I am referring to static pleasure that is produced by the absence of pain. .
This has been discussed before:
Dialogue on Katastematic Pleasure
I am referring to static pleasure that is produced by the absence of pain. .
This has been discussed before:
Dialogue on Katastematic Pleasure
Yes that (the focus on tranquility / ataraxia / peace of mind as some unique kind of highest pleasure) is a common assertion that I reject, Mike, and I think you will find that Dewitt states it considerably differently. In fact I do not believe that either ataraxia or aponia are "kinds of pleasure." I believe they are adverbs that describe ways / contexts in which pleasure (ordinary pleasures of all kind) are experienced. In other words, the best way to experience any pleasure is "without distraction" (ataraxia) and "without pain" (aponia).
For the record, this is Cassius' view and is not shared by all. The sources that use ataraxia include Letter to Menoeceus:
The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life.
τούτων γὰρ ἀπλανὴς θεωρία πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν ἐπανάγειν οἶδεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀταραξίαν, ἐπεὶ τοῦτο τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν ἐστι τέλος
(where ἀταραξίαν/ataraxian is translated as "serenity of the soul"). And so this term is used in LMenoeceus by Epicurus, where it is offered as a criterion for choices and avoidances.
Also, in Diogenes' Wall, we find this, where we are able to contrast ataraxia versus the ills of the soul that it's meant to heal: the perturbances of the soul:
Let us now [investigate] how life is to be made pleasant for us both in states and in actions.
Let us first discuss states, keeping an eye on the point that, when the emotions which disturb the soul are removed, those which produce pleasure enter into it to take their place.
Well, what are the disturbing emotions? [They are] fears —of the gods, of death, and of [pains]— and, besides [these], desires that [outrun] the limits fixed by nature. These are the roots of all evils, and, [unless] we cut them off, [a multitude] of evils will grow [upon] us.
This letter was published anonymously some years back by a disenchanted objectivist who converted to Epicureanism:
I share it here because St Andre says he is inspired by both Epicurus and Ayn Rand, which has a few problems. He's therefore a bit too conservative for my taste, and I find that people who credit Ayn Rand for being a great philosopher tend to see the world in black and white and to ignore all the other colors But in spite of all that, I think he's made unique and valuable contributions to the teaching of Epicureanism. I'm just not sure how he solves the animosity against feeling and pleasure in Rand, and the tension between our ethics and Rand's reliance on logic. I've had good exchanges with him, but never addressed this with him.
I suspect Metrodorus would view this statement, as I do, as fairly ridiculous. No action or tool is "intrinsically" a pleasure, unless it is some form of pleasure itself. So Metrodorus would never call ANYTHING a "preferred indifferent" which is a peculiarly Stoic manner of talking in fairly ridiculous terms -- not terminology an Epicurean would use -- only someone who likes talking in pretzels, like the Stoics love to do.
Yes, that seems like something that the author who was commenting on the Philodeman scroll may have been saying, not something Metrodorus would have said. However, it's not inaccurate to say that Metrodorus would have "preferred" wealth over poverty, particularly considering that he was VERY concerned with autarchy.
It _would_ be inaccurate to classify wealth as an "indifferent" good from an Epicurean perspective. Philodemus classifies "the natural measure of wealth" as that which is needed to secure what is natural and necessary, and anything beyond that we can assume qualifies as natural and unnecessary wealth. Indifference is not a qualifier to us.
How comprehensive are you wanting these entries to be? because, as you know, not only are there more views on this among modern epicureans than what Epicurus thought about the gods, but the gods are also more complex and described in more detail.
For instance the first PD says that they neither experience favor / gratitude nor hostility/violence against mortals because that would imply weakness. This is a huge statement.
Favor and hostility go together. They are tied to the belief that the gods enjoy Autarchy, that they are completely self sufficient and so no one can harm or help them. And the scroll on Piety has much more to say about the gods and about religiosity.
Will there be a public-facing podcast page with an intro and subscribe button?
I have a theory about that (well, it's not MY theory because the author of "Red Mars" depicted a future where this was a huge controversy)
IN the novel Red Mars, one of the first female scientists that goes to the planet during colonization is firmly opposed to terraformation because she wants to protect native Martian life and wants the planet to stay pristine. If the planet is BELIEVED to be completely sterile, then it will be easier to argue in favor of terraformation (which may destroy native life forms).
