Posts by Cassius

In response to the thank you from Matthaeus, I would also say that if we were to blur the lines between theism and anti-theism too much, we might be legitimately chargeable of being as tone-deaf to the facts of the ancient controversies as are the Modern Stoics. And that would be a fate worse than death!

PS - I was looking for the cite to Tacitus simply because I was aware of the "hatred of the human race" comment. I had never read the details on that pageabout the location where the fire started and how that tied it to the Christian/Jewish community. Worth reading.

OK I am supposed to be moderating here so let me get a word in.

I understand where Mattheaus is coming from, and I understand where Elli is coming from, and I agree that there is really no breaching the divide. I value Mattheaus' friendship and appreciate his participation here, but I know sometimes there is just no reaching a consensus on some issues. Mattheaus knows that he is advocating a theist-based viewpoint which is not consistent with Epicurean philosophy. As long as the discussion continues tactfully and productively I think it continues to be helpful, and something from which others can learn. But as for my own point of view, and the point of view that is consistent with the founding and purpose of this forum, it is Epicurean, which means anti-theist.

As for Liantinis, I only read Gemma a few years ago, and about all else I know about him I have learned from Elli's posts. My reading is that he writes very densely and his meaning is not always clear, which is very much similar to how I find Nietszshe. There is no doubt, however, that Nietzsche was anti-Theist, and that Liantinis was anti-Theist -- or at the very least, anti-monotheist.

As for "anti-Semitism," my reading of both (especially Nietzshe) is that they directed their opposition to the ideology regardless of who carries it, with the fact that it is carried aggressively by Jews (especially in the ancient world) is simply an observation of fact. As I see it, their opposition was not "race-based" but "ideology-based." If one wants to talk about the details of the Jews as a class, there is no better example of a sweeping statement than Diogenes of Oinoanda's characterization of Jews as "the vilest of people." In response to that, there is plenty of reciprocal denunciation of Epicurus by Judaism in return. So I personally see this conflict as a fact of life that cannot be run from or repudiated. The reasons that both sides took the positions they did were well founded, and essential for understanding both positions.

So I understand where Mattheaus is coming from, and I don't see much resolution on theism.

As to Oscar's comment on Liantinis, however, I am not aware of a basis for saying that "Liantinis professed hatred and disdain for humanity..."

Oscar, do you have a cite for that?

Pending that further discussion, as I see it in and of itself saying that someone has a hatred for the human race is not particularly novel. Tacitus said it about the Christians (which I understand might have been meant to include Jews as well since I gather the Romans considered them largely the same).

Thanks Martin, that makes sense!

Elli I think most of your post got combined in the quote.....

I too wish I had visited Paris before it turned into what it is today. The only time I made it to Europe I did get to see one cathedral - the one in Paderborn Germany, and it was very impressive.

Quote from Matthaeus

Anyone who would take pleasure in their destruction or be dismissive of them clearly have no grasp of the artistic spirit of humanity...regardless of religion and philosophy.

I definitely agree. And I think one of the things Elli is getting at in the post above (22) is that there ARE such people who DO take pleasure in an event like that, and we need to deal with that reality in practical ways, rather than close our eyes to it and hope for the best.

Which is not to say that such people (who take pleasure in this) are "wrong" or "evil" or in any way to be condemned as violating any laws of god or of humanity. It's simply to say that I want nothing to do with them, and that if I or people who think like I / we do want to live happily, we need to explore ways so that these conflicting views of life don't come into contact with each other any more than necessary.

Is this letter to Marcella something you are familiar with Matt ?

Wow very strong, Elli. Some of that is yours and some of that is Liantinis?

Thanks to Takis Panagiatopolis of the Athens Garden for this link:

http://www.epicuros.gr/pages/en/Tempe…us_Porphyry.pdf

! It seems clear that this writer was referencing Epicurean ideas while also combining them with elements that are absolutely irreconcilable. It is interesting to reflect on which are which.

"27. So then, first you must grasp the law of Nature and from it ascend to the divine law which also established the law of Nature."

Tempelis_Epicurus_Porphyry.pdf

From that wikipedia page:

When I read that, the first thing that comes to my mind is PD 33 -

33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.

