Posts by Cassius

To sort of bring this back to where the thread started, unfortunately I have not had time to read further into the Apion material to see what is implied about Apion's views of the gods, rather than of the people he was criticizing. I would think if we saw clear indication that Apion held "the gods" to be active and engaged in world affairs, then that alone would rule him out as an Epicurean. On the other hand if active engagement is conspicuously missing, and his references were to the impiety being an insult to the gods' blissfulness, then that would weigh in the other direction.

I would think that there is a significant chance that we might be able to glean some of that from a discussion of Apion's charges of impiety, but unfortunately I still have a lot of reading to do.

Quote from Bryan

There are may instances of Josephus were he is proud of his deceit, which is for him a virtue when used as in instrument in his success.

It's striking for me to consider that Josephus is open about how he came to cooperate with the Romans in the first place. To be a military leader in a tough spot and enter a Masada-like suicide pact with your unit and then decide to pull out of it after almost all the others were dead? It's hard to take *anything* such a person would say after that as credible where it concerns his own interests.

I recall how Emily Austin in her interview with us stated that she came to do her book "Living For Pleasure" as part of a series in which no one else wanted to do a book on Epicurus and her co-writers found it strange that she would wish to focus on Epicurus herself.

I understand that it is not generally part of the job description of professional academics to "promote" one philosophy over another, but enthusiasm for a topic is not hard to pick up. There are certainly some numbers of academics who write articles about Epicurus, but apart from Emily Austin's book not very many with an overtly positive spin about the entire philosophy. That's one reason why Norman DeWitt's book stands apart, and why I find it useful to check the bibliography of each recent book on Epicurus to see whether he is cited. Whether you agree with every point made by DeWitt or not, it's hard to write a book on Epicurus without taking notice of the arguments made in "Epicurus and His Philosophy" -- and yet that seems to happen all the time.

Quote from Don

'I know this and want this and think this.'"
'τοῦτ' οιδα καὶ τοῦτο βούλομαι καὶ τοῦτ' οἴ

Don is that what you are referring to in English and Greek? Agreed that is very interesting.

Wow that is quite an exchange in the comments. It's going to take some time to digest and get back to you but thanks for posting that!

Thank you for setting up the agenda!

Quote from Nate

So I definitely feel [for] anyone who finds aspects of the ancient Epicurean tradition to be cultish.

We know that there were disagreements among the Epicureans about the nature of friendship and about the status of there being a 'fourth leg' of the canon at the very least, and probably many other things. So all these words (to include "cultish") are going to be a moving target for us just as they were 2000 years ago. I think we have to expect that different people will have different comfort levels with all of these issues.

I think we should all take comfort here that EpicureanFriends is first, foremost, and always will be a "discussion forum." We have clear parameters of discussion that are intended to further the mission of bettering our understanding of the philosophy and reconstructing it more accurately, but we're much more in the "school" metaphor here than we are in a "church" or "religion" metaphor. All the ideas that Nate is suggesting are well within our scope of discussion, but as far as the forum goes we're just "discussing" them and not taking steps to implement anything.

Everyone has no doubt seen the recent front page revisions which are intended to further advance the quality of our interactions. The more people are informed at the very start about the key aspects of Epicurean philosophy, the more we can avoid misunderstandings and help get people where they need to be - whether here or somewhere else. We've been "lucky" that we've had relatively few trolling incidents to deal with, but we'll continue to work to make sure that the core fundamental ideas of Epicurus get the attention and respect that they deserve.

Hopefully we can move further over time into facilitating real-world meetings or meet-up groups in local areas, but if and when we get to that stage we'll adhere to the basic plan we have going now: we're a place for discussion among like-minded friends about the philosophy of Epicurus. Any project to do any tighter "organization" is a much more complex endeavor, and anyone who has enough time can remind themselves of those complexities here.

So with that in mind I am hoping everyone will be free to express their opinions about this subject without fear that Epicureanfriends itself is going to turn into anything more than a discussion forum. If our posts end up facilitating new projects (and I hope many new projects will come from our work) those will be organized carefully and deliberately and with great care - and separately and with clarity and bright lines - just as you would expect Epicureans to tackle any project.

[Note: I added the [for] into my quote from Nate because I think that's what he meant.]

For the moment it appears that we may need to remove the "light/dark" icon from the top right and exclusively use the "Control Panel/Settings and Privacy" menu to select among the themes and select whether you want dark or light style. Here's the explanation:

The light/dark icon was set up under an older version of the software before version 6. Now with version 6, all of the themes have both light and dark variations, but the light/dark icon hasn't been updated to work with the new system. Because it isn't updated, it doesn't work in most cases. I will continue to try to make it work but at the moment it's probably causing more confusion than anything else.

Let me see what I can do but if you get frustrated please just use the Control Panel/Settings and Privacy menu to select your theming. I will work on improving the situation because I too want to swith back and forth quickly.

The "super" is probably very clear - I wonder what the "stitio" refers to?