So if NASA knows of life there and does not divulge it, it may be that it anticipates strong resistance to future terraformation (which will be very expensive and hard to sell to tax payers, if funded publicly)
BY the way, NASA just announced the graduation of 13 new astronauts that may go to Mars.
Yes. Nothing is pleasurable in bothering myself whether or not god exists. It's enough I have figured out my take in this issue, and I move on to something more positive.
hey Mike Anyayahan --- I read about the volcano in the Philippines. I hope you're safe!
Ok. And what is the proper context to say that an atheist can become Epicurean? I'm an atheist and I don't know if it's proper that I am here. I'm curious.
I can't speak for the adherents of Epicurus-only-fundamentalism. But as far as I'm concerned if you think that we should live pleasantly following the guidelines in L Menoeceus, and if you agree with the basic scientific understanding of the nature of things and reject all supernatural "reality", you can proudly call yourself Epicurean because Epicurean teachings are guiding how you live your life.
So if the realist and idealist positions do not exist outside of this forum, I guess my question is what do you make of all the sources cited in the Epicureanism piece on Wikipedia, for instance?
The manner in which the Epicurean gods exist is still disputed. Some scholars say that Epicureanism believes that the gods exist outside the mind as material objects (the realist position), while others assert that the gods only exist in our minds as ideals (the idealist position). The realist position holds that Epicureans understand the gods as existing as physical and immortal beings made of atoms that reside somewhere in reality. However, the gods are completely separate from the rest of reality; they are uninterested in it, play no role in it, and remain completely undisturbed by it. Instead, the gods live in what is called the metakosmia, or the space between worlds. Contrarily, the idealist position holds that Epicurus did not actually conceive of the gods as existing in reality. Rather, Epicurus is said to have viewed the gods as just idealized forms of the best human life, and it is thought that the gods were emblematic of the life one should aspire towards. The debate between these two positions was revived by A. A. Long and David Sedley in their 1987 book, The Hellenistic Philosophers, in which the two argued in favor of the idealist position. While a scholarly consensus has yet to be reached, the realist position remains the prevailing viewpoint at this time.
(and here are sources for notes 36 through 41:)
Now, do I think a personal God(s) exists? No. Do I think there's an afterlife judgment awaiting us all? No. My point of contention with the Atheists rests on my belief that nothing comes from nothing - one of the central and fundamental Epicurean doctrines about the nature of the universe. Another issue is that I derive happiness from thinking about the creator(s) of the universe; as Epicurus intended for us. Others may not and that's okay, I've no issue with that - to each their own.
this is the idealist view, except that the Epicurean gods were not creators, they were created by nature.
and Hiram, also, I am not opposed to people disagreeing with Epicurus on things that don't bring down the whole structure of the philosophy.
Ideas that are inconsistent with an entirely material universe, lacking any absolute morality or supernatural agents; with the method of knowing what is true, through the Canon (more so than the particular facts asserted, the method itself is the critical part); and that the goal of our lives is the feeling of pleasure, felt purely subjectively and specific to each individual? Not Epicurean.
Cool. That's why I keep citing the Ilkka essay, because he goes back to the canon to argue the atheistic interpretation.
If it's true that Epicurus rejected atheists and atheism generally. How then can you, Hiram, claim Atheism as part of the Epicurean tradition...
Because so many those who identify as Epicureans today call themselves atheists and because, as I've said before, I see Epicurean philosophy as an evolving, living tradition rather than an irrelevant study of a history of itself.
We are the ones who are creating Gardens, communities, or circles of friends to study Epicureanism for our own pleasure and for our own sake. It is we who must carry the tradition forward. Epicurus isn't here. It is we who have to decide whether we will subject atheists to the treatment that Epicurus subjected atheists to--however they are defined... (or, for that matter, subject monotheistic Deists like Thomas Jefferson to excommunication).
And concerning "Friends of Epicurus"--here I must cite Michel Onfray's "counter-history of philosophy from the perspective of the friends of Epicurus and the enemies of Plato" ... (he is also the author of a "Manual of Atheology"). We're not a dead intellectual tradition. There are Epicurean friends still having conversations in many languages.
