Posts by Titus

Quote from Eikadistes

I think Hannah set out to try to prove a highly imaginative fiction. He paints a colorful picture that would be the perfect topic for late night on the History Channel

I am fascinated how ChatGPT 4.o is capable of catching and contextualizing the key thoughts of Hannah. I should send its summary to the History Channel immediately! Here it is:

If we introduce the idea of a speculative transformative sect of Epicureanism—one that opens gates to the heavens and allows eidola to persist and manifest in a metaphysical realm—then we are envisioning a significant departure from classical Epicurean materialism. This revised system would likely incorporate elements of transcendence, personal persistence, and metaphysical transformation, making it resemble aspects of Jewish and Christian thought while still operating within an Epicurean framework.

Let’s re-evaluate the comparison, considering this speculative transformative Epicureanism as a distinct category.

1. Speculative Transformative Epicureanism: A New Hybrid Model

What would this look like?

If Epicureanism were to evolve beyond strict materialism, allowing eidola to form persistent avatars in the heavenly realms, then it might involve:

• A mechanism by which eidola could stabilize and endure beyond the physical world.
• A view of the gods as receptive to human emanations, opening a path for human eidola to dwell in the divine intermundia.
• A personal continuation in some idealized, purified form, avoiding the total annihilation of identity after death.

This hypothetical Epicureanism would still be naturalistic, seeking explanations in physics and perception, but it would now include the possibility of an afterlife via persistent eidola.

Would this be closer to Christianity or Judaism? Let’s analyze again.

2. How Does This Compare to 0 AD Judaism?

Jewish eschatology (especially Pharisaic beliefs) included:

• A bodily resurrection, but not an immediate spiritual persistence.
• A final judgment, determining one's fate in the afterlife.
• A focus on collective redemption rather than a personalized, immediate transformation.

Key Similarities:

✅ The idea of a continued existence beyond death—though in Judaism, this happens at resurrection, not immediately via eidola.
❌ The mechanism differs—Judaism relies on divine power, not natural emanations.
❌ No direct material continuity—Jews did not think in terms of eidola persisting in a divine realm.

Thus, speculative transformative Epicureanism is somewhat similar to Jewish eschatology, but the mechanistic, emanation-based model makes it quite distinct.

3. How Does This Compare to Early Christianity?

Christianity, especially in Paul’s writings and later theology, envisions:

• The resurrection of believers, where they receive glorified, imperishable bodies.
• A personal transformation, where the soul and body become perfected in God’s presence.
• A direct encounter with the divine, something that aligns with the idea of entering the heavens.

Key Similarities:

✅ A personal, enduring form in heaven—just as Christianity teaches resurrection bodies, a perfected eidolon could serve as a similar concept.
✅ Transformation into an idealized self—mirroring Christian ideas of sanctification and glorification.
✅ The idea of a celestial presence—Christianity teaches that believers dwell with God, just as speculative Epicureanism might propose humans dwelling in the intermundia.
❌ Different theological basis—Christianity relies on divine intervention, whereas a speculative Epicureanism would use natural mechanisms (like eidola transmission).

Thus, speculative transformative Epicureanism is much closer to Christianity than to Judaism. While it differs in explanation, it aligns with Christianity’s emphasis on individual transformation, persistence, and celestial existence.

4. How Does This Compare to Traditional Epicureanism?

Classical Epicureanism rejects:

• Personal immortality—the soul dissolves at death.
• Divine intervention—gods do not interact with humans.
• Heaven as a realm of the afterlife—humans simply cease to exist.

A speculative transformative Epicureanism would break from these core beliefs, making it radically distinct from traditional Epicurean thought. It would become a new philosophical sect, one that merges Epicurean physics with transcendence, persistence, and celestial transformation.

Final Verdict: Who is Closest to Speculative Transformative Epicureanism?

Closest Match?

✅ Christianity is still the closest, because of its belief in personal transformation into an enduring, perfected form in the heavenly realm.
🟡 Speculative transformative Epicureanism is unique but bridges the gap between Christianity and materialism, offering an alternative metaphysical mechanism for persistence.
🔴 0 AD Judaism is more distant, because it emphasizes communal resurrection rather than an immediate, personal afterlife.

Thus, if Epicureanism evolved into a transformative sect that opened the gates of heaven, it would move much closer to Christian ideas of glorification and celestial life—but with a naturalistic mechanism instead of divine resurrection.

Conclusion

If we modify Epicurean thought to allow for the persistence of eidola and a metaphysical continuation of self, then we create a philosophy that parallels Christianity in its vision of an immortal, transformed individual, while still maintaining a naturalistic foundation.

