Posts by Cassius

This is to start the subforum and open a thread on the distinctions and differences between Epicurus and "Pantheism," which is a wide topic but often identified with Spinoza. One reason for posting this now is that in reading Matthew Stewart's "Nature's God," it is being impressed on me that the early American and British deists were significantly more "pantheistic" than Epicurean in their view of "god." This is distinction that deserves to be made clear. (Note: I see that we had a thread devoted to discussion of this about a year ago here.)

Key Differences (per Chatgpt):

Epicureanism and pantheism represent fundamentally different philosophical systems, particularly in their metaphysical and theological assumptions. Below are the key differences between the two:

1. View of the Divine

• Epicureanism:
  Epicurus believed that gods exist, but they are entirely indifferent to human affairs and do not intervene in the world. They are composed of atoms, reside in the intermundia (spaces between worlds), and serve only as models of tranquil existence. Epicurean theology is non-theistic in effect, as divine beings play no role in cosmology or ethics.
• Pantheism:
  Pantheism holds that God and the universe are identical—God is not a separate personal being but is immanent in all things. The divine is everywhere and everything. This view is typically theologically affirming, seeing divinity in nature and existence itself.

2. Metaphysics (Nature of Reality)

• Epicureanism:
  It is strictly atomistic and materialist. All that exists are atoms and void. There is no divine order or cosmic consciousness. The soul is physical and perishes with the body. Nothing exists beyond the natural, observable world.
• Pantheism:
  Pantheism often includes a spiritual or holistic metaphysics, seeing reality as unified and divine. While some pantheists are naturalistic (e.g., Spinoza), others view the universe as a manifestation of spiritual essence or consciousness.

3. Ethics

• Epicureanism:
  The highest good is pleasure, defined as the absence of pain (aponia) and disturbance (ataraxia). Ethical behavior arises from prudence and the desire to live a pleasurable, peaceful life, free from fear and physical discomfort.
• Pantheism:
  Ethical systems within pantheism vary but often emphasize harmony with nature, reverence for all life, and moral behavior grounded in a sense of cosmic unity. Ethics is frequently derived from spiritual intuition or the perceived sacredness of the universe.

4. Teleology and Purpose

• Epicureanism:
  The universe has no purpose or design. Natural phenomena are the result of atomic motion and chance. There is no final cause or overarching direction to the cosmos.
• Pantheism:
  Pantheistic systems often imply a unifying purpose or order, whether moral, spiritual, or cosmic. The universe may be seen as unfolding according to rational or divine principles.

5. Death and the Afterlife

• Epicureanism:
  Death is the end of consciousness; the soul dissolves, and thus there is no afterlife. Fear of death is irrational and a major source of human anxiety.
• Pantheism:
  Views vary. Some pantheists believe in a form of spiritual continuation, such as merging with the universal whole. Others, especially naturalistic pantheists, may reject personal immortality but affirm a kind of ongoing cosmic existence.

In summary, Epicureanism is a secular, materialist philosophy focused on individual tranquility through natural understanding, while pantheism is a metaphysical worldview that equates the universe with divinity, often carrying spiritual or holistic ethical implications.

Key Differences (per Grok):

1. View of the Divine:
   • Epicureanism: Gods are real but irrelevant, uninvolved, and not the universe itself. They’re just perfect beings living apart.
   • Pantheism: God is identical with the universe; everything is divine, with no external or separate deities.
2. Metaphysical Foundation:
   • Epicureanism: Strictly materialist, with atoms and void as the basis of reality. Rejects any spiritual or immaterial essence.
   • Pantheism: Often monistic, seeing reality as a unified whole, sometimes with a spiritual or quasi-spiritual dimension (e.g., in Spinoza’s substance or mystical interpretations).
3. Ethical Focus:
   • Epicureanism: A clear hedonistic ethic centered on personal pleasure and tranquility through simple living and rational choices.
   • Pantheism: Ethics are less defined, often derived from the sense of unity with nature or rational alignment with the cosmos, varying by thinker.
4. Purpose and Practice:
   • Epicureanism: Practical and individual-focused, emphasizing friendship, moderation, and freedom from fear to achieve happiness now.
   • Pantheism: Often contemplative or cosmic in scope, aiming for harmony with the universe or understanding of one’s place in the whole.
5. Relation to Religion:
   • Epicureanism: Dismisses religious fear and superstition as obstacles to happiness, though it allows gods as philosophical constructs.
   • Pantheism: Embraces a religious sensibility by divinizing the universe, often reinterpreting traditional beliefs in a naturalistic way.

