Posts by Cassius

Quote from Rolf

Why is this? What relation to the gods have to anticipations?

You'll need to read at least the DeWitt material before you get a more informed view on this. As I recall there's not much on it in Emily Austin.

As to how it relates to anticipations, that's part of Epicurus' theory of knowledge that responds to Plato's ridiculous theory of forms and pre-existence of the soul and the impossibility of knowledge without both of those working together. Plato held only the eternal is real and only the ideas/forms are eternal. Thus nothing revealed by the senses and rational processing of the sensory data is truly real.

Epicurus rejects that totally and says there are three faculties of contact with the real world - the 5 senses, pain and pleasure, and anticipations. Anything they present to you is "real" and but it's up to you to understand in what way they impact you and react accordingly. Epicurus concluded that in putting all the evidence together it's obvious that nature never makes a single thing of a kind, that space is infinite and eternal, and that it is simply logical to believe that earth and humanity are not the only location of life in the universe, or the highest life. Some forms of life are more successful than we are at living happily, even to the point of conquering death -- but nothing and no one is SUPERNATURAL.

If you start saying "there's no direct evidence of life anywhere else that I've ever seen" then you're eliminating many logical conclusions that flow from the evidence we do have. It's not necessary for us to have seen or touched everything to believe that it exists -- we believe atoms exist without ever seeing or touching them.

So there are many deep implications of the physics and epistemology that you never get to until you get past the superficial idea that Epicurus only cared about "pleasure" and nothing else.

Quote from Rolf

So perhaps it’s best for me to drop my modern understanding of the term “gods” when I read what Epicurus and his fellow philosophers have to say on this point.

That's absolutely essential and you'll see that as you read more. To repeat, that's the danger of focusing only on the ethics -- you miss the major part of the philosophy, including the parts that establish the ethics in the first place.

The letter to Menoeceus is only a part of the philosophy. It's presented much more fully in Lucretius, but most people aren't going to be able to pick up Lucretius and get the full point because it's so unfamiliar to modern ways of thinking. That is why I suggest reading the DeWitt book very early in the process of studying Epicurus so you can begin to see the outlines of the full picture as quickly as possible. It's far from perfect but it doesn't focus exclusively on the ethics and dismiss the rest of the philosophy like many other approaches do.

Quote from Godfrey

Cassius did you mean to say "we as humans are not the best and the brightest"? That would be my understanding..

GEEZ what a mistake. THank you! Of course I meant "not" and i will edit the original now! thank you!

Oh one more thing deriving from my Stewart reasoning. The idea of the possible existence of supernatural gods seems to be tied in most people's minds to the possibility of the soul surviving death. Even as the Deists were proclaiming freedom from religion they were undercutting their own positions by continuing to talk about the possibility that there might be a life after death.

As I see it, the possibility of an afterlife is about as opposite to the views of Epicurus as anything can be. The Deists seemed to want to entertain the possibility that their "natural god" might somehow have a mechanism to also allow life after death. Maybe they felt like they had to do so for political or survival reasons, and maybe what they did was reasonable under their circumstances, but I think it led to very bad results, and essentially helped with those who wanted to keep the discussion of Epicurus under a tight lid.

Any kind of position that allows for the possibility of life after death, or supernatural forces of any kind, is going to lead to the kind of murkiness and ambiguity that ultimately led to the shortcomings of Deism. To the extent that that kind of thinking hangs around even today, in my view it cannot be reconciled with Epicurean philosophy and needs to be clearly stated to be incompatible with it.

Quote from Rolf

My gut tells me it’s not so important, since gods play no role in epicurean cosmology and ethics. That said, Epicurus didn’t deny the existence of such gods (as far as I’m aware). Do we disregard this as a mere product of its time or does it play some vital role within epicurean philosophy?

I think as you read more you'll come to revise the premises of your opinion in this paragraph, and you'll see that the Epicurean theory of gods plays a much greater role than first meets the eye, and certainly not just as a product of his time.

However having said that I agree with Godfrey's and Joshua's comments and in the end I think it's fair to say that trying to develop a precise POSITIVE position on the Epicurean gods is not a priority. There's a lot to be learned from the process in which Epicurus evaluates the issue, but since we don't have the details of his final conclusions those aren't nearly as important.

