Posts by Hiram

Quote from Cassius

OK as to the points raised in the other posts by Elayne and Elli in the last 24 hours: there is a lot of background context to this discussion which may not be appropriate to explain further for this thread. On the other hand it "may" be appropriate, too, depending on whether one of the participants or someone reading it wants to discuss and learn from the details for more than just an unproductive desire to air unpleasantness. I can address any details as appropriate.

Yes, considering Elli's characterization of me, I HONESTLY don't want to open that can of worms other than to say I've always disagreed with the suspicion and hostility that new students of Epicurus are often subjected to on the EP facebook group, and that Jason and I left the admin group in disagreement over this issue, ironically, while DEFENDING @Elayne's right to be in the group when she initially came in! So it's a huge irony that Elayne is engaging in similar gate-keeping behavior now, and subjecting me to it when I've been teaching EP for six years, and the only reason why she's here is because I angrily stood up to Elli defending Elayne's right to join the EP group.

Then there's lack of clear speech, which may be the result of language barrier, but impede frank criticism. As I said, I've been made to feel time and again like others have their mind made up before I offer my words, and I do not feel that the issues I raise are addressed. I want people to come to EP to be made to feel welcome. There are more issues here, which are prudent to avoid discussing, so I'll refrain from addressing Elli's remarks further.

Quote from Cassius

I think I see this same tension in the work of Catherine Wilson ...

These are the issues that I see dividing u....

If you read my review of her book, you will see that these are NOT exactly the issues that are dividing us (only your perspective of them), and that I agree with much of your critique of her. I will discuss in more detail below, and later as time allows, if you let me.

Concerning the 6th Tenet, that's the reason why I chose the word particle instead of atom, because atom means indivisible and this will avoid the confusion.

Quote from Elayne

I am being straightforward here. I know nothing about you personally, so I am not making a personal insult. But your direction in philosophy is _not_ consistent with science. It has a strong thread of idealism for which there is no basis in reality. I do think Epicurus' ethics was consistent with his physics. It does upset me that you are using your public platform to put Epicurus' name on a version that doesn't fit the physics.

Not sure what you're even talking about ... idealism? Really? In the years I've been promoting EP this has always been clear. Can you elaborate?

If by this you mean the "idealist interpretation of the gods" and "the atheist interpretation of the gods"--the first is one of the academically accepted interpretations and the last one is the interpretation that is most prominent perhaps among today's Epicureans, including Ilkka and myself (sources and arguments cited from both our blogs). If Society of Epicurus is to be a big-tent organization of Epicurean intellectuals, people who hold the three views will have to be willing to work with each other (obviously this is my project, not yours, but if you ever have to create an organization you will have to consider this issue).

So Elayne I'm sorry if I ever disparaged you particularly. I have history with Cassius, six years, and I've come to expect that he already has made up his mind before I present any critique, which has produced distance between us. So I'm made to feel like he will not profit from my words, and like I'd rather talk to a wall or a mirror (a drag queen once told me that mirrors don't lie, and it's true!). I was very thankful to him for his influence in the initial years of my formation, but we have been for some time obviously in the process of parting ways and it would be nice to do so with friendly discussions and, as we clarify our points of disagreement, (and ONLY if there is room for parrhesia, and therefore for Friendship) to challenge each other from time to time. Can two factions of Epicureans work together, and to what extent? I don't know.

Also thank you for admitting that you do not rely on Philodemus, and this is a highly important point of sincere divergence. It's also very problematic. I had a very strong suspicion that you hadn't read his Peri Parrhesias.

I do not consider Epicurus infallible, and I suspect most modern Epicureans think the same, and I also think that Philodemus is extremely important because by the time he was writing, many generations had been connecting theory with practice for centuries. So it's an error on your part to dismiss his writings.

Also, there is the problem of defining authority. And how is authority used. For you, it's Epicurus--for me, it's the canon, and all the intellectuals that have studied nature following this tradition will continue to use the canon, and perhaps some will even continue to perfect its use. This point of divergence will become more crucial if you ever decide to try to create an Epicurean organization, because it will define everything else.

I don't just respect Lucretius, Philodemus, and even people like Lucian the comedian--which acknowledging that none is infallible. I also consider Michel Onfray to be the most important Epicurean intellectual of our generation, but I don't think you guys have anything approaching a clear idea of his work, and this--again--makes it difficult to connect theory with practice, with the current societal needs and issues that Epicurean philosophy has real moral guidance to give on.

I see Epicurean philosophy as a growing and evolving, adaptable, school of thought, and I get the sense that you, Cassius (and probably a few others) do not, you are instead Epicurus-only fundamentalists.

I am willing to concede that your approach is a FORM of Epicureanism, even if not one that I would agree with or find useful. I think Cassius is willing to concede the same to me, but so far you're not, for reasons that are not fully clear to me.