Among many other things, the wikipedia entry on Pantheism identifies the Stoics as pantheists:

Quote

Comparison with non-Christian religions

Some 19th-century theologians thought that various pre-Christian religions and philosophies were pantheistic. They thought Pantheism was similar to the ancient Hinduism^{[19]: pp. 618}philosophy of Advaita (non-dualism).^[58]

19th-century European theologians also considered Ancient Egyptian religion to contain pantheistic elements and pointed to Egyptian philosophy as a source of Greek Pantheism.^{[19]: pp. 618–620}The latter included some of the Presocratics, such as Heraclitus and Anaximander.^[59] The Stoics were pantheists, beginning with Zeno of Citium and culminating in the emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius. During the pre-Christian Roman Empire, Stoicism was one of the three dominant schools of philosophy, along with Epicureanism and Neoplatonism.^[60][61] The early Taoism of Laozi and Zhuangzi is also sometimes considered pantheistic, although it could be more similar to panentheism.^[49]

Cheondoism, which arose in the Joseon Dynasty of Korea, and Won Buddhism are also considered pantheistic. The Realist Society of Canada believes that the consciousness of the self-aware universe is reality, which is an alternative view of Pantheism.^[62]

We've had lots of threads in the past about people who were Epicurean-adjacent or somewhat Epicurean, but I thought I'd ask the AI engines: "Who was the last philosopher who explicitly followed Epicurus?" to see if it produced any unexpected names. The only one chatgpt produced with which I wasn't very familiar was Guilio Vanini, thought I did see him recently mentioned in the Matthew Stewart book.

Though he's regularly mentioned I don't think we have a thread here on Michael Onfrey - maybe we should, as both Chatgpt and Grok refer to him. I'd also like to know if anything relevant survives from Vanini.

ChatGPT said:

Identifying the last philosopher who explicitly followed Epicurus depends on how one defines both “philosopher” and “explicitly followed.” However, a few noteworthy modern figures continued to advocate for Epicurean ideas in a conscious and deliberate manner, often citing Epicurus by name and aligning themselves with his core doctrines:

1. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
Jefferson famously declared himself an Epicurean in a 1819 letter to William Short, writing:

"I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy..."

Though Jefferson was not a professional philosopher in the academic sense, he deeply engaged with Epicurean ethics and incorporated its principles into his vision of personal liberty and political philosophy.

2. Frances Wright (1795–1852)
Wright was a 19th-century Scottish-American writer and social reformer who openly promoted Epicurean materialism and ethics, including the pursuit of pleasure grounded in reason. She wrote and lectured extensively on Epicureanism and defended it against Christian moralism.

3. Giulio Cesare Vanini (1585–1619)
A lesser-known Italian philosopher, Vanini revived atomist and Epicurean ideas during the Renaissance and was eventually executed for his views. He defended naturalistic explanations of the world, aligning with Epicurean physics and atheistic interpretations.

4. Michel Onfray (b. 1959)
In more recent times, French philosopher Michel Onfray has advocated for a return to Epicurean philosophy. His "La puissance d'exister" (The Strength to Exist) and "Le Ventre des philosophes" (The Philosophers' Stomach) draw directly on Epicurus, promoting hedonism, materialism, and atheism. Onfray identifies himself with the Epicurean tradition and critiques the neglect of Epicurus in mainstream philosophical discourse.

Summary
While Thomas Jefferson and Frances Wright were among the last historically prominent individuals to explicitly identify with Epicurus in a philosophical sense, Michel Onfray is arguably the most active contemporary philosopher to carry the Epicurean torch into the 21st century.

Grok3 said:

Identifying the last philosopher who explicitly followed Epicurus is tricky, as Epicureanism has waxed and waned over centuries, often blending with other schools of thought. The most prominent figure historically tied to explicitly following Epicurus is likely Lucretius, the Roman poet and philosopher of the 1st century BCE, whose work De Rerum Natura is a detailed exposition of Epicurean philosophy, particularly its physics, ethics, and rejection of superstition. Lucretius didn’t just parrot Epicurus; he adapted and expanded his ideas for a Roman audience, making him a clear disciple.

After Lucretius, Epicureanism continued in various forms, but explicit followers become harder to pin down. By the late Roman period, Epicureanism was often criticized or absorbed into other traditions, like Stoicism or early Christian thought. In later centuries, figures like Pierre Gassendi in the 17th century revived Epicurean ideas, particularly atomism and hedonistic ethics, but Gassendi’s work was more of a synthesis, blending Epicurus with Christian theology, so it’s not "pure" Epicureanism.

