We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
It’s very clear to me where you stand hence we will never see eye to eye. There is absolutely no benefit in me trying to rebut any of your remarks since your personal philosophy is one of ethnic nationalism and anti-theism hitched to Epicurean philosophy. Why bother? Right? I will expect a long paragraph Liantinis in response. Not your words...his.
It’s pretty difficult to know where you end and Lianitinis begins. So I’m not going to argue with a disgraced dead man or you.
I would respond to your comments in regard to New Testament studies and the eschatological implications of the destruction of the second temple and the coming of the spiritual kingdom of heaven and that your superficial reading of the subject does not form any relatable conclusions to the subject at hand. But really I see no point. Nor does it give me pleasure.
Thank you Elli for your usual style of dissertation on this subject. I would expect nothing less.
I got a chance to see the main highlights of the UK and Ireland when I went there 2 years ago. Cathedrals, castles and museums. Not to mention the Celtic and Paleolithic sites like Stonehenge and Newgrange. Romania was the same last year. Stunning architecture and amazing sights.
The Islamic State recently destroyed Mesopotamian artifacts and cities that had survived not only the constant internal upheaval of political power in ancient times, but also the occupation and wars of Alexander the Great and the Rome. They survived the Islamic expansion and the Crusades. They also survived the 20th century wars to include WW1 and 2 and the Gulf War.
Only to be destroyed by a few goons with sledgehammers and dynamite. Fortunately the British among other nations had many more objects and copies of objects in their possession in their respective countries. Thankfully many of the objects destroyed were well documented and photographed.
Go and see the world heritage sites while they are still here. They can at any moment be destroyed by nature or by man.
I am sad and frustrated that I never got a chance to see Notre Dame. It was a beautiful structure with significant meaning to both secular and religious people.
As far as religious implications go, the building was just that...a building. Made from wood and stone. The church is not a building. The religion of Christ is not dependent on stone structures.
Obviously if a person can’t see that it was built with reverence for something “greater” then it’s clear that such a person sees only what they wish to see.
Notre Dame like the Great Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca or the Taj Mahal in India are painstakingly beautiful artistic emanations of the human spirit. Anyone who would take pleasure in their destruction or be dismissive of them clearly have no grasp of the artistic spirit of humanity...regardless of religion and philosophy.
Porphyry is somewhat of an enigma due to the lack of complete extant writings.
We know everything that we can possibly know about Plotinus from Porphyry. Most importantly we know who and what influenced Plotinus from Porphyry. Specifically, we learn that the teacher of Plotinus was Ammonius Saccus.
We know he hated the Christians, but revered Jesus as a holy man.
His writing and philosophy, like most of the Neoplatonists, is very technical and based in Platonic and Pythagorean principles.
I’m not terribly familiar with Porphyry’s works, many that survive are fragmentary or quoted by secondary sources.
It seems that the specific section of the letter does support a knowledge of Epicurean principles .
Porphyry is of course best known for his biography of his master Plotinus and the his arrangement of the Enneads. He wrote some anti-Christian polemical works that did not survive except in secondary sources.
He and his pupil Iamblichus did not see eye to eye on the interpretation of Neoplatonic doctrine.
Porphyry also suffered from a depressive nature. He says that he even considered suicide at one point in his biography.
Yep! The Theogony is a pretty solid ancient resource for the Greek deities.
Cassius , that’s the beauty of avatara, I remain the same, yet each incarnation is different. ?
Good luck with your interview Oscar!
“and in your persistent concern with theology you have abandoned the utility and purpose of religious experience”
Hola Hiram!
I agree fullheartedly that my persistence has become tiresome and we’ve discussed this subject ad nauseam. My purpose for the persistence was only to be “on the record” so to speak, since as we all know it’s easy to be drowned out or lost in the shuffle in online discussions. And as you know I am attempting to diminish my online presence as much as possible and will probably be online significantly less in the future. Cyber communication is often transient and ephemeral.
But I wanted to do due diligence for a subject which I felt was very important. So important that it changed my perspective of the philosophy itself. But I think I have made my position well documented here. I know I’m exhausted from it. ?
Peace to you.
Agreed Cassius, that is the most comprehensive description.
The some parts of PD’s, VS’s and the a few lines of the Letter to Menoeceus also contain E’s statements on the subject.
Cassius,
My position is that Epicurus should not have positited his own position on the gods, in the specific way he did.
Whether he believed in them or not, he boxed himself in. To the point he was either fabricating this whole theology or he had some sort of divine revelation. Because in my opinion the formula is far too specific.
My personal belief is that from a philosophical perspective, Divinity if it exists, is ineffable. Literally without a specific object to subject revelation, no knowledge can ever be attained on the subject.
Oscar,
I respect your opinions and perspective, I absolutely do. And I am very appreciative of the discourse we have here!
As always, I am up to discuss this topic literally until the sun burns out. ?
So anytime, you or anyone has literature, thoughts or new ideas please contact me. I take this very seriously as you can probably tell! Lol
Peace and safety to you.