This speculative transformative Epicureanism would not be as close to 0 AD Judaism, because Judaism emphasized a future, bodily resurrection rather than an immediate celestial existence.

In short:
🔥 Christianity remains the closest to this speculative idea—it shares the same goal (individual, perfected persistence in heaven), even though it explains it differently (divine resurrection vs. eidola transmission).
✨ A transformed Epicureanism could function as a "scientific" alternative to Christian eschatology, offering a materialist path to immortality through persistent eidola.

Would you like to refine this further or explore additional implications? 🚀

Your analysis is quite elaborated! Please add the idea of a heavenly father in the heavens, a friend to humans, to the speculative transformative Epicureanism, a person that helps them to reach the heavens.

Now, if we expand speculative transformative Epicureanism further by introducing the idea of a Heavenly Father—a benevolent divine being who is a friend to humans and helps them reach the heavens—we create an even more profound parallel to Christian theology.

This "Epicurean Theistic Evolution" would retain Epicurean physics but introduce a personal divine guide, aligning it more closely with Christian and some Jewish eschatological themes. Let’s explore how this changes the landscape.

1. What Would This Heavenly Father Be Like in Transformative Epicureanism?

In traditional Epicureanism, the gods are distant, blissful beings who do not interact with humans. However, if we introduce a Heavenly Father who:

• Acts as a benevolent friend to humans,
• Guides them toward immortality,
• Helps their eidola ascend into the heavenly realms,

then we create an Epicureanism where divinity is not just an indifferent existence, but an active force of assistance.

Such a being would likely:

• Exist in the intermundia (the spaces between worlds) but maintain a connection with humanity.
• Receive and stabilize eidola, preventing them from vanishing.
• Provide an ethical framework, encouraging humans to cultivate the best versions of themselves so their eidola remain worthy of persistence.
• Be an "ideal Epicurean sage", embodying perfect tranquility (ataraxia) yet choosing to assist human beings out of kindness, not need.

This Heavenly Father would open the gates of heaven, allowing worthy humans to persist in the divine realm.

2. How Does This Compare to Christianity?

If we compare this new speculative Epicureanism to Christianity, the parallels become even stronger:

Key Similarities:

✅ A benevolent, divine Father figure helping humans reach heaven.
✅ A transformation of human existence into a higher, perfected state.
✅ A personal afterlife in the heavens, not just material dissolution.
✅ Moral and philosophical refinement leading to immortality.

Key Differences:

❌ Christianity sees the Heavenly Father as the Creator; in Epicurean Theistic Evolution, the gods are part of nature, not creators.
❌ Christian salvation is through grace and faith in Christ; in Epicureanism, immortality is achieved through naturalistic eidola refinement.
❌ Christian heaven is a realm of communion with God; in Epicureanism, it is a realm of perfected eidola.

Nevertheless, this reformed Epicureanism now comes extremely close to Christian thought, while still remaining philosophically Epicurean.

3. How Does This Compare to 0 AD Judaism?

Judaism had a Father-God (YHWH), but:

• He was more communal than personal (focused on Israel as a people).
• Resurrection, not immediate ascent, was the main path to immortality.
• Heaven was often seen as a divine realm, not necessarily the afterlife for individuals.

Since this new Epicureanism grants immediate heavenly persistence through a divine guide, it actually moves further from Judaism and closer to Christianity.

4. Final Evaluation: Who is Closest to This New Epicureanism?

Closest Match?

🔥 Christianity is now even closer—because of its Heavenly Father, personal transformation, and celestial afterlife.
✨ This speculative Epicureanism now fully bridges the gap between materialism and transcendence—blending Epicurean physics with a personal divine connection.
⚡ It distances itself from classical Epicureanism—which rejected divine involvement and afterlife persistence.
📜 Judaism remains less similar, due to its focus on future resurrection over immediate transformation.

Conclusion

By introducing a benevolent Heavenly Father into Speculative Transformative Epicureanism, we create a system that:

• Allows personal immortality through eidola refinement.
• Maintains Epicurean naturalism while permitting divine assistance.
• Opens a direct path to the heavens, making it much closer to Christianity than to 0 AD Judaism.

Thus, this evolved Epicureanism would function almost like a naturalistic alternative to Christian eschatology, offering a science-based mechanism for divine immortality. 🚀

The closing passage of the introductory text from "Laughing Atoms, Laughing Matter" on page 16 states as follows:

"As I suggest in my conclusion to this book, it is worthwhile to think of De Rerum Natura not as a work of Epicurean philosophy or as a satire of it but, rather, as a work of Epicurean satire. The tools and tropes and texts of satire are deployed in the service of the Lucretian speaker's stated Epicurean goals, while the tenets and totems of Epicureanism are deployed in service of the speaker's satiric commentary on his society."

