A Request To New Participants

So good to learn about this forum.

My path to Epicurus started with reading Stephen Greenblatt's, The Swerve, How the World Became Modern, then I found an old (Modern Library?) edition of De Rerum Nature and have since settled on Walter Englert's translation which brings me to my point.

My relief and happiness at finding a philosophy that closely matches my perception and conclusions about the real world lead me to proselytize - I believe Epicureanism is good for everybody.

What complicates proselytizing for me are the commonly used translations of matters Epicurean. I have no judgment about the translations because I don't know anything about Ancient Greek. I do judge that at least two translations of Canonics, generally accepted as the best, still render awkward, stilted syntax.

I appreciate the desire to be as true to the man as possible and I believe Epicurus shared his ideas as clearly and succinctly as possible. He had to keep his students attention and be nimble when engaging them.

I know I can be considered presumptuous as hell but I did some armchair analytics and tried my hand at revising a couple of Canonics, always hoping to hew to the meaning. I hope others will try their own versions because it requires one to really consider meaning.

Doctrine 2. Death is nothing to us, because that which is dead has no sensations, and that which cannot be sensed is nothing to us.

--That which is dead has no sensation, and that which cannot be sensed is nothing to us so death is nothing to us.--

Doctrine 5. It is not possible to live pleasantly without living wisely, honorably, and justly. Nor can one live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly. But those who for any reason do not live wisely, honorably, and justly cannot possibly live pleasantly.

--Living pleasantly is not possible without living wisely, honorably, and justly. Nor can we live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly. Those who for any reason do not live wisely, honorably, and justly cannot possibly live pleasantly.--

...and so forth.

Thank you Cassius! I can respond to the May 15 post, "please drop back and let us know your positions on Epicurean physics and Epicurean canonics/epistemology."

-I know there has been some criticism of Epicurean physics and I concluded the critics might benefit from a more thorough understanding of how Epicurus advanced contemporary physics. How, unlike other commentators, Epicurus' conclusions are based on fundamental scientific reasoning and the limits of unaided perception.

"In the broadest of terms the areas of that will determine your conclusions about Epicurean philosophy in general are your views on the nature of the universe (the existence of supernatural gods, pre-birth or post-death existence of souls, existence of "ideals" elsewhere in the universe, or "essences" in this one),

-Here I agree with Epicurus. His idea as I recall is that people are welcome to believe what they want but when dealing with unobservable phenomenon it is vital that we don't become so enamored of our ideas that we overlook what we are perceiving in Nature.

"on the nature of knowledge (whether knowledge is possible"

-I believe knowledge is possible, there are facts derived by experience and experiment.

"the role of reason in knowledge, and the relative status and role the senses, anticipations"

-For this I had to turn to Epicurus and His Philosophy which I am just now beginning to read. My sense is that "anticipations" is the Epicurean word that explains how we seem to know things almost without reasoning. After studying Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature I believe "anticipation" refers to what we understand as "genetic predisposition." Maybe "anticipation" is also a way of explaining what we experience as "heuristics."

Of what I undertood by the greek epicureans the instincts as faculties that are programmed in us by Nature, and as our specie is evolved to survive are : the feelings of pain and pleasure along with the senses. From the day we are born the anticipations or preconceptions are connected with the concepts of the words on things, and more complex concepts - always based on materialistic reality e.g justice, as well as they all are measured by the senses and the feelings in accordance with the experience of the reality. And in the duration we are learning our words of our language, the mind is making an image of every thing we have learned. So, we keep in our minds as a memory the concepts of all the words of the things, and issues, to be in our mind as pre-conceptions. All these are accordance with the reality and our experiences (always measured by the senses and feelings), and in the duration we are speaking the mind picks all these up. The problem that comes out is when the preconceptions are based on true or false. The preconceptions will be false if they contradicted by the phenomena of the reality, and they had not be measured by the senses and the feelings. And they will be true if are proved by the phenomena of the reality measured by the senses and the feelings.

IMO on the issue of preconceptions goes the talent too e.g. if someone can play a piano or be able to learn many languages. This goes to the neurones (cells) of the mind, that are genetically formed in such a way (synapses) by heritage of the genes. But even the man that has any talent has to practice his talent to be more talented. Epicurus had had the talent to observe the Nature carefully, but also had had all the written works from his ancestors as philosophers. In the duration of his life and with the help of his friends, he managed to clean them up from confusion, Myths and all these things that were, and still are against the reality of the phenomena, and our goal of pleasure. His way of thinking is called "manifold way" that is based on probabilities of the phenomena searching out the causes that caused them. His "swerve" of the atoms is based on his observation that in Nature there is not only a cause with a result, as Democritus and others claimed, but in Nature there are many causes and many results, since the three factors that are created all the things are and the need, and chance and the swerve (as our free will). For the Canon and the analogy we can read many things in the book by Philodemus "on signs".

I should probably introduce myself here as there are many who probably do not know me outside of Facebook.

I have studied all sorts of idealist philosophy, everything from Neoplatonism to Eastern Vedanta but was dissatisfied with these abstract philosophies as I see them as more therapeutic rather than actually defining truth. I eventually found Epicurus and became enamoured with his natural, materialist philosophy. I have always been a theist, so learning that the Epicureans also had a theological system proved to be a great interest for me. For a couple years I adopted the philosophy as my own and sought to adapt it to my life. During this time I became friends with many of the core FB Garden and I continue to keep the lines of fellowship open.

I eventually studied Epicurean theology more deeply and found that I could not accept it. So I abandoned the idea of being an Epicurean because this was a cornerstone issue for me.

Over the course of the last year I had been convicted to turn back to the faith of my youth and see it not from purely a metaphysical or philosophical approach, but rather an entirely practical one that involved giving up intellectual inquiry and adopting certain principles and a open frame of mind that now after years of missing what was being presented, it fundamentally makes sense to me.

So at this time I do not consider myself an Epicurean, but rather a Christian and Neoplatonist philosopher. I am someone who has had a growing relationship with the Epicurean community and thus far they have not shunned me, but rather continue to embrace me as a friend. It makes for a very interesting relationship.

But as this relates to Epicurean philosophy...I see friendship, fellowship, and community being hallmarks of the Epicurean garden. So in that, I seek out commonalities between it and other world systems. Though the two worlds are in fact irreconcilable it never precludes us from being able to have a dialogue.

Other than relaying what I know of the core doctrines of Epicurean philosophy I only have at this time inputs regarding the theology and how it relates to other systems.

Thanks for having me!

Matt