New Article on the Inscription (And the "Bitter Gift" Misattribution)

The author proposes that Epicureanism “propounded the avoidance of all things that would cause pain in life” which contradicts Epicurus’ statement that “sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time […] For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.” The author seems to extrapolate an avoidant, escapist interpretation of Epicurean philosophy.

They gloss over Epicurus’ explicit recognition that “Hēdonē [and not ataraxia] is the Greatest Good” and then interprets Epicureanism as being a mild form of asceticism (like the "Middle Way" of Buddhism, of which I make additional criticism below). Note the incoherence of the author’s following statement: “Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism […] it [is] very different from hedonism”. As usual, the author equates the word “hedonism” with something gross and morally bankrupt, and implies that only a rejection of “true” hedonism can be considered justifiable.

I also find the following proposition dubious: “Today, [the stone inscription at Oinoanda] remains the only ancient philosophical text from the Greek and Roman world to have survived in its original form, according to Archaeology Magazine.” The author later contradicts this assertion when acknowledging that “Deciphered carbonized scrolls obtained from the library at the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum contain a large number of works by Philodemus, a late Hellenistic Epicurean, and even Epicurus himself, attesting to the school’s enduring popularity.”

I do agree, however, with his statement that “The philosophy is often misunderstood.”

The author goes on to propose that “Epicureanism rejects immortality”, which feels right to critical, modern eyes, however, it reduces the nuanced employment of “immortality” in Epicurean philosophy. The animal gods have become indestructible as described by Epicurus. The measurement of daily pleasure is also immortal. Friendship is an immortal good. Indeed, we do not have immortal lives, and we are not born again, however, like “the gods”, the idea of “immortality” is re-fashioned in Epicurean terminology, so the author slightly misses the mark on this point.

I also found another very common, very false comparison between Epicureanism and Buddhism, which, again, I emphasize, are on opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum: “The Epicurean way of life also resembles Buddhism in its temperateness, including the belief that great excess leads to great dissatisfaction.” This always indicates to me that the author does not have a thorough understanding of the nuances of either tradition, and, like many perennialists, chooses to find similarities between their philosophies-of-choice, regardless of their original, historical context.

Overall, the author repeats a number of common misconceptions about the philosophy, while mostly hitting the bullet points. This is a good article to demonstrate some of the widespread misunderstanding of Epicureanism.

Quote from Cassius

That "bitter gift" reference now has me curious. Doesn't seem like something someone would come up with at random, and even the "gift' part doesn't sound really like Epicurus. I wonder if this person has totally transposed this thought from someone else and that "life as a 'bitter gift'" is a core thought of a competing philosopher.

It's also word for word in the Wikipedia article:

Epicureanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By Zeus! "Bitter gift" shows up everywhere!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22bitter+gift%22+Epicureanism+&client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&ei=gEA7Y6-hNLKnptQP3sSCsAg&oq=%22bitter+gift%22+Epicureanism+&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQghEKABMgUIIRCgATIFCCEQoAEyBQghEKsCOgoIABBHENYEELADOgUIABCABDoGCAAQHhAWOggIABAeEA8QFjoHCCEQoAEQCjoHCCEQChCrAkoECEEYAFCgDljwhAFgoo4BaAJwAHgAgAHhAYgB7QySAQUwLjkuMZgBAKABAcgBBcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

Maybe Joshua has some insights, as I see a reference to "bitter gift" from an Ancient Greek tragedy Hippolytus by Euripides ("bitter gift" of Poseidon):

The Greek Plays

books.google.com

I was a bit shocked to see "bitter gift" so widespread across the Internet!

It's just so counterintuitive if one knows anything about Epicurus's philosophy. Life is a precious gift if anything... Although "gift" sets up the idea that there's a giver so that's a bit problematic.

So, there's yet another topic that needs corrected... In addition to all the rest

Quote from Don

By Zeus! "Bitter gift" shows up everywhere!!

Quote from Don

Although "gift" sets up the idea that there's a giver so that's a bit problematic.

I have to say it is not necessarily "everywhere".

I think it may be an attempted smear campaign, because it is on a few Christian websites. But it is very upsetting that it is on the wikipedia website (and this wikipedia is poorly/incorrectly written).

Quote from Kalosyni

Maybe Joshua has some insights, as I see a reference to "bitter gift" from an Ancient Greek tragedy Hippolytus by Euripides ("bitter gift" of Poseidon):

https://books.google.com/books?id=s7wvD…polytus&f=false

Oh, this is fun! That line is also translated:

Hippolytus

Poseidon your father's gifts, what woe they brought!

In Greek:

Ιππόλυτος

ὦ δῶρα πατρὸς σοῦ Ποσειδῶνος πικρά.

That last word of the Greek πικρά "bitter" is the same word that shows up in Democritus's quote about "by convention" we've been discussing elsewhere.

So, ὦ δῶρα πικρά. is literally "the bitter gift."

Quote from Kalosyni

But it is very upsetting that it is on the wikipedia website

Yeah, I'm going to need to go in and take that out of the Wikipedia article with a "citation needed" if someone's going to say "Epicurus called life a "bitter gift."" I've spent some time with the letter to Menoikeus and I can say for certain that that phrase is *not* in there.

Quote from Don

Yeah, I'm going to need to go in and take that out of the Wikipedia article with a "citation needed" if someone's going to say "Epicurus called life a "bitter gift.""

Done. And I've added a note to the article's Talk page that someone's going to need a citation to add it back in.

I see that "bitter gift" referred to on this Jehovah's Witness site:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1997805

"Lacking “the joy of Jehovah,” Epicurus called life a “bitter gift.” (Nehemiah 8:10)"

And then other sites quote the letter to Menoikeus about the pleasures of the profligate. But nowhere does Epicurus call life a *bitter gift*... Nowhere! It's frustrating that it appears so widespread online!!