If we’re looking for someone more modern who explicitly identified with Epicurus without heavy reinterpretation, you’d likely end up with niche thinkers or scholars rather than major philosophers. For instance, in the 19th and 20th centuries, some secular humanists or utilitarians (like certain followers of Bentham or Mill) echoed Epicurean themes—pleasure as the highest good, avoidance of pain—but they didn’t explicitly call themselves Epicureans.

The truth is, after Lucretius, Epicureanism as a distinct, explicit tradition faded, resurfacing more as an influence than a direct lineage. If you’re after someone specific beyond Lucretius, I’d need more context on what counts as "explicitly following" for you—does it mean verbatim agreement, or just heavy inspiration? Alternatively, I can dig into specific periods or regions for you. What do you think?

If you’re looking for a specific name, I’d say the trail goes cold after Lucretius for truly "pure" followers, with later figures like Gassendi or Jefferson being the closest but still not fully aligned. If you want me to explore a particular era or community further, let me know—maybe there’s a modern Epicurean hiding in plain sight. What’s your take on what "purely" means here? That might help narrow it down.

Welcome to Episode 276 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:

1. Is Death An Evil? (Cicero says no and Epicurus says no, but for very different reasons)
2. Is Pain An Evil? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
3. Does the Wise Man Experience Grief and Fear? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
4. Does the Wise Man Experience Joy and Desire? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
5. Is Virtue Sufficient For A Happy Life? (Cicero says yes, Epicurus says no)

As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools.

Theis week we turn our attention further to "Is Death An Evil," and we will read beginning in Section XXIV where the discussion continues with more about the Pythagorean / Platonic view of the human soul.

We may be able to conclude the discussion of life after death this week, as most of the major arguments have already been given, and the remainder from 24 - 30 seems more like miscellaneous wrap-up.

--------------------------

Our general discussion guide for Tusculun Disputations is here: https://epicureanfriends.github.io/tusculundisput…lish/section:12

And a side-by-side version with comments is here:

EpicureanFriends SideBySide Commentary on TD

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

That's a good question and apparently subject of dispute, but I'd go with literally nothing but pleasure itself as being good in itself, and everything else, including prudence and friendship, being intstrumental, and not the same as pleasure itself.

While it would depend on how strictly you define friendship, I've found that even friendship can sometimes be a pain

That's more of a joke than a point, but I see Epicurus' point in wanting to be extremely rigorous in making it clear that only "pleasure" is always pleasurable.

Palmer on the origin of motion (eternal, a property of matter)

Motion As A Property Of Elemental Bodies - Eternal and Not Caused By An Outside Force

The following is Chapter 24 of Elihu Palmer's "Principles of Nature" from 1806. If I read this correctly, here he endorses motion as an eternal quality of matter, and he does not look for some cause of motion outside of matter, as did some of the other Deists.

CHAPTER XXIV. - MATTER AND POWER; ORIGIN OF MOTION; LIBERTY AND NECESSITY.

The universe is composed of an infinite mass of matter;(1) or at least, to the human mind, it is infinite, because to this mass no assignable boundary can be affixed. Space is unlimited or infinite, and in this vast expanse, innumerable bodies of matter, of different magnitudes, are continually performing variegated revolutions. Upon these bodies or higher spheres of existence, other smaller bodies are discovered, of specific modification and powers, essentially connected in their natures with the larger orbs to which they respectively belong. In all these bodies, great and small, motion is an essential and inherent property. The inactivity of matter is a doctrine contradicted by the evidence of our senses, and the clear deductions of a sound philosophy. It is impossible to conceive matter without power, or of power without matter; they are essentially connected; their existence is interwoven, and cannot be separated even in thought. The ancient doctrine of matter and motion, so long exploded, and so much calumniated by theological priests, will probably, at some future day, be considered as bearing a very strong relation to a pure and incorruptible philosophy. Supernatural religion has blinded the human understanding, and prevented upon this subject every clear and correct conception.