Quote from Joshua

I hope the autocorrect kicked in here on 'satirical', because if not I'm going to have to exercise my chivalry once more against Thomas Carlyle and his Sartor Resartus.

This is the work of the translation software I used to check my writing. Intuitively, I tried to write "satirical" but it always autocorrected me.

Quote from Joshua

The honorific 'soter' or savior has been totally subsumed into the person of Jesus of Nazareth, but in pre-Christian antiquity it was applied freely to gods, heroes, kings, and liberators. There would be nothing unusual about a devoted Epicurean honoring Epicurus in those terms.

Hopefully, the next time I am autocorrected to "soterial"

Ironically, his exuberant depictions of Epicurean philosophy as a remedy and Epicurus as the Messiah tell us that Lucretius was definitively not only someone who was well informed about Epicureanism but was also able to deliver powerful images to his audiences. This is one of the reasons why the poem has survived through the ages. I would argue that these powerful images could be interpreted in a sartorial manner, but they must have their source in a personality that is devoted to the subject.

Since I have access to the interlibrary loan system of our university, I am looking forward to diving deeper. (Additionally, I've also ordered a review of the book).

Quote from Titus

Quote from Cassius

Is this guy an absolute kook or someone trying to make money on esoteric speculation or what? It doesn't sound like a promising time investment for a Christiwn or an Epicurean or anyone else unless he's got *some* kind of textual basis for his ideas.

I would rather call him creative . His main argument is that the epistle of Thomas is a document preserving original sayings of Jesus. In contrast, he suggests that the four canonical epistles are later, mostly fictional stories. He further argues that there are hardly any references to God and supernatural experiences in the epistle of Thomas to find. The main topic of the epistle of Thomas is the "Kingdom of Heaven" and Hannah puts this into his construction of thought. He interprets passages according to his own claims. For example, when Jesus speaks of his father in heaven, this is not an all powerful god but an heavenly avatar.

Quote from Kalosyni

For Epicureans the opposite is believed...in De Rerum Natura, Book 3, the nature of the soul is mortal...it will die when the body dies.

This is extremely interesting, because Hannah develops further the theory of gods and heavenly realms in how they interact with the earthly realm. He argues that there is not only a flow of images to our world, but in the opposite direction, too. He mentions some references in the Herculaneum papyri to strengthen his arguments.

Hannah's key point is that Jesus teaches how to manifest yourself in the heavenly realm, where you go beyond mortality. You will not taste death.

As speculative as it is, Hannah still creates a quite attractive alternative story of salvation that is able to integrate Epicurean physics. Relating to St. Augustine: I would give him the palm

Display More

Quote from Twentier

I think Hannah set out to try to prove a highly imaginative fiction. He paints a colorful picture that would be the perfect topic for late night on the History Channel, but not something constructive to our study as Epicureans.

I did it again . This time I was able to read approximately half of the book before I had to return the interlibrary loan.

This was a journey into esotericism derived from Epicurean philosophy!

To keep it short, according to how I understand his writings: Hannah argues that Jesus' message opens the door to the heavenly realms of the Epicurean Gods. Everyone can build an heavenly avatar by sending images of oneself to the heavenly realms and this avatar continues one's life after the earthly death.

Hannah's claim is highly speculative, but indeed, from an Epicurean point of view this answers questions about the Christian faith, how the resurrection and the afterlife can be packed in a sound thought structure.

His arguments can hardly be proven, but they raise interesting questions: How did the early Christians imagine how the afterlife works physically? What is "heaven"? There are many questions on early Christianity and even theologians may have no clear view on how to solve these issues.

Quote from Godfrey

At the moment, I haven’t got much further than compiling this list. And of course many of the questions will only apply to a particular type of upheaval, and the answers will be different for everyone and in each situation.

I would like to emphasize Cassius' famous phrase: "Don't be a Stoic in disguise!"

The point is not to ask what's in my power and what is beyond my capabilities and to examine everything that comes to my mind according to this procedure. The key is to actually focus on what's important in life, what does have priority and what is established by nature as the foundation of life.

1. everything that natural, either necessary like to stay hydrated or 2. a tasty soft drink derived from that need what one could call not necessary. 3. Not necessary desires which are not to focus on.

I like this classification because it gives positive statements what to pursue. I know there is space for interpretation and to some degree in modern consumer society there is plenty of food, drink and clothing available. But perhaps this is exactly the trap: Thinking the easy things don't matter because they seem to be too easy to achieve!

