Posts by Eikadistes

Quote from Cassius

And if they are insane, in what constitutes sanity?

From my readings, I interpret this: "insanity" is the rejection of reality, and "sanity" is observance of reality. An "insane" person is full of pseudodoxies, false beliefs and opinions. A "sane" person makes "true" statements which properly correspond with the physical reality around them.

One such physical reality in post-Alexandrian Greece was the exchange of foreign forms of piety, and the need to explain the existence of these foreign, yet recognizably spiritual institutions. Surely something natural exists at the source of this seemingly-universal sense of piety.

Epíkouros calls this the divine nature. (Whether or not that corresponds with theoretical super-humans is up to you, but at least this much is true: a natural phenomena is responsible for the evolution of religion). Philódēmos records this as something like visions during dreams.

I believe that Epicureans dismissed atheists as being "insane" because they interpret atheists to be "rejecting the existence of the naturally-occuring, universal, awe-inspiring dream visions", as well as "reducing the practice of piety to a delusional narrative that has no basis in physics."

In that regard, I think he is making more of an anthropological observation than a theological proposition. I ... wonder if it is possible that they were, sort of, talking passed each other? They were both anti-creationist, anti-interventionist, anti-superstition, anti-metaphysics, etc.

I get the feeling that ancient atheists didn't buy into Epíkouros' definition of "the gods". I think, maybe, the interpretation of Epicurean Philosophy by ancient atheists was similar to ancient Christians: 'god must be seen as a supernatural super-being' is what they're observing.

Quote from Cassius

But I do want to single out Eikadistes for special mention. Among all of us who pursue Epicurean philosophy, Eikadistes is the one who has set up his own website, prepared very substantive original materials, published them, and generally become and independent source of Epicurean learning. There are many different approaches among those of us who are really "into" the study of Epicurus. What Eikadistes has done in pursuing an independent path without unnecessary negativity about the path of others is an example that deserves special consideration for what all of us might do in our own ways.

I'm very flattered. It feels good to have your work recognized. Thank you, friends!

Happy birthday, friends!

Quote from Cassius

Hey! I'm actually fairly new to Epicureanism but have studied other
philosophy before, especially Taoism. In fact I actually found Epicureanism
through studying Yang Zhu (a Taoist contemporary to Epicurus) and while I
do love Taoism.

There are useful similarities between Epicurean Philosophy and parts of the Taoist tradition, for sure (and, of course, Yang Zhu's branch of Chinese hedonism even moreso). If you haven't come across it before, the "Dudeist" platform claims specific inspiration from those two traditions.

I happened to collaborate with "The Dude" a few years ago and make a pseudo-translation. Welcome to the group! I look forward to your observations.

Cheers, all!

I've created a companion to twentiers.com that will function as its "official forum" to facilitate social interaction and user engagement. I am primarily using the resource as a backup tool to consolidate my graphics. EpicureanFriends.com has the best Epicurean forum online, and the Society of Friends of Epicurus has a great Discord server that hosts meetings, so ... despite the fact that there wasn't a pressing need ... I made it anyway. Therefore, I've linked this site, and others to the main page.

Here is a permanent invitation to the Twentiers Discord server: https://discord.gg/azSe6DzAHC

As always, be well and live earnestly.

Quote from Joshua

Epicurus' parents were very probably 'transported' or 'removed' in this way, and on Samos took up whatever work they could find--pedagogy for his father, always a dismal line of work in antiquity, and some kind of low folk magic for his mother, according to the rumors.

This is fascinating! (And exactly the kind of thing I was looking for). Thank you!

I was reviewing the Last Will, and something occured to me about (potentially) anti-Epicurean, Athenian prejudices against the Garden. I think there’s a misogynistic assumption laced-in there, and a xenophobic element that reflects property laws, which was a primary concern in the Will. Epíkouros, himself, seems to have been respected, but I’m not so sure about the rest.