[1. The New York Reviewers, in the review which they took of the first edition of this work, after quoting a number of detached sentences from this chapter, make the following observation: "Those who have read the most celebrated atheistical writers, will see that, Mr. Palmer is as determined an Atheist as any of them." It is presumed that these learned Reviewers mean to take the Bible and Testament descriptions of God as the standard of theism. Let us then examine the case upon this ground, and we shall soon discover what it is to be an Atheist in the estimation of the New York Reviewers. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend," (See Exodus chap. xxxiii. 11.) "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen." (See Exodus chap. xxxiii. 23.) From these passages it appears, that God is represented in the form and shape of a man, and that such were the ideas of the inspired and chosen people of God concerning the Creator. But there is another passage in the New Testament, which places this matter in a still stronger light. In Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, speaking of Jesus Christ, he says that he was the brightness of his father's glory, and the express image of his person. Now both believers and infidels agree, that Jesus was in the shape and form of a man; and as he was like God, of course God must be like him; therefore, the Christian God is like a man, perhaps like one of the New York Reviewers. Now the fair deduction from all this is, that whosoever doth not believe that God is like a New York Reviewer, is a most profane and abominable Atheist. What a sublime and majestic spectacle of theism do these "learned" men present to the human mind! In another place they charge the author of this work with "affectation, inordinate vanity, and the want of comprehensive views." How wonderfully comprehensive must be the views of those who can place the material universe upon the shoulders of a God, resembling in his existence a New York Reviewer. Such "literary" heroes ought triumphantly to exclaim, that they have excelled in brilliancy of conception, and in comprehensive views, the story of the Indian, which places the earth upon a turtle's back, and then declares the turtle stands upon nothing! Permit "us" miserable Atheists to bow with great humility before such "splendid" talents, and such "comprehensive views". Go on, gentlemen Reviewers, and console yourselves in the preservation of that Trinitarian or polytheistical scheme of religion to which you are so much attached; but remember, the moment will arrive in the succession of future ages, when those very mental "energies" of the intelligent world, which you sneer at so much, will sweep away the whole bundle of theological nonsense, leaving only the mighty power by which the universe is sustained; and of the shape or form of this power, the New York Reviewers have as little idea as "the author of the Principles of Nature", or any of the profane and abominable Atheists, whom the advocates of Christianity long ago sent down to the dismal abodes of the damned, to dwell for ever in hell fire.]

A belief in spirits had nearly, at one time, overturned the empire of real existence; the power and excellence of matter were exploded to make room for a world of fictions; of phantoms and things that had in nature no positive, no real, or substantial being. Filled with this idea, the dreams of theology were substituted for philosophic truth, and fanaticism usurped the domination of reason. Philosophers joined in the race of spiritual or material glory, and the united effect of their different opinions constituted the annihilation of nature. The spiritualists contended against the matter, and the materialists against spirits; thus sweeping away, by their opposite systems, every species of existence. Matter, and its diversified modes of operation, are the only things of which human intelligence can take cognizance. It is this vast body of which demands our most serious investigation; it is this in which we are interested, and with which we are most closely connected. Much has been said concerning dead or inactive matter; much concerning its vis inertia; but an appeal may be safely made to the phenomena of the physical world for a complete refutation of this opinion. Every fact that strikes our eyes, or presents itself to the contemplation of the understanding; every movement in nature furnishes are argument against a doctrine so unphilosophic and erroneous. Every thing that we behold; all the elements are in continual flux; agitation or motion is a universal and eternal law of nature.

The earth, the ocean, and the atmosphere, are constantly in a high degree of action; the evidence of these facts are presented to every living creature. The raging element of fire is never wholly at rest; it is always powerfully or more silently operating in every part of the world. If these ideas are controverted, let man inquire into their truth by an immediate recourse to the energetic movements of physical existence. In regard to fluids, this opinion, perhaps, will not be controverted; but it will be asked, whether it be equally true in regard to solids? To this, the answer is unequivocally in the affirmative; at least so far as it relates to the question, motion or not motion, action or not action. Beside the general revolutionary motion which the earth has round the sun, the parts of its solid materials are constantly combining and dissolving, as may be proved by the smallest recurrence to the organic structure of vegetable and animal life, and the property of disorganization essential to each specific mode of existence. It will, however, be contended, that if this be true in regard to organic matter, or to vegetable and animal existence, it will not hold equally in regard to other portions of the material world. There is, undoubtedly, a difference in the activity of matter, or in degrees of motion, of which the several parts are capable; but there is no such thing as absolute incapacity of motion; no such thing as absolute and entire rest. For the truth of this, an appeal is made to the power, pressure, and dissolving operation of the most inert and stupid portions of material substance. An appeal is made also to the activity of the most stupid parts of matter, in the composition of vegetable productions. What regular industry do the solids and fluids exhibit in the formation of a common vegetable? The march of each particle to its destined post is with firm and philosophic step; with constancy and physical zeal. There is no such thing as dead matter; all is alive, all is active and energetic. The rays of the sun fructify the earth, and these are considered among the portions of dead matter.

