Posts by Cassius

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.

For the record I did not see post 11 before I posted 12. We cross-posted. And I didn't have TP in mind at all about hyperventilating

I am not talking to anyone in this thread but I can imagine certain lurkers hyperventilating right now. Everyone needs to understand that the "gods" that Epicurus was talking about, and that as I understand it Nate is talking about, are not literally Zeus and Venus and the rest. If we go down the road of "piety toward the gods" too far without reminding everyone forcefully what Epicurean gods ARE, and ARE NOT, then we get into the same misunderstandings that we have about pleasure, virtue, and other terms.

I don't think the texts support the view that Epicurus was talking about reverence toward Zeus, Yahweh, or any other conventional gods, as those names are commonly understood. We have to start back at the beginning of the sequence, on what is the nature of divinity, before we can make sense of he downstream discussions of piety.

Divinity is not "Nature itself" either, but it's a capacity that exists within nature that makes possible beings who while not supernatural are still worthy of "reverence" because of the benefit that such reverence brings to us in bringing us further into consistency with Nature itself and the pleasure that nature gives as guidance.

Actually we should probably clarify "kneeling" before we go too much further. I think Nate is largely speaking figuratively in that last post on kneeling. We can speculate what participation in public rituals meant, but I am not aware of any specific evidence that Epicurus ever kneeled to anybody. The issue is figuratively and that's part of the whole issue of reverencing.

TauPhi I think I understand at least one aspect of where you are going and I bet that this Vatican Saying is not your favorite either:

Quote from Cassius

VS32. The veneration of the wise man is a great blessing to those who venerate him.

You're definitely right in my view that people can go overboard with "kneeling." But does that mean that there is never an appropriate time in life when kneeling is the right course? I'd generally agree that it's a bad idea in most every situation, and yet I don't know anymore that I am willing to condemn (for example) every example of "kingship" as improper. The ancient Romans who I often look to as models had "dictators" temporarily, and though they were better off (in my view) in the republic when they didn't have kings, I don't know that I can say that kneeling would "always" be inappropriate, as long as it was understood as a limited gesture.

Similarly with "gods" and "reverence," the emotions that go along with holding something or someone in very high esteem don't seem to me as something to *always* consider as prohibited. My main view at the moment would be that the limits and circumstances for such emotions and activities need to be tightly defined, rather than outright prohibited.