For example, it's very unclear exactly what participation in "religious" ceremonies Epicurus engaged in himself or approved of for his people, and in the absence of good information on that I think it's very sketchy to try to take a firm position on how his statements apply to religious participation today.

I want to add a comment based on my latest thoughts after reading Matthew Stewart's "Natures' God...."

I think the "Deists" and their associates made a major mistake in abandoning Epicurus' views of the nature of gods into a sort of "nature is god" pantheism. If Stewart is correct and I am reading Stewart correctly most of them decided essentially either that there was too much pressure from religion, or the masses of people are too stupid, to take any other position, so they played a game of obfuscation and decided to retreat from the confrontation with supernaturalism by going all in on "the god of nature."

I find it very interesting that as part of that period, however, many of the people who were working on finding a way to fight back against religion also found Epicurus' theory of life throughout the universe as very significant to their thinking.

To the question "Must an Epicurean believe in gods?" nobody really has the right to say "yes" other than as part of stating their own opinion. There's certainly no rule to that effect in order to post to Epicureanfriends.com. If someone in the future sets up other organizations for other purposes, that's something that they would have to decide.

Howecer on the core point that "there are no supernatural gods" or supernatural forces of any kind, I think most of us agree that that is such a core part of Epicurean philosophy that it would be absurd to divorce that from the rest of the philosophy.

Even specifying the term "non-interventional" doesn't go nearly far enough to avoid what I am characterizing as the mistake of the Deists. There are too many other attributes that people associate with gods that also have to be eliminated.

At present and with the limited texts that we have it's just not possible to be certain exactly what Epicurus taught positively about gods except that they are not supernatural in any way. While it's a certainty in Epicurean philosophy that there is life elsewhere in the infinite and eternal universe, and it seems likewise a certainty that we as humans are NOT the best and the brightest, what's really necessary is to stamp out every implication of supernaturalism in discussing what those beings might be like.

So the "stamping out every implication of supernaturalism" is what I see as the essential part of Epicurean theory of gods, and any wavering on that issue is where I would draw the line of considering someone thoroughly Epicurean. Most all the rest is just a matter of applying reasonable projection to the possibilities that do exist in an infinite and eternal natural universe, and how far one wants to go in that directlon is largely a matter of personal disposition.

Also, CIcero is stating explicitly that "meditating on death" is meant in the sense of spending your time now while you are alive, thinking about how wonderful it will be when you are dead:

Quote

For what else is it that we do, when we call off our minds from pleasure, that is to say, from our attention to the body, from the managing our domestic estate, which is a sort of handmaid and servant of the body, or from duties of a public nature, or from all other serious business whatever? What else is it, I say, that we do, but invite the soul to reflect on itself? oblige it to converse with itself, and, as far as possible, break off its acquaintance with the body? Now to separate the soul from the body, is to learn to die, and nothing else whatever. Wherefore take my advice; and let us meditate on this, and separate ourselves as far as possible from the body, that is to say, let us accustom ourselves to die.

In the next several sections Cicero continues his general argument that the soul is divine, but by now the argument is familiar and he does not introduce a lot that is new.

One thing that CIcero does introduce however, and that we'll want to discuss, is that Cicero says god forbids us from taking our life into our own hands and ending it early:

Quote

But these reflections are of long standing, and borrowed from the Greeks. But Cato left this world in such a manner, as if he were delighted that he had found an opportunity of dying; for that God who presides in us, forbids our departure hence without his leave. But when God himself has given us a just cause, as formerly he did to Socrates, and lately to Cato, and often to many others,—in such a case, certainly every man of sense would gladly exchange this darkness, for that light: not that he would forcibly break from the chains that held him, for that would be against the law; but like a man released from prison by a magistrate, or some lawful authority, so he too would walk away, being released and discharged by God. For the whole life of a philosopher is, as the same philosopher says, a meditation on death.

But Cicero also notes that Socrates left voluntarily:

Quote

and it was because he was influenced by these and similar reasons that Socrates neither looked out for anybody to plead for him when he was accused, nor begged any favour from his judges, but maintained a manly freedom, which was the effect not of pride, but of the true greatness of his soul: and on the last day of his life, he held a long discourse on this subject; and a few days before, when he might have been easily freed from his confinement, he refused to be so, and when he had almost actually hold of that deadly cup, he spoke with the air of a man not forced to die, but ascending into heaven.

Welcome to Episode 277 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.