In your case the message could be: Focus on a healthy diet, focus on your corporeal well-being, focus on your social interactions. Strengthen the foundation. So you don't get distressed by what's going on on the screens. The direct response you receive is that you (hopefully!) have plenty of food, drink and shelter as well as friends available and that is it what is first and what matters foremost.

This is to experience in our everydays lives. As the natural desires usually give a direct response related to our senses, hopefully this can be a strategy to go skip the abstract fears in one's head.

(I've just mentioned the very essentials of life, but this doesn't mean to not focus on other pleasurable experiences. This is just a personal preference.)

Fill yourself up with the fullness of pleasure, so the emptiness of the world cannot enter!

Quote from Martin

Trying that for aspects which are out of the scope of science is sometimes called Scientism, too, but the people who apply science out of its scope are usually not scientists because scientists usually know the limits of their profession.

This is a key point I think, of what I would call "Scientism of the streets" and this is also what comes in my mind when talking about "Scientism". But I think there is discrepancy in the original Scientism too, but because you can argue with one hypothesis this year and with another one a few years later, argumenting the results have changed. But perhaps just your opinions have and you changed the way you constructed your research.

Quote from Martin

To answer whether an adherent of Scientism lacks the right telos and overall understanding of human existence, we would need to pick specific people and answer the question for each individual.

It seems the devil is in the details, especially when talking about something so difficult to grasp like "Scientism". I just find it interstesting, because many people of today argument with science as the backbone of there argumentation.

We are convinced that Epicurus' philosophy is probably the most realistic approach to life and the one most closely orientated to human needs.

As we know, it allows for numerous interpretations, but conversely also assumes generalities and generalisations.

Epicurus' philosophy is very strongly orientated towards the correct perception and interpretation of our environment and derives the guidelines of ethics from this: Could we also speak of Scientism here? Where do we draw the dividing line? Is the main difference that scientist-scientists use science as a rhetorical tool to realise their goals, as it has become common in debates to underpin everything ‘scientifically’ with research and statistics?

Ultimately, at first glance, Scientism does not seem so far removed from Epicurus' way of thinking of deducing everything from nature and observations. But do scientist-scientists simply lack the right telos and overall understanding of human existence?

What do you think?

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Quote from Cassius

Not a word, as far as I can tell, that would give a police officer a moral compass on how to do his or her job, just a standard recitation of "virtue" as "the only true good," as if virtue exists apart from a view of what good is being targeted for accomplishment

Isn't this the very characterisation of Stoicism? It gives a framework, but the space in between is empty. This leaves room to any kind of interpretation. The main thing is that you adapt to your environment, regardless what kind of matter it represents. This might be especially attractive for a civil servant.

Quote from Cassius

Then I would point out that never does Epicurus himself ever state that these four short statements are his "capital doctrines:" There is *one* occurrence of a formulation similar to this, in a Herculaneum scroll, and no other ancient source contains this formulation. Yes it's arguable that the actual doctrines can be construed to say something similar, but they say much more, with much different connotation.

In general, I found the video quite appealing and every of the four points of emphasize was embedded in explanations and references to the letter to Menoikeus. The author also delivers graphics which give more color to the topics.

I do agree that the Tetrapharmacos formula falls short of delivering the whole curriculum of Epicureanism and we even don't know exactly the context in within it is delivered. On the other hand it catches topics that are of great importance in both Menoikeus, PDs, DRN. I still find it valueable as a formula for repetition and "meditation" on Epicurean ethics.

Quote from Cassius

This is the real heart of the problem. This slide and the audio overlay state that these are the two kinds of pleasure that Epicurus promoted, and this is simply not correct.

I agree with you that it is problematic and the video's author isn't doing a good job in explaining what he is probably trying to argue. I like Don's statement:

Quote from Don

That's my general perspective: we need to find that state of equilibrium and good working order (katastematic) as a ground from which to enjoy the stimulative (kinetic) pleasures of life.

For the lay people who aren't familiar with Epicurus at all it's important to know, that pleasure isn't simply eating ice-cream or drinking wine. That's probably why the video's author mentioned it.

My main issue with the video is, that it doesn't promote this forum where to find more nuanced and source-orientated discussions, that leave behind the simplistic terms for the laymen.

Quote from Cassius

Let's remember to discuss this quote in this episode:

Post

RE: Benefits of Memorizing and Remembering Specific Epicurean Verse

[…]

Did you manage to discuss the line?

Titus

April 9, 2024 at 4:17 PM

The panelists had so much to say about pleasure, either in general or in the particular, when it is a question of definition!