These rays, however, are so active, as to travel 95,000,000 of miles in the space of seven minutes and a half; a celerity of motion which substantiates, beyond all contradiction, their essential power and activity. Every fact, in the physical world, forces conviction in the human mind, and proves the energetic nature of the material system. An investigation of the properties of matter, a full development of its modes of operation, would lead to the most salutary consequences, by instructing man in regard to his true predicament in nature, and reconciling him to his fate. To corroborate the ideas which have already been suggested upon this subject, the following strong and philosophic reflections are taken from an anonymous pamphlet, entitled, An Essay on Matter. "All matter is possessed of life, spirit, action, or motion. What is called inanimate matter, owes its motion of life no more to the elements, than what is acknowledged to be animate. This elementary influence presupposes the animation of bodies; for as these cannot move without that influence, so neither can that influence where there is no life. To say that the elements alone give motion, is to say that the elements give life, which is denying a universal agent, or making him appear to act more by intermediate agents than philosophy will allow. No one, I presume, will doubt the independent motion of matter in that form which we name animal, at least, that it is as independent as man; we allow animals to be a composition of matter without soul, yet we allow them to be possessed of the principle of motion. It is from this motion solely that we allow them to be possessed of life; for there is nothing beside that can or does influence the mind to make it assent to this truth, that animals have life; and it is from the different combinations of motion and matter that we form our ideas of the different kinds of animals. It is then from motion, and nothing else, that we judge of, and allow matter of a particular kind of composition to be possessed of the living principle; the same evidence must have the same weight in every other kind of composition. Wherever motion is discoverable in matter, be the form of it what it may, we must acknowledge it to entertain the living principle; but it may be said, that though motion be an evidence of life in matter in certain forms, and where the motion is of certain kinds, yet motion of every kind will not prove the existence of life in matter of every form.

This absurdity of supposing a 'caput mortuum', must appear to every one who considers the connection and dependence which exits in all bodies upon each other, the motion which this connection supposes, and life which motion evidences. There is a perpetual exchange of matter with matter of every form. The animal creation, for instance, is constantly exchanging parts with the earth and its atmosphere. If the matter composing animals be animate, and that of the earth inanimate, how can these be united? This would be to suppose that two opposites could exist in one body, whereas it is the nature of opposites to recede from each other, and nothing can be greater opposites than life and death. The independent motion of matter in that form called vegetable, can be as little doubted as in animals. Storms, earthquakes, fires, floods, do not cause vegetation any more than they do generation in animal. The natural or preternatural motion of bodies, no more contributes to the motion of matter in vegetables, than in animals; they, like us, receive only the natural and gentle influence of the elements, and thereby mark a link in that chain which connects all matter, and which is the harmony of creation. We shall be more particular in speaking of motion in vegetables, when we come to treat of the nicer operation of matter in that action which we call thinking. We come now to speak of the motion of matter in those forms where it is less observable upon a superficial view of things; but where, upon a nearer view, it is not less evident than in either of the other forms mentioned."

"Whoever doubts the motion of matter in the form of a stone, let him take the trouble to look upon the first rock in his way, and he will see its surface mouldering. Whatever decays, must be replenished; for matter cannot waste. Stones, then, give to, and receive matter from other bodies. Circulation is a very perfect motion. Will any one assert, that the motion of giving and receiving of its substance, does not exist in the stone, with only that assistance, which, in common with us and animals, it receives from the elements? The motion of matter in the various forms of minerals is more observable, as it is more lively. There is a constant fluctuation of matter in all mineral bodies. When miners open a mine, and do not find the ore they are in pursuit of, in the quantity which they expected, they say the mine is not ripe, and close it up again, that the metal may have time to grow. If matter have not the vital principle, then I have the power of creating. The bulk of my form is increased by the matter which in the action of eating, inspiration, and absorption, I add to myself. If this matter have not the principle of life, how can I make it partake of me, and thereby partake of life? Can I unite dead and living things, or can they be united in me? Chemists tell us that the union of bodies depends upon the affinity, i.e. the likeness which matter in one form has to matter in another form, and tell us no further. We have before mentioned the different kinds of union produced by affinity, the perfect and imperfect; but what gives the quality of union, and preserves the existence of the compound? It is the living principle in one body, inclining it to associate with the living principle in another body. Without this living principle, that inclination which supposes motion could not exist."

