Posts by Cassius

1- What kind of science major are you?

2 - " for the sake of accurate, precise language" << On this I am not so sure. Elli here likes to remind us that Epicurean philosophy doesn't fit neatly under an "ism" heading, and especially if what is meant by "hedonism" is "pleasure-ism." If we were looking for a larger umbrella term "Nature-ism" or something that is wider would probably be more appropriate, but I bet that is why the ancient followers of Epicurus were just called "Epicureans" since the philosophy has so many facets.

3 - i agree with all you wrote about formulating the categories in clear and appealing ways, but it goes through my mind a lot that there are profound implications of Epicurus demoting "reason" as not one of the elements of the canon, and talking so much instead about "Feeling." I think in the end we are persuaded of anything not so much by a dialectical reasoning exercise but by our personal "Feeling" that a thing is true. Of course that includes our observations through our senses, and also the "feelings" and the "Anticipations" that are part of the canonical faculties. The basic point I am making is that as we approach how best to introduce others to Epicurean thought, we ought to keep in mind that Epicurean thought is NOT a form of dialectical reasoning. Epicurus emphasized the importance of "feeling" (in a very broad sense) so I think we need to give at least as much thought to reaching people through a good "feeling" about the philosophy as we do chopping it up into logical parts. Remember how Lucretius talks about "rimming the cup with honey" as a means of getting across what is in some cases a bitter set of truths? I think that we ought to think about the implications of that perspective.

Also, good to talk to you right now, because as I type this Facebook is totally down!

More on the same topic as background, Daniel:

It's no simple coincidence that my icon is a Roman soldier putting on a helmet. I consider the rivalries and disputes between the philosophies and intellectual war, and I firmly believe that not everyone in the world has the best interests of Epicureans at heart. I think people like Cicero and Plutarch did everything they could, while maintaining their credibility, to place Epicurean philosophy in a bad light. I think the great majority of commentators since then have done the same, because they deeply disapprove of Epicurus.

That means that we have to take a fresh look at EVERYTHING, and accept none of the commentary (and even many of the translations) at face value. I don't think I would be here in the forum today, or even interested in Epicurus at all, if I had not come across the Norman DeWitt book that I promote so much, and seen how Epicurus stands apart and reacted against the earlier Greeks like Plato and Aristotle. There are so many modern presumptions about Epicurus (ie the interpretation of "absence of pain"!!!) that seem so wrong when viewed through the DeWitt perspective, that like I said it's necessary to start from scratch to really scrutinize what Epicurus really taught.

If you're read any of the DeWitt book you probably know what I mean, if you haven't yet, I urge you to take a look at it, because his perspective is truly different from OKeefe and Warren and most modern perspectives.

Daniel to repeat I don't mean to be critical of you for calling it that, because I know many people fluent in philosophy do so. Categories can be useful things and I understand why they want to put Epicurus in that box. However my personal preference is dealing in a world of non-professional philosophers who are looking for practical ways to organize their lives. You are right that the "pleasure" focus is only a part, but an important part, of Epicurus, but what distinguishes him almost as much are his positions on the universe being natural/non theistic (atomism) and his views on the role of reason and the senses in his epistemology.

I'm mainly just saying that in the circles I come into contact with it is confusing to use the term hedonism, especially since its connotation in English is so negative. The word carries no positive connotations whatsoever in my mind, or in the minds of people I generally deal with. That's unfortunate, but since there is no evidence that the ancient Epicureans used the word to describe themselves, I see no reason to fight a battle over that word when there are so many other battles to fight.

Beyond the rhetorical considerations, I really don't think that Epicurus himself would approve of it. The role of pleasure in ethics is certainly an important conclusion, but I feel sure that he considered his conclusions on how to think, and how the universe operates, to come before his contributions on ethics. I gather that the experts think that the letter to Herodotus was the first in time that he wrote, and the letter to Menoeceus probably among the latter. Herodotus, like Lucretius' poem, certainly mentions the role of pleasure, but places at least as much emphasis on the physics and epistemology.

But you're attacking an area I think is super-important: how to approach new people, and it seems to me the best way to start off with them is not to allow them to be distracted by a word that might turn them off before they've understood the other fundamentals of the philosophy.

Now I will be the first to admit that you may operate in different circles, and the new people you are talking to may have no issues with the word "hedonism" at all. So if you think that is true, you should definitely proceed in the way you think best, using hedonism.

One thing I firmly believe is true is that there is no single "best" way to pursue the promotion of Epicurean philosophy, so it is good to have alternative approaches.

Welcome @Berlin45 ! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us a little about your background and interest in Epicurus.

Daniel just time for a quick comment, but in my own discussions I do not like to use the word hedonism. I don't think the texts of Epicurus indicate that the ancient Epicureans referred to their philosophy as hedonism, as Epicurean philosophy is much more complex than that. I'm not saying that to be critical of what you just wrote, because I know many people in philosophy approach the subject that way, and there are many approaches that can be productive. Just personally for me I don't find talking about hedonism particularly effective.

Also: I have no experience and have not given too much thought to issues involving age here on the forum, but it strikes me Bradley that as your children get older and you introduce them to the internet it would be great for some of us to be able to talk philosophy with them here! Most all of our content is already family-friendly , but perhaps at some point we could set up a "children's section" where people of a certain age could only see that or limited other sections.

