Epicureanism as the spiritual essence or 'religion' of an entire community

Quote from Peter Konstans

Would you consider authoring an essay or maybe a literary letter for inclusion in future editions?

I added a 3,000-word foreword at the beginning (it's part of the free preview on Amazon and I also included the preview on Academia.edu), but I would definitely like to expand.

Quote from Peter Konstans

I simply suggested that we shouldn't waste resources trying to educate all children because a great deal of them do not have a sufficient inclination towards education...

It's the elite of society that really needs education. It's the statesmen, the public servants, the military officers, the doctors in public hospitals etc. Almost anybody who is paid by the public purse and entrusted with responsibility over other people's lives should possess a superb education and should always be a person that is morally and intellectually outstanding and not someone you could easily meet cheering in a WWE event.

Epicurus welcomed everyone to the Garden to learn his philosophy. If you're advocating "education" only for the "elite of society," we may need to define what it is that each of us mean by the word "education." What you are describing strikes me as something Cicero might advocate, especially when you use references like someone cheering at a WWE event. Epicurus didn't play to the crowd, but he left the door open to *anyone* - regardless of social status - who was curious to enter.

There's also the need for an informed citizenry. That is something that has been neglected and needs to be part of any public educational system. I do agree that teachers are woefully undervalued, overworked, overwhelmed, and underpaid.

Quote from Peter Konstans

The spirit of Epicureanism is of course inclusive. Cicero would want education only for the 'good families'. I want basic education for everyone (although basic doesn't include things like algebra and grammar for me) and I want advanced education for talented people regardless of social background. I don't want a distinction between schools for working class families and schools for rich people. In fact I would prefer to abolish private schools altogether. So I think I have more in common with you in the way I view education than with Cicero.

Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for that clarification. That helps me understand your position a little better.

My follow up question is "What would you include in your 'basic education'?" Epicurus certainly wrote against παιδεία (paideia), the standard form of "education" or (better translated, in my opinion) "enculturation" of his time. I have even translated it "indoctrination" at times, trying to convey his rejection of it. So there may be echoes of that in what you're proposing if I'm understanding your position.

Quote from Peter Konstans

People today have the inclusive right to universal education (or rather obligation since many kids would rather not be in school if they could choose) but you don't have the inclusive right of protection from something as dire as homelessness. I think the second kind of inclusion is more important and more pertinent to people's well-being and pleasure. So we should keep in mind that symbolic inclusion and real inclusion are not the same thing and I am sure most people here understand that well.

Getting into "rights", inclusive or otherwise, is a tricky area. George Carlin's take on "rights" always struck me as near the mark: We don't have "Rights." We have "privileges," because if they can be taken away, they aren't rights. Epicurus's definition of justice - to neither intentionally harm others nor to intentionally be harmed by others - as part of the social contract seems a solid foundation with far -reaching ramifications.

Quote from Peter Konstans

Has anybody ever experimented with the idea of Epicureanism as a formal spiritual identity capable of defining entire communities? What would Epicureanism look like if it wasn't merely a brotherhood of friends discussing philosophy but was also a sort of quasi religious worldview with its own intricate rituals, symbols and ceremonies covering every aspect of life?

Like I talked about at length in another thread, I think if Epicureanism had persisted through late antiquity, it could easily have developed overtly "religious" tendencies rivaling the theurgic neoplatonism of Iamblichus, Emperor Julian, Proclus, etc. This is because Epicurean piety already had certain concepts that anticipated the theurgists: understanding that the gods do not exhibit favor or wrath toward mortals, but that mortals' own attitudes toward them can engender good or bad effects; that the gods are not pleased by sacrifice but that this benefits the worshiper by drawing them closer to the gods; that popular religious rites are in fact appropriate expressions of piety; that only a purified mind can receive accurate impressions from the gods. And while the theurgists' gods, unlike the Epicureans' gods, did actively govern the world, they did so in a detached, effortless way, like the sun shining. If one takes seriously the idea that the Epicurean gods are constantly emitting a stream of subtle images that reach earth, then it could easily be inferred that these images are all-pervasive and that various means can be sought to perceive, channel, or embody them.

Quote from Peter Konstans

Still, it would be possible to imagine Epicureanism as a sort of atheistic 'religion' in the same sense that for example Confucianism or the Church of Satan founded by Anton LaVey may be branded as such.

As an aside, I would argue that, apart from a few exceptions like Xunzi, the Confucian tradition is theistic. I suspect the presentation of Confucianism as an atheistic or secular ethical system has chiefly to do with a) modern proponents wishing to appeal to post-enlightenment westerners; b) Jesuits and other westerners with an interest in presenting the Confucian rites as devoid of objectionable religious content.

Quote from Peter Konstans

What would a 'holy book' of Epicureanism look like and what would it contain other than the letters of Epicurus and the poem of Lucretius?

