Pros and Cons Of Considering Epicurean Philosophy To Be A "Religion"

Quote from Letter to Menoikeus

First, believe that the god is a blessed and imperishable thing (τὸν θεὸν ζῷον) as is the common, general understanding of the god. You, Menoikeus, believe everything about which a god is able to preserve its own imperishability and blessedness for itself. Do not attribute anything foreign to its incorruptibility or incongruous with the blessedness of the god! Gods exist, and the knowledge of them is manifest to the mind's eye.

τὸν θεὸν ζῷον "the god (is a) blessed and imperishable ζῷον. But what is a ζῷον?

First, note the singular "god." Not gods. This use of the singular - a god, the god - in the Menoikeus letter has led Long and Sedley offer that each individual creates their own god, their own image of the divine. I am still firmly rooted in this conceptual camp of the gods rather than imaging inter-cosmic beings hanging out somewhere in the universe. One reason: By definition, if they are inter-cosmic - literally between world-systems - there is nowhere for them to live! A cosmos is a world-system - ours has Earth at the center surrounded by the orb of the heavenly stars and wandering planets. There is no world in the metakosmos/intermundia - it is literally "between" worlds... No planet, no stars, no world.

But the word ζῷον (zoon) could very well be a clever use of an ordinary word by Epicurus.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ζῷον

Yes, it "typically" means living being, animal. It's where we get zoology from.

BUT... it also can mean "in art, figure, image, not necessarily of animals."

And that second definition is NOT a later application that Epicurus didn't know. Here are some examples from Herodotus (c.484–c.425 BCE, from LSJ; Epicurus lived 341–270 BCE) and others:

The Histories, 3.88: First he made and set up a carved stone, upon which was cut the figure of a horseman ( πρῶτον μέν νυν τύπον ποιησάμενος λίθινον ἔστησε: ζῷον δέ οἱ ἐνῆν ἀνὴρ ἱππεύς)

The Histories, 1.203: Here, it is said, are trees growing leaves that men crush and mix with water and use for painting figures on their clothing; these figures (ζῷα) cannot be washed out, but last as long as the wool, as if they had been woven into it from the first.

The Histories, 2.4: it was they (Egyptians) who first assigned to the several gods their altars and images and temples, and first carved figures (ζῷα) on stone.

The Histories, 2.124: [4] (for the road is nearly a mile long and twenty yards wide, and elevated at its highest to a height of sixteen yards, and it is all of stone polished and carved with figures (ζῴων))

The Histories, 2.148: Near the corner where the labyrinth ends stands a pyramid two hundred and forty feet high, on which great figures (ζῷα μεγάλα ) are cut.

The Histories, 4.88: Mandrocles took the first-fruits of these and had a picture (ζῷα) made with them, showing the whole bridge of the Bosporus

Plato, Republic, 515a: [515a] and shapes of animals (ζῷα) as well, wrought in stone and wood and every material..

Plutarch, Pericles, 13: And yet they say that once on a time when Agatharchus the painter (ζώγραφος "one who paints from life") was boasting loudly of the speed and ease with which he made his figures (ζῷα), Zeuxis heard him, and said, ‘Mine take, and last, a long time.’

So, why am I belaboring this point? I find these instances of ζῷα interesting precisely because of the letter to Menoikeus saying in 123 " πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη." Usually translated as "First, believe that god is a blissful, immortal being, as is commonly held. (Saint-Andre); the literal meaning of this line is something like: "Fundamentally/first, know that the god is incorruptible and blessed, as common knowledge of the god is ὑπεγράφη."

ὑπεγράφη "has been outlined, traced"
Epicurus is using the image of outlining or tracing an image to be filled in by another. Consider this like the image of letters indicated by a teacher by an outline or tracing for the student to then follow. So the idea that the gods are imperishable and blessed is, basically, how the gods are commonly understood to be -- that is the general indication of the nature of the gods.
Herodotus and the other citations above all have to do with etching on stone or outlining on fabric. That similarity with the common knowledge of the god being outlined or traced is too enticing not to explore the implications of for me.

Quote from Don

By definition, if they are inter-cosmic - literally between world-systems - there is nowhere for them to live! A cosmos is a world-system - ours has Earth at the center surrounded by the orb of the heavenly stars and wandering planets. There is no world in the metakosmos/intermundia - it is literally "between" worlds... No planet, no stars, no world.

I certainly agree that the world, in Epicurean terms, is analogous to the modern idea of the "visible universe."

Would you agree that, although there is a finite about of matter and space in world-systems, there is an infinite amount of matter and space outside of (ie between) world-systems?

