Epicurean Philosophy Vs. Humanism

    Quote from Cassius

    Most of us are lucky enough to live at a time and place where we can pick and choose our friends and go our own way relatively easily. However I don't think that will remain the case forever. The tensions of the world that we won't discuss due to the politics rule have placed "censorship" issues front and center, and pressures that may be used today for purposes we find agreeable can very easily grow into pressures that can be used against anyone who dissents from the "party line."

    First off, I want to say that I have (reluctantly ;) ) come to appreciate the limits on political argument here. It helps create a more tension-free space in which to share (and even cordially argue) on deeper matters. :)

    With that said, I have come to think that “the Garden” can only survive under three alternative scenarios:

    1. Whatever despotic regime (“the party line”) controls society (the extended polis) happens to appreciate Epicurean philosophy (which I find to be a doubtful happenstance).


    2. The Garden goes underground as long as necessary (which seems to have some history behind it as a scenario).


    3. A sufficient level of pluralism prevails in the relevant polis/society.

    +++++++++++++++++

    As I recall her editor’s unease over the word “pleasure” in Dr. Austin’s book title, I wonder in what libraries (and for whom) it might fall onto the proscribed list – without even being read by the censors.

    +++++++++++++++++

    BTW, Cassius : I would've given your post from which I quoted more thumbs up if I could have. :thumbup:

    "We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content." (Vatican Saying 48)

    Yes, 1 is unlikely, 2 is more likely, and 3 is desirable and sort of where we currently are. (At least we're still online right now!) ;)

    Luckily I think the things we need to do under scenario 2 or 3 are about the same.

    I have read a few humanists popular works, from a purely lay mans point of view, humanism really falls into the trap of using reason to the neglect of all else i.e. emotional intelligence, feelings, our senses etc..

    Which from my conversation both online and in person with humanists leads to either a utilitarian greater good end goal or some abstract goal such as "freedom, peace, joy". Which leads to the question "what exactly does that look like for you?" in the end instead of being grounded on our immanent reality it once again leads to a goal which is in the sky in the intelligible realm.

    It also places once again too much stress on humanity and somewhat divinizes us but that's minor, what I mean though is that it doesn't treat us like the animals we are and misses the mark of what our Good truly is, pleasure.

    Now overall humanists are fine it isn't to bash them, although one final critique is that humanism really has no fire underneath it, it doesn't really challenge the theist or the atheist it's just kind of there. Epicurean philosophy at the very least challenges both the theist and the atheist, the former to stop forgoing their pleasure for some unseen post death bliss and the latter by truly asking them to find "meaning" in pleasure. (Many atheists my age become nihilists or super skeptics)

    Anyway just some unrefined thoughts.

    Edit: I also am in general not a fan of eclecticism (which humanism is in a lot of it's forms), perhaps a topic worth discussing Cassius? Can't find another thread directly on it..