I wish to address your gate-keeping behavior, and I think Philodemus is important for this. If you adopt a fundamentalist approach, and claim that you're the ONLY TRUE Epicurean and no one else is, that you're right and only you are right but no one else is (even _Philodemus!_, as you have just admitted--who was a recipient of centuries of tradition directly from a Scholarch of direct lineage), then in practice that becomes a mechanism to avoid frank criticism, which is a critical component of the mode of operation of EP. My challenge is for you to think about the repercussions of this.

If a person does not accept our frank criticism there is no true friendship. If I am made to feel like I must be an object to your ideology or your agenda in order to be in your circle, and I can never be a subject (Hiram, with my own ideas, history, cultural baggage, likes and dislikes, my gayness and my hostility against the Catholicism I was brought up in, the FULL human being), then there is NO possibility of proper inter-subjective relations between us. AND of friendship. I can't be a subject, only an object. I would be forced to become a flatterer, rather than a Friend in the proper sense. Which is where Philodemus comes in, because Philodemus wrote about this, which means that he must have observed it in his Garden or other Epicurean spaces, and that this is a tendency in some Epicurean communities and he wanted to warn us about it.

Philodemus said that flatterers were a category of false friends. The person who is always right and does not accept a critique (for instance, the fundamentalist) will attract flatterers instead of friends, and your gate-keeping behavior and Cassius' insistence that he will "only work with" others who agree on all his opinions creates the possibility for surrounding yourself with flatterers, who may feel like they must remain more-or-less silent when they have a sincere disagreement with you in order to avoid your excommunication.

That's PHILODEMUS' critique of flatterers: that they are not real friends. My own critique is that you will not receive the proper "medication" of frank criticism, the moral and intellectual challenges that come with friendship, if you continue to push away potential friends and surround yourself with flatterers in the service of the fundamentalist stance.

Surrounding oneself with flatterers is safe, it's comfortable, and I'm sure even enjoyable. Surrounding oneself with friends is enjoyable also, but CHALLENGING. Less comfortable.

I was hesitating to offer parrhesia, as I said, because I was not confident you + Cassius would profit from my words, which is why I've so carefully presented them, but even if I leave the forum, at least I hope you profit from THESE words. There is no TRUE Friendship without parrhesia, there is no intersubjectivity if people are made to feel like objects in your circle and pushed into the role of a flatterer (as you and Cassius often seem to each other), which is what the "I am always right, you're always wrong" and the impervious-to-frankness attitude produces. You will continue to push away friends and the only people you'll attract who will remain here will be flatterers.

I was thinking of leaving the EF forum, actually, for some of the reasons that I've shared before, and it's hard to figure out what to do with my six years of history with Cassius: you're always right, I'm always wrong, there is a closed bubble and I am now frequently not made to feel welcome in that closed bubble. But what if I stay?

So I guess what I'm saying is that I would like to be your friend, but I will not be your flatterer, Cassius and Elayne. I will not be your object, only a subject. You do not have to _accept_ my offer of friendship, only the challenges that come with it (or you can reject it, to follow through your own agendas and projects to your liking and miss out on profiting from my words) ... but for me to stay, you would have to evaluate the problems related to the fundamentalist stance which nurtures the gate-keeping behavior. This means that you would have to accept that there ARE sincere Epicureans who will not be Epicurus-only fundamentalists.

And if Elayne rejects Philodeman teachings, as she is free to do, then it's not clear what rules other than the ones he laid out would govern our interaction! I mean, Philodemus was on the receiving end of centuries of Epicurean community practices. We have ZERO of that.

oh and thank you Elli for defending "autarchy". It's a neglected subject, which is why I dedicated 2019 content in my blog to it and to epicurean economics.

Here is the quote from Philodemus:

Proper correction will come from one "actuated by good will, devoting himself intelligently and diligently to philosophy, steadfast in principle, careless of what people think of him, immune from any tendency to demagoguery, *** free from spitefulness***, saying only what fits the occasion, and not likely to be carried away so as to ***revile, jeer, belittle, injure feelings***, or resort to tricks of wanton acquiescence or flattery. - Philodemus of Gadara, On Frank Criticism I-b, 2-13

Quote from Cassius

I presume that is addressed to me and will say that of course I do not want you to hold back your "frank criticism." Obviously while we agree on a considerable number of things we disagree strongly on other things. The best way for everyone to move forward it to discuss things as clearly as possible to sharpen the differences. Yes those differences may lead us at some point to going totally (as opposed to partially) different ways, but if that were to happen then even that would still be for the best if it is due to legitimate differences rather than misunderstandings.