The above observations exhibit, with philosophic clearness, the nature and property of matter. It is by a constant recurrence to the operations of the material world, that man will be able to discover those solemn and important truths on which his happiness is founded. Our bodies are composed of the elements, compounded and organized by the skill and energy of nature; from this organization, certain consequences necessarily result; composition, decomposition, and recomposition, are established in the order, and supported by the laws of physical existence. The materials which are employed in any specific composition possess inherent and indestructible qualities, but the result may be augmented and power increased by organic construction. Thus, for instance, matter in its most simple form, may, perhaps, be destitute of intelligence; but when combined and modified in the form of a man, intellect is a uniform consequence. It is impossible to say, how far the properties or qualities of matter may extend in a simple and uncompounded state. It is impossible from the want of communication, to affirm, or deny with absolute certitude, relative to the internal essence of the particles of material existence. There must be in the essence of matter a capacity, when combined in certain forms, to produce specific results. The principle of life must be essentially inherent in the whole system and every particle thereof; but to attribute to each particle a specific kind of life analogous to that which is discovered in large compositions of matter, cannot, perhaps, be warranted by the knowledge or experience of nature. In all the specific modifications of life, disorganization, or death, is a universal law; but the universality of this law among specific combinations upon the earth, cannot, perhaps, be extended to the earth itself. The analogy is broken, when we go from individuals or particulars to generals or universals. But more of this hereafter.

It is by the laws of motion that combinations are formed, it is by the same laws they are dissolved. Motion is an essential property of universal existence. The following paragraph upon this subject, is taken from the System of Nature, a powerful work, translated from the French of the celebrated and philosophic Mirabaud.

"Every thing in the universe is in motion; the essence of nature is to act, and if we consider attentively its parts, we shall see that there is not a particle that enjoys absolute repose. Those which appear to us to be deprived of motion, are, in fact, only in relative or apparent rest; they experience such an imperceptible motion, and so little marked, that we cannot perceive the changes they undergo. All that appears to us to be at rest, does not remain, however, one instant in the same state. All beings are continually breeding, increasing, decreasing, or dispersing, with more or less dulness or rapidity. The insect called 'Ephemeron' is produced and perishes the same day; of consequence, it very rapidly experiences the considerable changes of its being. The combinations formed by the most solid bodies, and which appear to enjoy the most perfect repose, are decomposed, are dissolved in the course of time. The hardest stones are by degrees destroyed by the contact of air. A mass of iron, which time has gnawed into rust, must have been in motion from the moment of its formation in the bowels of the earth, until the instant that we see it in this state of dissolution." Mirabaud's System of Nature, Vol. I. page 42.

A philosophic investigation into the laws of nature, would probably furnish a pretty clear solution of all the phenomena of the intellectual world. A certain portion of matter organized upon a certain specific plan, produces, in the animal we denominate man, all the energetic and astonishing effects of mind.

A question has been stated among speculative metaphysicians, whether it be not probable that the earth and all the higher spheres of existence in the planetary world, are possessed of strong intellectual powers? Indeed, this conjecture has been carried so far as to combine the whole of material existence, and attribute to it all the properties, qualities, and powers of intelligent life. Nature is considered as possessing a central power, a brain, or cognitive faculty, whose operations on a higher scale are supposed to be analogous to the brain or thinking faculty of man. And this, perhaps, would be the most philosophic method by which to arrive at the idea of supreme intelligence, or the governing power of the universe. But whether the planets in their individual capacity be considered as intellectual beings, or whether nature in its aggregate combination be thus considered, are questions of speculation, concerning which, perhaps the human mind will never receive any adequate or satisfactory information. Man, however, should not fear to extend his contemplation to the whole of nature, and, if possible, subject the whole to the powerful examination of his intellectual energies.

From the ideas that have been disclosed in this chapter, it will be easy to perceive, that if the inquiry were now made, "where is the origin of motion?" the philosophic answer would be, that it is in matter itself, co-essential and co-eternal with it, and cannot be separated from any part thereof, not even in thought.