As many of you know I have been thinking in terms of "Epicurus College" as a project for ongoing learning for us adults, but it would be a desirable and inevitable part of any true Epicurean "movement" to experiment and work toward methods of introducing Epicurus to younger people.

I have a Lidl less than a mile from where I live. I don't get there often enough, but it is really interesting how different they are from American supermarkets!

1 -- Brad, I am sure you can tell I am on a long-term campaign to find and unite the Epicureans of the world who understand Epicurean pleasure positively, and not as a gateway drug to asceticism. There will likely always be a multi-track approach where people are inclined to asceticism consider themselves Epicurean, and some of them can be brought along to a wider understanding of Epicurus. BUT some won't, and when confronted with the "Epicurus meant what he said about pleasure being understandable" attitude, they fall away from "the flock" So as we proceed down the road please help me keep that in mind and help me, to the extent you can, figure out how to pursue that more productively!

2 -- in the same vein, I reposted my comment over on FB and one of the replies contained such good info about Buddhism that I had to past it here. I'll do it without attribution since the person isn't a member here (as far as I know):

"Depressing is right! The person who was discussing Buddhist meditation, asceticism, and the achievement of jnana caught my interest. I studied the Buddhist teachings that he references for years, and though I meditated daily, I never went on intensive meditation retreats where a person might be able to finally reach those meditative states. I felt like a bad Buddhist because I had no desire to give up some of my pleasures and attend retreats where I might attain those states that the Buddha talked about. Eventually I began to question the worldview of Buddhism, and the practice of meditation, and I gave up my study and practice. The teachings of Epicurus, I've been happy to discover, affirms the world, our place in it, and our desires for pleasure in a positive way.

In Buddhism tanha (which translates as thirst, desire, longing and craving) is what leads to suffering (dukkha). We are taught that desire for sensual pleasures can never satisfy us, and we are to aim for the state of equanimity, where we neither grasp pleasure or push away unpleasantness. People like to think of Buddhism as a philosophy of becoming one with everything, but actually the Buddha's teachings, as recorded in the earliest form of the Pali Canon, were only for those who had renounced the world and become ascetics. Laypeople were to make merit by providing everything that the monks and nuns needed so that they could spend their time meditating as much as possible. If the laypeople spent their lives doing good in this way, perhaps in the next life they could become monks or nuns themselves and strive to reach enlightenment. I cannot see any way that Buddhism and the teachings of Epicurus can be harmonized, though sometimes people try to do so.

In case anyone thinks I responded too mildly, I am fighting allergies / pollen season already!

How depressing to read answers like this:

Wow that is great -- keep us posted.

Elementary but a very good start! It's interesting to see what people think of to list at the very beginning of their thought processes about an outline.

I relate this in my mind to discussions I see when people talk about other philosophers and say that they were "essentially Epicurean." The question of "what is essential" and what is not is a very interesting one.

One aspect i don't see mentioned is the death is nothing to us / death is the end of our consciousness aspect. Something on that would be good to add.

And then perhaps some further explanation of what is meant by "pleasure...."

Those two -- death and the meaning of pleasure -- are among the most contentious areas.

Very good, Brad! Is that your son in the cover photo of your "wall" here?

I wonder if he is too young to appreciate "A Few Days In Athens"? Have you read that yourself - what do you think?

If we have the possibility here of testing out some potential Epicurean teaching on a real-life young person, we really ought to take advantage of that and get some feedback on what approaches might be most useful.

I hope maybe you can sign in on the 20th or do something else to mark it with your son and us together.

People regularly question to what extent Bertrand Russell should be considered to be Epicurean. No doubt he has some positions (such as disdain for the influence of common religion) that are similar to Epicurus, but there are many profound differences, and I am not aware that Russell labeled himself an Epicurean in any respect. On that topic, here are some quotes about Epicurus from Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" which do not indicate that Russell held Epicurus in high regard:

Russell asserts, ridiculously slanting the evidence, that Epicurus and his friends lived mainly on bread and water:

More negative commentary:

Here's another which is deeply off base - the only advantage of mental pleasure over bodily pleasure is that we have more control over it?

That's an interesting comment Bradley -- several of us here have backgrounds in dealing with Objectivism/Rand. Here are several articles I have written myself in the past on that topic. If there is a particular aspect of that in which you might be interested in discussing, it might be a good idea for you to start a separate thread.

https://newepicurean.com/?s=Ayn+Rand

https://newepicurean.com/assistance-for…ns-of-ayn-rand/

https://newepicurean.com/a-case-study-i…e-objectivists/

https://newepicurean.com/objectivism-th…phy-in-america/

2 - I have to confess I have no timetable for Catius' Cat having another story, but I will see what I can do!

1 - I am afraid I do not know much about Greek cheese's but I will see if I can get Elli to comment - she would definitely know! But as another possible food choice, it seems clear that Epicurus was partial to figs, so I would suggest you incorporate those even more than cheese.

Khoirul I have a feeling you would enjoy reading, and identify with, the lead character in Frances Wright's story "A Few Days In Athens" -- http://www.AFewDaysInAthens.com . It is written from the perspective of a young student checking out different schools. If you get a chance to look at it it would be great to hear your thoughts about it.

So Welcome!

Welcome Khoirul ! When you get a chance please tell us a little about yourself and your background and interest in Epicurus.