RE: Cassius
Sure!
My opinion is that I fundamentally agree with many of the observations of the natural world and that the human senses are fundamental to how we interpret reality. I think he is spot on on with the idea that what we see and sense “is what is” and we cannot base our life on unfounded superstition or abstractions.
I believe in friendship and the mutual benefit of living in philosophical harmony as essential to human progress and harmony.
I believe pleasure is fundamentally good and not an evil to be denied.
My only issue, and it was the issue that caused me to no longer refer to myself as an Epicurean was the theology issue. It was a dealbreaker. I think that aspect aside, which we discuss quite regularly, we agree on more ideas than not.
Oscar,
I totally understand your perspective. Although I think we have very different expectations from our healthcare providers?.
We clearly disagree on this point:
That I strongly stand by the idea that the gods being characterized as benign is fundamentally presupposed and the reasoning circular. My reasoning is that since there is no evidence or precedent for either the gods existing or whether they are supernatural or natural, there is no way that Epicurus can say anything about them unless he had some very intimate contact with them. No special knowledge of hypothetical entities could ever be attained to the degree of specificity as Epicurus described them to be from pure abstract reasoning.
I believe Epicurus was a powerful and influential philosopher. In my personal pantheon of philosophers Epicurus and Epictetus are filed under “E”. The ideas of Epicurus like all philosophers, ancient and modern will be criticized posthumously over and over again. I don’t hold a special or hostile critique of him any more than I do of Pythagoras or Plotinus, they and their ideas are products of the times they lived.
I like to evaluate all claims to a certified knowledge of the universe’s and my own raison d’être. Epicurus like many others made certified claims, so I pry deep into those ideas. That’s why we are all here discussing this philosophy. We all seek out knowledge and truth.
I have never taken the Modern Stoic position of “virtue for the sake of virtue” seriously.
It’s clear that Chrysippus and Cleanthes applied a certain benevolent personality trait to their vision of Providence. However, once it is deconstructed down to undifferentiated bare pantheism that it really is, you end up with the same dilemma as the MoStos.
Basically they call the universe “god” yet that word is an unnecessary and inappropriate name to give the universe if it does not have its own agency and autonomy. It’s just “nature” or the “universe.”
I believe Richard Dawkins once called pantheism a “sexed-up” version of atheism. I fundamentally agree. There is no special function the the universe performs other than what it normally does. Just ascribing the title of deity to it does not make it a god.
“I mean, you want to be honest but sometimes you don't want to hurt peoples feelings? Or you want to be honest, but you give a prescription of sugar-pills because there's the placebo effect. You don't want to be harmful to someone with a phobia, yet you let them hold a snake or tarantula because exposure can also help us overcome phobias.“
I totally understand what you are saying in regard to a placebo, but the presuppositional opinion that the gods are not to be feared is circular in this case. Plus if you believe this theology is a placebo then you have your answer as to whether Epicurus truly believed in his own gods.
The very last thing I want is a placebo for the possible underlying meaning of the cosmos. If anything, that only makes me feel that I have been condescended to by Epicurus. And that he is arguing from a position of authority and special knowledge. Neither of which can be afforded to him.
To prove I am not just critical of Epicurean theology, I figured I’ll take a stab at the Traditional Stoic theology today. ?
The Panpsychic concept of Providence is a hallmark of Traditional theistic Stoicism. Many modern Stoic adherents have shed the theistic accretions that were once entirely vital to the Stoic philosophical system. The ”MoStos” carry on a philosophy in name only that was very different from the ancient version. I have a very low opinion of that modern movement, so I will not spend any time on it here.
That being said, the Traditional version as represented by the authors like Cleanthes does not get a pass either.
It’s clear that the materialist model of a pan-deistic or pan-theistic universe as posited by the deterministic philosophy is rather “safe” to put it gently. Meaning that it doesn’t take significant philosophical resoning to identify a cosmic deity as the universe itself in the form of an all pervading universal panpsychism. One need only say that the divine mind is immanent in all things and then point to all the conscious “fragments” as evidence of this being true.
But really how reliable is that? And should this abstract concept be regarded as a deity?
I have previously discussed at length in other posts that virtue requires external standards for universal application. For virtues to be universal there needs to be some standard to judge by. Otherwise without that external judge you are cast into a swirling abyss of subjective relativism. What’s good and honorable for one person may be an abomination to another across a cultural divide.
The Stoic concept of Providence does not lend itself to be this judge. For an immanent deity that is merely an aggregate of a holistic cosmos is not a sovereign. Thus you end up with Providence being the author of evil. Because Providence is in all things, all actions are directed by nature both the “good” and the “bad.” You again arrive at a relativistic dilemma. This time with Providence fully immanent within the cosmos. Now Providence is responsible and internally present as the passive witness of all pain and suffering as it would be for all pleasure, completely undifferentiated.
This view of deity is hardly worthy adoration or hymns.
It is a real shame that so few writings exist on this topic. No doubt many, many did at one time exist.
But I guess this modern dialogue fills some of that gap.?