Today we turn our attention further to "Is Death An Evil," and we will read beginning in Section XXVI 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

Episode 276 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is entitled: "Is Memory Evidence Of The Divinity Of The Soul?"

Rolfe thanks for your input so far. Don't share any personally-identifying information but it would be interesting to hear more about your background and reading history and other interests. Also, how did you find this forum?

We have an upcoming "first monday" meeting at which you're invited, and as you are in Europe we occasionally set up meetings at times that aren't in the middle of the night for Europeans, and we can work toward another one.

Here's a cite to one reference I made in this episode as to the importance of our understanding the implications of death. It's from Lucretius Book 3 around line 1060 - I generally think of it in Humphries words:

Quote

So each man flees
Himself, or tries to, but of course that pest
Clings to him all the more ungraciously.
He hates himself because he does not know
The reason for his sickness; if he did,
He would leave all this foolishness behind,
Devote his study to the way things are,
The problem being his lot, not for an hour,
But for all time, the state in which all men
Must dwell forever and ever after death.

Display More

The Brown/Dunster version has it this way:

Quote

The restless fool does not know the cause of his disease; if he thoroughly did, every one would give up all other pursuits and apply chiefly to search into the nature of things; I do not mean to trouble himself about the events of the present hour, but inquire into the doubtful state of eternity after death, which is everyone’s concern, and which must be the lot of all mankind.

Chatgpt handles it well:

Translate this for me from Latin:

quam bene si videat, iam rebus quisque relictis naturam primum studeat cognoscere rerum, temporis aeterni quoniam, non unius horae, ambigitur status, in quo sit mortalibus omnis aetas, post mortem quae restat cumque manendo.

ChatGPT said:

Certainly. The Latin passage you provided may be translated as follows:

Quote

"How much better it would be, if each person, seeing this clearly, would now abandon other pursuits and strive first to understand the nature of things, since it is the condition of eternal time — not just of a single hour — that is in question, the condition in which all mortal life must remain after death."

And comparing those, Munro as usualy seems to be more literal:

Quote

For if he could rightly see into this, relinquishing all else, each man would study to learn the nature of things, since the point at stake is the condition for eternity, not for one hour, in which mortals have to pass all the time which remains for them to expect after death.

Another thing I'd add is that the cup analogy is just that - an "analogy" - as would be the ideal of all experience being pleasure. I think there's a tendency for us all to be thinking in terms of "explain to me exactly what I must do to enter the kingdom of heaven." In other words, give me the exact prescription for paradise, and I'll follow exactly those steps so that I - and everyone else who drinks the medicine - will experience exactly the same thing. With the idea being that there is some precise experience - setting foot in heaven or experiencing exactly the same euphoria of a magic potion - that is being talked about.

But life is not like that. Everyone has their own circumstances, and everyone has their own preferences in pleasures, and so the goal of everyone is not the same in exact terms -- only in abstract terms. And in abstract terms, it's very simple (and helpful, as a clear statement of a goal) to identify that what you would really like to have is "complete" pleasure with no mixture of pain.

But in our rush to think that there is a magic pill that everyone can experience the same way, we forget those differences, and we try to force "absence of pain" into a particular experience that we can climb into like a 1957 Chevy.

And the trouble is compounded because what is really in issue is not some abstract definition of a goal like a "kingdom of heaven." What really is the truth is that we don't live forever, our souls are not magical or divine, there's no life after death, no "god" to tell us what to do, and we have to ourselves use our time as we deem best, just like any other dolphin or horse or cat or dog or any other living thing must do. Only humans have the disposition to be lulled into complacency by thinking that there is some afterlife that we can look forward to as our reward, and thereby trade in our time in the hear and now for a promise of something "better" later.

I don't believe Epicurus saw "absence of pain" as something equivalent to a kingdom of heaven for which we trade the pleasures that are available to us while we are alive. I think he saw that life is a real-life here-and-now experience in which the best we can do is to organize our activities so that the time that we are as happy as possible during the time that we have.

This is the opposite of monasticism or passivity or the kind of intellectualism that results in going round and round and debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's a very practical call to action to use your life as productively as you can during the time that you have, with "productivity" defined not in terms of purely bodily pleasure or purely mental pleasure but in terms of whatever combination of both nature impresses on you as the "happiest" way to spend your time. To paraphrase Torquatus, the person who runs from all pain and mental and bodily activity and who cannot foresee the disaster to which that kind of life will lead is worthy of contempt, not a chair in philosophy. Likewise in Jefferson's advice to william short, we need to "brace ourselves up" and get on with life, because the kind of soft indulgence in indolence that comes from what some people want to see as "absence of pain" is the furthest thing possible from what Epicurus actually taught.