Based on my attempt to reconstruct Epicurean history by each, individually-attested figure's name, I am considering the following, based on 27 or so, well-established, early Epicureans (there are another 20 or so from uncertain locations):

• Almost half of Epíkouros’ closests friends were non-Athenians, from Lampsakos.

I’m curious if anyone might be able to expand on sociological prejudices in ancient Athens (that city, in particular, for context in the Garden). My general understanding is that prejudicial, cultural thinking among the Greeks had less to do with your appearance and more to do with whether or not you could speak Greek, but I’m sure that’s just a generalization.

I might be influenced by current events, but, I’m curious if some of the attitudes regarding immigration that are playing out right now in America (and were seeded a long time ago) are in any way comparable to prejudicial attitudes of traditional minds in ancient Athens. Or maybe they lack those characteristics that I am calling “prejudicial”? (or not…)

Anyway, here is another consideration I had, if they faced xenophobia (which, again, based on the #1 concern as Epíkouros states in the Last Will, I think it may been). The following may have been a challenge in making a "first-impression":

• Two of the four Founders were Lampsakian.
• One of the four Founders was Lesbian (…I think that’s the proper demonym?)
• The main Founder has Athenian citizenship only by a technicality, through his parents. He, himself, was born, raised, educated, and began his career in another territory. He did not acquire property in Athens until his 30s.

Was there Athenian prejudice by native Athenians versus foreign-born Athenians? We’re having this exact debate right now in America, and re-defining how we look at citizenship based on location of birth. I suppose this is not just a modern issue.

Would foreign-born people establishing the Garden down the road from the Academy have been received ... sort of ... the way that establishing an Islamic, cultural center in NYC was received by many after 9/11? Political evaluation aside, I observed a lot of traditional minds angered by that suggestion, and I wonder if we can find an analogue in Antiquity.

All right, so, if any other philosophers repesented sociologically prejudicial attitudes of any type (I’m looking at you, Aristotle), I wonder if they attached their nativist prejudices against the Garden. For example, I can imagine a Peripatetic student, rambling about the Lyceum, complaining about “those damn foreigners” in the Garden … or not! I'm just curious.

Here’s another consideration I’m wondering:

• Of Epíkouros' closest associates (as I count), 25% or so were hetairai.

Unless the names of hetairai were over-represented by biographers in an effort to exaggerate and demonize Epíkouros' sex-life, and others were under-represented, the Garden seems to have been safe for women seeking education, including pregnant women, and, mothers. This was not the case with all schools of philosophy, and Aristotle, in particular ... talked a lot of shit.

The Peripatetics entertained a misogynistic attitude, but they weren’t the only ones. As I understand, this was a popular view, given the Athenian political system. Outside of the non-traditional Cynics, I imagine that the hetairai were popular targets for Epicurean opponents. We have record of this from polemics, and then later demonization from Christian writers. Dr. Pamela Gordon writes extensively about this in her book The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus.

So, imagine you’re a grumpy, prejudicial Peripatetic in 300 BCE, and the Epicureans moved into the Garden only a few years ago. Everyone seems to be charmed by the Founder, but he has a bone to pick with virtue, has been kicked out of at least one island in the past for his teachings, and keeps unusual company … about 3 of 4 Epicureans from their perspective are either foreigners, or women whom they unfairly disparaged as prostitutes.

If there were prejudicial minds among the schools of their opponents, Epicureans must have been prime targets for a form of misogynistic, xenophobic prejudice that is very recognizable from a contemporary perspective.

‘Same time, I don’t mean to project my own perception of history on them. So I’m curious.

Greetings, all! I published some thoughts about the limitations in our employment of the word "atomism" as an expression of ancient Epicurean particle physics. I'll admit that I might be splitting hairs here, and exploiting a post-structuralist position about the symbols and their context ... I read a lot of Derrida back in college. I apologize in advance.

