Toronto Canada Meetup Group (Discussion on Implementation)

Quote from AxA

"the academic world ... has labeled Epicurus as a philosophy for losers, misfits, loners, and recluses."

I would add "*mistakenly* labeled" in there just to be clear to people.

I must have started and not finished an earleir email. Yes the docuwiki link is broken, but most all of the information that was in it is in the thread you saw.

Apologies if I said this already, but I think one of the most important things to do is to "manage expectations." The more clear you are about what Epicurus is about and what you're trying to do with the meetup the better off you are, especially as to cross-currents with such things as Buddhism, Stoicism, and religion - especially religion. Lots of people simply associate Epicurus with happiness, and people can get turned off pretty quickly once they find that Epicurus had strong positions on supernatural religion and life after death. Diplomacy pays off, but a lot of awkwardness can be avoided if you diplomatically make it clear that Epicurus had those positions.

And of course how you handle "politics" is up to you, but i think we've benefited a lot from keeping modern politics away from our philosophical discussions. While religion and life after death have some of the same pitfalls as politics, I think we've drawn the line correctly. Non-supernaturalism and no-life-after deah are so intrinsically bound up in everything Epicurus discussed that you can't really omit them and still be recognizably Epicurean. Day-to-day politics, however, is not very much discussed in the texts at all, so it's much easier to make the point "let's see if we can't be friends and discuss the eternal issues first; you guys can discuss politics at another time and place."

AxA you may want to check out this section of the forum (if you haven't already):

Outlines, Guides, And Maps

For those who come across this thread because of its reference to Meetup groups, there is a discussion going on over at Facebook on this topic where Elli Pensa is also participating.

Epicurean Philosophy | I'm starting an in-person Epicurean philosophy meetup group in Toronto | Facebook

I'm starting an in-person Epicurean philosophy meetup group in Toronto. Welcome all!

www.facebook.com

Right. There's a major difference between this internet forum and a Meetup. I personally see the Meetup platform as much more informal, and you'll necessarily have to be more loose in the way you do things. Depending on your own interests, you can decide how rigorous you want to be to accomplish your own personal goals.

Quote from AxA

Here's my draft brochure for the in-person Eikas this weekend.

Hello, and welcome to the website. Your brochure looks great! Thank you for sharing.

The Tetraphármakos can be a good jumping-off point, but I wanted to point out that Cassius' reservations regarding it seem to be shared by Philodemus -- who, just before he quotes the Tetraphármakos (and this is the only source for it) says:

"...of those who are called Epicureans. While someone known or even described in detail by us, who also claims to be 'the authentic reader' on select writings and on a multitude of compositions – even if he performs poorly, he has selected many passages, but in individual thoughts he is the most inexperienced! In fact, for what he must do, he looks only at the main points – just like [someone] whom they say is 'a helmsman [navigating] from the book.'"

(Philódēmos, [Ad Contubernales], P.Herc. 1005, col. 3/4)

Congratulations!! That looks like a great success! Thanks for the debrief of the event. That really sounds like an inspiration for others. Well done! Keep us updated on future meetings.

Yes it sounds like you handled everything beautifully. i will split this off into a thread where it will be easier to find for people looking for this topic in the future.

As to these, here are some personal comments. Not everyone will respond the same, and everyone has to do what they think is right with their own local group. With that caveat, here are some thoughts as to "some of the objections that came up:"

Quote

- Pain as a source of meaning vs boring bland state of continuous pleasure (I did not even get into the whole "pleasure as absence of pain" definitional issue, and this came up at the end and was never really addressed)

Yes, this is why it is necessary ultimately to get into this issue of what "pleasure" really is, and how it encompasses everything we find desirable in life, mentally and physically. There is literally no activity that anyone will find desirable for them to pursue that is not to them pleasure, and there is absolutely no reason for them not to be willing to pursue whatever activities that bring them pleasure, so long as they in fact bring them more pleasure than pain. It is a killer problem to be boxed into pleasure as being ONLY sipping win and eating cheese, and I would avoid that like the plague by taking it head on. Epicureans like Cassius Longinus and his friends certainly did not live that way, nor did those who engaged in spreading the philosophy through writing, and you can cite the examples given by Torquatus in On Ends Book One as to his ancestors who were military leaders being totally reconcilable to Epicurean philosophy.

Pain is not meaning in itself, it's just pain, and Epicureans are fully willing to embrace pain when the result is more pleasure (desirable living) than pain.

