Posts by Eikadistes

Quote from Bryan

Does using Epíkouros add another layer of complexity, or does it get us closer to source?

You're reading my mind, because I go back-and-forth on how I'd like to identify each historical figure. One on hand, the Latinized names of figures (like Athenaeus) are more recognizable, and that recognition can be helpful to students (versus seeing "Athenaios"). At the same time, as with Loukianos, I want to steer students away from pronunciations like Lucian /'luːsiːən/ that have been historically Latinized; but with our source material and access to ancient sources, that seems like an unnecessary step, so I push away from /miːno.'iːsiːəs/ toward /mɛː'nɔɪ.ke.uːs/ for example. In the case of Epíkouros, I go back-and-forth. In each case, I try to provide both options somewhere on the site.

The proverbial spirit has moved me, so I have included critical selections from Athenaeus, Eusebius, and Lactantius that reference Epicurus and his philosophy.

I added a number of critical authors to the website, including Cicero, Seneca, Sextus Empiricus, and several works of Plutarch (here is Against Colotes, among others: https://twentiers.com/colotes/)

Quote from Cassius

In the case of gods we are talking about a wide class that could have very many forms, so long as those forms are consistent with blessedness and imperishability. In the case of "centaurs" that's an assertion of a very specific physical formation that conflicts with our long experience with both humans and horses.

Good point; let me be more general.

Let's use the example of "demons" (as a class). How do I know that the notion of "the gods" is an authentic preconception whereas that the notion of a "demon" is a false belief? For example, what if I were to posit that I have experienced a prolepsis of a being "with a permanent lack of pleasure" and I assign to that prolepsis the word "demon", as a class of perfectly-pleasureless beings?

Here's another way I might approach the question for my own understanding:

How do I know that "the gods" in "dreams" are more real than centaurs and cyclops?

I thought about this and wanted to see what the herd thinks:

Epicurus explicitly warns against pursuing a political career, but does add a caveat that one might pursue a political career if they are so compelled by their natural disposition. Similarly, Epicurus advises against romantic exploits, but stops short of explicitly prohibiting them, so long as they do not cause turmoil. Similarly, in the Epistle to Menoikeus, Epicurus clearly recommends that we should believe in a god and pray faithfully... I wonder, like sex and politics if Epicurus would allow for anti-religious students to abstain from prayer if they are so inclined by their natural disposition?

Quote from Julia

There are no outside persons inside my mind like that, so I would not expect to at some point have an experience of this kind. For me, death was different every time:

It was terror and fright.

It was despair and frantic effort.

It was abandonment and sadness.

It was erratic chaos and powerlessness.

It was relief and release in death by a thousand cuts.

[...]

And with that little opening speech, I circle back to the gods: I don't think near-death experiences are very consistent, and I think they very much depend on who you ask and what they've experienced: pharmaceuticals, social context, age (especially child vs teenager/adult), type of survival situation, cultural backdrop. With the experiences so different, can we really conceive of them as to "pertaining to gods"? [...]

Display More

These are all good points, and to reinforce @Root304 's observation, psychedelics are inconsistent and potential causes of more pain than pleasure. Additionally, all of this is dependent on our internal ecosystems, so reliably re-producing the experience of the divine is not universal with any one substance ... still, I can't identify with "the experience of the divine" without drugs.

That's just where I'm at with my personal experience. I've never seen blissful people in dreams that do not correspond with mortals that I have met in my life. (But I'd really like to!)

Right now, at best, as far as I can determine, (1) Epicurus said that the gods were evident because he became aware that Indians prayed to gods but separate from the Greeks (via Pyrrho through Nausiphanes), (2) His suggestion that piety comes from dreams is just a general way of saying "religion is social construct that evolved from basic human behaviors", (3) Hermarkhos, Demetrios, Philodemos, and Lucretius making indications that the gods breathe and converse is not a preconception, but inductive reasoning that happens to be coherent with the preconception, and (4) the actual gods don't really exist except as concepts in our minds.

Eh, I don't know. I really want to dream about Zeus once and put an end to it.

Quote from Root304

Eh... My foray into psychedelics was pretty disasterous and almost entirely led to my adoption of Naturalism and Epicureanism.

I definitely don't mean to frame psychedelics as a panacea or a purely positive experience. Set, setting, and mental disposition (especially mental illness) can turn a trip into a miserable hell.

