Posts by Cassius

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

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.

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.

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?

I know that we are missing numbers of links here to prior discussions about "gods." I will add more as I find them and I invite others to do the same, as people who read the FAQ and follow the link there will find this thread.

I have heard of that Follett book but not read it. Yes indeed it is a great tragedy to lose it. I suppose that's a reason to keep it in context, that the world also has lost many more, and more beautiful buildings, from the ancient world, so that this isn't unique. It's still shocking and disconcerting, regardless.

No doubt it is a shocking experience for a lot of people - it is to me too. But sometimes shocking experiences can have beneficial consequences if they help us come to better grip with reality.

**Gods Do Not Protect Their Temples** - I think this time line has been posted before, but today is probably a good day to repost it. Epicurean philosophy has pointed out for 2000 years the lesson of this timeline, that neither the ancient gods, nor the modern ones, protect their temples. And that is because of the observation made in PD1:

"1. A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness."

And in the letter to Menoeceus:

"For there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that men do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in men like themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind."

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/06/christ…an-persecution/

The Notre Dame fire today is a huge event that has many political implications that are not appropriate for this forum. But it clearly is Epicurean to observe that the gods of the religionists do not intervene to protect their temples.

I clearly seem to recall that there are passages in some of the ancient texts about how "the gods'" fail to protect their temples, and that their thunderbolts even burn down their own altars, but at the moment I can't recall a cite.

If any of you remember good texts that would be appropriate for graphics in the coming weeks and months, please post those here too. Because the images of the burning Notre Dame are going to become 9/11 style iconic images showing that the gods do not intervene in the world of human affairs. And that far transcends the politics of 2019.