That's basically what remains to us but we also know that the letters, PD's, etc are all epitomes aimed at beginners and that the full works of Epicurus and his successors were huge, and probably had a lot of subtle and complex material. We are unfortunately left with a stunted tradition. As it is, it demands elaboration and commentary; with elaboration and commentary comes differing interpretations and disagreements.

Quote from Peter Konstans

To what extent can the views and advice of brilliant therapists or educators like John Gottman, Gigi Engle or Dan Buettner be thought of as Epicurean and admitted in some form in the 'scriptures' and literature of Epicureanism? How would an Epicurean society raise and educate its kids? Since school is so horrendously boring, tedious and unpleasant to children (school is also the only place other than prison where people are quite likely to be bullied and tortured) how would an Epicurean society deal with the problem of educating the new generation? Given that modern Western hyper-liberalism presents society and individuals with many obvious problems that are impossible to deny today what laws, customs and istitutions would hypothetical Epicurean lawmakers create to avoid them?

I'm not a doctrinaire Fourierist by any stretch but I do think Fourier was on to something in proposing communities driven by pleasure and free association rather than coercion and hierarchy. I would say school is tedious and unpleasant because our society is tedious and unpleasant.

Quote from Peter Konstans

I think it's fair to think of ancient Epicureans as de facto atheists the way Plutarch thought of them. The acceptance of the existence of the gods whether honestly or pretentiously was useful in a social context where atheism were discriminated against and associated with a significant degree of social exclusion. Today we often use the term 'social exclusion' lightly and synonymously with 'unfairness' and everybody feels brave enough to 'fight' social discrimination in all its forms but in a pre-modern agrarian society social exclusion meant your very survival was at stake. Why would someone not want to participate in the sacrifices and share in the meat? In the early modern era the Catholic Church tended to regard the beliefs of deists as little more than a damage control cover for atheism and they were basically right. Today deism has essentially disappeared because no damage control is necessary.

I've never liked this argument, there is I believe enough in the surviving texts to suggest that this was not the case. And my personal stance on atheism has always been that the Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and thus prefer an agnostic approach until proven otherwise. Thus I tend to see Atheism as unnecessarily nihilistic. Which I feel is more in line with the teachings of Epicurus.

Quote from Peter Konstans

How would an Epicurean society raise and educate its kids? Since school is so horrendously boring, tedious and unpleasant to children (school is also the only place other than prison where people are quite likely to be bullied and tortured) how would an Epicurean society deal with the problem of educating the new generation?

I would point out that your talking specifically about post-industrial education, classical and agrarian educational programmes are quite different. And anyone who thinks that bullying is limited to schools and prison hasn't had the opportunity to work in a toxic environment, I have had the great fortune to work in them both literally and figuratively, there not fun but they are educational. So I guess there is a common theme.

Peter, you might find this essay informative: https://www.academia.edu/36564126/The_P…_the_Epicureans

Quote from Peter Konstans

My view is that Epicurus' portrayal of the gods as part of the natural world was an elegant way to answer why the hell the whole of mankind believed and worshipped them. Even today we are not quite sure why people made up religion.

I identify with that perspective.

Hell, for that matter, so did Philodemus:

“...no one has been prolific in finding convincing demonstrations for the existences of the gods; nevertheless all men, with the exception of some madmen worship them, as do we...”

"...οὐδεὶς εἱκνουμένας περὶ τ[οὺ θ]εοὺς ὑπάρχε[ιν τἀς ἀπο]δείξεις εύπ[όρησ]εν· ὁμῶς δε [σέβ]ονται πάντε[ς εἱ μή παρ]άκοποί τινε[ς αὑτούς..." (On Piety, Col. 23, 13-17)

Quote from Peter Konstans

So modern scientists are almost universally atheist

Not quite. To my surprise, it's closer to half-and-half.

For example, nearly 40% of American chemists surveyed "believe in 'God'" according to a 2009 Pew Research poll [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/…e%20this%20view]. In a more recent study, more "than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious" who largely do not see a conflict between religion and science [https://phys.org/news/2015-12-w…scientists.html].

(I'm not making a point, just sharing a discovery)

Quote from Peter Konstans

But then nobody has worked out a generally accepted scientific theory about how and why religion was developed by humans.

A textbook I still have from college called Supernatural as Natural: A Biocultural Approach To Religion (Winkelman and Baker 2010) provides a number of great approaches that are useful to objectively evaluate spiritual experiences and religious behaviors. It suggests that religiosity is rooted in ritualized animal behavior and altered states of consciousness. It then describes the ways that various social roles, norms, and cultural innovations developed from those neurobiological roots.

I think that a piece of ancient Epicurean Theology bears a striking resemblance to modern Anthropology of Religion, which you recognize later in your post:

Quote from Peter Konstans

But Epicurus had to find an answer in alignment with his own views about the nature of the universe (his cosmology), the nature of man (his anthropology)...