That said, I'm just speaking for myself ... I personally was unable to conceive of "the divine" until I ate mushrooms at age 19. Up until that moment in time, my personal opinion was that "God" was a delusion, "believers" were deluded, and "spirituality" was an empty word for the deluded. I rejected the "religious experience" as a dangerous hallucination, if it existed at all.

The possibility of having dreams in a wakeful state changed that for me.

Still, if I'm being honest, when it comes down to it, I'm still an atheist at heart.

I really just continue to wonder (thus, the source of this thread)...

"... how in the Hell can anyone *actually* believe in gods?"

Epicurean theology was something that never jived with me from the very being. Let's just get rid of the gods altogether. Fuck 'em, right? Who cares? Obviously Epicurus taught the opposite, but I really want to get in his head and understand why it matters at all if psychedelics aren't involved.

I had a lot of dreams, but never the form of a perfect humanoid that inspired me.

I'm just trying to get in the mind of someone who actually believes with confidence.

If you guys aren't careful, this is going to turn into an essay.

I had a few other thoughts I wanted to share about my own bias(es):

1. I live in an "photo-centric" era. Images and icons are everywhere. I know the faces of people who died before I was born. I know the faces of people who died before my society developed. I know the face of Epicurus, himself, down to his cheekbones. But ancient Greeks, in terms of realistic representative art, were limited to statues, and they were usually either civic or mythological. Most grandkids did not have busts of their beloved grandma and grandpa on their mantle. To spontaneously witness the form of a 20-something friend during "dream-states" at various points in one's life would have been much more significant to a non-"photo-centric" world.

2. I live in a prohibitionary era with regards to psychedelics. Most of us do, and most of the modern world is characterized by prohibition in some form at some time, albeit trying to demonize Gin in medieval England, to American zealots trying to ban Peyote ceremonies from native rituals. The suspicion of psychedelic chemicals is ubiquitous, and is utterly prohibited from children to the extent that we attempt to censor information. The point is, the average ancient Greek was not exposed to "Reefer Madness" and "Just Say 'No'" and would have seen been more likely to associate religion with the state of divine intoxication and the rituals used to induce it.

I am also struck by the correspondence between the religious experience and death. I have come to see ingestion of certain entheogens as a way for people to try to understand death by experiencing it. I had way too much nitrous oxide before/during a procedure, and I was absolutely sure I was going to permanently lose consciousness. Nonetheless, the experience was calming: life was what it was, what's left is what it is ... might as well smile. This is common with the ego death.

My wife brought up another interesting point as a consequence of her near-death experience. While on a soup of opiates, going through organ-failure, she very clearly witnessed the visual features of two, very important people from her past, who had both died under tragic circumstances. They both looked like they were at their prime (ageless) and they were perfectly blissful (happy), figures that, as she explained, ultimately provided her with comfort. Has anyone else experienced that?

Given that a potentially-psychedelic brew was ingested at the climax of a mystery cult, and it is written that he"is found to have taken part in all the traditional festivals and sacrifices. […] he says that he shared in all the festivals […] and that while he was joining in celebrating the festival of the Choes [at Anthesteria] and the urban mysteries [Attic Dionysia] | and the other festivals at a meagre dinner..." it would might been odd for him not to ingest kykeon.

If something like kykeon was ingested regularly, and kykeon can contain ergot, or potentially another psychoactive agent, then ... well, indeed, "knowledge of the gods" was "evident".

Julia I found one! Kykeon. I'm re-posting this directly from Wikipedia's article on the Eleusinian Mysteries [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinia…ogenic_theories]

Quote

Entheogenic theories

Numerous scholars have proposed that the power of the Eleusinian Mysteries came from the kykeon's functioning as an entheogen, or psychedelic agent.^[9] The use of potions or philtres for magical or religious purposes was relatively common in Greece and the ancient world.^[80] The initiates, sensitized by their fast and prepared by preceding ceremonies (see set and setting), may have been propelled by the effects of a powerful psychoactive potion into revelatory mind states with profound spiritual and intellectual ramifications.^[81] In opposition to this idea, skeptical scholars note the lack of any solid evidence and stress the collective rather than individual character of initiation into the Mysteries.^[82]

Many psychoactive agents have been proposed as the significant element of kykeon, though without consensus or conclusive evidence. These include the ergot species Claviceps paspali [fr],^[9] a fungal parasite of paspalum, which contains the alkaloids ergotamine, a precursor to LSD, and ergonovine.^[81][83] However, modern attempts to prepare a kykeon using ergot-parasitized barley have yielded inconclusive results, though Alexander Shulgin and Ann Shulgin describe both ergonovine and LSA to be known to produce LSD-like effects.