There is much that can and should be done to develop this point, and I would push back hard at it any time it raises its head. And it will raise its head, regularly, anytime a group gets started or new people come in, because this attitude is entrenched in the Stoicized view of Epicurus that has prevailed in the academic world for many years. Modern histories and commentaries on Epicurus are mostly written by people who disagree with large aspects of the philosophy, and who want to pick bits and pieces of it just to pursue their own agendas (primarily based on virtue-based ethics). Everyone is going to want to deal with this issues in their own way, but this is the reason for the part of our website which states that it is devoted to "Classical Epicurean Philosophy" and not "neo-Epicureanism"

About Us: Classical Epicurean Philosophy Unadulterated by Humanism, Platonism, Stoicism, Buddhism, or Other Eclecticism

Quote

- The necessity of dealing with violent external enemies raised on hate who will be "harder" than you chill garden people (I had to reassure this guy I'm not a pacifist, but it remains an issue how much to compromise in the name of defence)

Again this objection would be a killer if true, but there is no reason to accept it. THere is every reason to believe that Epicurus and his friends complied with their military service. No one ever accused them of refusing to serve when their time came, and you can be sure that would have been charged had it happened. As in the first answer, you can cite Torquatus, Cassius Longinus, and even Julius Caesar himself as people who were either explicit or implicit Epicureans. "Passivism" as a goal makes no more sense than "virtue," as a goal. Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes a terrible idea. "Turning the other cheek" is Christianity, not Epicureanism.

Quote

- The value of spiritual beliefs and practices in comforting the afflicted (one participant gave an impassioned speech about the beauty of Aphrodite's grief over the death of Adonis and how oppressed women could find comfort in this. I had no response)

At a deep level you have to come to terms with whether a person is so afraid of pain that they want to adopt fantasy answers, or whether they want the truth. Not everyone wants the truth and those who don't are not going to be at home with Epicurean philosophy. Epicurus appeals mostly to those who see life as intrinsically pleasurable, rather than intrinsically suffering (such as Buddhism or the like) or those who would have preferred never to have been born, or who are in revolt against nature because they themselves think they are superior to nature. You could go on and on with this answer but this is a part of the reason that Epicurus advised not giving in to "the crowd" and to their false beliefs, and Diogenes of Oinoanda pointed out how the crowd catches the disease of false beliefs like sheep. You do your best to help everyone who wants to be helped, but there are lots who don't and you can't let them hold you and your friends back from living happily yourselves.

Quote

- A sense that this philosophy is "for individuals" (or friend groups) and is somehow disconnected from wider politics, something that only the privileged can do, and that does not address world issues (my usual response to this is instead of trying to influence how people vote, which is "downstream" of their beliefs and values, I see more potential in going "upstream" to these beliefs and values themselves - imagine how a world of Epicureans would vote)

As to the philosophy being only for the privileged, that too comes from the false definition of pleasure as ONLY consisting of luxury and sensual stimulation. As for Epicureans being aloof from politics, that is a false idea in large part. Epicurus advised against pursuing a political CAREER, as that places you at the mercy of the mob, but he did not advise against action when action is appropriate. This is developed very well in the Boeri book referenced here on the cite ( podcast interview with the author is here):

Blog Article

Lucretius Today Interviews Dr. Marcelo Boeri - co-author of "Theory and Practice of Epicurean Political Philosophy: Security, Justice, and Tranquility"

In Episode 197 of the Lucretius Today Podcast, on October 19, 2023, we were privileged to speak with Dr. Marcelo Boeri, co-author with Javier Aoiz of Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy - Security, Justice, and Tranquility. Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Dr. Boeri is originally from Buenos Aires, and after receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Salvador in 1995, he has worked extensively in the field of Ancient Greek…

Cassius

October 22, 2023 at 8:20 PM

As mentioned before, we have a rule against pursuing politics here at the forum, and I would advise something similar in any local group, especially in getting off the ground. But that is not a policy against individuals pursuing political issues outside the group, and in fact I personally advise engagement and participation in anything you think will truly lead to greater pleasure for you. The problem with allowing those discussions within the groups is that they are too divisive, and they will lead to the false perception that Epicurean philosophy is necessarily capitalist or communist or left or right or any other necessary grouping. There are clearly some things (primarily supernatural religion) which are off limits due to the philosophy itself, but like-minded friends can organize themselves in many different ways and still be entirely consistent with core Epicurean views. For those who want to debate, it's the aloofness and asceticism of Stoicism that would by nature lead to inactivity. David Sedley has a good article on "The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius" which mentions how -- if you want to talk about resistance to 'tyranny' for example - it's the Stoics who generally postured rather than acted when action was deemed appropriate.