Hiram, I am not atheist in regards to the type of beings Epicurus referred to. I am atheist in terms of the supernatural, which Epicurus was also. If I have been unclear on that, I am surprised. Just like with the word atoms, the word atheist no longer means exactly the same thing as it did in Epicurus' time.
So you subscribe to the realist interpretation? You believe with certainty that immortal, blissful gods with bodies made of particles, exist? It didn't seem to me that you held that view. It seemed like you were agnostic about the Epicurean gods (or withholding your opinion until evidence is presented) and atheistic about the monotheistic god.
And that's one reason we are talking about this in the context of a list of tenets of a "Society of Epicurus." It would certainly not be acceptable to me to be a member of a society that held that Epicurus was a liar or a coward and simply trying to avoid the fate of Socrates.
Only Norman DeWitt seems to have been willing to treat Epicurus fairly and respectfully, ...
Cassius at this point I’m not sure if it’s honest of you to characterize this as what I’m saying.
It is possible to hold the view that:
Epicurus sincerely believed in his gods,
To hold the view that I do not agree with his view. (Atheist opinion)
Maybe to even hold the view that religious practices still have some utility (idealist opinion)
This is not disrespectful. And it does not imply he was a liar or coward. Each one of these is a sincere opinion and here it is you who are demeaning those who hold these views and accusing them of insulting Epicurus, when at no point that was said or implied in any of the tenets, or in the literature provided to justify their views by the epicureans who hold these views (Ilkka and myself, and others).
In O'Keefe, the author introduces the issue by stating that what the Epicurean god(s) are is unclear but discussed two theories about what Epicureanism proposed for the nature of the gods. The issue, Hiram, with SoFE tenets is that you declare there are three acceptable Epicurean positions when, for all we know, Epicureanism has only one position we just aren't certain which one it is.
Well, "Epicurean-ism" is not a person with a single mind and a single opinion on the matter. WE are the people who hold the label "Epicurean", and we hold a diversity of views.
What I AM saying is that members of SoFE are willing to accept as Epicureans people who hold these three positions, frankly, because there are good arguments for all three. All three are Epicurean, as far as I’m concerned, because they are part of our tradition.
The view that Epicurus held was clearly the realist view, but if we required all Epicureans today to hold this view, there would only be a handful of people who understand, much less accept this view, and we would almost all of us have to excommunicate ourselves from what we're doing.
The idealist and the atheist views are both not what Epicurus opined.
In fact, Elayne in particular is making claims of orthodoxy and then says that she adheres to the atheist view. If she were to follow the “only one interpretation possible” approach, she would have to exclude herself from epicureanism. Epicurus WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with atheists in his day! In the scroll on piety, Philodemus mentions an account of three atheists who are mentioned by name. In my commentary of the scroll, I wrote:
It’s ironic that so many atheists today consider Epicurus as one among their number. Epicurus mentions the need to despise atheists, reproaches them as mad, Bacchic revellers and admonishes them “not to trouble or disturb us”, mentioning Critias, Doagoras and Prodicus by name.
The piety of Epicurus and his followers is mentioned frequently in the Philodeman scroll. It describes how celebrations of the 20th were, originally, in part religious and Epicurus’ “house was decorated piously” for the occasion. The oaths and invocations were, also, religious in nature and in his Epistle to Diotimus, Epicurus is said to have warned against “violating the covenant of the sacred festival table”.
Therefore, even if they are now in the majority, Epicurean atheist thinkers are part of the contemporary branch of the tradition and could not have emerged at the roots of our history. Epicurus would not have had it.
So we have to, at all times, humbly embrace the fact that what we are doing is a modern revival of Epicureanism.
The book's official publication date is today.
Here is my review of it, which includes an invitation to the reader to write an essay about their own personal philosophy:
I can agree with a lot of the above. I found your book TtEG delightful and appreciate the encouraging message therein for readers to develop their own wisdom tradition. As for an outline of my personal philosophy, I'm using every Twentieth of 2020 to focus on developing and sketching it out. After December 20th, 2020, it will be interesting to know and revealing to see just how much -- from a philosophical perspective -- I've grown and changed over the time of just one year.