Also I'd just like to interject before I forget: One of the biggest problems that gives me personally the most caution with "religion" is better described - at least for me - as "ritualism." "Rituals" give me the creeps and are generally a big turn-off for me. I realize there's a fine line between "ceremonies" and "memorials" and "habits," but I think the idea of mandatory and elaborate "ritual" helps describe at least a part of the problem. To me, "ritualism" goes along with the "mind control" that is often associated with religions, and things that seem like "rituals" have to be approached with caution. Joshua's quote from Lucretius 5:1200 really helps put this in perspective.

Here is the Daniel Brown edition version of that:

Quote from Daniel Brown's Lucretius 5:1194

Nor can there be any piety for a wretch with his head veiled, to be ever turning himself about towards a stone, to creep to every altar, to throw himself flat upon the ground, to spread his arms before the shrines of the gods, to sprinkle the altars abundantly with the blood of beasts, and to heap vows upon vows. To look upon things with an undisturbed mind, this is Piety. For when we behold the celestial canopy of the great world, and the heavens spread over with the shining stars; when we reflect upon the courses of the sun and moon, then doubts – that before lay quiet under a load of other evils – begin to awake, and grow strong within us. What! Are there gods endued with so great power that can direct the various motions of all the bright luminaries above? For the ignorance of causes gives great uneasiness to the doubting mind of man. And hence we doubt whether the world had a beginning, and shall ever have an end; how long the heavens (the walls of this world) shall be able to bear the fatigue of such mighty motions, or whether they are made eternal by the gods, and so shall forever roll on, and despise the strong power of devouring age.

Also -- "ROLE ROYALE" red green and blue are going up today as well.

Remember that under the new system, all the styles have both light and dark variants which you select in the user control panel at the top right by using the control panel dropdown and then selecting "Settings And Privacy").

We also added today a new style - Foxhole - which may be worth your time to check out.

It has light and dark versions (selectable in the user control panel at the top right by using the control panel dropdown and then selecting "Settings And Privacy").

Right now the basic "Foxhole" has an orange coloring for the links, and the "Foxhole Blue" has blue throughout. If someone wants red or green we can set up that option as well.

Let us know if you have any issues with it.

If you (like me) have run into a problem with linking pictures in a post since the upgrade, please be aware that I have contacted the software developers and they tell me this is a known issue that they are working to address soon. Most of the time it seems to work, but sometimes pictures just refuse to "stick" in a post. If you run into that don't worry that it is your fault - should be fixed soon.

Happy Birthday EricR ! We've missed you around the forum!

Happy Birthday to EricR! Learn more about EricR and say happy birthday on EricR's timeline: EricR

Thank you Cyrano!

Quote from Nate

Ultimately, this is meant to be the reference guide I wish I had when I began studying this 10 years ago. It took me two dozen books before I really felt like I understood the framework of history and literature which is unavailable in a single text. This is the book I would have wanted.

I think this is a key point. I am seeing things much differently than I saw them even several years ago. The more you concentrate on what the Epicureans actually wrote, rather than the filtering and commentary that comes through the modern commentators, the more I think you can internalize how serious they likely were in how they took their views.

We have split out the discussion of "Considering Epicurean Philosophy As A Religion" to the thread below. There are many other aspects of Nate's video that are worth discussing so let's use the remainder of this thread to discuss all aspects of the video except the religious aspect, and let's discuss the "religion" issues over here:

Thread

Pros and Cons Of Considering Epicurean Philosophy To Be A "Religion"

Let's get out in front of some questions that people might ask about Nate's Hedonicon video. For example:

[…]

What is an appropriate answer to someone who would criticize the idea of seeing Epicurean philosophy as a "religion?"

The answer would probably involve first dealing with the old problem of definitions and talk about what it means to be a "religion."

1. What is a fair definition of a "religion?"
2. Does the definition of religion itself require that all religions be "bad," or is it possible to

…

Cassius

January 22, 2024 at 9:24 AM

To avoid unnecessary talking past each other I suggest people be clear about the use of the word religion, especially making clear what they think that the word religion means and whether it can ever be used beneficially. Nate has stated that he wants to "take back the word" and it seems to be that is a large part of this discussion. Part of that discussion is: Do we have evidence of "religio" in Latin or equivalent in Greek being used positively by the ancient Epicureans?

Part of the clarity that needs to be brought to the discussion is "What is it that Epicurus is saying to reverence?" All the letter to Menoeceus says is "immortal and blessed." Immortal is relatively clear (deathless) but the meaning of "blessedness" is what has to be explained and visualized. Only then can you make progress in understanding what it is you are having reverence toward.

Quote from Cassius

First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his immortality or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and immortality.

And as to the blessed existence one of the most detailed statements is from Torquatus:

Quote

[40] XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because death is apart from sensation, and pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance.

[41] When in addition we suppose that such a man is in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?

So to me you end up with piety toward the "idea" of this kind of existence in general, more so than to Zeus or any other specific alleged example of it. The question of whether an individual entity qualifies as divine is always going to be a question of fact that depends on circumstances, but the "preconception" of divinity is something that comes before its application to any particular individual.