I guess you’ve always made me feel like when I offer critique that you just use my words to build a bigger wall between us, so it feel so pointless and I don’t feel like you will profit from anything I say anymore, and Elayne also. Her “people like Hiram” comment felt full of ill-will and like a personal attack, which goes against philodemus’ instructions about parrhesia, which would require that people be committed to each other’s character and happiness and that they use suavity. So it’s probably no use to offer criticism considering there seem to be other issues, suspicion and hostility that impede the development of trust and friendship.

Also I suspect that the internet doesn’t help because so many nuances of normal communication don’t come through.

I was just translating DeWitt’s Procedures in Epicurean groups, and here it cites Philodemus’ Peri Parrhesias.

Thanks for the feedback. I removed the objective / subjective portion, and not sure when I'll have time to review the rest. Since you're not exactly "amenable to frank criticism" as Philodemus would put it, I will excuse myself from giving you parrhesia unless requested, but I WILL review the feedback as time allows later.

Shermer is not a "skeptic" in the classical philosophical sense. This is a case where the old definition of the word and the new one are probably at odds. Clearly, he is a firm defender of science and empiricism, so he's all about withholding judgement until evidence is presented. (Also, notice how he challenges the idea that moral standards are timeless, so it seems like Shermer is already a proto- Epicurean, and in some points he comes off more Epicurean than she is. I wonder to what extent these types of podcasts may help many people realize that they already agree with most of Epicureanism).

Concerning your seventh point, she must be referring of the definition of justice as a covenant to "not harm or be harmed", which to be fair, is our version of the golden rule.

It seems like Wilson's views are tied to the belief that humanity has become progressively more compassionate and enlightened about many issues, and that we KNOW BETTER than the ancients in many regards. In other words, societies (like individuals) have the power to learn and engage in processes of moral development. We know that Epicurus dedicated a sermon to moral development, and we also know that Philodemus in "On Parrhesia" said that frank criticism is of two kinds: to an individual and to the society at large--so that the idea of moral development at the level of community exists.

This view has some merit, and deserves further consideration and discussion. It is one thing to say "ethics is eternal", which is not a clear statement, but it's another thing to say "we know better", with the implication being that some societies are more enlightened and therefore have conventions that generate more pleasure / less suffering to people than others, which is an undeniable fact. And if this is so, then what does this conception of moral development entail? I have a feeling that we may get closer to an answer to this by considering issues of mutual advantage in specific, concrete examples.

Epicurus: Against the Use of Empty Words ya está disponible en "Spanish caption" (Epicuro: contra el uso de palabras vacías)

Shermer is one of the most mainstream "atheist celebrities" today. That he's welcoming Epicurean philosophy into his platform should be a symptom of how mainstream E-ism is becoming.

https://www.skeptic.com/science-salon/…of-living-well/

También "Sobre la amistad"

Quote from Cassius

As we talk about this I would be interested in more background about the purpose of the statement.

...

There's been a flurry of activity in the Spanish group and page, and a new member from Venezuela. This has brought up, again, the questions of how to best organize a few people who are willing to work together to promote EP in a more or less decentralized manner, and also WHO to include. We had decided years ago on the writing of three essays as requirement for membership, in order to ensure that a new member has a good basic grasp of EP before they can start writing as "member of SoFE", so that continues.

(Actually, Jesús' essay was extremely well written and reassuring, because it shows me that we now have enough content online in Spanish to produce a solid intellectual foundation in a sincere student).

I presented the Tenets in the SoE group with other admins, and to Charles before he joined, and had Jesús translate into Spanish and give feedback (my own Outline of EP served as first draft). Society of Epicurus has as a goal to continue the teaching mission of the Epicurean gardens and to ensure the continuity of EP for the benefit of future generations, so I'm mainly interested in creating group of peers who will be friendly to each other and will provide each other feedback in the process of content creation and translation--which is now becoming a major component of what we do. (We are beginning to work on translating DeWitt's "Procedures of Epicurean groups"). Ideally, I want to join forces mainly with other Epicurean content creators and translators, but obviously not everyone who thinks of themselves as Epicurean will be interested in being part of a group of peers like SoFE, or will agree with how we articulate our views.

The goals of the Tenets are also articulated in the opening statement (connect theory and practice, organize the teachings, which would help with a more focused study of specific aspects), and the closing tenets on friendship and mutual benefit deal with how we interact and "philos" (friendship) serves to justify the teaching mission.

So that would be the "framework" for the Tenets. Actually I remember that when we were working more closely together, you frequently encouraged the establishment of some sort of Tenets, but when proposed, we never were able to agree (I think at one point we were working on a "Constitution of SoFE"). Either way, I believe clear that there should be many separate groups working separately based on separate guidelines in order to maximize efficiency (or, in the case of French-speaking people, to focus on Onfray, Vanaigem, and other continental intellectuals), and this is what my own "working group" is doing. The Tenets seems to me, mostly, common sense.