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

Patrikios check here: RE: Prolepsis / Anticipations As Epicurus' Answer to the MENO Problem

I hope Bryan won't mind but I think we need to add here a comment he just made on his wall:

Quote from From Bryan's Wall

What are now considered to be areas of empty space are really full of tiny, undetectable particles. We cannot see or measure them because they pass through us -- and through our instruments -- with almost no interference. “Gravity,” in the sense of a force acting at a distance without contact, does not exist. What we call “gravity” is really the result of how larger objects interact with the wakes and currents they create in the medium of these smaller particles.

Objects move in the direction they are already moving, without any loss of speed, and deviating only slightly and rarely -- unless they make contact with something else. To believe (as those who follow Einstein do) in forces beyond the force of touch -- is to give in to magical thinking.

To which I posted this reply:

This is a topic I've been thinking a lot about as a result of going through Matthew Stewart's book. Apparently there were several major failures of follow-through in the years after the Epicurean period.

Simply talking about "pleasure" and rejecting some (but not all) aspects of supernatural religion doesn't go nearly far enough if you're going to turn around and talk like the Deists did, and you:

(1) claim agnosticism about whether there is life after death, or even hopefulness that there is, and

(2) accept the possibility that particle motion is imposed on them by some force outside the particles themselves.

(3) talk about Nature or "everything" as a "God" (pantheism) without being clear that when you use the word god you are excluding supernatural action and design.

All if these three are really pretty simple to understand, but the "motion caused by unknown outside forces" that you're talking about in this wall post is probably the easiest of all to see how important it is.

And that surely helps explain why we have a section on magnetism in Lucretius (book six around line 1000) explaining that issue too in terms of flows of particles, not in terms of any mysterious outside force.

As to examining the issue of "weight" more closely, Joshua has pointed out in Lucretius Today 275 that "gravitas" seems to be the word used by Lucretius for "weight," and Don pointed out this as to the Greek:

Quote from Don

Joshua asked about the Greek word for "weight" in the characteristics of the atom: βάρος (baros). From which we get words like barometric, barometer "instrument for measuring the weight or pressure of the atmosphere," barophobia "an abnormal fear of gravity."

Here is another section from Lucretius where "gravitas" is not the word used. Given that there is never in any of these statements that there is "something else" pulling the atoms "down," I presume a good case can be made that regardless of the terminology, Epicurus was clear that this force of "weight" was something within the atoms themselves, not a force that is separate and apart from the atoms themselves. That is, other atoms and groups of atoms arguably could exert a pulling motion, but there is no extra-atomic force that operates on the atoms. This is very important for closing the door to the argument that some people like to make that this "force outside the atoms" is "god."

5-181

Whence again was first implanted in the gods a pattern for begetting things in general as well as the preconception of what men are, so that they knew and saw in mind what they wanted to make? And in what way was the power of first-beginnings ever ascertained, and what they could effect by a change in their mutual arrangements, unless nature herself gave the model for making things? For in such wise the first-beginnings of things many in number in many ways impelled by blows for infinite ages back and kept in motion by their own weights have been wont to be carried along and to unite in all manner of ways and thoroughly test every kind of production possible by their mutual combinations; that it is not strange if they have also fallen into arrangements and have come into courses like to those out of which this sum of things is now carried on by constant renewing.

5-181

Exemplum porro gignundis rebus et ipsa
notities hominum divis unde insita primum est,
quid vellent facere ut scirent animoque viderent,
quove modost umquam vis cognita principiorum
quidque inter sese permutato ordine possent.
si non ipsa dedit speciem natura creandi?
namque ita multa modis multis primordia rerum
ex infinito iam tempore percita plagis
ponderibusque suis consuerunt concita ferri
omnimodisque coire atque omnia pertemptare,
quae cumque inter se possint congressa creare,
ut non sit mirum, si in talis disposituras
deciderunt quoque et in talis venere meatus,
qualibus haec rerum geritur nunc summa novando.