Just as a general observation, and not related to this situation in particular, this brings home to me: How useless it is to think that any "law" at any time or any place, has any power whatsoever on its own, unless the people promoting the law are so organized as to have the power to enforce it themselves.

Godfrey take a look at that site where Hesiods Theogony is linked. It looks like there are a variety of good free sources on the Greek gods. https://www.theoi.com/

Thanks to Matt or as I shall call him for a while "He Who Changes His Avatar More Frequently Than Anyone Else By Far."

That's a great idea and we can pursue it here or in the subforum on "Gods" - The Nature (Non-Existence) of Supernatural Gods - "Atheism" - Epicurean "Divinity"

As for reference works, I see that Matt posted this thread on Thesiod. I confess I have heard of his work but am not sure whether it is a compendium of material on the gods or what - Hesiod’s Theogony

Quote from Hiram

so we will always have to live with people's political identities and their implications

I agree with much of that post Hiram, but I think this part goes further than I would go. In all human history to date there has been a great deal of ebb and flow and change about where people live, with whom, etc., so I would expect that to continue to be the case. And what stirs a lot of that movement is that people who want to live together, in their way of living, aren't always going to be stopped by the simple desire of other people to live differently. Populations frequently come into conflict by force, and probably always will. So from my personal Epicurean point of view, if the great majority of my neighbors decide that they don't like my way of life, I would like to think that I am mentally and emotionally (if not physically) prepared to defend it with force if necessary.

Given that the life of myself and my friends is short, I would take no risks in engaging in social experiments with people who quite frankly tell me that they hate my guts for whatever reason. And that means, in appropriate circumstances, being willing and able to defend ourselves by force, if necessary.

In support of this I would cite:

6. In order to obtain protection from other men, any means for attaining this end is a natural good.

14. Protection from other men, secured to some extent by the power to expel and by material prosperity, in its purest form comes from a quiet life withdrawn from the multitude.

39. The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life.

40. Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another; and their enjoyment of the fullest intimacy is such that if one of them dies prematurely, the others do not lament his death as though it called for pity.

Quote from Hiram

I think it's in our self-interest to support Enlightenment and humanist alternatives for creating community and meaning in the West.

See, that's where I would say Epicurean alternatives because I don't know that "enlightenment" and "humanist" are the same thing -- in fact I think that a case could be made that those words helped get us to where we are today. The real serum is what Epicurus promoted, and when people (not you, of course) use other words to describe their meaning, then they are hedging on something, probably something very important.

Yes I think that is the way forward toward reconciling the tension -- by limiting the circle of "others" to those who are truly in some sense our friends. But it's very hard to draw those lines, especially if a philosophy is grounded in opposition to drawing any lines, and considering everything to be "universal" in application.

That's where I think the last then PD's make clear that Epicurus did not go in that direction.

I agree with much of what you wrote there, Hiram. The buildings and the artwork are beautiful, but they are built on the ruins of something that was *more* beautiful before, and what was there became ruins in my view largely because of the views and people who built Vatican City,

And I especially thing you are correct about the sexual and other types of perversion that permeate the Roman Catholic church.

The main reservation I have is that what could follow the Vatican would be something even worse, if present trends continue - a sister Abrahamic religion built on essentially the same falsehoods.

Hiram thanks for the part about being willing to check the French translations ---

Also - what do you think Onfray would answer as to his supporting reasoning for questions like "Who are these "others"? Why "must" their interests be considered equal to the interests of myself, family, and actual or potential friends?" "Must" is always a loaded word. Says who?

In regard to a quote like this:

I doubt he would say that his opinion is rooted in either Epicurus or hedonism for that matter, unless he just wanted to coin his own brand of hedonism that takes for granted that "everyone" is entitled to equal consideration as we make our own decisions.

Presuming that he appeals to some outside authority for why that "must" be true, sounds like he is verging on platonism himself.

Michele I hope not, but Vatican City may be next!

It's my understanding that the Vatican was largely constructed with stone from the original Roman Forum buildings, is that correct?

If so, lots of conflicting emotions and histories are involved.

Michele since you are an Italian and presumably very in tune with Lucretius --- how do you interpret the references to Venus in the opening of Book 1 of his poem?