We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
If you get it please be sure to let us know your thoughts. I don't remember reading myself.
It's an exceptional resource. It also may not be the best resource for new students.
As an academic text, The Handbook is organized as a collection of essays from respected scholars. In total (in over 800 pages), they present a synoptic view of Epicurean Philosophy; in particular, each focuses on a specific topic; some of those topics are much more narrow in scope than other overviews. Sometimes, the topics covered express interpretative disagreements in contemporary scholarship; in these cases, a background in the philosophy may be assumed by the author.
I think that students may struggle with the presentation — for example, depending on the author, and the author's voice, they may, or may not assume that you already know ancient Greek, or may or may not employ non-standard, in-text citations, or may over-use academic jargon, so I anticipate that some of the essays might strike new readers as being (understandably) obfusticating. Some of the topics are tangential, and inter-disciplinary, so I think of The Handbook as more of a supplement.
Still, each essay is filled with great information. The book is expansive, and the authors, as one would expect of academics, provide voluminous support for their analyses. You'll also find a wealth of peripheral, historical information as it relates to non-Epicureans, and modern philsophers.
It's also chunky enough that it stands up on its own on a bookshelf.
It's an exceptional resource.
I second that. It was one of the first books on Epicurean philosophy I've read and to this day I don't regret it. The amount of information there is extraordinary.
I also have read it the 2. time some months ago. I can recommend it when interested in a more academic approach and not all chapters were interesting for me but 80% were.
But some chapters contain more wisdom then I thought on the first look. For example the chapter of poets( infos about Lucretius and Philodemus ) or about language which I thought first would be boring but then show crucial differences for example between Platon and Epicurus ( how words natural evolved by using simuliar sounds in groups vs they come from perfect forms in another world or are top down defined and used )
I am better able to understand what the 'divine simulacra' are implanting in my mind.
This made me wonder both what it is, and where it comes from in Epicurus' worldview. and then this next sentence:
The text in this chapter makes clear that our knowledge of Epicurean gods comes through prolepsis—a criterion of truth formed by repeated perceptions of divine simulacra striking our minds.
made me wonder if the author you reference, or Epicurus himself, defined a simulacra the same way as the following definition I quickly scooped from the Internet:
"Ancient Philosophy (Epicureanism): In Epicurean philosophy, "divine simulacra" (or eidola) were believed to be fine atomic emanations that constantly stream from the "quasi-bodies" of the gods and strike human perception. Perceiving these simulacra was a way for humans to form a concept (prolepsis) of the gods, who were seen as models of perfect happiness and imperturbability, but who did not actively intervene in human affairs.
Platonic Philosophy: The term "simulacrum" (from the Latin simulacrum, meaning "likeness, semblance") originates in Platonic philosophy, where it meant a copy of a copy of an ideal Form, often considered an inferior representation."
I left the Plato reference in there because it seemed to clarify the term a bit for me, but focusing on the definition from the Internet on Epicureanism, I'm wondering if his philosophy considers that the simulacra comes from the gods. And then if the gods are indeed influencing mankind's actions in a passive sort of way, isn't this opposite from being indifferent, as I thought Epicurus declared?
but focusing on the definition from the Internet on Epicureanism, I'm wondering if his philosophy considers that the simulacra comes from the gods. And then if the gods are indeed influencing mankind's actions in a passive sort of way, isn't this opposite from being indifferent, as I thought Epicurus declared?
"Superman" positively inspired generations of kids, even if he only existed in 64 colors.
"Lady Liberty" continues to wield a torch for many, even if she's fixed in bronze.
So long as we identify "the gods" as images ("simulacra", "eidola"), those images, like any other symbols, have measurable impacts on our physical lives. The image of Jesus Christ, itself, is a huge influence to billions of people. "Jesus" doesn't need to "truly" exist to have influence.
Eikadistes Yes, thank you. I understand your reply, but can you address my use of the Internet description of divine simulacra:
"Ancient Philosophy (Epicureanism): In Epicurean philosophy, "divine simulacra" (or eidola) were believed to be fine atomic emanations that constantly stream from the "quasi-bodies" of the gods and strike human perception. Perceiving these simulacra was a way for humans to form a concept (prolepsis) of the gods, who were seen as models of perfect happiness and imperturbability, but who did not actively intervene in human affairs."
And then can you address my question earlier, if divine simulacra stream from those "quasi-bodies" of the gods (in the quote above) does Epicurus consider that the simulacra comes from the gods.?
And if Epicurus does consider it so, if the gods are indeed influencing mankind's actions in a passive sort of way, isn't this opposite from being indifferent, as I thought Epicurus declared?