In a nutshell:

• The notions of "atomism" and "ancient Epicurean particle physics" can be contrasted for nuance.
• "Atomism" in its context can be understood as an artifact of Renaissance Latin (it carries some prejudices).
• For most of the modernity, "corpuscularians" rejected "atomism" as "Epicurean atheism" (...super confusing)
• Fun fact! The root of "atomism" (the "tomism" part) is also used as a synonym for "particles" (without the "a-").
• Ancient "atoms" correspond better with "sub-atomic" particles than modern "atoms".
• Consider that all of the "atomists" are, also, technically "voidists" so far as they are "atomists".
• Particles are described like motes of dust, grains of cereal, and hooklets on flower seeds, not mathematical points.
• How about them apeirons, microns, and ametabletons?
• Avoid "ismizing" in the first place! We are students of "the true philosophy" who contemplate "invisible beginnings".

But, like always, no one gets penalty points for saying "atomists" (I've always been partial to the designation "atom-prophets"). Nor is it a party foul to employ "Epicureanism" instead of "Epicurean Philosophy" (though I try not to.) Elli some of our earlier conversations about language and context lead me down the path of these kinds of thoughts.

Welcome, D!

I'm fond of our Golden Rule, which might be a candidate (KD32):

μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι

neither harm nor be harmed

Though, that's just the formula for justice. The formula for an ethics of pleasure also includes being "noble" and "prudent", in addition to being "just" (KD5). At least, KD32 is a nice line I like to dispense.

Ellipublish here! Facebook won't let me read it without re-enlisting.

Quote from jcblackmon

I may post a simple version of my argument, if there is interest. Thank you.

Please do!

While none of the Hellenists predicted the wide spectrum of discoveries that the 20th-century uniquely hosted, Epíkouros seems to me to have anticipated more of the contemporary nuances than any other philosopher. One, subtle example I like to use is the question of the "Center of the Universe". Most of us believe that the Heliocentric model is the correct model ... for the Solar System. But at the time, we weren't modeling the Solar System. We were modeling all of the stars, and we put the Sun in the very middle of all of them. Heliocentrism is this regard is false. To my knowledge, only Epíkouros shared the subtle insight that, indeed, "there can be no center to infinity."

I have always seen there to be some level of a conceptual correspondence between isotakheia and Einstein's propositions about the nature and propagation of light, so I would love a general outline of some of these advanced topics in contemporary physics and mathematics.

Also, are you familiar with Einstein's introduction to Diel's German version of De Rerum Natura? His commentary makes me wonder if he found direct inspiration from Epicureans. Per Einstein:

"The work of Lucretius will work its magic on anyone who does not completely wrap himself in the spirit of our time and, in particular, occasionally feels like a spectator of the intellectual attitude of his contemporaries. One sees here how an independent man equipped with lively senses and reasoning, endowed with scientific and speculative curiosity, a man who has not even the faintest notion of the results of today’s science that we are taught in childhood, before we can consciously, much less critically, confront them, imagines the world.

The firm confidence that Lucretius, as a faithful disciple of Democritus and Epicurus, places in the intelligibility, in other words, in the casual connectedness of everything that happens in the world, must make a profound impression. He is firmly convinced, he even believes he can prove, that everything is based on the the regular motion of immutable atoms, ascribing to atoms no qualities other than geometric-mechnaical ones. The sensual qualities warmth, coldenss, color, odor, taste, are to be attributed to the movements of atoms, likewise all phenomena of life. He conceives of the soul and mind as formed from especially light atoms, by assigning (in an inconsistent way) particular qualities of matter to particular characteristics of experience.

He states as the primary objective of his work the liberation of humanity from the slavish fear, induced by religion and superstition, that he sees as nourished and exploited by priests for their own purposes. This certainly is a serious issue for him. Nonetheless, he does seem to have been guided mostly by the need to persuade his readers of the necessity for the atomistic-mechanical worldview, although he dare not say this openly to his much more practically oriented Roman readers. His reverence for Epicurus, Greek culture and language, which he considers greatly superior to Latin culture and language, is altogether moving. It redounds to the glory of the Romans that this could be said to them. Where is the modernnation that holds and expresses such noble sentiments with regard to one of its contemporary nations?

DIels’s verses read so naturally that one forget it is a translation.”

