Posts by Cassius

Posted At Facebook and on the calendar here:

Update: A discussion plan for Chapter 7 of DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - on the subject of "The Canon, Reason, and Nature" is now posted here.

This is such an excellent question, and one that is asked so frequently, that I am creating a separate forum for others (especially new readers) to post their own versions.

KDF, here are my thoughts - not intending to be judgmental, and certainly I am not qualified to define who is and who is not an Epicurean. But based on my reading and study, here is what I would say:

What you have described is a set of attitudes toward your that certainly indicate that you are generally working to apply a pleasure/pain analysis to your life, and that of course is consistent with Epicurus' advice. But since the topic of your question is "Am I an Epicurean?" I think it would be necessary to know a lot more before answering. Of course not everyone who pursues pleasure is an Epicurean, and there is a lot more to the philosophy than that single ethical conclusion.

I think that's the consistent issue we run into that people need to think about more deeply - your answers indicate that you are probably on the Epicurean course ethically, but whether your particular decisions have been reached via a line of thinking that Epicurus would recommend depends on your circumstances, and on your foundations in the other branches of Epicurean philosophy.

For example you do not mention your view of "gods," or "fate," or the meaning of "death." And you do not indicate your view of the issue of knowledge/certainty/confidence, and of logic vs the senses, in your observations and your conclusions. I argue that "ethics" is far downstream of those more fundamental issues about the nature of life and the universe. Unless one has a grounding in those issues, and more or less accepts the Epicurean viewpoint on them, then it's likely that at some point of stress or misfortune that the person "falls away" from Epicurean philosophy, because they've never really understood the framework in the first place.

So my preliminary comment is that definitely your ethics are at least superficially reconcilable with Epicurus, but to answer "Am I an Epicurean" would require considerably more information. Feel free to elaborate or not, but thank you for posting!

I have accumulated my researchat the page linked below, but I am far from happy with my presentation of it, and the issue is going to probably consume the rest of my philosophical career What it boils down to in my mind is that:

1 - Plato and others had established a philosophical consensus in which pleasure could NOT be the guide of life due to a variety of *logical* arguments, especially that the desire for pleasure can never be satisfied, and that "something more" is needed in addition to pleasure.

2 - Epicurus knew that in addition to proof by pointing out that all nature at birth cries out for pleasure and against pain, he had to defeat the anti-pleasure *logical* arguments.

3 - What people (especially stoic-friendly people who are suspicious of pleasure) focus on today as "ataraxia" is nothing more than the commonplace observation that the maximum quantity of pleasure any living being can experience is that quantity he experiences when his experience is totally "full" of pleasures, without any mixture of pain left behind. This is a *logical* construct that shows that the desire for pleasure CAN be satisfied, and that nothing MORE is needed for the highest possible state of existence. No ancient Epicurean would have failed to understand that this is a debating device, because elsewhere, and otherwise, Epicurus was totally clear that *pleasure* as commonly understood is the goal of life.

4- But due to the tragic victory of Stoicism/Judeo-Christianity/Platonism, the victors got to write the history, and they erased virtually all of the foundation and context, preserving only what they wanted to preserve. And of course among the first things they chose to preserve the observation that "simplicity" is frequently the best course for maintaining steady pleasurable living. And worst of all, they ripped "absence of pain" totally out of context to imply that there is some mysterious "state" that his higher and different from ordinary pleasure which we should set as our goal -- transforming Epicurus directly into an anti-pleasure / anti-pleasure more potent than most of their own Stoic perverters of Nature! And THOSE two things (1 - simplicity, and 2 - the alleged goal of "painlessness") is all that 98% of people think is significant about Epicurean philosophy today!

http://newepicurean.com/foundations-2/…pleasure-model/

"An action prompted by the life-instinct proves that it is a right action by the amount of pleasure that goes with it: and yet that Nihilist, with his bowels of Christian dogmatism, regarded pleasure as an objection… What destroys a man more quickly than to work, think and feel without inner necessity, without any deep personal desire, without pleasure—as a mere automaton of duty? That is the recipe for decadence, and no less for idiocy…" [Referring to Kant, but is the basic point not fundamentally Epicurean?]

