An Article on Epicurean Views of Marriage From An Interesting Source Website.

  • I post this link not so much for the article itself, which I have not read, but due to the website at which it appears, which is not something I have seen before. This was posted in the EP Facebook group and may or may not be useful if you are looking for other research papers. Caveat emptor.

    ALSO ANOTHER WARNING: As the thread has proceeded most of the comments about this article are negative. We do keep adverse articles up sometimes as a means of knowing what to react against, so I won't remove this at least at this point, but do be sure not to take it as unquestioned Epicurean material. Many academic articles are hostile to Epicurus and this one may be too.

    Sci-Hub: removing barriers in the way of science

  • Well I intend to comment for the sake of the article. It was an interesting read, and within the past few months, and perhaps to no surprise to some from the podcast. Love and I have had a reconsideration. To be brief, I think it possible for an Epicurean to engage in romance and romantic love, provided under pliant usage of prudency and the predominance of pleasure over pain, especially over a long term.

    At some point relationships may or may not, and for better or worse become stale, and if they do then at this point the perilous and painful emotions and desires have been dulled, and the possibility of an easy breakup is on the table. If not, then a renewal of vows or casual equivalent only heightens the pleasurable aspects of the relationship that brought pleasure to begin with.

    If one is love-sick then we need only to refer to PD4.

    Pain does not last continuously in the flesh, but the acutest pain is there for a very short time, and even that which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not continue for many days at once. But chronic illnesses permit a predominance of pleasure over pain in the flesh.

    “If the joys found in nature are crimes, then man’s pleasure and happiness is to be criminal.”

  • I just read the first few pages and must say: THIS IS INCORRECT for a number of reasons:

    A modern marriage won't last if it is just based on sex. The article doesn't define the word "love" and in the way it is used it appears to mean "naive lust". It doesn't take into consideration that people marry for companionship. After the sex drive inevitably cools down a bit, then hopefully you have found yourself someone who is a "partner in fun", meaning someone with whom you can enjoy fun things and the simple pleasures of life together. Unfortunately the modern world is so individualized and compartmentalized that only the extremely extroverted people can manage to live happily without being married (because their extroverted nature helps them have a wide range of friends so that they are never lonely). So marriage for introverted quiet people is important for the simple sake of friendship.

  • Yes, a warning, and perhaps remove it altogether, because it appears to suggest a selfish and immature stance in regard to romantic relationships.

  • I haven't read the article (and in light of Kalosyni 's review may skip it).

    This does bring up the thought for me that marriage was a completely different institution in ancient Greece than today. And I do NOT advocate any kind of return to that btw.

    It also brings up the topic of friendship. Friends were absolutely necessary in ancient world too. There was no "social safety net." Unless you were independently wealthy (which it appears Epicurus and others were) you were out of luck if you got sick or just got old. You relied on your friends to help you.

    Now, we hope to have marriages between friends for companionship, mutual support, etc.

    We also have professionals in elder care, hospitals, hospices, etc. That doesn't mean we don't need a social support system!

    So, the need for friends fills a slightly different niche than it did 2,000 years ago.