(Einstein, forward to: T. Lucretius Carus, De rerum natura, Vol. 2, Lukrez, Von der Natur, trans. by Hermann Diels, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1924, pp. via-vib)

Welcome! (And awesome first post!)

Superficially, I'm not sure I like the idea of identifying"fear" as the motivating factor behind preventing preventable death, versus, perhaps, rational avoidance. Then again, we practice avoidance to prevent non-constructive pain, and fear is definitely painful ... but is it constructive? In that regard, fear is a fellow actor on the stage of wisdom, but, playing the role of an antagonist? So I think I hesitate to place "fear" in a positive context. But it is natural, so... I'm not sure.

Regardless, I really enjoyed the approach Professor Austin took in terms of reviewing the response to the fear of death as a thing that can be "politically managed", beyond cultivating impassiveness. Contextualizing civic engagement as an approach to satisfying our natural and necessary desires, I believe, is the right way to discuss the field of politics from an Epicurean perspective, and I'm definitely going to spend some time thinking about modern politics from this view.

Truly, we all live in a city without walls when it comes to the true, universal antagonists of human history, those being disease and natural disasters. We have to find a way to tolerate those things. We're all faced with the death of our parents, and the deaths of friends. We're all faced with infirmity. Someone will suffer our own absence. One, measly volcano popped 70k years ago, and (SLAM) our species dropped below 10,000 individuals. One, tiny mutation occurs in one, little microbe, and (SLAM) 20 million people die. Human beings have (perhaps until the modern era) no capacity to mitigate those events; but on the spectrum of Choice-to-Fate, some threats are more "fate", and some are more "choice". We can't stop volcanic eruptions. Maybe we can learn to re-direct a planet-hungry asteroid? Still, by comparison, we can definitely mitigate political violence and civic unrest (even if our ability to influence it is very, very small: that freedom exists).

And, given that, coherent with the Epicurean project, I think it's correct to be pissed when good law is violated, when friends engage in betrayal, and when children die of political violence. Should we "fear" those things? ... maybe? ... I think I ultimately agree with Professor Austin. I'm not sure if we should, or if we can justify that Epíkouros thought so, but I certainly do fear.

There's a lot here, but what I can say for sure, is that, personally, I fear dying before I have the opportunity to enjoy the same privileges of the rest of my family. I observe my parents' generation, and all of my older cousins, all of them, both educated and uneducated, blue collar and white collar, academic, industrial, commercial, casual, formal ... all of them had kids, bought cars, owned homes, invested in the market, and half of them advanced their economic class. In history books, I learn that they enjoyed several decades of historically-unique social advances. From childhood, I remember my parents enjoying unemployment and supplemental income. In middle management, my dad was afforded a company car, and a company phone, and robust health insurance on top of his competitive salary that only required a general B.A. from WVU in the 70s. All of those people in my life were presented with the opportunity to choose to go to school, or apprentice with a professional, or take a risk investing in a business, or start their own with modest resources. Every one of them could provide the name of a general physician ... because they had one.

All of those things fulfilled their natural and necessary desires. They weren't just privileges, or luxuries. None of those things were pursued for entertainment, or to diversify their pleasures. Those were rungs on the ladder of meeting their ability to gain employment, make money, eat food, and grow. In the modern era, access to education and technology are as much a necessity as food and water. Or maybe not? Maybe that's up for debate? ... you can infer where I stand.

I observe that my role as a civilian, consumer, and taxpayer (which at least used to provide safety) is being re-oriented toward legally-indentured-servitude. We know it now. I'm living it. This isn't speculation. We will not buy a home. I cannot participate in the market. My vote has never counted. Owning a car is about to become a luxury. We will be leasing our next vehicle. I am going without healthcare next year so my wife gets her life-necessary meds. By the way, our insulin just tripled in price. We can no longer save money. We're skipping groceries. My education and experience cannot guarantee employement. The majority of the population is now leasing their living needs, and not from life, but from other individual members of our society who have measurably violated the pact to neither harm nor be harmed among other members of their society. We are being affected by measurably psychopathic personalities who do not recognize our role as moral, human agents. All of this is a violation of pacts that were put in place by my grandparents to preserve our future. I'm pissed, and politically active, because the peaceful pact to neither harm nor be harmed is being politically violated, and nothing less than a political response is appropriate to satisfy my natural and necessary desires. Me do anything less right now seem like Stoic surrender to apathy.

