Tim O'Keefe -- Ouch!

Yes and thank you for this post. This is good information tokeep on hand. Tim Okeefe has written some very good stuff on Epicurus, but this part of his attitude has to be kept in mind. This sutuation reminds me of Cyril Bailey, whose work is extremely helpful to us, but who personally assessed Epicurus perhaps in even more negative terms that does O'Keefe here.

Here, the main problem is that he's not even trying to be open-minded about the big picture. As Okeefe well knows, Epicurus was not a technician. It's clear from Epicurus' arguments that he's basing his positions on a combination of logic AND observation. The terminology used to describe "atoms" matters only to the extent that the point is that there is at SOME point a limit of divisibility. It's totally ridiculous to talk as if just because Epicurus used different terminology than than we do now that we should throw out everything he had to say. The point is the ultimate one: We don't live forever and we know everything and we never will, so what do we expect the truth to be based on the best information at our disposal?

The big-picture conclusions are that there is nothing outside or above nature, no human life after death, and no universal ideas or moral absolutes, Those conclusions are absolutely valid today. That's the level at which Epicurus was focusing his attention, and it's ridiculous to pretend that Epicurus was doing anything else. Protons and electrons and neutrons are not big-picture conclusions. The big-picture conclusions are that everything operates naturally and without supernatural guidance, and the simple fact that we are alive doesn't give us the ability to dictate to nature what we think might be or should be the way things are.

All this is a matter of being reasonable and charitable in assessing the big picture. No doubt it possible to take that statement from Okeefe and excuse it and say Okeefe meant it in a limited way. After all, if O'keefe really thought that everything Epicurus had to say was obsolete, it's unlikely that OKeefe would have devoted so much of his career to talking about Epicurus.

Perspective is the problem we're constantly confronting. We always need to focus on the big picture and never get so lost in details that we lose sight of the real take-away.

We really need to ask every writer: Where do THEY stand on whether there are supernatural forces? Where do THEY stand on life after death? Where do THEY stand on whether the same laws should apply in Rome and Athens vs Jerusalem, and at all times past present and future? If a writer can't clearly communicate that they agree that there are no supernatural forces, that there is no life after death, and that morality and justice is contextual and not absolute, then whatever else they might be they are not in a trustworthy position to provide leadership in Epicurean philosophy.

Examining people on motives is what we do in court with Experts. Lawyers' cross-examine experts to determine how much they were paid for their opinions, and about other opinions those experts have given in other cases. Everyone brings their own biases and prejudices when they give opinions, and I don't see a better way to make decisions than we do in court. Bring to every question a sweeping and thorough examination not just of what the "expert" says is the truth, but also examine the biases and prejudices of the expert, and then in the end let each listener draw their own conclusion. In judging their credibility on interpreting Epicurus, It's important to know that Bailey was highly critical of Epicurus' conclusions about ethics, and that Okeefe has a problem with Epicurus' approach to physics.

There's no perfect system and no guarantee of success, but at least examining backgrounds and motives allows for the possibility of success, and it doesn't allow for bias and prejudice to gain a totally impregnable hold on everyone.

Of course when I approach a complicated subject I want information from experts to help me form my conclusion. But when it's a matter of life and death and I need brain surgery, it's relevant to know whether the surgeon has some personal motivation to do his best to help me, or whether he is motivated to hate my guts.

Regarding a lack of followers, as well as eclecticism...we are really just getting started with unpacking the system presented by Epicurus, based on the extant remains. And, a big challenge is updating the philosophy to make it compatible for modern thinkers (and science). There are many aspects of Epicurean philosophy that are greatly needed in our modern times. Religion has caused numerous problems for the world, and may end up causing the downfall of civilization, because of its harmful aspects -- mainly the refusal to see how making contracts for peace between countries is the only avenue of peace (but since they all are looking forward to something better in heaven then they give up on "Project Earth"). Also, the idea that God causes tests/trials of suffering so that people can "grow" (found in both Christianity and Islam) - this is harmful because it justifies causing suffering to others, since God himself causes suffering. The problem though, is that there is something about civilization that is struggling to "get past God". So Epicurean philosophy which holds that gods/God is not interactive with the world or listening to prayers may appeal to some, but not appeal to others.

And about eclecticism, I think it would be good to take a look at what people feel is missing in Epicureanism, and what they are looking for when seeking out "eclecticism" - in other words...Making a list of what of modern concerns (both psychological and philosophical) does Epicureanism cover, and what does it not cover.

Quote from Kalosyni

And, a big challenge is updating the philosophy to make it compatible for modern thinkers (and science).

"Modern thinkers" are in many cases the problem, not the solution, and you can't make opposites compatible. It would be more accurate to say that it is desirable to use new methods and technologies to explain to such "modern thinkers" as are open to the discussion the superiority of the Epicurean viewpoint.

Quote from Kalosyni

mainly the refusal to see how making contracts for peace between countries is the only avenue of peace

That's not the "only" avenue for peace. When people refuse to agree, they can fight and in some cases successfully eliminate the other side. It doesn't help the situation to imagine otherwise - thinking this only makes it more likely that it is YOUR side that is going to eliminated. That's why Epicurus regularly says that all means necessary to preserve your safety are a natural good, and that some people can and do refuse to enter agreements of mutual safety.

Quote from Kalosyni

So Epicurean philosophy which holds that gods/God is not interactive with the world or listening to prayers may appeal to some, but not appeal to others.

That is a fact that always has proven to be the case, and likely will continue to prove to be the case. And therefore those who think as we do have to take all appropriate steps to make sure that we are not eliminated. We've come far too close to exactly that result over the last 2000 years.

I think o'keefe is making the same mistake as many enlightenment thinkers, I see the pleonachōs tropos (πλεοναχῶς τρόπος) as a precursor of modern evergreen policies, adaptable to changing information landscapes. To say that his theories have been falsified is ignoring a key concept of the canon. And to say that he has few modern followers ignores his systemic impact on the modern world, in the West we live in a world built on Epicurus philosophies.

And it's good to hear from you DavidN!

I see evidence that Epicurean teachings are far more widespread than many think it to be. Epicurus' name is not attached to the actions and beliefs of people, especially in western, educated, Industrialized, rich, democracies (WEIRD). Just listen to any marketing of medical providers and pharmaceuticals, and you hear reduction of pain and suffering as a goal that can be achieved. The same for psychiatric and counseling practices. There's no grin and bear it there. Listen to mindful presentations and note they teach recognizing the good in yourself and others. There's no demand to achieve certain virtues. Heck, I'll bet money that even preachers forced to preach to dwindling numbers of congregations emphasize compassion and understanding rather than be good and guarantee heaven or face hell. I think the world will give up more classical stoicism and absolutism in practice. By the way, they don't know the basis of those in the ancient Greeks. I see Epicurean beliefs as unstoppable. Without the cudgel of fear of damnation or afterlife, Epicurean thought can't compete head to head with major religions. It carries no threat of irredeemable error for denial of the faith. For that reason, it will continue to grow, slowly, beyond our lifetimes and even then, it can only be expected to be a large influence rather than a monolithic belief system.