michelepinto Level 03
  • Member since Dec 7th 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by michelepinto

  • What Did Epicurus Say About "Gods?" Was Epicurus an "atheist?"

    Quote from Cassius

    Michele since you are an Italian and presumably very in tune with Lucretius ;)

    Lol! :)


    Quote from Cassius

    How do you interpret the references to Venus in the opening of Book 1 of his poem?

    I don't have enough studies for my opinion to be authoritative. I make a simple hypothesis:

    Venus is the goddess of love. Lucretius wanted to open his book with an ode to Love.

    It is quite common that a deity is mentioned to understand what it represents.

    For example: I love Bacchus = I am a drunkard.

  • What Did Epicurus Say About "Gods?" Was Epicurus an "atheist?"

    Epicurus believed that the gods did not interfere with the lives of men.

    For Epicurus the gods are perfectly happy beings. Epicurus invited his disciples to venerate the gods to imitate their happiness.

    I believe that every religion carries with it a part of "wisdom" and that Epicurus does not want to reject religion in its entirety, preferring to save the little good that is in it.

  • Will Epicurus and Pirrone save Europe?

    The epiStoa association takes its name from the two major Hellenistic philosophical schools: that of Epicurus and the Stoa.


    epiStoa-300x123.jpg epiStoa, whose symbol is a Roman aqueduct, European Values and Languages - From Antiquity To Today.

    epiStoa is a European initiative to foster and promote European Values - human rights, democracy and the rule of law - and the impact of the Ancient Languages on modern Europe.


    For more information: http://epistoa.eu/

  • Please, no dogmatism, no absolute truths

    The Italian world "dogma" means: "Principle that is accepted as true or just, without critical examination or discussion: proclaim a dogma: in Catholic theology, truth revealed by God or defined by the Church as such, imposed on believers as an article of faith."
    In Englis the meaning is: "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

    This kind of "dogma" is the only one I do not wont.

    I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

  • Please, no dogmatism, no absolute truths

    In the scientific world everything is questioned, always.

    Newton's laws on universal gravitation have been superseded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which in turn can be overcome by even broader laws.


    In the same way I do not struggle to define "Truth" what Epicurus taught us and that we also experience every day. But I do not exclude that we can arrive at greater truths.

    A good example could be the scientific studies done today on happiness with hundreds or thousands of volunteers and study methods not available at the time of Epicurus.

    (The studies I know all confirm what Epicurus said).


    On "Few days in Athen" you told me right away that I would like it. I bought the ebook, but I haven't read it yet.


    When I say "I'll never find myself saying, I'm right, you're wrong" I mean before the discussion. Otherwise the debate would be useless, a dialogue between the deaf. Later, of course, I will draw my own conclusions.

  • Please, no dogmatism, no absolute truths

    With these words I hope not to offend anyone. Consider it my friendly reflection.


    One of the things that I appreciate most in Epicurus's philosophy is moderation and one of the master's phrases that I like best is the Vatican sayng 74: "In a scholarly dispute, he who loses gains more because he has learned something".


    This is why I don't believe I have any truth in my hand.

    As Epicurus, I believe that no divine being interferes in the life of men. But precisely "I believe". As it is not possible to prove the existence of God it is not even possible to prove its non-existence. At most we can argue about the possibilities of one thesis or another.


    I believe that the teachings of Epicurus are a privileged way to happiness. The best I know. But I do not pretend that this is the case for everyone.


    I have a friend who feels such a comfort in believing that there is a God to take care of him who, if denied, could hardly be happy.

    I know people who follow a passion in their lives, a passion that drives them throughout their lives and makes sense of them.

    I don't think this can make them happy, but why should I decide for them?


    I believe that epicureanism is splendid, to find epicurean friends like you is something that makes me very happy. I am committed to spreading his teaching as best I can.


    But I respect the ideas of others. I'll never find myself saying, I'm right, you're wrong. This is what religions say.
    Epicurus is not a prophet, but a philosopher, his wisdom is human and perfectible.

  • "Natural and Necessary" As A Sliding Scale

    There is a study that shows that it is difficult to be happy when one is very poor, and that happiness grows with wealth. But only up to a certain threshold. When you are too rich, the curve of the simplicity begins to fall.


    This shows how Epicurus was right.


    Sorry I'm a bit of a run and I can't find a link to what I mentioned now.


    However, I believe that it is very important and interesting to discuss what is natural and necessary for us.