Nietzsche, Antichrist, 11 - http://4umi.com/nietzsche/antichrist/11

This is spurred in part by Mark Cubbedge's link to a group offering "dialog" between Stoics and Epicureans, and part by the observation that if North and South Korea can be friends, then I can occasionally say something good about the Stoics. And here it is: I completely and fully agree with the following statement by Chris Fisher at "Traditional Stoicism. com":

"What is Traditional Stoicism? These posts [meaning his work and page] differentiate traditional Stoicism from the various modern iterations that diverge, often dramatically, from the essential elements of Stoic philosophy as historically understood. The assertion of traditional Stoicism is not that the philosophical system cannot change and evolve, nor does it assert that moderns must assent to everything the ancients did. Instead, traditional Stoicism rests on the demonstrable fact that the ancient Stoics built their philosophical theory and practice around a set of fundamental assumptions about the nature of humankind and the nature of the cosmos. Those assumptions define Stoicism and empower its practice to affect change in lives. Clearly, our understanding of both human nature and the cosmos has increased over time and those new facts can be assimilated into the framework of the original system. However, in our current secular age, many want to abandon fundamental aspects of the framework itself because they conflict with their assumed worldview. The ancient Stoics denied that their system could be changed in this manner; traditional Stoics agree. Traditional Stoicism asserts that we must avoid the impulse to change Stoic practice into something which is no longer recognizable as Stoicism simply to make it more palatable for moderns."

I think Chris is correct about Stoicism, and I think we could rewrite that paragraph in EXACTLY the same form, just substituting "Epicurean Philosophy" for Stoicism":

"What is Traditional Epicurean Philosophy? These posts [advocates of true Epicurean philosophy] differentiate traditional Epicurean Philosophy from the various modern iterations that diverge, often dramatically, from the essential elements of Epicurean philosophy as historically understood. The assertion of traditional Epicurean Philosophy is not that the philosophical system cannot change and evolve, nor does it assert that moderns must assent to everything the ancients did. Instead, traditional Epicurean Philosophy rests on the demonstrable fact that the ancient Epicureans built their philosophical theory and practice around a set of fundamental assumptions about the nature of humankind and the nature of the cosmos. Those assumptions define Epicurean Philosophy and empower its practice to affect change in lives. Clearly, our understanding of both human nature and the cosmos has increased over time and those new facts can be assimilated into the framework of the original system. However, in our current secular age, many want to abandon fundamental aspects of the framework itself because they conflict with their assumed worldview. The ancient Epicureans denied that their system could be changed in this manner; traditional Epicureans agree. Traditional Epicurean Philosophy asserts that we must avoid the impulse to change Epicurean practice into something which is no longer recognizable as Epicurean Philosophy simply to make it more palatable for moderns."

Of course I do not accept the need to refer to "Traditional" Epicurean philosophy. "Traditional" Epicurean philosophy - the kind that firmly asserts the absence of supernatural gods, freedom from "fate," this life as the only one we have, and the faculty of pleasure as the true guide to life - IS Epicurean philosophy. Rejection of those foundations "to make it more palatable for moderns" is not Epicurean philosophy at all.

So in this I say nothing but good about Chris Fisher's Stoic point of view.