Quote from AxA

One guy even said afterwards that this was exactly the philosophy he's been looking for.

Are you offering (or planning to offer) anything for those individuals? ....those who may want more resources, such as books to read: "Living for Pleasure" by Emily Austin (for someone who is not wanting a deep dive but it generally explains it well) and "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by DeWitt (for someone who enjoys detailed deep dives). I myself would hesitate to recommend the forum itself, because it is a very time consuming endeavor, so only good for those who have tremendous concentration and time to sift through things (I really need to finish working on some basic introductory materials). Cassius has produced some introductory videos, many which are very detailed and which may be good for some folks to check out. This early one is a good one to start with, as it is not too long, but yet covers 5 important aspects:

And also, "Congratulations" (just as Don said above) because it's pretty awesome, and I've thought about starting a group myself, but I'm feeling that where I live may make it a bit difficult. (Also, to come up with answers to people's questions right off the cuff, could prove challenging...the forum gives space and time for answering )

Quote from AxA

Some of the objections that came up:

- Pain as a source of meaning vs boring bland state of continuous pleasure (I did not even get into the whole "pleasure as absence of pain" definitional issue, and this came up at the end and was never really addressed)

Perhaps this was a reaction to a phrase such as "living a life of simple pleasures" ? (...would need to know what exactly they were reacting to)... or simply the idea of "continuous pleasure" which comes up in Cicero's Torquatus section as a goal for an Epicurean. I could see the idea of continuous pleasure as being just a kind of idealized goal, or perhaps it would be said of the wise elder or Epicurean teacher).

As for pleasures, all pleasures...both ones which are sensory, vary with intensity, location, and duration, as well as those of good health, good internal feeling, and satisfaction with one's life. The sensory pleasures are always in flux, and pain will come because of the natural state of living.

Also, I think that there are two (or more) flavors of Epicurean philosophy (and Epicureans). 1) the early time when Epicurus was alive (or early Garden, and generations close to the time of Epicurus) and would include the lifestyle of Epicurean philosophy students. 2) later Roman times which were removed from the core studies and included wealthy Romans.

We see in Diogenese Laertius Book 10, that Metrodorus (who was Epicurus' closest student) left for 6 months to journey across the Aegean Sea to visit his family in his home town of Lampsacus. This of course would have likely had some level of risk, but the Epicurean would wisely minimize risk by making the journey at the safest time of year for crossing.

Regarding "pain as a source of meaning" - that possibly could be a remnant left over from Christianity: If God is all powerful then why does he allow suffering to exist in the world? Their answer: because he wants to test you and teach you important lessons. (No wonder the world is so screwed up, because the "perfect love" of God is itself evil. As humans (human animals) we inherently dislike pain and suffering, so then to try to extract some meaning from it seems twisted.(for more on the Trilemma you can check out this)

Out of curiosity, do you know what the general, demographic spread is of religious involvement in your area? I am so pleased with the response to your invitation, and surprised. I am mired in (as I think is the case with a few of us) a Southern Christian swamp (literally) near the genitals of the Bible Belt, and the ideological bubble in which I find myself is thick with criticism toward the Other.

Quote from Cassius

There is every reason to believe that Epicurus and his friends complied with their military service.

Yes, as we know Herodotus wrote a book (Περὶ Ἐπικούρου ἐφηβείας), Hicks translates this tile On the Training of Epicurus as a Cadet. The new Oxford edition translates it very literally On Epicurus' Ephebic Training, and explains simply "in ancient Athens, young men of citizen status were required to undergo military training."

But of course he did not go as far as Plato, who "went on service three times, first to Tanagra, secondly to Corinth, and thirdly at Delium, where also he obtained the prize of valour." (DL 3.8)

Quote from Bryan

Yes, as we know Herodotus wrote a book (Περὶ Ἐπικούρου ἐφηβείας), Hicks translates this tile On the Training of Epicurus as a Cadet. The

Bryan - is this also in book 10?

Yes, going to "Athens at the age of eighteen" is at the start and then we have On the Training of Epicurus as a Cadet mentioned at just 10.4.