Everyone around me seems surprised that I'm angry. "Trust God" they tell me. "Things have a way of working themselves out" they say. Well, not in Gaza. Not in Kashmir. Not in the projects. Santa Claus tends to prefer neighborhoods with property values. God helps some people win Super Bowls, but gives kids cancer. There are limits to happiness. After all, as Epíkouros observed, "a person cannot become wise with every physical condition, nor in every cultural context" (10.117). Those limits were not set by measles and hurricanes. People did that. People who are our neighbors, who have measurably violated the pacts my grandparents formulated to secure a peaceful society. People are withholding education in a technologically advanced society. People are proliferating our streets with weapons of war. People are responsible for these problems, because of violations.

Fear of being dead, death, and dying is one thing, but fear of losing your life, or losing the life of a friend as a result of betrayal, wrath, or a violation of justice is another thing. Hermarkhos attests that the creation of law, in the first place, is a necessary act for wise people to prevent future harm. So we need to engage law as though it is as real as a rainstorm. Epíkouros explains that society, in the first place, naturally developed because it is advantageous to individuals, so a stable society is part of the prescription Nature provides for humans. Furthermore, he explains that all individuals, in all societies cannot became wise and enjoy pure pleasure, because, if for no other reason, you don't have time to study nature. A variety of severe, physiological conditions eliminate the possibility of uninterrupted pleasure. I think it is fair to propose that ataraxia is an impossibility for anyone living in a warzone right now, and no amount of spiritual rearrangement is going to prevent bombs from continuing to drop, and spiritual confusion is not the problem, the bombs are.

I don't know. While I'm afraid I'll never be able to provide my family with the basic living necessities that previous generations have defined as requirements for our society, I think, when I take a breath, and just accept that my life will look more like my great-great grandparents, than anyone living ... I think, then, I calm down, I lose my fear, and I just respond to situations rationally, to the best of my ability, with the hope that I'm learning from my mistakes, and growing, despite failure. In that regard, I'm more motivated by the pleasure of hope and confidence than the fear of death.

I don't really have a point. That was mostly pontificating. Overall, great paper!

I believe that this suggestion only comes once in Book 5 (translated by Munro):

146 Illud item non est ut possis credere, sedes
147 esse deum sanctas in mundi partibus ullis.
148 tenvis enim natura deum longeque remota
149 sensibus ab nostris animi vix mente videtur;

"This too you may not possibly believe, that the holy seats of the gods exist in any parts of the world: the fine nature of the gods far withdrawn from our senses is hardly seen by the thought of the mind..."

Just that much might paint a picture of the gods living in deep space, however...

150 quae quoniam manuum tactum suffugit et ictum,
151 tactile nil nobis quod sit contingere debet;
152 tangere enim non quit quod tangi non licet ipsum.

"...and since it has ever eluded the touch and stroke of the hands, it must touch nothing which is tangible for us; for that cannot touch which does not admit of being touched in turn."

Lucretius, as earlier Epicureans (I'll explain below and provide examples) ties in the notion that the "homes" of the gods are "untroubled", not by physical distance from weather and climate, but through physical disengagement from the bulky, terrestrial particles that comprise terrestrial matter. Epicurean authors always provide the analogy of the tiniest "mental particles".

I think the other stanzas reinforce this interpretation. In Book 2:

646 omnis enim per se divom natura necessest
647 inmortali aevo summa cum pace fruatur
648 semota ab nostris rebus seiunctaque longe;

"For the nature of gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality together with supreme of repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns...".

In this sense, I believe the "removal" of the gods refers to their disposition, not their location.