Congrats on the new book, I look forward to reading it
If you don't have a blog, I hope you create one!
Concerning the idea that gods emit particles that we can perceive, this was part of one of our discussions on the gods and was dismissed by Alex because, in an expanding universe paradigm, we are getting further away from the intercosmia and therefore the particles would eventually no longer reach us. This is just another problem with the realist position. Are we content to state something knowing that we will remain forever without evidence for it?
Just because O'Keefe says a thing doesn't make true. Idealism is a ridiculous position contradicted by reality. Allowing that into your definition of Epicurean stretches the meaning beyond comprehension. You can do that to any label you want to, of course, but it removes any claim to consistency or coherence.
I think we have to be careful to attack the label "idealist interpretation" without considering the substance attached, because the key issue here is whether contemplation on the gods is USEFUL for pleasure.
In other words, the difference between the atheist and idealist interpretation is that the atheist does not see the point of contemplating on the gods in any way, while the so-called "idealist" does (and Epicurus, as a realist, did).
So we should not rush to attack the label's name without considering the point being made. If someone wishes to write an essay claiming the label, or re-naming the label for the sake of clarity, I would be happy to comment on it and help to re-brand the so-called "idealist position". But the key here, let's not forget, has to do with the utility of pious practice to experience certain kinds of pleasures even if we do not believe in physical gods (and the problem addressed here is also the "naturalness" of religiosity, or the idea that humans are by nature religious and that we should "not force nature").
Epicureanism: Fixed Once For All
… “…another great fault (of Epicurus) was that of dictatorial dogmatism. His followers had to learn a kind of creed embodying his doctrine, which they were not allowed to question; to the end none of them added or modified anything...when Lucretius later turned Epicurus’ Philosophy into poetry, he added, so far as can be judged, nothing theoretical to the masters teaching (it appears Cassius is right about Lucretius remaining true to Epicurus).” Hiram
General disinterest for science
Elayne ..."Epicurus has no interest in science on its own account, he values it solely as providing naturalistic explanations of phenomena which superstition attributes to agency of the gods. When there are several possible naturalistic explanations, he holds that there is no point in trying to decide between them… it is no wonder that the Epicureans contributed practically nothing to natural knowledge."
Charge of Hypocrisy
If Epicurus said “The honour paid to a wise man is a great good for those who honour him” but didn’t himself repay those to whom he was intellectually indebted; like his teacher who he called “the mollusk”, Democritus, etc... That sounds like dishing out advice he doesn’t follow himself.
Does anyone know why he hated so strongly the thinkers who actually influenced him? Is this true or are the sources which describe such behaviour by Epicurus not to be trusted?
Edit: my thoughts on the above is that I will respect Epicurus' wishes that his philosophy be unadulterated. I will not seek to infuse my philosophy into Epicureanism as to sell it deceptively as Epicureanism when it really is just my own philosophy. I think we should be cognizant when others may be doing this, and point it out when we see it taking place. I will thus be only contributing to Epicureanism if it is respectful of Epicurus. I think Hiram has a signature sign-off that Epicurus final words were "never forget my teachings" so we should do that and respect the dying Sage's final request. All that now said, I will still focus primarily on the development of my own philosophy, contributing to philosophy by adding and/or modifying wherever necessary and pleasurable.
edit: the quote by Hiram is "always remember my doctrines" ... which makes sense.
Yes, most of us believe that Lucretius was true to Epicurus. (The author of "Ontology of motion" disagrees, if you're interested in reading a counter-point).
Concerning the point that Epicurus had no interest in science for the sake of science, yes he was a philosopher and the role that philosophy plays for science and religion and other human projects is to provide ethical guidance. In his case, he pointed the finger at pleasure. This is the role of philosophy. On the one hand, those who are scientism enthusiasts put too much faith in human artifacts instead of nature; on the other hand religious people and anti-science activists want to advance policy that leaves us all at the mercy of unempirical doctrines that impede human progress (think: stem cell and other forms of useful research). So it is important to understand the role of science as producing empirical data, and the role of philosophy as providing moral guidance for how to use this data. This does not mean that someone like Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins who is in awe of nature and its processes should not or would not find EP useful--on the absolute contrary. Both science and philosophy are necessary, and both have their roles.