(Also, I've frequently raised the question of continuity, and after the death of Erik Anderson and of Iaako and all the things that happened after and the Facebook groups that disappeared after it became obvious that my concerns were legitimate)

As a non-SoFE-member, your feedback is obviously unnecessary, and I know that you will have disagreements w the Tenets, but I still welcome your feedback if you offer and I don't consider it disparaging of you to criticize them, just for the record.

Quote from Elayne

When reading the texts, I think it is critical to take everything in context of the whole. I have no sense that Epicurus meant that "advantages" could be anything other than related to pleasure, since there is no other definition of good. It does make it hard for someone to grasp, if they don't get a feel for the whole philosophy. So I strongly recommend that any brief list of Tenets should stick closely to language of pleasure and not create confusion. I don't think Epicurus' words are confusing when read in the context of his whole work, but there are definitely some problems with proof-texting out of context. If you decide to leave these in, I think a reminder that there is no other standard but pleasure as the good is very important-- that you are never replacing it with these alternative concepts. Otherwise you are unnecessarily complicating something that is ultimately very simple and straightforward.

That pleasure is the end that our nature seeks is in Tenet 11. The other tenets are not meant to replace the Telos tenet, but to expound on other matters, in this case the wording (advantages) is lifted from LMenoeceus.

Quote from Elayne

16 is harmed by the inclusion of advantage and disadvantage, as if there can be any standard other than pleasure and pain

17 introduces 3 goals-- life, happiness, and health. And since (according to our prior group PMs) you define happiness as being something different from pleasure, you have left pleasure entirely out of the picture of the chief goods.

16. Epicurus used both pleasure / discomfort as well as this in the Letter to Menoeceus when he discussed hedonic calculus:

"Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters."

So hedonic calculus involves the calculation of feelings, and of advantages and disadvantages.

17. Epicurus and the other founders established three criteria to determine what is necessary in the Letter to Menoeceus:

"of the necessary some are necessary for happiness, others for the repose of the body, and others for very life"

The doctrine of the "chief goods" (kyriotatai) is in Philodemus' "Choices and avoidances" scroll.

Quote from Elayne

14 is fine

15-- I am not sure what you mean by this. It is unclear, and it seems to leave the door open for Stoicism. Again you link to your own writing, which does contain original quotes this time, and you end with this "Consistent with what’s been said before, in Fragment 112 Diogenes states that the “sum of happiness is our disposition, of which we are masters”, by which he argues against choosing a career in military service–which produces dangers to our lives and health–or public speaking–which produces nervousness and insecurity. The idea is that we can more easily be self-sufficient in our pleasure if we retain our ability to control our mental disposition."

By arguing against military service, Diogenes is saying we control our disposition by taking action to control our circumstances. Similar to Epicurus advising not to commit crimes, because we will be anxious about getting caught. He doesn't say we can do what we want, because we can have control over our mental dispositions anyway.

With all the "new thought" stuff going around and the revival of the Stoic belief that external circumstances are of no consequence-- that something in us is controlling our attitude and feelings, unaffected by the world around us-- I think this is not a Tenet I would endorse. I would say rather that we can act on the external world and thus create pleasure for ourselves.

(This tenet also implies that we are free + responsible to develop our characters)

So the source of that is Diogenes' "“sum of happiness is our disposition, of which we are masters", but Philodemus also discusses our disposition, so this is not a Stoic idea, it comes from more than one source and seems central to how Epicureans discussed the art of living. In On Piety, it's discussed in terms of the psychosomatic effects of pious practice. In On Anger, it's discussed in terms of how a furious disposition makes us ugly and disliked, how it's bad for our relationships and creates many other disadvantages. In On Arrogance, a similar treatment is given to the vice.

Sentience is very important to us, the quality of the sentient experience, and disposition (unlike mere "states of mind or emotion" which come and go) is HABITUAL, steady, stable and crucial for moral development. So any science or art of happiness would have to concern itself with it.

Quote from Elayne

12-- I know of no evidence that Epicurus promoted idealism in anything. How would an idealistic or imaginary version of his gods be coherent with his philosophy as a whole?

Also, you tend to give your own writing as a source material, but sometimes you link to a book. The end notes would be stronger if you followed the traditional format and gave a full citation, including page numbers. It wouldn't be such a problem to use your own writing or YouTube videos as sources if those writings themselves contained the original source references, but generally they do not. However, this shouldn't be a big deal for you to tweak if you choose to.

13-- I am not a religious person, so I would not be interested in endorsing this tenet. All I can say is that all activities should be chosen for how they produce more pleasure than pain. But I do not equate effort with pain. Effort can often be quite pleasurable. There is nothing about effortless pleasure that I prefer over effortful pleasure (such as, say, dancing), if the pleasure itself is equal. This Tenet seems like another endorsement of static over kinetic pleasure, and we've discussed that a lot here, so I won't rehash. I would just say that I don't think there is strong evidence that Epicurus made a big deal about this distinction, and I would not make it something members of a group had to agree to one way or another.