Epicurus was in a unique position in a newly-connected world, where ancient Hellenic peoples were being introduced to new forms of spirituality ... and they looked strikingly similar to the tones, attitudes, and topics to existing forms of ancient Greek religion. Likewise, our new world is connected by a network of servers that provide us the tools to compare and contrast everything from the beliefs of aboriginal Australians to Dharma ... I agree, there is a parallel in method.

We're talking about a lot of this theoretically, as though Epicureanism isn't already the "spiritual essence or 'religion' of an entire community". It's happening. It's real. Did anyone miss the invitations?

You may not partake in "Epicureanism" as the "spiritual essence or 'religion' of an entire community" but it's happening. As a sub-culture, it is a sociological and anthropological phenomena that is real and can be addressed its modern, historical context in the English-speaking world (and the French, and Spanish, and Scandanavian, and Italian, and Iranian, from immediate contacts of mine).

I prefer my own. I host my own Garden. I compiled my own Testamentum. We do our own thing, and I float between virtual Gardens. Judge on if judging members of your own team is your thing.

Our tradition should have already sprouted, so let's water it. I'm focusing on cultivation.

For me, the larger issue here is how to precisely define the terms "religion" and "spirituality" so that we can be sure that we're not talking past each other. This is perhaps more of a practical than theoretical issue.

Does spirituality imply a spirit separate from the body? Does it imply a god? Does it relate to one's mental well-being, without any supernatural implications? In the larger populace outside of this forum, it seems to depend on who you're talking to. And we all (I presume) have spent far more of our years outside of this forum than inside, thus we have a variety of preconceptions of what spirituality actually is.

Personally, I would begin to define spirituality as "connectedness" and perhaps (or perhaps leading to) mental well-being. Having written this, I see that "connectedness" may get to the heart of the lack of clarity: connected to what? For me, I would say connected to nature and its grandeur, to community, to family, to an understanding of my place in the cosmos. With the explicit exclusion of any supernatural or mystical realms.

Does this definition make sense to anyone else? Am I missing something major? Does it need fine-tuning?

Quote from Godfrey

Does spirituality imply a spirit separate from the body? Does it imply a god? Does it relate to one's mental well-being, without any supernatural implications?

Of course not. We're Epicureans. Why is this even an issue?

Why are we so uncomfortable with words that Christians have appropriated?

Quote from Nate

Of course not. We're Epicureans. Why is this even an issue?

Relax. If we're trying to settle on a definition, we need to rule out the obvious to begin.

Quote from Nate

Why are we so uncomfortable with words that Christians have appropriated?

That's a good question. In appropriating certain words, Christians, Jews, Muslims, eastern religions/philosophies, new age folks and others who far outnumber us have determined the common usage of the words for the bulk of society. As I stated previously, we all come from varied upbringings, and in these settings were likely indoctrinated with the revised meanings of the appropriated words. So it would seem to be important to define our terms. It shouldn't be difficult, but without doing so we leave the door open for misunderstandings.

Some of us see Epicureanism more as a philosophy, some as more religious in nature – some of us have a foot in both camps (as do I: I tilt toward the philosophical, which seems the safer space for me, but have some affinity for the more religious view). Some of have more missionary interests; some of us are just trying to put the teachings into practice in our own lives as best we are able, given our personal situations – both as individuals and as part of wider communities, family and the like. None of those have to be polar, let alone adversarial, positions (though they can become so.)

There will be disagreements among us – some of them strongly felt, some of them sharply stated. None of us are immune from error (especially me, stubborn though I am); but none of us need shrug off our convictions. Some of us tend (at least sometimes) to learn more from debate than simple study; some less so. Argument among friends can be valuable and valued – among entrenched adversaries, generally useless (and sometimes erstwhile friends become such adversaries, irreparably so).

I have in the past relished such argument. But, as I’ve gotten older (slow learner!), I’ve realized that, more often than not, it has a corrosive effect on both my emotional and physical well-being. So, this year, I told myself I would swear off. Thus far, I have been less than successful at restraining my entrenched tendencies (and reacting unwisely to old indoctrinations). And I appreciate being called out on that, by friends, when I fail. I will try to do better. I will strive to be more pacatus: peaceful – outwardly and inwardly. Simply expressing my thoughts, and listening to others. (Still stubborn, though … )

It seems to me that while Epicurus was willing to repurpose words with mixed definitions, he was not (or could not) have been unaware of the likelihood of confusion. I would think this is where we suffer from the missing of texts and we have to recreate what "must" have been there, which is the means of explaining the differences in the terms.

Given the way that Cicero was framing the dispute in 50BC I admit the possibility that maybe the ancient Epicureans did not pay sufficient attention to this, but I cannot conceive that they were unaware of the need to communicate clearly, given what Epicurus said in the letter to Herodotus and the presumption that Epicurus and the other Epicureans were considerate people and used good common sense.

We are going to need to recreate what "must have" existed to explain these issues.

Quote from Godfrey

Relax.

This is always a welcome reminder.