Concerning the accusation that Epicurus was hypocritical, that is one possibility, but another one is that (I don't remember the source now, but I remember reading somewhere, maybe in Laertius?, that) "the Mollusk" had a problem with drinking too much wine, which sometimes has the tendency to make people obnoxious. We can't know today what Nausiphanes was like when sober, or when not-sober. But I have a feeling that there was more than a difference of opinions in their proverbial parting argument.
Also, consider that Epicurus arrived very late in the philosophy game, and received many of the arguments that had been previously presented as well as counter-arguments. This allowed him to put his intellect to work with the best benefits possible. He benefited from this, creating a synthesis of impressive maturity of all the most important insights of ancient Greek thought: the atomism of Democritus, the Cyrenaic pleasure ethics. Even his ideal of "ataraxia" was informed by an encounter with Pyrrho, who left a very deep impression on young Epicurus--so that he replaced Democritus' ethical ideal of cheerfulness with "ataraxia". Now, obviously, he did not take in the Skeptic doctrine of Pyrrho, only his demeanor. And he went on synthesizing the best of what he found throughout his life into a philosophy that made progressively more sense.
Oscar I hope you write a blog detailing your own personal philosophy. (I think everyone should do this, and update it periodically because your views will evolve).
My book TtEG was published in 2014, and a couple of years later I wrote Six things I learned since writing it. Tomorrow is the official publication date of "How to live a good life", for which I wrote the "Epicureanism chapter" (originally I had wanted to title it "Choices and avoidances" but the editors required that each chapter be titled after the tradition it represents). It contains a 5,000-word essay, which I wrote as if it was my narration of the most updated version of MY outline of Epicurean philosophy. This was extremely useful and allowed me to organize my thoughts. My review of the other chapters in the book will go live tomorrow.
Hiram, can you please reference where you found those atheist, idealist and realist interpretations? Are these your own interpretations? Are you simply referring to Epicurus' description of the god(s) and working your way out from there?
I think your realism is actually the "idealistic" interpretation; to claim the gods are blissful extraterrestrial immortals made of particles is indeed an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. How do you know that they're immortal? I suppose if they are made up of particles, perhaps they are also subject to particle disturbance and dissolution?
I don't think realists portray god(s) with adopting a mystical idealism per the saying "blissful extraterrestrial immortals made of particles".
Lastly, I don't think the atheist interpretation, in its most literal sense, is an acceptable position -- even Professor Richard Dawkins states, when pressed, to be agnostic. There's simply no convincing evidence supporting any personal god(s).
They're not my own. The first two are the widely accepted academic interpretations. For instance, if you look up the wikipedia article on Epicureanism it says:
The manner in which the Epicurean gods exist is still disputed. Some scholars say that Epicureanism believes that the gods exist outside the mind as material objects (the realist position), while others assert that the gods only exist in our minds as ideals (the idealist position)
This is followed by three sources, which are:
So as you see this is a very complex subject, and I believe it's tied mainly to the problem of how much can we infer about life in other worlds based on what we see about life in this world (this is treated in "On methods of inference" by Philodemus); and it's also linked to the problem of the Canon and the requirement that it be based on EMPIRICAL data from nature. It seems like some ancient Epicureans argued that the gods could be "perceived" as anticipations, but this is very problematic. Therefore I adhere to the third / atheistic interpretation.
I find it possible that in the ecology of the cosmos there may exist super-intelligent, super-blissful beings; and I find it possible that they may exist for thousands of years, but I find it impossible (it doesn't pass the test of conceivability, which is an important criterion cited in "On methods of inference") that beings of any species would last an eternal lifetime when all else goes to dust, as we see in nature, even suns and planets.
Here is a piece by Ilkka on the subject, where he also articulates the third view (the atheist view). He was the first one who initially posited this view in terms of the canon, so it would be unfair to attribute it to me although I adhere to it. He argues that the Epicurean gods do not pass the test of the canon, that they are unempirical.
Also, we have discussed this in the past among us. Here are records of our previous discussions. Feel free to start discussions elsewhere or here based on passages from these previous discussions.