Here again, in Book 3:

18 ... sedesque quietae,
19 quas neque concutiunt venti nec nubila nimbis
20 aspergunt neque nix acri concreta pruina
21 cana cadens violat semperque innubilus aether
22 integit et large diffuso lumine ridet:

..."their tranquil abodes which neither winds do shake nor clouds drench with rains nor snow congealed by sharp frosts harms with hoary fall: an ever-cloudless ether overcanopies them, and they laugh with light shed largely round" (Ibid.).

I maintain, based on "On the Form of a God" by Dēmētrios of Lakonía, and from fragments by Apollodoros (the "Tyrant of the Garden") that the description of the "tranquil abodes" avoiding weathering by terrestrial forces is a description of the image of their homes in our mind. We would never imagine a perfect being to live in a dark tower, silhouetted by lightning, nor, likewise, imagine a flourishing humanoid in the deep, cold, dark, emptiness of the metakosmios.

Here's how I justify it in my paper:

Quote

Apollódōros the scholarch infers that “the dwellings” of the fearless gods, unruffled by ferocious winds and falling stars “have to be far away from the forces in our world” (Ibid., Col. 9). He stipulates that the security of these “locations” may not be preserved as a result of “distance” so much as a result of physical disengagement “from the hindering factors that clash against each other”. Epíkouros concurs that “it is possible for their nature to exist even with many troubles surrounding it” (On Piety, Col. 3.3-7). For “even if the things which generate” divine images were “as far away as anyone could wish”, the mundane images of people stored in memory would still combine with the preconception of “blessedness” and form the image of gods who “appear” to “transcend” any amount of “intervening distance” (Philódēmos, On Gods III, Col. 9). Memory, itself “transcends” the perils of our perishable plasma through a perpetual replenishment of minute, mental motes, “having changed each time for producing a thought” (On the Form of a God 12). Dēmḗtrios explains that “the memories people retain of” visual impressions were first “received as children” (Ibid., 11), and despite decades of disruption, those representations can be reproduced continuously. Through contemplation, a supplicant summons a memory of blessedness and transforms the mind into a holy menagerie, capable of hosting a variety of divine forms. After extensive consideration, Apollódōros concludes that the “dwellings” of “the gods” must be constructed “from some of their” own, finely-grained “elements”, repurposed through an act of contemplation (On Gods III, Col. 10).

Quote from EdGenX

Good morning!! I'm very interested in the science of the Epicurean philosophy and would love to learn a little Latin as well. I live in the Bible belt of America, North Carolina so superstition is strong down here.

Florida, here. I feel you.

Also, prepare to learn some ancient Greek because we'll bombard you with it.

Welcome!

Happy Thanksgiving! Have a toast to the health of the belly.

Quote from Cassius

I'm totally good with the pleasures of the stomach, but the thrust of many of these quotes makes the belly appear to be more important than any other part of the body

Well, it might be.

I was just thinking about this the other day. I was asking myself, "If I had to take a basic math test, would I score better with a stomach virus? Or with heartbreak?" I'm not sure if the answer would be the same for everyone, but I decided that I could manage with heartbreak (or turmoil better). With a stomach virus, I'd feel incapable of mustering the focus to apply critical thought. With heartbreak, through extreme focus, I can make the numbers make sense. I was thinking back to when I took the SATs, and I do well on those kind of tests, and I was a psychiatric mess when I took it. But when, back in the day, I'd suffer a hangover, I could barely focus on my name, let alone algebra.

I'm also thinking in terms of the value of digestive processes versus intellectual faculties for growing organisms. Depressive thoughts can mislead you, but a stomach ache is as honest as your eyes. It will never give you severe pain without a concerning, physical cause. Sometimes the mind hypes itself up. At that, we have the Epicurean Doctrine about the infinite desires of the mind, because, without a sharp intellect, the mind doesn't self-regulate. But the stomach won't let you trick yourself. You can't just shove something down that makes you sick the way you can repress bad memories ... well, maybe to a degree, but I think you see what I mean, in general.

Quote from Don

WHO owns the hardware