Quote from Bryan

Would you agree that, although there is a finite about of matter and space in world-systems, there is an infinite amount of matter and space outside of (ie between) world-systems?

Yep. I'd agree with that. There are other cosmoi out beyond our world-system taking up some of that infinite matter, then probably some matter floating around between world-systems.

But, by definition, the intermundia/metakosmos doesn't have a world. If it did, it would be a cosmos/mundus.

Quote from Don

Yep. I'd agree with that. There are other cosmoi out beyond our world-system taking up some of that infinite matter, then probably some matter floating around between world-systems.

I have to add that I do NOT think this is the way the universe is actually structured: with worlds enclosed in shells of stars in the firmament, with other shelled-world-systems elsewhere in an infinite universe.

It makes sense to me that we live in an infinite universe (bounded or unbounded remains to be seen) but I do NOT think we live inside nested spheres like the ancient Greeks.

Do we have the shell idea in the Epicurean texts? Certainly the Stoics do think that— their world-system is singular, finite and bounded. But with Epicurus we have air flows, pressure, gravity (of a sort), infinite world-systems and infinite unbounded space.

The shells were the predominate picture of the cosmos. If I remember, it's how Lucretius describes the cosmos/mundus.

Quote from Cassius

I don't know that I have any significant additional thoughts to add to comments such as those of Tau Phi that he doesn't find Epicurean theology valuable

I started my previous post with a disclaimer to avoid exactly such misunderstandings. I do find Epicurean theology valuable and very much worth studying. I don't question its importance and I don't pretend it's not an integral part of the whole system. I study Epicurean gods as closely as any other area of the philosophy because I want to understand it the best I can.

I do question attempts to incorporate gods in our lives at all cost because it was an Epicurean thing to do two thousand years ago. Philosophy should make it easier for us to live our lives in a way our lives are worth living. It should not be a game of who can be the most Epicurean of us all.

I'm not trying to be a contrarian for the sake of it but no matter how hard I try I keep seeing problems with these:

Quote from Cassius

1 - As inoculation against the idea that humans are alone in the universe, and that we therefore occupy some kind of special and supernatural focus of existence. For most ordinary people who think that we are alone in the universe, that's a prescription for a slippery slide toward all sorts of mysticism.

How come existence of gods in intermundia, outside of our universe and outside of our reach, can be an indication that we are or we are not alone in the universe? For me, introducing gods to our lives, even for the sake of emulation or as weapon against anthropocentrism, is a prescription for, and not against, mysticism.

Quote from Cassius

2 - As important for understanding that while "pleasure is pleasure" from a conceptual point of view, there are important questions to be answered as to which pleasures to pursue in life. Contemplation of the nature of a truly blessed existence - one which even though "godlike" must act to sustain itself - is similar to Epicurus' views of reverence for men wiser than ourselves. It's an important aspect of our own drive to use our lives in the most pleasurable way, and not to settle for less than what we are capable of obtaining.

How can anyone contemplate the nature of a truly blessed existence if no one knows what a truly blessed existence is? Again, it's an exercise in futility. It's nothing more than: I want a truly blessed existence to be like x and y because I feel good making x and y a truly blessed existence. Gods are not needed for us to establish how to live our lives. We can do it with experience and course correction. I also don't see similarities between gods and wise men. Wise men lived their lives. They have something valuable to teach us because they are human and we can learn from their solutions to their problems as we face similar problems. With Epicurean gods we have nothing to relate to. They live in alien worlds, live alien lives, have alien values and alien experiences.

Quote from Cassius

1 - As inoculation against the idea that humans are alone in the universe, and that we therefore occupy some kind of special and supernatural focus of existence.

My take is that Epicurean philosophy posits other world-systems, and that's where the "humans are not alone in the universe" would come from.

Quote from Cassius

a slippery slide toward all sorts of mysticism

The slippery slide to mysticism and belief in the supernatural comes from a willingness to see the universe as not completely material or natural with no need of something "above nature" i.e., super-natural. The thinking of "This can't be all there is" is the beginning of the slippery slope.

Quote from Cassius

Contemplation of the nature of a truly blessed existence - one which even though "godlike" must act to sustain itself - is similar to Epicurus' views of reverence for men wiser than ourselves. It's an important aspect of our own drive to use our lives in the most pleasurable way, and not to settle for less than what we are capable of obtaining.