12 - is an instance where post-Epicurus Epicureans posited their own ideas. The two interpretations accepted today by academics on the gods are realist (the gods are made of atoms) and idealist (the gods are not physical but have cultural / ethical utility as models). The third interpretation, which was originally advanced by Ilkka and then I supported, and is adamantly supported by people like Michel Onfray, is the atheistic one which calls for an atheology instead of a theology, which says that gods are neither justifiable by the canon nor useful in ethics. Here is the original post from he Menoeceus blog (it also mentions the first two interpretations):

https://menoeceus.blogspot.com/2014/08/epicurean-gods.html

13- this quote on "pure, effortless pleasure", if I remember correctly, is cited directly from Epicurus in Philodemus' scroll on Piety (cited in the notes). I believe it comes from Epicurus' scroll "On Holiness" (there are a few quotes there), which is lost to us. Some of the other quotes:

“We all regard our views as the true cause of our tranquility. … In On Holiness, he (Epicurus) calls a life of perfection the most pleasant and most blessed, and instructs us to guide against all defilement, with our intellect comprehensively viewing the best psychosomatic dispositions for the sake of fitting all that happens to us to blessedness …”

It seems like the original Epicureans believe that pious practices have pleasant psychosomatic (both bodily and mental) health effects. Dispositions (diatheses) are an important concept in Epicuran ethics, also often neglected. But it is clear in On Piety that religious practices are meant as a tool for cultivation of happy and healthy mental and emotional dispositions (mental clarity, reverence, friendliness, kindness) in one's character. This is a neglected aspect of the tradition today, and I have not seen any consensus in our groups as far as carrying out "experiments in piety" following Epicurus' guidelines in modern times, so this remains unexplored.

However, I believe that in this we can furnish useful ethical guidance to any religious group that wishes to elevate their pious practices by applying Epicurean principles.

Quote from Elayne

For 3, I think he is talking about something a little different but related to what you are saying. We don't have enough info to be sure, so it is hard for me to see making that a Tenet. When you say "what it is", this seems to be verging on calling the prolepses conceptual, and Epicurus was opposed to including reason/ concepts in how we know what is true. But since you didn't say that outright, it may not be what you meant.

This is an example of a time when I am not afraid to put forth a proposal for what, in my personal philosophy, the prolepses are. Whether Epicurus thought the same, we will never know, but when I read what he said, it sounds like my understanding of prolepses are coherent with his.

For me, prolepses are innate pattern recognitions, which perform functions as simple as organizing visual input so that different objects have boundaries and are seen as separate from each other and as complex as the innate tit for tat sense of justice. There are no concepts in my Canon-- a pattern recognition is different from a concept or even a "what it is". Pattern recognition could certainly help predict "what it does or will do", but that isn't a concept either. I wish I could ask Epicurus, but I think if we spoke the same language and he had access to current developmental research, he would agree with me. I just can't prove it or insist on it.

Because this one is trickier, I would personally not pin it down in a list of things my fellow Epicureans needed to agree on.

Display More

Anticipations is one of the doctrines that took me the longest to grasp. When I wrote my book, I was trying to relate it to epigenetics. I agree that all canonic faculties must be pre-rational. The verbiage I used is from the best explanation of the anticipations that I have found from a Spanish-language source:

Canónica: criterios para la interpretación de la instalación del individuo en la realidad

http://holegon.net/wp-content/upl…n%C3%B3nica.pdf

Quote from Elayne

For 1 and 2, the footnotes are to articles by Hiram and not to primary source material. The second article, by Hiram, says at the end,

"Our hedonism is not about us being subjective, or whimsical, it’s what we mean what we say that nature is our guide: if we ignore our faculties, it’s only to our detriment and to our harm. If we heed them, it’s to our advantage.

Our natural goods are all pleasant, and pleasure is always good." But no quotes are given from Epicurean sources.

The statement that hedonism is not about us being subjective is in contradiction to Tenet #2, which says pleasure and aversion are about subjective nature. There seems to be, as I suspected from the inaccurate division of our perceptions into subjective and objective, a disdain for subjective experience creeping in, perhaps unconsciously. Why would it be a problem if pleasure seeking was subjective? It IS subjective. It can't be experienced other than subjectively.

Elayne (+ #Cassius ) Thank you in specific for your parrhesia re: objective / subjective. That's good feedback. I will bring up with others for editorial feedback.

Nuestro video sobre el canon ahora tiene traducción opcional (captions) en español. Favor de reportar si encuentran algún problema en verla.

The 20 Tenets of Society of Friends of Epicurus 12/21/19

Lea en español.