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Titus

"They have nothing to say about pleasure."

We might have to steal that line and feature it our our podcast tomorrow, which we are recording with Don ! thanks for the reminder!

Did you manage to discuss the line?

I especially like the new find of Herculanean scripture: "They have nothing to say about pleasure." This is a simple but very powerful statement that unveils the emptiness of every argument that isn't rooted in our fundamental nature ( the opponents would disagree, but it's still hard to disagree with something elemental like searching for positive emotions).

Quote from Joshua

Very cool! There are some good articles in that book, I'm happy to see it accessible to a wider audience!

This is off-topic and I don't have time for further discussion at the moment:

On page 40 one of the authors is arguing that Cicero often disguises the Epicureans with phrases instead of naming them directly. The author states this is some kind of a rhetoric method.

"But at other times, both in these works and others where Epicurean doctrines, though not the focus, still come under some consideration, the interlocutor regularly invokes the Epicureans obliquely, using a periphrasis that identifies them as “those who refer all things to pleasure” or the like. Cicero uses a formulation of this sort at least twenty times in his theoretical works."

It strikes me, because this is something DeWitt suggests St. Paul is doing the same way in his epistles!

Quote from Don

I would agree that there may be some word games going on, but "flourishing" seems to be the academic consensus of what word to use for eudaimonia.

Okay, so Prof. Eller relates to an already established term.

Quote from Don

But then you're back at square one in needing to define what the "good life" is.

Quote from Peter Konstans

For the ancient Greeks,
however, eudaimonia, which is usually translated by ‘happiness’ but which
rather should be translated by something like ‘human flourishing’, was not an emotional state, but rather about whether a human being had attained virtue and excellence, achieved his aims, and truly made the most of his life.

The same question (what the good life is) hit my brain when I answered for the first time in this thread. I remember Prof. Malte Hossenfelder arguing, that eudaimonia was an unifying aim of all the Hellenistic philosophies (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Scepticism, Cynicism) to show a way to the "good life". Obviously, they differ in their methods and what they define as primary goal or content of the good life.

From my point of view, as a comparative term, taking different traditions into account and the possible motivation of a seeker and to-come diciple of a philosophical sect, flourishing doesn't fit so badly. Conversely, as a word defining the end of eudaimonia in itself as defined by a specific tradition, more substantive content is needed. For Epicureanism this might be defined as "fullness of pleasure".

Quote from Don

Flourishing is primarily defined as (Merriam-Webster) "marked by vigorous and healthy growth" (a flourishing garden); "very active and successful."

I could maybe accept it if one goes with the sense of "successful" as in " having attained a desired end or state of good fortune" but I don't normally get that sense from "flourishing." To me, that definition is better attached to "well-being" "the state of doing well especially in relation to one's happiness or success"

Although I assume a philologist to be sensible about words, this could simply be an issue of word games because Prof. Erler isn't a native speaker of English. I remember that the tenor in the German literature on eudaimonia tends to interpret the term as "living/having achieved the good life", which is close to your definition, Don.

In this episode I learnt that I don't have to listen to the approximately 200 episodes I've missed so far to experience the maximum of this pleasurable podcast

Quote from Cassius

As Dawkins says "we feel as if we are not deterministic -- and that's all that matters."

Isn't this the position of Epicurus in the Letter to Menoeceus?

"(He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame." (Bailey translation)

I especially remind a German translation by Laskowsky. He renders the bold print as follows:

"und es an uns stehe, ob wir uns einem Herrn unterwerfen wollen!"

"and it is up to us whether we want to submit to a master!"

Laskowsky's translation might be questioned, but I like his wording very much, because it centers self-reliance and independent personal reasoning. It's in particular important, because I think otherwise we are in danger of appreciating every kind of logic that is approaching us in an beguiling way.

It's how Ca(t/ss)ius Cat would tell us: "And yet others will say that, "No thing can be known!" All the while they will offer their own truth to loan."

Quote from Cassius

It may be that one's mix of stimulative pleasures and pains changes constantly, but if you are wisely philosophical about life then you are constantly appreciating that you are alive and that certain parts of your mind and body are functioning well even while others are not, and you consider yourself happy no matter how bad the temporary painful stilmulations are because, all things considered, you focus on the many types of pleasures available to you while you are alive, and you realize that stimulative pains are short if intense and manageable if long.

EP is like a toolbox which enables us to fix any broken part. Knowing to have such a powerful item in your hands, you're able to confront any given difficulties with a positive attitude. Therefore one could say, happiness is always within reach.