Discovery of fragments of ergot (fungi containing LSD-like psychedelic alkaloids) in a temple dedicated to the two Eleusinian Goddesses excavated at the Mas Castellar site (Girona, Spain) provided some legitimacy for this theory. Ergot fragments were found inside a vase and within the dental calculus of a 25-year-old man, providing evidence of ergot being consumed. This finding seems to support the hypothesis of ergot as an ingredient of the Eleusinian kykeon.

Psychoactive mushrooms are another candidate. Scholars such as Robert Graves and Terence McKenna, speculated that the mysteries were focused around a variety of Psilocybe. Other entheogenic fungi, such as Amanita muscaria, have also been suggested. A recent hypothesis suggests that the ancient Egyptians cultivated Psilocybe cubensis on barley and associated it with the deity Osiris.

Another candidate for the psychoactive drug is an opioid derived from the poppy. The cult of the goddess Demeter may have brought the poppy from Crete to Eleusis; it is certain that opium was produced in Crete.

Another theory is that the psychoactive agent in kykeon is DMT, which occurs in many wild plants of the Mediterranean, including Phalaris and/or Acacia. To be active orally (like in ayahuasca) it must be combined with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor such as Syrian rue (Peganum harmala), which grows throughout the Mediterranean.

Alternatively, J. Nigro Sansonese (1994), using the mythography supplied by Mylonas, hypothesizes that the Mysteries of Eleusis were a series of practical initiations into trance involving proprioception of the human nervous system induced by breath control (similar to samyama in yoga).^[92] Sansonese speculates that the kisté, a box holding sacred objects opened by the hierophant, is actually an esoteric reference to the initiate's skull, within which is seen a sacred light and are heard sacred sounds, but only afterinstruction in trance practice. Similarly, the seed-filled chambers of a pomegranate, a fruit associated with the founding of the cult, esoterically describe proprioception of the initiate's heart during trance.

Display More

Quote from Julia

Quote from Twentier

Here's (above) an image that depicts (to me) the gods

Off topic, just curious: Did ancient Epicureans use mind-altering substances (other than alcohol), as the painting suggests?

It's definitely on-topic, and it is primarily supported right now by (1) a total projection based on my anecdotal experiences as an atheist who ate mushrooms and had experienced what seemed so clearly to me to be The Religious Experience that is described in many traditions, and (2) a totally circumstantial supposition based on the fact that surrounding groups of non-Greek peoples were using psycho-active substances, such as the Scythians use of cannabis.

We know that Epicurus took part in the Dionysian and Eleusian mysteries, which most definitely involved wine, as you mentioned, but anything else, at this point, I think, is a stretch.

Still ... I'm stretching, because the Epicurean gods jive with my self-induced psychedelic experiences more than they are cohering to any one animalistic conception I've tried to formulate. I'm really open to image others like that reflect qualities of how they imagine the divine nature.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Twentier

How can a blessed quasi-animal always have existed?

I tend to think that their answer there would have been that gods "as a kind" have always existed as a part of natural processes leading to that result, but that gods as individuals have not existed forever

This is a great point! I hadn't considered this.

We need to check the original language.

Hermarkhos, Philodemos, and Lucretius tease us with their speculations about the characteristics of the gods, and therein set a precedent among Epicureans to wonder about their form...

I think Demetrios of Lakon wrote a book entitled On the Form of the Gods (is that right?)

Even so, I wonder if the best way to think of the gods is primarily as a pure mental impression, (regardless of the corresponding atomoi that left said impressions.) Excuse some of the idealistic implications of the follow image by Alex Grey, but I feel like this brings together a few elements that I think are key to Epicurean gods: mental experiences, usually in dream-states (...drug-induced?), of divine quasi-humans, and the assigning of names to the category of the divine quasi-humans.

Just some more food for thought. Here's (above) an image that depicts (to me) the gods primarily as mental concepts, rather than as physical object to which mental concepts corresponds.