In the initial years of forming groups of friends and intellectual peers with the goal of studying, applying, and teaching Epicurean philosophy, we have frequently considered that it might be a good idea to have a concise, summarized set of clear Tenets to facilitate the process of teaching, to connect theory with practice, and to more clearly explain what it is that we believe in.

This has not been easy. We do not wish to risk over-simplifying ideas that, when summarized, lose either their potency or some aspect of them that requires further qualification in order to avoid grave errors. We also wish to keep a big tent that allows for opinions that are varied, yet orthodox enough to still be coherent with EP. Hence, for instance, the “three acceptable interpretations” of Epicurean theology in Tenet 12.

Ancient and modern Epicureans have always been encouraged to write down Outlines of their personal philosophy. This actually has great benefits: it helps to cognitively organize and make sense of what we believe, to find the coherence between our values and ideas, and to articulate them clearly. The Tenets are roughly based on the Outline that I (Hiram) wrote some time ago, edited and expanded.

The first five Tenets relate to the Canon (or, epistemology). The next five relate to the Physics (or, the nature of things). The final ten relate to the Ethics (or, the art of living). These are the three parts of Epicurean philosophy. In the notes section, you will find Epicurean sources and essays cross-referenced for each Tenet.

1. “Objective” nature is knowable via the sensations.
2. “Subjective” nature is knowable via the value-setting pleasure and aversion faculties, by which we know what is choice-worthy and avoidance-worthy.
3. While sensations tell us that something IS or exists, it does not tell us WHAT it is. For THAT cognitive process, we must rely on a faculty tied to both language and memory. The faculty of anticipation helps us to recognize abstractions and things previously apprehended.
4. We may infer the unseen / un-apprehended based on what has been previously seen / apprehended by any of our faculties; and we may re-adjust our views based on new evidence presented to our faculties.
5. Our words and their meanings must be clear, and conform to the attestations that nature has presented to our faculties.
6. All bodies are made of particles and void.
7. Bodies have essential properties and incidental properties.
8. Nothing comes from nothing.
9. All things operate within the laws of nature, which apply everywhere.
10. All that exists, exists within nature. There is no super-natural or un-natural “realm”; it would not have a way of existing outside of nature. Nature is reality.
11. The end that our own nature seeks is pleasure. It is also in our nature to avoid pain.
12. There are three acceptable interpretations of the Epicurean gods: the realist interpretation, the idealist interpretation, and the atheist interpretation.
13. The goal of religion is the experience of pure, effortless pleasure.
14. Death is nothing to us because when we are, death is not and when death is, we are not. Since there is no sentience in death, it is never experienced by us.
15. Under normal circumstances, we are in control of our mental dispositions.
16. Choices and avoidances are carried out successfully (that is, producing pleasure as the final product) if we measure advantages/pleasures versus disadvantages/pains over the long term. This means that we may sometimes defer pleasure in order to avoid greater pains, or choose temporary disadvantage, but only and always for the sake of a greater advantage or pleasure later.
17. To live pleasantly, we must have confident expectation that we will be able to secure the chief goods: those things that are natural and necessary for life, happiness, and health. Therefore, whatever we do to secure safety, friendship, autarchy, provision of food and drink and clothing, and other basic needs, is naturally good.
18. Autarchy furnishes greater possibilities of pleasure than slavery, dependence, or relying on luck; The unplanned life is not worth living, and we must make what is in our future better than what was in our past.
19. Friendship is necessary for securing happiness. It is advantageous to promote Epicurean philosophy in order to widen our circle of Epicurean friends.
20. Human relations should be based on mutual benefit.

Notes:

1. “The doctrine of the first leg of the canon: sensations”. PD 23. The Epicurean Canon.
2. “The second leg of the canon: pleasure and aversion”. The Pleasure / Aversion Faculty: an Introduction.
3. “The third leg of the canon: anticipations”. The canon is known as the “tripod” because it stands on three legs. Epicurus and His Philosophy – Chapter VIII – Sensations, Anticipations, and Feelings.
4. “The doctrine of inference”. Review of Philodemus’ On Methods of Inference. Philodemus: On Methods of Inference – A Study in Ancient Empiricism.
5. Epicurus: Against the use of empty words.
6. “Fourth, Nothing exists in the universe except bodies and space. We conclude that bodies exist because it is the experience of all men, through our senses, that bodies exist. As I have already said, we must necessarily judge all things, even those things that the senses cannot perceive, by reasoning that is fully in accord with the evidence that the senses do perceive. And we conclude that space exists because, if it did not, bodies would have nowhere to exist and nothing through which to move, as we see that bodies do move. Besides these two, bodies and space, and properties that are incidental to combinations of bodies and space, nothing else whatsoever exists, nor is there any evidence on which to speculate that anything else exists that does not have a foundation in bodies and space”. – Letter to Herodotus, Section 2
7. “We must distinguish particles, which have eternal and essential properties, from bodies, which are combinations of particles and void, and which have qualities that are merely transitory while they are so combined. These temporary qualities we call “incidental” to the bodies with which they are associated. As with the permanent properties of particles, transitory incidental qualities of bodies do not have material existences of their own, nor can they be classified as incorporeal. When we refer to some quality as “incidental,” we must make clear that this incidental quality is neither essential to the body, nor a permanent property of the body, nor something without which we could not conceive the body as existing. Instead, the incidental qualities of a body are the result of our apprehending that they accompany the body only for a time. Although those qualities which are incidental are not eternal, or even essential, we must not banish incidental matters from our minds. Incidental qualities do not have a material existence, nor do they exist independently in some reality that is beyond our comprehension. We must, instead, consider the incidental qualities of bodies as having exactly the character that our sensations reveal them to possess”. – Letter to Herodotus, Section 7
8. “First, nothing can be created out of that which does not exist. We conclude this to be true because if things could be created out of that which did not exist, we would see all things being created out of everything, with no need of seeds, and our experience shows us that this is not true. Second, nothing is ever completely destroyed to non-existence. We conclude this because if those things which dissolve from our sight completely ceased to exist, all things would have perished to nothing long ago. If all things had dissolved to non-existence, nothing would exist for the creation of new things, and we have already seen that nothing can come from that which does not exist. Third, the universe as a whole has always been as it is now, and always will be the same. We conclude this because the universe as a whole is everything that exists, and there is nothing outside the universe into which the universe can change, or which can come into the universe from outside it to bring about change”. – Letter to Herodotus, Section 2
9. PD 10-13.
10. “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise .. . without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence”. – Thomas Jefferson ; “I conjure you, my brethren, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them! Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and therewith also those blasphemers. To blaspheme the earth is now the dreadfulest sin, and to rate the heart of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!” – Nietzsche, in Thus Spake Zarathustra
11. “The doctrine of the telos, or the end”. “I call you to constant pleasures!” – Epicurus.
12. The third way to look at the Epicurean Gods. Philodemus On Piety: Critical Text with Commentary
13. Epicureanism as a Religious Identity; “We all regard our views as the true cause of our tranquility. … In On Holiness, he (Epicurus) calls a life of perfection the most pleasant and most blessed, and instructs us to guide against all defilement, with our intellect comprehensively viewing the best psychosomatic dispositions for the sake of fitting all that happens to us to blessedness …” – Philodemus of Gadara, On Piety; Philodemus On Piety: Critical Text with Commentary
14. Review of Philodemus’ On Death. Letter to Menoeceus, third paragraph. Philodemus: On Death (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 29)
15. Diogenes’ Wall: on PD 20.
16. “The doctrine of hedonic calculus”. Back to the Basics. On Choices and Avoidances.
17. “The doctrine of confident expectation”. See the Metrodorus portion in the essay In Memory of the Men.
18. “The doctrine of personal sovereignty”. See the Metrodorus portion in the essay In Memory of the Men; How Epicurean Principles Can Help You Transform Your Financial and Personal Life. Vatican Sayings 36, 47, 65, 67; PD 15, 16
19. “The doctrine of friendship”. On Friendship. Organization and Procedure in Epicurean Groups (PDF file), by Norman DeWitt.
20. “The doctrine of mutual advantage”. See PDs 31-40.

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

The Remainder of this post was posted by Hiram on 12/22/19:

Quote from Elayne

When I read Hiram's recent writing about Buddhist forms of introspection being a way to learn about the self, for instance, I know clearly that our versions of Epicurean philosophy are different. Buddhists do have some variations, but a core feature is the assertion that by closely introspecting on oneself, a person will experience directly that there is no self and that our ordinary experience of self and reality is a delusion. There are neurologic events that cause this and are related to what the brain does when typical environmental stimuli are removed. A concerning number of people without prior psychiatric disturbances have suffered long lasting dysfunction from this, anything from dissociative symptoms to psychosis.

I will be interested in seeing the Society of Epicurus' statement. I am expecting it to incorporate elements that I will find to be structurally unsound. If it does not, I will be thrilled!

And those of us who adhere to the classical teachings of Epicurus will continue to clarify our position, sometimes by contrasting it with alternate views, just as Epicurus did.

Hi Elayne. The English translation of our Tenets is live here:

http://societyofepicurus.com/the-20-tenets-of-society-of-friends-of-epicurus/

I don't expect you to agree with all of them, but maybe the admins from Epicurean Friends can create their own version for their own use based on their own outlines. Ours is meant to connect theory with practice, to facilitate teachings and cross-reference with key sources, and to potentially guide us in our future endeavors and teaching mission. It worked out to a total of twenty, but I also probably also chose to stick to twenty subconsciously in order to have another excuse to call ourselves "twentiers"

RE engaging Buddhist ideas, I am happy that you are doing so. Secular Buddhism is advocated by Sam Harris, who has a huge influence in many intellectual circles, particularly among atheists, and he is sold on the Buddhist doctrine of no-self. These ideas are gaining a lot of currency in the West these days.