Again, I don't see the god as "acting to sustain itself." The god's existence should be effortless and pain free. Attributing effort to the god robs them of their

Letter to Menoikeus: "You, Menoikeus, believe everything about which a god is able (δυνάμενον) to preserve (φυλάττειν) its own imperishability and blessedness for itself. Do not attribute anything foreign to its incorruptibility or incongruous with the blessedness of the god!"
φυλάττειν (phylattein) "to guard, maintain, preserve, etc." or "to beware of, be on one's guard against, avoid a thing or person"
δυνάμενον (dynamenon) "being able, capable, strong enough to do, can; have the power to"

I take that φυλάττειν as implying that the god avoids anything that would change their incorruptible or blessed nature. The god avoids anything that would go against its nature.

Quote from TauPhi

How can anyone contemplate the nature of a truly blessed existence if no one knows what a truly blessed existence is? Again, it's an exercise in futility. It's nothing more than: I want a truly blessed existence to be like x and y because I feel good making x and y a truly blessed existence. Gods are not needed for us to establish how to live our lives. We can do it with experience and course correction.

This is exactly why I see Sedley's position on the god/divine so interesting. I think it's relatively easy to contemplate "a truly blessed existence" and that Epicurus spells it out: A mind free from trouble and an ease of use of the body without any effort or pain. That's it. From my understanding, that conception of "what could be" is the exact nature of blessedness, of being "makarion." Mortals can never achieve it completely, but we can contend with Zeus if we make the effort to remember what we *can* achieve in this fragile, mortal life. I would completely agree that "we can do it with experience and course correction" as we go about living our lives. The idea of a god floating in the intermundia with no world for it to stand on like some preserved specimen floating in a jar of formaldehyde holds no fascination for me. What does is the idea that I - a mortal human being - can imagine, can have a thought experiment about *my* idea of a blessed life - my "godlike" existence - and work toward that via "experience and course correction" and making choices based on those lived experiences and thinking about consequences.

Quote from Don

The shells were the predominate picture of the cosmos. If I remember, it's how Lucretius describes the cosmos/mundus.

Instead of just asserting that, let me give some Lucretian citations with commentary:

1.205: he (Epiurus) fared afar, beyond The flaming ramparts of the world (flammantia moenia mundi), until He wandered the unmeasurable All. To me the "flaming ramparts of the world" are exactly the outer shell of our cosmos/world-system described by other philosophers of the time. The outer shell - the outer wall/ramparts - are on fire. That's what makes the stars shine. 2:1144 also uses the "ramparts/walls of the world" moenia mundi

1.951 (the spear story):

On the nature of things : Lucretius Carus, Titus : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book digitized by Google from the library of Harvard University and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.

archive.org

When Lucretius talks about throwing a spear into the void, he's talking about the universie as a Whole, not just the cosmos. The ALL goes on forever to infinity. Our cosmos is bounded. The spear would just keep going into the infinite universe.

I also find it interesting in relation to what's lost in translation sometimes. Lucretius uses both mundus and terra and these are both translated "world" but it seems to me that mundus = cosmos and terra = Earth/our planet within the mundus. Gotta dig into the Latin to see what's really being said.

Again, let me emphasize, I DO NOT believe or think or feel it necessary to think this is the way the universe IS. This idea of the nested cosmos is the ancient's best guess as to how the ALL is built. Now, if you want to go down the rabbit hole of the multiverse/many worlds (multi-ALL? multi-cosmoi?) theory of cosmology, that's probably a discussion for another thread. I do NOT think that Epicurus had some sort of idea or preconception or premonition of modern theoretical physics and its idea of the many-worlds theory. As much as we'd like to imagine Epicurus coming up with that 2,300 years ago, I think that's a bridge too far... even if it is amusing to think about it.

Quote from Cassius

And I would say that "avoids" = "acting to avoid" and acting is what they have to do to maintain their deathlessness.

Okay, I guess I'll have to give you the "action" inherent in the verb. Most every verb implies action. My contention then would be effortless action, like muscle memory or some other almost automatic action, like a well-trained practitioner of aikido or ballet but without the years of training required. That's my idea of aponia, by the way. And this is all IF we're talking about some anthropomorphic deity floating in space, which I'm not prepared to embrace wholeheartedly. Just sayin'.

Quote from Cassius

I'd say quite likely that's why we see the discussions of the gods having quasi-bodies, and speaking Greek, etc.

I'd agree with that. It's an attempt to make sense of it all IF we're looking for floating divine physical beings between world-systems.

I agree that what you guys and DeWitt say about ancient Epicurean theology is accurate though I think there are missing elements to the puzzle. What might Epicurus have answered if he was asked what natural law necessitates the existence of the gods? Why couldn't the atomic universe simply do without them? Why couldn't they be fully mortal regardless of what the masses think? What would he have answered to Cicero's reasonable reservations about the logical coherence of a strictly atomic view of immortal gods? I am sure that there are some fine details about the system contained in his lost works that we simply don't know of.