STEP 2: A list of Stoic "Techniques" - I will update this list and try to create something worth responding to --

1. Negative visualization (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life)
2. The dichotomy of control – which Irvine turns into a trichotomy (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life) (This is the "good / bad / indifferent categorization?)
3. Fatalism (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life)
4. Self denial – “practicing poverty” (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life)
5. Striving to be free of the passions ("A Guide to Stoic Living" https://www.scribd.com/doc/77465459/A…ng-Keith-Seddon)
6. Meditation, (but I get the impression that by meditate they mean think about things a lot rather than sitting without thinking.) (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life)
7. Live Simply / Live According to Nature (Keith Seddon / "A Guide to Stoic Living" https://www.scribd.com/doc/77465459/A…ng-Keith-Seddon )
   

STEP 1: I am going to try to organize some kind of comparison document contrasting Epicurean advice with Stoic "techniques." In preparation I posted this [at Facebook]. In subsequent posts here I'll try to compile a list:

Recent questions indicate that I need to devote some time to a written response to the Stoic "techniques" that we get asked about so frequently. I will try to work something up, so: (1) Does anyone have a link to a list of the primary Stoic "techniques" which I should be sure to address? Modern or ancient, either is fine, but I would prefer clarity above all so that I can be sure to hit the "high" points (or the "low" points, depending on perspective). (2) For those new to this exercise, I would be particularly grateful for any lists that include the Stoic equivalents to the first two Epicurean doctrines (A. That we owe nothing to and have nothing to fear from supernatural gods, and B. that our lives are terminated by death, so that all the "happiness" we will ever experience must be gained in THIS life.) I cannot imagine helping someone achieve pleasurable living without resolving those two issues first, so I am sure that there must be some much-vaunted Stoic doctrines that provide help similar or better than PD1 and PD2 - Correct? (Or is it possible that the Stoics don't see these two issues quite the same way Epicureans do?)

I ask our fellow Epicureans for their indulgence in this request, and that they tolerate the pain of what they may read for the sake of avoiding the greater pain and/or achieving the greater pleasure that comes from gaining for themselves and for their friends a better understanding of the issues involved.


Some responses:

(1) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…EgXD5xgUTMMxkO3

(2) From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life, we have these psychological techniques:

1. Negative visualization

2. The dichotomy of control – which Irvine turns into a trichotomy

3. Fatalism

4. Self denial – “practicing poverty”

5. Meditation, but I get the impression that by meditate they mean think about things a lot rather than sitting without thinking.

In terms of the first two principle doctrines, one source that I have describes the Stoic view of God as being the same as nature. Thus when they use the term they are referring to everything in the cosmos. They also believed that the soul survives death, but apparently there was disagreement on how long the soul existed and the author suggests that they believed in reincarnation. I wasn’t happy with the treatment of Epicureanism in this book, so I’m not sure how reliably accurate it is for Stoicism either. The book is The Systems of the Hellenistic Age by Giovanni Reale.

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

Some of the way I wrote my post was joking / sarcastic, but I do honestly think it would be helpful to draft a list of the "classic" stoic suggestions so that we can then comment and evaluate them in an Epicurean context. For example, you have listed "For example evaluating a thought for its rational content compared to accepting any emotional prompting." That is an EXCELLENT one to discuss, because I think there is clearly a different angle on that from an Epicurean perspective. But before I / we devote a lot of time to discussing your particular formulation of it, it would be most helpful to the most people if we found that kind of statement on some "authoritative" list of Stoicisms so that we can debate details while minimizing the response that "well that's Eric's position but "Epictetus didn't say that" or "Modern Stoics don't believe that." I know you're widely read in that -- other than going to Epictetus himself have you seen a site or list that does the best job of distilling this down into something that "most" Stoics would agree represents true Stoic views?

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

Maybe the most authoritative list is just to use the Enchiridion? Or is the modern stoic version so different from that as to make it a poor choice to start? http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

I haven't read all of this, but it appears to have some interesting material in it. Be forewarned, however, that it looks like the author can be expected to take the tiresome perspective that modern thinkers like Guyua / Bentham / Mill / Spencer were oh-so-much smarter than Epicurus and "corrected" Epicurus' errors.

https://www.academia.edu/36453917/Beyon…zsche_and_Guyau

Not so far. We've talked about recording them but not done that either so far. I agree it would be good to do it - I guess the outlines are a start.