A further question, in some measure connected with the present subject, is that which relates to the principle of action in the mind of man, or the opinions relative to Liberty and Necessity. Moralists and metaphysicians have for a long time been in a state of altercation on this subject, nor is the point of discussion between them yet completely settled. Perhaps the preceding reflections may furnish us with some information and aid in the solution of a problem so difficult. The principle of motion and action must exist essentially somewhere; if this principle be in matter itself, or in a foreign agent whose existence is presumed to be wholly extraneous from the body of nature, the same consequence will, however, necessarily follow. Man is an organized being, possessing powers of motion and action; if the motion of which man is susceptible be the result of the essential nature of matter in specific organic construction, the motion in this being must be as independent, absolute, and self-existent, as in the body or any part of nature; that is, it must belong to the thing itself, co-essential with its being, and acting by the internal force of the principle itself. If the principle of motion be sought for in any intellectual agent foreign to the body of nature, it must be independent and absolute there; it must be self-existent, and as man must have proceeded from one or the other of these two sources, he must be like the source itself from which he emanated, and possess, in a partial degree at least, that independence of power and action, which are so justly to be attributed to these two great sources of all existence. To suppose an infinite series in the principle of causation, exhibits nothing more than a feeble effort of the mind, to get clear of a metaphysical difficulty. The last point that is discovered, includes in it an equal necessity of discovering another point, on which the last may depend for its existence. The links in this chain would become innumerable, its length infinite, and, after all, the difficulty remain as great as ever.

This doctrine, concerning the origin of motion, and of giving a solution to the subject by means of an infinite series in the principle of causation, can never satisfy the mind that is seriously in quest of a first point, or essential spring of every action; in short, it is nothing better than the story of the Indian, who placed the earth upon a turtle's back, and afterwards declared, that the turtle stood upon nothing. The fact is, man is independent in his mind; it is the essence of his nature to act, and he feels, or ought to feel, that he is not the slave of any of the phantoms of superstition, or the fine spun reasonings of metaphysical philosophers.

In a moral point of view, the doctrine of necessity is still more objectionable, and goes to the destruction of all human merit, and with it the dignity of the human character. If man be a moral slave, his actions in relation to himself are neither good nor bad; he is impelled by an irresistible necessity, and can no more in justice be punished for his conduct, than a cannonball, which is propelled forward by the explosion of gunpowder, can be punished for taking off a man's leg. The one upon the doctrine of necessity is as much a moral agent as the other, and punishment, in both cases, equally absurd. It is essential to the dignity of man that he be free and independent, both morally and politically. Political slavery is not more derogatory to the human character, and human energy, than moral slavery. They both sink and brutalize mankind; they both have a tendency to diminish his efforts, and destroy his active zeal in the cause of virtue. It is essential to the true and elevated character of an intellectual agent, that he realize the strength of his powers; that he be confident in his energies; that he hold in suitable contempt every species of moral and political despotism. This sentiment will raise him from a degraded condition, and form him into the stature of a perfect man in the glorious system of nature.

Here's a PDF of the original document from Archive.org -- I can't as yet find the full transcript - if anyone locates a text version, please post a link in this thread.

A sermon on natural religion. By a natural man. 1771 : Natural man : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

A sermon on natural religion. By a natural man. 1771..Digitized from IA40310308-45.Previous issue:...

archive.org

One of the things about this which Matthew Stewart comments on is how interesting it was to the deists of this period to think about life on other planets and throughout the universe, and that this is in fact how the "Sermon On Natural Religion" ends:

Episode 275 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is entitled: "Does Motion Prove The Existence of God and The Divinity Of the Soul?"

Welcome Rolf

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks. I'll have a lot more to say when I finish the book but I'm definitely impressed so far.

Eikadistes - today I finished the chapter in this book on Epicurus - "Epicurus' Dangerous Idea."

It's got to be one of the deepest treatments of Epicurus that I've read in many a day, and given that it was released as recently as 2015 it's probably one of the longer recent treatments out there - certainly in a book meant for general readership.

It may not be quite as "broad," but it's a *much* deeper treatment of some of the core ideas than the chapter on Epicurus in Greenblatt's "The Swerve."

He's giving far more detail than I am familiar with, but one person I wish he had referenced (although she's after the revolutionary period so I can understand her being omitted) was Frances Wright and her Few Days In Athens.

I'm looking forward to reading it to the end but wanted to re-engage you on your overall impression of the book. Did it lead you to any additional reading on any of the many lesser-known figures that he talks about from the followers of Bruno (Vallini?) on up to the 1800's? It sounds like Thomas Young was a key figure and link to Epicurus.

There's also a lot of general reflection on how to present revolutionary religious ideas when you know that many people around you aren't ready to hear them.

This might be one of the best general-interest books to talk about Epicurus since "The Swerve," and it almost certainly deserves more attention than we've given it.

Quote from AxA

So I judge my life against this expanded sense of time, and see it as very inconvenient to only be alive for a tiny part of it.

Yes I feel the same way, and I think it's important not the let the Epicurean view that you don't need an unlimited time to attain the fullness of please lead you to think that it's entirely irrelevant how long you live. I don't think that was Epicurus' view at all - as evidenced by his comments about the desirability of life and his opposition to suicide.