I believe that those of us in EP who are versed in Buddhist philosophy of no-self have a unique opportunity to articulate an alternative that is self affirming and that views the self as an emergent property of the body, but there's a lot of work to be done in articulating these views clearly. I have begun this work and am curious about what you make of this, particularly I cite from an essay by a feminist intellectual who wrote an amazing piece in defense of an inter-disciplinary theory of self for Aeon magazine, which I hope you will read. Hers is a very well written and well argued piece.

A Concrete Self | Society of Friends of Epicurus

Quote from Elayne

Hiram, I did not say no one had contributed to philosophy about pleasure-- neither is it true that no physicist contributed to the ability of Einstein to have his insight. But it is still true that no one but Epicurus put the pieces of Physics, Canon and Ethics together so clearly, and no one worked as hard and tirelessly as he did to teach it. He was not a "prophet"-- he was a scientist and a philosopher. And IMO he clearly deserves a first rank place among the philosophers, or I would not call myself an Epicurean but something else.

I agree with this. So maybe the only difference is that I'm not scared to engage the variety of philosophical voices (like Philodemus did, as we see in his scrolls which were ongoing conversations between Epicureans and with other schools).

Also, not sure if you're familiar with this source but there's a way in which Epicurean philosophy is supposed to be a living, evolving philosophical tradition in addition to the study of the original ideas (this allows for scientific and empirical input, even cultural insights, to add to the tradition). Epicurus himself gave, in addition to the canon and how to use it, specific instructions on innovation which include two criteria:

Quote

The relevant portion on doctrinal innovation has to do with the two criteria established by Epicurus himself to prevent muddling of doctrines that disagree with each other. These are consistency and coherence.

In the necessary and inevitable process of updating Epicurean teaching and tradition, I have subjected the potential innovations to the criteria given by Epicurus (Erler, 2011) dealing with innovation and forbidding the ‘muddling’ of doctrines that disagree with each other. The two guidelines provided by Epicurus are akoloythia and symphonia, which translate as consistency (has no internal contradictions) and coherence (is in symphony with the rest of Epicurus’ doctrine).

Here was my initial post on this, the source is in Erler

http://societyofepicurus.com/epicurus-instr…-on-innovation/

Quote from Cassius

Has that been reviewed by Hiram or others as representative of a collective view of the Society of Epicurus? I note the opening reference to that and it seems to be written as such, but I wasn't clear. The last paragraph in general, and the final sentence in particular, sounds like it was intended as such, and wasn't part of your earlier comments on this subject if I recall correctly. And in that context I am interested in the thought process behind the last sentence, because I don't really agree with that formulation myself. I would probably not comment about except for the inference that this might be intended to be a statement of the Society of Epicurus (if that was intended) in which case I think the conclusion is something to discuss further.

I would particularly question "the distinguishing feature of Epicurus' wisdom is his insistence that pleasure is the supreme goal of life" and "

The wisdom of pleasure was NOT invented by any one prophet, nor divinely revealed to illuminate humanity; simply, Epicurus was one of many insightful friends who observed this reality, and shared in the wisdom of pleasure."

I reviewed the essay and when he posts it, i was going to link my own essay on isms so that people see some of the discussions that we have had on this

http://societyofepicurus.com/on-isms/

The entire essay was authored by Nathan and even reflects his own creativity with different kinds of fonts etc so I want to respect his voice, and I also think this is a well articulated essay.

As for statements of the Society of Epicurus, I would not be comfortable with requiring everyone to share each and every opinion in unison. We now share the Tenets. We can build from there.

Concerning Nathan’s closing statement I approve of it and would prefer if he does not change it. I would like @Nathan to continue developing as an Epicurean intellectual with his own ideas. Our final authority is nature and the canon, so for instance we know that Epicurus was wrong about the size of the sun because of the canon. For a similar reason I can see and appreciate Ilkka’s third / atheistic interpretation of the gods, which he and I argue is in line with the canon.

Finally it was Aristippus who invented pleasure ethics, and it was Anniceris the Cyrenaic who invented hedonic calculus. So while Epicurus perfected pleasure ethics to where we know it today, with the help of his friends, and we are right to almost revere him, I am also ok w Nathan’s statement that we do not see him as a kind of prophet. Many after and before him, like Diogenes of Oenoanda and Michel Onfray, and the Lokáyata school in india, and Yang Chu of china, have made contributions of their own to pleasure ethics.