In a private conversation this selection from Nietzsche's "AntiChrist" came to mind. I personally believe that if an ancient Epicurean were here to speak to us today, that Epicurean would agree both with Nietzsche's praise of Epicurus, and with Nietzsche's condemnation of the opposite:

"With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal… For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!—The "equality of souls before God"—this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded—this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order—this is Christian dynamite… The "humanitarian" blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of Christianity!—Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,—against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul—against life itself…

This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found—I have letters that even the blind will be able to see… I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race…"

http://4umi.com/nietzsche/antichrist/62

Vatican Saying 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."

Is it not clear that this conclusion follows directly from there being no god, no center of the universe, no absolute point from which someone can stand and say THAT, and ONLY THAT, is "correct?"

Of course that doesn't finish the point, and leads next to the question "if not absolute justice, then what 'justice' is there at all?"

And it seems to me that is just a subset of the "truth" issue: If not absolute truth, then what 'truth' is there at all?

It seems to me that the Epicurean answer to that is that "truth" to us is that which we perceive through our senses, and through our faculty of pleasure and pain (which aren't strictly the same thing as the senses), and our faculty of "preconceptions/anticipations."

Unfortunately there is not much text to explain what the third one means, and some are going to say that preconceptions and anticipations are nothing more than conceptions formed after thinking about past experiences. But just as "pleasure" and "pain" are to at least a large degree "preprogrammed prior to experience, I believe the direction DeWitt suggests is correct, and that humans (no less than dogs or cats or other animals) are born with genetic characteristics that dispose them to recognize abstractions in particular ways. However I would differ from DeWitt in calling these "innate ideas" - I don't think it is "content" or "propositions" that are genetically encoded, but the "principles of operation" or the "disposition to process abstractions in particular ways" (like a computer operating system) that is genetically provided.

At this stage of the argument I regularly cite Jackson Barwis in "Dialogues on Innate Principles"] arguing against the "blank slate" of Locke and Aristotle:

Here is a section of "Dialogues on Innate Principles" most directly related to this [Note: bold emphasis added by me, and of course the reference to a Divine Creator is not necessary to the argument]:

"... When I take a general view of the arguments adduced by Mr. Locke against innate moral principles; and when I see what he produces as the most indisputable innate principles, “if any be so,” I am inclined to think there must have been some very great mistake as to the true nature of the things in question: for he lays down certain propositions (no matter whether moral or scientific, so they be but true), and then proves that such propositions, considered merely as propositions formed by our rational faculty, after due consideration of things, as all true propositions must be, are not innate. Nothing more obvious! But surely those whom he opposes must, or ought to have meant, (though I cannot say I have read their arguments, nor do I mean to answer for anyone but myself) not that the propositions themselves were innate, but that the conscious internal sentiments on which such moral propositions are founded were innate.

He looked on me, interrogatively.

I said it might be so, and that I saw a great difference in those things.

Or perhaps, continued he, the mistake may have arisen from following too closely the mode, in which it is necessary to proceed, in order to acquire a knowledge of certain sciences, as in geometry: that is, by laying down some clear and self-evident axioms or rational propositions. But even here it should be remembered that, in the natures of things, there were principles which had existence anterior to the formation of these axioms or propositions, and on which they are founded, and on which they depend for their existence: as, extension and solidity.

I gave an assenting inclination of the head.

I cannot, therefore, conceive, added he, that what we ought to understand by innate moral principles, can by any means, when fairly explained, be imagined to bear any similitude to such propositions as Mr. Locke advances as bidding fairest to be innate, nor to any other propositions. That is, I cannot conceive that our innate moral principles, our natural sentiments, or internal conscious feelings, (name them how you please) which we derive, and which result, from our very nature as creatures morally relative, are at all like unto any propositions whatever.

Who can discover any similitude to any conscious sentiment of the soul in these strangely irrelative propositions:

“Whatever is, is.”

“It is impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be.” ?

Nobody.