Selecting out something of particular interest in that large wall of text, I'd like to verify if THIS is accurate, as it is an explicit criticism of Epicurean views of the universe:

1. On Materialism in De immenso et innumerabilibus (On the Immense and Innumerable, 1591):
   • Context: In this Latin work, Bruno elaborates his cosmology, incorporating atomistic ideas but infusing them with vitalism. He discusses the composition of the universe, referencing ancient thinkers.

   • Quote (Book 1, Chapter 6, translated by J. Lewis McIntyre):

     “Some, like the Epicureans, have thought the universe to be composed of atoms and void alone, but they err in denying the universal soul that binds and vivifies all.”

   • Analysis: This is one of the rare instances where Bruno explicitly references “Epicureans.” He acknowledges their atomistic framework but criticizes it for “denying the universal soul,” a core tenet of his philosophy. For Bruno, atoms aren’t just inert particles (as in Epicurus’ system) but are imbued with a divine, animating force. This critique directly challenges Epicurean materialism, which avoids any spiritual or teleological principle, seeing the universe as a random interplay of atoms. Bruno’s use of “err” signals a clear disagreement with Epicurus’ reductionist view.
   • Criticism?: Explicit and direct. This is the strongest evidence of Bruno criticizing Epicurean thought, though it’s still framed as a philosophical correction rather than a personal attack on Epicurus.

Looks like this work is here:

Giordano Bruno

www.gutenberg.org

No - it's here, but in Latin.....

There are many good things to be said about Giordano Bruno, while at the same time keeping clear about philosophical differences, especially as to "pantheism."

Here's what Grok says about whether Bruno was an Epicurean or a Pantheist:

Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) is a fascinating figure to pin down philosophically, as his ideas don’t neatly fit into either Pantheism or Epicureanism in their purest forms. However, based on his writings and worldview, Bruno is more accurately described as a pantheist with some sympathies toward ideas that resonate with Epicureanism, though he wasn’t a strict follower of Epicurus. Let’s break it down by examining his positions in relation to both philosophies:

Bruno and Pantheism

Pantheism equates God with the universe, viewing all existence as divine without a separate, personal deity. Bruno’s philosophy aligns closely with this:

• Divine Immanence: In works like De l’infinito, universo e mondi (On the Infinite Universe and Worlds) and De la causa, principio e uno (On Cause, Principle, and Unity), Bruno argues that God is infinite, immanent, and identical with the universe. He writes, “The divine essence is all in all,” suggesting that divinity permeates every part of reality, from stars to atoms.
• Infinite Universe: Bruno rejected the medieval geocentric model, proposing an infinite cosmos with countless worlds (stars and planets), all animated by a single divine substance. This vision of a boundless, unified reality is pantheistic, as it sees no separation between God and nature.
• Monism: Bruno’s metaphysics leans toward a monistic view where matter and spirit are expressions of one infinite substance, a hallmark of pantheism (similar to Spinoza, who came later). He saw the universe as alive and divine, with no external creator.
• Rejection of Traditional Theism: Bruno dismissed the idea of a personal, transcendent God who intervenes in human affairs, aligning with pantheism’s impersonal divinity.

Bruno’s pantheism was radical for his time, blending mystical, Neoplatonic, and naturalistic elements. His reverence for the universe as divine led to accusations of heresy, contributing to his execution by the Inquisition in 1600.

Bruno and Epicureanism

Epicureanism, rooted in Epicurus’ teachings, emphasizes materialist atomism, distant gods, and a hedonistic ethic of achieving pleasure through tranquility. Bruno shares some affinities but diverges significantly:

• Materialism and Atomism:
  • Similarity: Bruno was influenced by Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, a key Epicurean text, and adopted a form of atomism, viewing the universe as composed of minimal units. Like Epicurus, he saw matter as eternal and uncreated.
  • Difference: Bruno’s atomism wasn’t purely mechanistic like Epicurus’. He infused his atoms with a vital, spiritual quality, calling them “monads” or animated by a divine principle, which clashes with Epicurean materialism’s strict physicalism. For Epicurus, atoms and void are all that exist; for Bruno, matter is inseparable from a divine, living essence.
• View of Gods:
  • Similarity: Bruno, like Epicurus, rejected anthropomorphic deities who meddle in human life. He criticized the Church’s dogmatic view of God as a separate, judgmental being.
  • Difference: Epicurus posited gods as distant, atomic beings living in bliss, irrelevant to the universe’s workings. Bruno went further, denying separate gods entirely and identifying divinity with the infinite universe itself—a pantheistic stance far from Epicurean theology.
• Ethics and Purpose:
  • Similarity: Bruno valued intellectual freedom and a life aligned with nature, which could echo Epicurean calls for rational living and avoiding superstition. His emphasis on philosophical inquiry might resemble Epicurus’ focus on mental tranquility through understanding.
  • Difference: Epicureanism’s ethics center on achieving ataraxia (tranquility) and aponia (absence of pain) through simple pleasures, moderation, and friendship. Bruno’s writings, like Spaccio de la bestia trionfante (The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast), focus more on cosmic contemplation, heroic enthusiasm, and transforming human understanding of the universe. He doesn’t advocate a hedonistic ethic or prioritize personal pleasure in the Epicurean sense.
• Cosmology:
  • Similarity: Both Bruno and Epicurus envisioned an infinite universe, a bold departure from Aristotelian finite cosmology.
  • Difference: Epicurus’ infinity was a mechanistic backdrop for atomistic interactions, with no divine quality. Bruno’s infinite universe was a living, divine whole, imbued with purpose and intelligence, aligning more with pantheism’s holistic view.

Why Pantheist Over Epicurean?

While Bruno drew inspiration from Epicurean ideas—especially Lucretius’ atomism and rejection of religious dogma—his philosophy is fundamentally pantheistic because of his core belief that the universe itself is God, animated by a divine unity. Epicureanism’s strict materialism, indifferent gods, and hedonistic ethics don’t capture Bruno’s mystical and metaphysical vision. His universe is not a random dance of atoms but a purposeful, infinite expression of divinity, closer to pantheistic thinkers like Spinoza (though Bruno’s style is less systematic).

Bruno’s engagement with Epicureanism was selective, using its naturalism to challenge Church doctrine while embedding those ideas in a broader, spiritual framework. For example, in De l’infinito, he writes of the universe as “one, infinite, immobile… all is one,” reflecting a pantheistic unity rather than Epicurean atomistic pluralism.

Was There Any “Pure” Epicureanism in Bruno?

To address your earlier interest in “pure” Epicureanism: Bruno doesn’t qualify. His atomism and cosmology borrow from Epicurus, but his infusion of divine vitality and rejection of Epicurean ethics (pleasure as the goal) make his philosophy eclectic, not purely Epicurean. If you’re hunting for someone who claimed a strict Epicurean identity, Bruno falls short, as his pantheistic vision dominates.

Final Verdict

Giordano Bruno was a pantheist, not an Epicurean, though he incorporated Epicurean elements like atomism and anti-dogmatism into his broader, divine-infused cosmology. His view of an infinite, divine universe sets him apart from Epicurus’ materialist, pleasure-focused philosophy.

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

Here's Chatgpt:

Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) is best classified as a pantheist, not an Epicurean, although he was influenced by atomistic and materialist currents that had some overlap with Epicurean thought.

Reasons Bruno is a Pantheist:

1. Identification of God with Nature:
   Bruno held that God and the universe are one. He wrote that the divine is present in all things and that the universe is infinite and eternal. This belief aligns directly with pantheism, especially in the tradition later associated with Spinoza.
2. Infinite Worlds and Unity:
   Bruno proposed an infinite cosmos with innumerable worlds, each imbued with divine presence. This vision stems from Neoplatonic and Hermetic influences, combined with a radical reinterpretation of ancient cosmologies. For Bruno, nature was a living expression of the divine.
3. Spiritualized Matter:
   While he accepted the existence of matter, he rejected the purely mechanical and soul-less view held by Epicureans. Bruno imbued matter with spirit or soul, asserting a kind of universal animation or life-force.
4. Rejection of Epicurean Atheism and Hedonism:
   Bruno was critical of Epicurean ethics, particularly their hedonism and denial of divine providence. He considered Epicurus overly mechanistic and spiritually barren. His own writings emphasized spiritual and mystical unity rather than personal pleasure.

However, Bruno and Epicurus Had Some Common Ground:

• Atomism and Anti-Aristotelianism:
  Bruno admired Lucretius, the Roman Epicurean poet, for his eloquence and for promoting an infinite universe composed of particles. Bruno used such ideas to support his break from Aristotelian cosmology.
• Cosmic Pluralism:
  Both Epicureanism and Bruno’s cosmology featured multiple worlds, but while Epicurus envisioned them as material and indifferent, Bruno infused them with divine intelligence.