At any rate nobody can doubt that Epicurean theology was supposed to function as a medicine against harmful notions regarding the supernatural. The ancient Epicurean conception of the gods worked well as a remedy but only in the context of the ancient polytheistic society it was developed for. Outside this context the medicine can't be expected to take effect. Just as we don't expect anyone to believe in Loki and Zeus today (and the few eccentrics claiming to do so are in reality engaging in what amounts to little more than a form of ancestor worship) it is equally difficult to make people believe in the Epicurean gods.

Atomism continues to remain relevant and essential to Epicurean dogma. The eternity of the world remains relevant and essential too. But the ancient Epicurean conception of the gods is in my view outdated because it cannot play a viable medicinal role in today's environment.

So I think we need to work out a new theological medicine specifically designed for an era in which the most popular harmful notions regarding the universe are based on monotheism or on nihilism. A profitable solution would be to adapt the most crucial aspects of Epicurean theology to a single God only. The result would be a sort of deism but somewhat different from the enlightenment-era deism of the American founding fathers.

Another innovation that future Epicureans will need down the line is a specifically Epicurean place of worship. Ancient Epicureans were able to worship the gods in the same spaces as everyone else. But we modern Epicureans cannot do the same in churches/mosques/synagogues because modern religions lack the civic and folkloric character that pagan religions had which made them tolerable to Epicureans. Today we're dealing with religions that may be seen as fully-fledged rival philosophical systems and for this reason it is impossible to share quarters with them.

Quote from Peter Konstans

1. What might Epicurus have answered if he was asked what natural law necessitates the existence of the gods?
2. Why couldn't the atomic universe simply do without them?
3. Why couldn't they be fully mortal regardless of what the masses think?

1. There is no necessity. The universe does not depend on the existence of the gods. Epicurus posits that all peoples appear to have a conception of gods, and therefore gods appear to have some kind of existence. "Gods exist/There are gods" θεοὶ εἰσιν is a pretty basic statement with no flourishes. How they exist appears to have filled volumes.

2. The universe could exist without them. They serve no creative nor sustaining function for the universe.

3. The "common" knowledge of a god is that it is not mortal. Per Epicurus's definition (from looking at the common knowledge), gods are exactly that which is blessed and incorruptible. That's it. Those two characteristics define what a god is.

Quote from Peter Konstans

At any rate nobody can doubt that Epicurean theology was supposed to function as a medicine against harmful notions regarding the supernatural. The ancient Epicurean conception of the gods worked well as a remedy but only in the context of the ancient polytheistic society it was developed for. ... So I think we need to work out a new theological medicine specifically designed for an era in which the most popular harmful notions regarding the universe are based on monotheism or on nihilism. A profitable solution would be to adapt the most crucial aspects of Epicurean theology to a single God only. The result would be a sort of deism but somewhat different from the enlightenment-era deism of the American founding fathers.

I fully agree Epicurean theology was meant as a medicine, in fact, it's the first "medication" in the Tetrapharmakos. But I see no disparity in it being applied to polytheism or monotheism. The most important Epicurean theological idea is that we have nothing to fear from divinity, no matter how you conceptualize it. A god neither dishes out punishment nor bestows reward. Otherwise it wouldn't be blessed and incorruptible. From my perspective, that applies equally to Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Ganesh, Yahweh, or any of the other varieties of god humans have come up with.

Quote from Cassius

insomnia

You mean "isonomia", right

"Autocorrect!" (shakes fist at the sky)

At this point, this entire thread has been amusing and theoretically obtuse.

Epicureanism is my religion, and there's not a goddamn thing anyone can do about it.

Quote

What might Epicurus have answered if he was asked what natural law necessitates the existence of the gods? Why couldn't the atomic universe simply do without them?

To my understanding, and I think it's in DeWitt and perhaps Cicero, isonomia is the concept that explains this. Isonomia would also explain why there can't be just one god.

I don't really understand the validity of isonomia, but I think the idea is that in an infinite universe, the opposite of each thing must exist, and in equal number. So if there are a certain number of mortals, there must be an equal number of immortals.

The finer point in this particular example would seem to be that isonomia shouldn't be used to posit something which is outside of the system, meaning it shouldn't be used to introduce the supernatural into a purely natural system. So this begs the question: what is meant by "immortal?"

One might see how monotheists could adapt the idea of isonomia to come up with not only a supernatural being, but also another supernatural being opposed to the first one. God and Satan, for instance.

I freely admit that I find the idea of isonomia somewhat baffling, particularly as to its validity. If anyone can clarify it, please do!

Oops, looks like I cross posted....