The innate principles of the soul, continued he, cannot, any more than those of the body, be propositions. They must be in us antecedently to all our reasonings about them, or they could never be in us at all: for we cannot, by reasoning, create any thing, the principles of which did not exist antecedently. We can, indeed, describe our innate sentiments and perceptions to each other; we can reason, and we can make propositions about them; but our reasonings neither are, nor can create in us, moral principles. They exist prior to, and independently of, all reasoning, and all propositions about them.

When we are told that benevolence is pleasing; that malevolence is painful; we are not convinced of these truths by reasoning, nor by forming them into propositions: but by an appeal to the innate internal affections of our souls: and if on such an appeal, we could not feel within the sentiment of benevolence, and the peculiar pleasure attending it; and that of malevolence and its concomitant pain, not all the reasoning in the world could ever make us sensible of them, or enable us to understand their nature.

I do not see that it could, said I.

Every being in the universe, continued he, must receive its principles from the Divine Creator of all things. The reason of man can create no principles in the natures of things. It will, by proper application, enable him to know many things concerning them which, without reasoning, he never could have known; and to explain his knowledge, so acquired, to other men; but the principles of all created beings are engendered with, and accompany, the existence which they receive from their Creator. And in a point so truly essential as that of morality is to the nature of such a creature as man; God has not left him without innate and ever-inherent principles. He has not left to the imbecility of human reason to create what he knew it never could create, and what we know it never can create.

Even in the abstracted sciences of arithmetic and geometry, reason can create no principles in the natures of the things treated of. It can lay down axioms and draw up propositions concerning numbers, extension, and solidity; but numbers, extension, and solidity existed prior to any reasoning about them.

And here I must observe that the assent or dissent that we give to propositions in these sciences, which are but little interesting to our nature, is drawn from a source widely different from that which we give to moral propositions. Thus, when we are told that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, and see the demonstration; we say simply, true. That they are equal to three right angles; false. These things being irrelative to morals, they move no conscious sentiment, and do therefore only receive our bare assent or dissent as a mere object of sense; in the same manner as when we say a thing is, or is not, black or white, or round or square; we use our eyes, and are satisfied.

But the truth or falsehood of moral propositions must be judged of by another measure; through a more interesting medium: we must apply to our internal sense; our divine monitor and guide within; through which the just and unjust, the right and wrong, the moral beauty and deformity of human minds, and of human actions, can only be perceived. And this internal sense must most undoubtedly be innate, as we have already shown; it could not otherwise have existence in us; we not being able, by reasoning, or by any other means, to give ourselves any new sense, or to create, in our nature, any principle at all. I therefore think Mr. Locke, in speaking of innate moral principles, ought, at least, to have made a difference between propositions relative to morals, and those which have no such relation."

My video skills are abysmal, but I am posting this in hope it may be useful to someone. The page discussed in the video is live at http://www.newepicurean.com/overview.htm

Based on Alex's and JAWS's comments it looks like it makes the most sense to plan for either May 5 or May 12, with the probability that May 5 is probably the better of the two. Please comment on your preference, and in the meantime I will update the main announcement.

Today's chat generated some very good comments and questions. We can use the thread for each chapter to make note of them and continue the discussion in the thread. The questions/comments included:

1. How correct is it (either in DeWitt, or the way the outline is written) to conclude that topics like mathematics or rhetoric or poetry were totally off limits? Is the real answer that Epicurus just stressed that these topics had proper and improper uses? Necessarily a lot of speculation here....
2. Was DeWitt correct to see the commemoration ceremonies on the 20th of each month as "compensation" for lack of immortality?
3. The outline talks more about Epicurus' objection to the Platonic curriculum than it does about what was included in the Epicureans' own curriculum. We ought to have an idea (at least in outline) of how the Epicurean curriculum itself was structured.

(Gosh I know there were others and I am already forgetting them. In the future let's plan to make notes and extend the discussion thread after each discussion.)