Conclusion:

Giordano Bruno was not an Epicurean in the philosophical sense. His metaphysics was pantheistic, mystical, and deeply spiritual, whereas Epicureanism is naturalistic, atheistic in practice, and focused on personal tranquility through rational analysis. Despite sharing a belief in an infinite cosmos, their ethical, metaphysical, and theological outlooks were fundamentally different.

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

However- - when pushed for documentation, Chatgpt backtracks:

Upon reviewing the available sources, it appears that there is no direct evidence of Giordano Bruno explicitly criticizing Epicurean ethics, particularly their hedonism or denial of divine providence. While Bruno engaged with Epicurean ideas, especially in cosmology, his writings do not contain specific condemnations of Epicurean ethical principles.

Bruno's philosophical framework was deeply rooted in Neoplatonism and Hermeticism, leading him to view the universe as a living, divine organism. He posited the existence of a Universal Soul permeating all matter, suggesting that even inanimate objects possessed a degree of life. This perspective starkly contrasts with Epicureanism, which denies any form of divine immanence or universal consciousness. However, this divergence does not equate to a direct critique of Epicurean ethics.

In summary, while Bruno's metaphysical views differ significantly from those of Epicureanism, there is no substantial evidence to support the claim that he was overtly critical of Epicurean ethical doctrines. Therefore, any assertion of such criticism would require further substantiation from primary sources.

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

When pushed further, GROK says this:

Did Giordano Bruno specifically criticize Epicurus? If so give me quotes

Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) did not extensively or explicitly criticize Epicurus in a direct, personal manner in his surviving works, but he did engage with Epicurean ideas, particularly through his reading of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, the primary source for Epicureanism in the Renaissance. Bruno’s relationship with Epicureanism is complex: he admired aspects of it, such as its atomism and rejection of religious superstition, but he diverged from its strict materialism and theological positions, favoring a pantheistic worldview. Where Bruno does critique Epicurean ideas, it’s often indirect, focusing on refining or correcting what he saw as limitations in their metaphysics or cosmology, rather than attacking Epicurus himself.

Finding specific quotes where Bruno directly names and criticizes Epicurus is challenging because Bruno’s style is eclectic, and he tends to synthesize rather than single out thinkers for condemnation. However, I can point to instances where he implicitly critiques Epicurean principles, particularly in his cosmological and metaphysical works, and explain how they relate to Epicurus. Below, I’ll provide relevant passages (translated from Italian or Latin where necessary) from Bruno’s key texts and analyze their connection to Epicureanism. If Bruno doesn’t name Epicurus explicitly in a critical way, I’ll also clarify why and offer context.

Bruno’s Engagement with Epicureanism

Bruno was influenced by Lucretius and, through him, Epicurus, particularly for their atomistic view of the universe and rejection of a providential deity. However, Bruno’s pantheistic belief in an infinite, divine universe animated by a vital principle clashed with Epicureanism’s mechanistic materialism and its view of gods as distant, non-interventionist beings. Where Bruno might seem to “criticize” Epicurus, it’s often a matter of reinterpreting or expanding Epicurean concepts to align with his own monistic vision.

Here are the closest instances where Bruno’s writings touch on Epicurean ideas, with analysis of whether they constitute criticism:

1. On Epicurean Atomism in De l’infinito, universo e mondi (On the Infinite Universe and Worlds, 1584):
   • Context: Bruno praises the idea of an infinite universe, which aligns with Epicurus’ cosmology (Epicurus posited an infinite universe with countless worlds). However, he critiques materialist atomism for lacking a unifying divine principle.

   • Quote (from Dialogue 1, translated by Frances Yates):

     “The universe is one, infinite, immobile… It is not composed of parts that are finite in number, as some have said, nor is it a mere aggregation of atoms, but rather it is a whole, animated by a single spirit.”

