respectable women were married...all unmarried women would have been either a courtesan or a prostitute. But for men, they could live unmarried and not be stigmatized.


    It seems that the only way to solve this puzzle for modern times, is to use a hedonic calculus. But then how do you determine the outcome with regard to pleasure and pain? This simply could be a subjective feeling, so some people might decide that marriage results in too much pain and so will not get married...or if divorced they will not seek to get re-married. But the problem is that you sometimes can't predict the outcome. And then this: is it worth experiencing an extreme amount of emotional pain so that you can enjoy some brief times of emotional (and physical) pleasure?

  • Just found this in Academia. Just read the first few paragraphs,

    Reading further, the author of that article concludes that the traditional translation is the right one:

    Quote

    Until very weighty evidence is brought forward to the contrary, it seems to me that we should feel confident that the traditional translation is the right one: sex is never beneficial, and you are lucky if it doesn't actually harm you-by implica- tion, it usually does. The sentence does not say "sex is desirable"; the syntax does not connect those two words. As to Cicero's translation, I reluctantly conclude that he, like Purinton, simply got it wrong.

  • I'll need to read that closer then! Thanks for that! You were quicker than I was.

    I will say that I'm always a little skeptical of phrases like:

    " As to Cicero's translation, I reluctantly conclude that he, like Purinton, simply got it wrong."

    Purinton is modern, but Cicero was much closer to the source material than we are. He even knew practicing Epicureans! I'm not so sure his translation should be summarily dismissed as "simply getting it wrong."

  • Examining the meaning of: "Sex is never beneficial, and you are lucky if it doesn't actually harm you."


    From a modern understanding...what kind of "harm" are we talking about now, in our times?


    Without birth control and condom use, sex can lead to pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases - so if you want to avoid those harms you must be scrupulous in your birth control and STD protection methods.


    And also more importantly, from sex, some emotional consequences will be felt...which can become complicated if you are not in a committed relationship. (Casual sex will result in it's own type of emotional consequences, but since we are talking about Valentine's Day and "romance" and "love", I will exclude discussing modern casual sex, which is only practiced by a very small percentage of the population anyway).


    I would say that the emotional consequences of sex within a committed relationship are "addiction" and a drive to protect what you have...so "attachment"...which can lead to fear of losing what you love, and jealousy. And then you are in a very precarious place within yourself...you are less free...but these are just some ideas, haven't thought this through very much yet. It is possible that in the right situation, you will not end up with the negative emotions of over-attachment, but you can only prevent this if both people in the relationship are very emotionally mature and grounded.


    So most people choose to have children and also do so within the legal protections of marriage. And modern marriage is a big subject, which I think would be better discussed by someone who is both married and happily married.

  • ^^ :S 8)


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • It seems that the only way to solve this puzzle for modern times, is to use a hedonic calculus. But then how do you determine the outcome with regard to pleasure and pain? This simply could be a subjective feeling, so some people might decide that marriage results in too much pain and so will not get married...or if divorced they will not seek to get re-married. But the problem is that you sometimes can't predict the outcome. And then this: is it worth experiencing an extreme amount of emotional pain so that you can enjoy some brief times of emotional (and physical) pleasure?

    This is the reasoning I would use to come to a conclusion as to what Epicurus would most likely have endorsed at the end of his life (meaning in his most mature teaching). The way to solve this puzzle or any other puzzle is the hedonic calculus.

    Every question is decided by VS71. "Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?"


    Is the topic sex, or is it "romantic love," or is it marriage, or is "having children," or something else? It's easy to stray away from a precise question and to think that the answer to one might be the answer to the other.


    A lot of the advice in Lucretius is geared toward the issue of "romanticizing" one's love interest (likely viewed as a form of intoxication) and how to sober yourself up. I won't quote all that here, but everyone needs to review the full statement by Lucretius starting at around line 1060 (here is the link to it in Bailey).


    It would seem to me that Epicurus would say that while intoxication itself can have significant pleasure, what happens afterward is frequently more painful than pleasurable, so you had better be extremely cautious about being intoxicated.


    Is that a flat ban against marriage, or children, or sex, or romance? I would say "clearly not." Is it a statement that these activities are some of the riskiest in life where the benefit/detriment ration can frequently go out of control and veer toward a very negative result? I would say again the answer is clear - "yes."


    But just as firmly as I would say that it is a very un-Epicurean generalization that Epicurus taught us to avoid pain at all costs, and thereby live an ascetic live, I don't think he would have taught to adopt the general rule of avoiding romantic love, sex, marriage, and children.


    And viewed from that perspective, like everything else in life, I think he would have said to be extremely careful handling dynamite (for example), but that if you are confident you can handle the dynamite to blast open new roads, build damns, and do things that you are confident will make your life better than otherwise, then it would certainly prudent for you to do so.

  • Here is the conclusion of the BRENNAN article which I will also attach here (sorry that this clip does not pick up the greek, so I will post a picture too):





    In conclusion on this article, even though it is closer to my view, I think that it goes to far to say in English that Epicurus was likely to have been "on record as advising, in general, against marriage and childrearing."


    I think the most likely-to-be-accurate statement would be that Epicurus was: ""on record as advising, in general, about the risks and dangers of marriage and childrearing."


    The final statement, that "nothing in the structure of Epicurean hedonism could justify the blanket prohibition," is almost surely correct, since I think you could go further and say that ""nothing in the structure of Epicurean hedonism could justify the blanket prohibition" of any pleasure, because the proper formulation would be that on the other hand we do not choose every pleasure, because some actions can be expected to bring more pain than pleasure.

  • As far as kids go. It’s definitely a personal choice that has to be right for the person. I’ve met many who don’t have kids either by choice or by nature and they are perfectly happy in their lives. I’ve met plenty of happy people with kids, but also unhappy people. For me, having my daughters has been a paradigm shifting life changer. My happiness and pleasure is now tied to them. When I was single and without children, I would pursue my individual pleasure particularly in the “dating” world above most other pleasures, but now nature has put me in charge of these little ones. I’m only as “happy” as my saddest kid. So I’m tied to them.


    Co-parenting and “romance” are pretty far apart on the Venn diagram in general. They can join up, but in general the roles change entirely once the wee ones appear.

  • And I think there Matt you are introducing the very difficult but very important issue of cultural and gender rules and norms that vary greatly over time. I don't need to be more specific than to note that there is fierce disagreement over whether there is a single correct attitude toward these topics -- whether our current societal norms in 2022 in the West are better or worse than those of 200 BC Athens. We can debate those issues "til kingdom come" and never arrive at a consensus solution.


    But the point is that Epicurus was very clear that we should challenge and not accept on authority whether cultural norms are to be accepted by us individually or not. All of us are influenced by prevailing norms, and also we are aware of historical differences, and the possibility that things may change in the future. The reality for us is that we only have one life to live, and we have to make choices in the present as to what will lead to more or less pleasure and pain.


    I think if Epicurus were here today he would probably say the same thing now as then: that giving in to cultural norms without examining them and deciding whether we will ultimately be happy that we chose to follow them or not is a very im-prudent method of proceeding.

  • I think if Epicurus were here today he would probably say

    These kind of statements always make me a little uneasy. The only speaking Epicurus is doing today is through his extant writings. I realize we need to interpret what we have, but I'd just advise treading carefully when putting words in Epicurus's mouth.

    I'm not saying I necessarily disagree, but just adding that caveat.