I re-titled the "coordination" thread and linked it from the top-of-page announcement so we can find it in the future, so this will be the best place to continue the discussion on the next date and time: Planning for Upcoming Voice Chats on DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy

Wow that sounds like a great trip! Have fun and be safe! Like Alex suggested today, I think we should not wait a full month, so we'll probably set the next one for early May - hopefully you can join us then!

Today we had five in attendance and another good discussion. Let's start planning the next meeting. As Alex suggested we need not wait a month - how about Saturday May 5 at 5:00 PM EDT? Please post whether that will work for you and we'll announce an official plan once we have several indicate that that works for them.

(Sorry Alex I did not see your question about the link til now. I'll keep a link posted in the announcement box at the top of the forum.)

This list of eleven "True And False Opinions About Epicurus" taken from Chapter 1 of DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy," may be of general interest:

1. TRUE AND FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT EPICURUS:
   1. Epicurus’ Place In Greek Philosophy:
      1. True: Epicurus came immediately after Plato (idealism; absolutism) and Pyrrho (the skeptic). Platonism and Skepticism were among Epicurus' chief abominations. Epicurean philosophy was fully developed before Zeno began teaching Stoicism.
      2. False: Epicurus taught in response to Stoicism.
   2. Epicurus’ Attitude Toward Learning:
      1. True: Epicurus was well educated and a trained thinker.
      2. False: Epicurus was an ignoramus and an enemy of all culture.
   3. Epicurus’ Goal For Himself And His Work:
      1. True: Epicurus was not only a philosopher but a moral reformer rebelling against his teachers.
      2. False: Epicurus was nothing more than a philosopher who was ungrateful to his teachers.
   4. Epicurus’ Place in Greek Scientific Thought:
      1. True: Epicurus was returning to the Ionian tradition of thought which had been interrupted by Socrates and Plato. Epicurus was an Anti-Platonist and a penetrating critic of Platonism.
      2. False: Epicurean scientific thought simply copied Democritus.
   5. Epicurus’ Role As a Systematizer:
      1. True: As with Herbert Spencer or Auguste Comte, Epicurus was attempting a synthesis and critique of all prior philosophical thought.
      2. False: Epicurus was a sloppy and unorganized thinker whose system-building is not worth attention.
   6. Epicurus’ Dogmatism:
      1. True: Epicurus’s strength was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, actuated by a passion for inquiry to find certainty, and a detestation of skepticism, which he imputed even to Plato.
      2. False: Epicurus’ demerit was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, because he renounced inquiry.
   7. Epicurus’ View of Truth:
      1. True: Epicurus exalted Nature as the norm of truth, revolting against Plato, who had preached “reason” as the norm and considered “Reason” to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the nature and use of sensations, and the role in determining that which we consider to be true.
      2. False: Epicurus was an empiricist in the modern sense, declaring sensation to be the only source of knowledge and all sensations to be “true.”
   8. Epicurus’ Method For Determining Truth:
      1. True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. For example, atoms cannot be observed directly; their existence and properties must be determined by deduction, and the principles thereby deduced serve as standards for assessing truth. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.
      2. False: Epicurus taught reasoning mainly by induction.
   9. Epicurus’ As A Man of Action
      1. True: Epicurus was the first missionary philosophy. Epicurus was by disposition combative and he was by natural gifts a leader, organizer, and campaigner.
      2. False: Epicurus was effeminate and a moral invalid; a passivist who taught retirement from and non-engagement with the world.
   10. Epicurus’ View of Self-Interest
       1. True: Epicureanism was the first world philosophy, acceptable to both Greek and barbarian. Epicurus taught that we should make friends wherever possible.
       2. False: Epicurus was a totally egoistic hedonist ruled solely by a narrow view of his own self-interest.
   11. Epicurus Is Of Little Relevance to the Development of Christianity
       1. True: Epicurus reoriented emphasis from political virtues to social virtues, and developed a wider viewpoint applicable to all humanity.
       2. False: Epicurus was an enemy of all religion and there is no trace of his influence in the “New Testament.”