   • Analysis: Here, Bruno implicitly critiques Epicurean atomism, which sees the universe as an infinite aggregation of atoms moving in a void. The phrase “not… a mere aggregation of atoms” likely references Lucretius’ (and thus Epicurus’) view, which Bruno finds reductive because it lacks his pantheistic notion of a “single spirit” animating all things. This isn’t a direct attack on Epicurus by name but a philosophical correction of materialism, suggesting it fails to account for the universe’s divine unity.
   • Criticism?: Indirect. Bruno builds on Epicurean infinity but rejects its mechanistic framework, implying Epicurus’ model is incomplete.
2. On the Nature of Divinity in De la causa, principio e uno (On Cause, Principle, and Unity, 1584):
   • Context: Bruno discusses the divine as immanent in all things, contrasting with views of gods as separate entities. Epicureanism posits gods as material, blissful beings who exist apart from the world and don’t interfere.

   • Quote (from Dialogue 4, translated by Sidney Greenberg):

     “Those who place the divine outside the world, or imagine gods in some remote interstices, err gravely, for the divine is not absent but present in all things, the cause and principle of nature itself.”

   • Analysis: This passage critiques theological positions that separate divinity from the universe, including Epicureanism’s view of gods living in the intermundia (spaces between worlds), uninvolved with creation. Epicurus isn’t named, but his concept of detached gods is implicitly targeted as “erring gravely” because it contradicts Bruno’s pantheistic unity, where God is “present in all things.” Bruno sees Epicurean gods as a misstep, failing to recognize divinity as the universe’s essence.
   • Criticism?: Implicit but clear. Bruno rejects Epicurus’ theology as incompatible with his monism, though he doesn’t single him out directly.
3. On Materialism in De immenso et innumerabilibus (On the Immense and Innumerable, 1591):
   • Context: In this Latin work, Bruno elaborates his cosmology, incorporating atomistic ideas but infusing them with vitalism. He discusses the composition of the universe, referencing ancient thinkers.

   • Quote (Book 1, Chapter 6, translated by J. Lewis McIntyre):

     “Some, like the Epicureans, have thought the universe to be composed of atoms and void alone, but they err in denying the universal soul that binds and vivifies all.”

   • Analysis: This is one of the rare instances where Bruno explicitly references “Epicureans.” He acknowledges their atomistic framework but criticizes it for “denying the universal soul,” a core tenet of his philosophy. For Bruno, atoms aren’t just inert particles (as in Epicurus’ system) but are imbued with a divine, animating force. This critique directly challenges Epicurean materialism, which avoids any spiritual or teleological principle, seeing the universe as a random interplay of atoms. Bruno’s use of “err” signals a clear disagreement with Epicurus’ reductionist view.
   • Criticism?: Explicit and direct. This is the strongest evidence of Bruno criticizing Epicurean thought, though it’s still framed as a philosophical correction rather than a personal attack on Epicurus.

Why Limited Direct Criticism?

Bruno’s lack of frequent, explicit attacks on Epicurus can be explained by several factors:

• Renaissance Context: Epicurus was a controversial figure in the 16th century, often vilified by the Church as an atheist. Bruno, already under scrutiny for heresy, may have avoided direct criticism to sidestep further accusations, especially since he admired aspects of Epicureanism (e.g., its anti-superstition stance).
• Synthetic Approach: Bruno’s philosophy blends ideas from many sources—Plato, Neoplatonism, Lucretius, Copernicus—rather than fixating on refuting one thinker. He engages Epicurus through Lucretius, adopting what fits (atomism, infinite worlds) and reframing what doesn’t (materialism, gods).
• Focus on Broader Targets: Bruno’s sharper critiques target Aristotelian cosmology, Ptolemaic geocentrism, and Church dogma, which he saw as greater obstacles to his infinite, divine universe.

Did Bruno Criticize Epicurus Specifically?

Yes, but sparingly and indirectly in most cases. The clearest instance is in De immenso, where he names “Epicureans” and faults their denial of a universal soul. Elsewhere, his critiques are woven into broader arguments against materialist or separatist views of divinity, implicitly challenging Epicurean principles without always naming Epicurus. Bruno respects Epicurus’ naturalism but finds his system too limited for his pantheistic vision.

Reflection on Your Interest

Since you’re curious about “pure” Epicureanism and Bruno’s stance, it’s worth noting that Bruno doesn’t align with Epicureanism’s ethical or metaphysical purity (as discussed earlier). His critique in De immenso suggests he saw Epicureanism as a stepping stone—useful but incomplete—lacking the divine vitality he championed. If you’re looking for more on how Bruno viewed other ancient thinkers or want me to dig into another work for specific references, let me know! What’s the next angle you’re thinking about here?

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.