Quote from AxA

I can't fathom the meaning of beauty (or honour or excellence, translating the same word as beauty) that does not bring pleasure.

Ha -- YOU can't, nor can most normal people in my view, but apparently Plato and the stoics had no problem thinking that way at all, and finding "beauty" to have nothing to do with pleasure whatsoever.

Quote from AxA

I'm not convinced of the value of "morality" as a concept

Yep. "Morality" can be a useful term, sort of like "ethics," but like most (all?) abstractions it has no real meaning outside of particular circumstances. You can say that "pleasure and pain" are also tied to circumstances, but Nature gives you a very direct awareness of those without need of logical or conceptual identification. Pleasure and pain can also be viewed as abstractions in the way we use the terms, but they are immediately traceable back to the "feeling" given by nature.

Quote from Kalosyni

Without a god which gave moral mandates as absolutes, then we see that moral precepts are a product of humans living together with other humans and desiring to find safety, trust, and peace, rather than creating fear, distrust, anger and perpetual violence. So we as groups of humans

The key being that just humans (not gods) develop language, WE develop these ideas, and they are not sanctioned or handed down by any supernatural being, nor do they have any eternal transcendent existence. And when circumstances change, we change those ideas of morality to fit circumstances, we don't try to fit the circumstances to some arbitrary and unchanging notion of what is "just." This is explained at length and forcefully in PD37 and 38:

Quote

PD37. Among actions which are sanctioned as just by law, that which is proved, on examination, to be of advantage, in the requirements of men's dealings with one another, has the guarantee of justice, whether it is the same for all or not. But if a man makes a law, and it does not turn out to lead to advantage in men's dealings with each other, then it no longer has the essential nature of justice. And even if the advantage in the matter of justice shifts from one side to the other, but for a while accords with the general concept, it is nonetheless just for that period, in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty sounds, but look to the actual facts.  PD38. Where, provided the circumstances have not been altered, actions which were considered just have been shown not to accord with the general concept, in actual practice, then they are not just. But where, when circumstances have changed, the same actions which were sanctioned as just no longer lead to advantage, they were just at the time, when they were of advantage for the dealings of fellow-citizens with one another, but subsequently they are no longer just, when no longer of advantage.

As to the "Beautiful" being trademarked Platonism, I believe the citation I was trying to remember tonight was the following, which in this case (from Bryan's Epicurea PDF) translates as "honorable" and "excellence" rather than "beautiful," though I think i have seen it translated "beautiful" as well:

Quote

Aetius, Doxography, XII p. 547A: And in his work On the End-Goal, he says again:
"{=U70}" And in other passages, he says "I spit upon the honorable and those who
vainly admire it, whenever it produces no pleasure."

Plutarch, Against Kōlṓtēs, 30, p. 1124E: … and when men take for sages those who
"spit on excellence, unless pleasure attends it." [c.f. 1124E @ U368]

Thank you Bryan -- I don't want you to have to paste more screen shots. I will edit these, presumably using my Hix/Loeb to match the greek to the right place. It'll take time but I'll get it done.

Well, here's a first draft of a web version, but I am not at all confident of some of the line divisions, and as to to the Greek version matching the divisions, it will be pure luck if some of them match

It's going to take more effort to make this usable, but if Tau Phi is able to produce a more careful version in PDF, then I'll eventually make mine conform to his. I'd suggest that anyone who has time to volunteer focus on Tau Phi's version of the full book, and then I'll eventually get mine into shape from that.

EpicureanFriends Side-By-Side Diogenes Laertius Ten

I've been continuing to work on a format that I can use as a web version in similar side-by-side as in the Lucretius page, but the differences in line numberings between the editions are really a bear.

I'll proceed as best I can using the Hicks/Loeb as the standard, but because there are all sorts of differences in groupings (plus decisions as to whether to include scholium) the finished product will hopefully match the original content, but not have consistent line numbering. I'm not sure there's much way to deal with any of this other than do the best we can, and then point to PDFS of the original editions so people can check the PDFs to verify the originals. I suspect Tau Phi's is going to be more precise than mine (it definitely is so far) so when his full book ten comes out I'll do my best to bring a web version in conformity with his.

Bryan when you referred to the Cambridge edition, I am guessing you are talking about the academic one that's mostly in Greek. Do you know how closely the Loeb/Hicks conforms to that? I don't know that there's a much better choice than that one (Loeb/Hicks), if we want to pick one of the public domains as the "standard."

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

Thank you Tau Phi! This is a huge effort and I appreciate any of it you can complete!