The Society of Friends of Epicurus accepts a "third interpretation" of Epicurean theology, in addition to the alleged (1) Idealist and (2) Realist camps ... which I'll just gloss over for the sake of not bogging us down into a partisan philosophical debate . This third camp is a (3) Non-Theistic interpretation, primarily represented by those of us who are, to be frank, just sort of turned-off by the entire idea of "God" as it is overwhelmingly presented throughout numerous parts of our culture.

Personally, I feel this, but I'm not sure its the best way to express Epicurus' thoughts on piety.

This brings up another point: various Epicureans have presented the argument that a Creator cannot be a god because a Creator must have been bored, or lonely, or in need of other beings prior to creation; such a state is inconsistent with blessedness. That seems to suggest that the Christian deity does not meet the qualifications for being a true god because of its primordial boredom.

Like I said, I tend to think of gods as being advanced animals, especially because it illustrates the ethics of self-improvement, however, I'm not sure that position is consistent with Epicurean theology. If a Creator cannot be a god because it was once needy, can a quasi-animal be a god if it was once a normal animal, subject to the specter of disease and death? God should always have been blessed.

I cannot imagine a being that has always been blessed, unless, through a pure act of chance, yet a chance so specific and rare that a quasi-animal-being with a quasi-biology forms (like the rarity of dumping a huge bag of Scrabble pieces and it creating the entirety of the Lord of the Rings), and this moment of "emaculate conception" (so to speak...) can be described as a sort of [infinity -1], where the blessed quasi-animal formed before any particular time you can apprehend in time. Yet for that being to breathe quasi-air, have functioning quasi-blood, and to have friends seems to require other conditions that make the "emaculate conception" possibility too unlikely to entertain.

That creates quite a conundrum. How can a blessed quasi-animal always have existed?

Or can it not? (And I might be mis-reading the intent of the anti-Creator arguments)

Quote from Julia

Quote from Root304

I find tech integration and most transhuman concepts beyond healing diseases to be pretty disconcerting.

I find them disconcerting, too – but at the same time, I also find them liberating. I wear glasses, know people with artificial sensory implants (for hearing, for sensing electro-magnetic fields, …), artificial joints, vessels and valves, artificially enhanced attention, executive function and memory.

For sure, from my perspective, I imagine the driving force behind any sort of advanced, technological integration should be the curing of disease and the elimination of aging, not just directionless experimenting (usually unethical) for the sake of experimenting.

Quote from Twentier

How do you anticipate the gods that are compatible with Epicurean theology?

• bio-mechanical extensions that have cured disease and prevented aging.

As Philodemus argues in On Death: "And therefore the greatest good has been grasped by the person who has become wise and lived through a certain amount of time. Once his journey has achieved balance and consistency, it would be fitting to prolong it for an unlimited time, if such were possible; but should his life be limited, this will not be the deprivation of what has already been, but [sc. merely] a prevention of its continued presence."

How about compatibility with other traditions' conceptions of God?

I think mostly not:

- Religions that recognize the existence of a cosmic architect (and/or divine providence)

• Incompatible with Abrahamic theology: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.
• Incompatible with Vedic theology: Krishnaism, Shaivism, Smartism, Vaishnavism, etc.
• Incompatible with Indigenous theology: Santería, Shinto, Tengrism, Voodoo, etc.

- Philosophies that promote an eternal soul, immaterial consciousness, or universal mind

• Incompatible with Idealism, Panpsychicism, Subjectivism, and Transcendentalism
• Incompatible with Advaita, Platonism, Shaktism, Stoicism, Vajrayāna, and Yogācāra
• Incompatible with Cartesian Dualism, Yoga, Samkhya, Dvaita Vedanta, Sikhism, and Jainism
• Incompatible with the Āstika schools of Mīmāṃsā, Nyaya, and Vaisheshika

- Traditions that fail to provide any assurance of certainty regarding nature and reality

• Incompatible with Pyrrhonism, Skepticism, and the Nāstika traditions of Ājīvika and Ajñana
• Incompatible with the early Buddhism, Mādhyamaka, and the Socratic Method

- Similar to Charvaka and Yangism in their hedonist ethics and naturalistic physics. But they are atheistic and non-theistic traditions, so they reject any images of God as having validity.

- Somewhat compatible Taoism in terms of spiritual naturalism, and, here, I think we find a mirror in that Taoist deities (in branches that recognize deities) are subject to the supreme nature of the Tao and not rulers of it, just as the Epicurean deities are subject to the forces of nature.

Just some thoughts...

Thank you for the image Kalosyni that is wonderful.