Posts by Eikadistes

“[Epicurus'] philosophy rode this tide. It had reached Alexandria even before his arrival in Athens. By the second century it was flourishing in Antioch and Tarsus, had invaded Judaea, and was known in Babylon. Word of it had reached Rome while Epicurus was still living, and in the last century B.C. it swept over Italy.” (De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 29)

“Both Thessalonica and Corinth must have been strongholds of Epicureanism.” (De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 338)

“After the third century BCE there were Epicurean centres in Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt: adherents, identified from their cities, came from Tyre, Sidon, Tarsus, and Alexandria. Epicureanism also expanded west. […] The existence of communities in the Naples region is attested by both Horace and Vergil. […] Epicureanism can be attested in a board variety of locations: Herculanem, Sorrento, Rhodes, Cos, Pergamon, Oenoanda (the Lycus valley), Apameia (Syria), Rhodiapolis, and Amastris (Bithynia). Locations like Athens and Oxyrhynchus provide evidence for the preservation fo Epicurean writing, as well as Herculaneum. […] Asia Minor (notably Ephesus, Alexandria, and Syria are all suggested as prime candidates for its location.” (King, Epicureanism and the Gospel of John: A Study of Their Compatibility 11-13)

“It will be worth our while to observe how admirably Epicureanism was equipped for the penetration fo Asia. As mentioned already, the branch school at Lampsacus was strategically situated for dissemination of the creed along the coast of the Black Sea. On the west coast of Asia there was another school at Mytilene […] Still further to the south was the original school at Colophon, close to Ephesus. […] The gateway to Asia, however, had been open to the cred of Epicurus for three centuries before Paul’s time and Tarsus was a center of Epicureanism. […] Epicureanism was the court philosophy of Antioch during the reigns of at least two kings of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes and Demetrius Soter." (King, Epicureanism and the Gospel of John: A Study of Their Compatibility 62)

“In it he attests the widespread Epicurean communities of Athens, and Chalcis and Thebes in Boeotia.” (The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism 20)

"We meet Epicureans not just in Athens, where they were amongst Paul's audiences, but we also come across Epicurean communities in the West, in Herculaneum or Sorrento, in the East, on Rhodes and Cos, in Pergamon, Lycian Oinoanda, Syrian Apameia, in remote southern Lycian Rhodiapolis or in Amastris in Bithynia on the Black Sea. (The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism 48)

I appreciate that, Don, thank you!

The draft can be found here:

File

Epicurean Philosophers by Nathan H. Bartman

A definitive list of our Epicurean friends throughout history. (For the latest updates: https://twentiers.com/2024/05/26/timeline/)

Eikadistes

March 6, 2022 at 6:04 PM

This immediately reminded me of something I came across in my research: an author's attempt to connect the dot of "Ram Dass" with the dot of "Epicurean Philosophy." I was nearly disturbed to have come across the following anecdote:

Quote

“Perhaps, like spiritual philosopher Ram Dass, a contemporary Epicurean would enjoin the truth-seeker to Be Here Now and Pay Attention.” (Mills, Epicurean Simplicity 22)

"Epicurean" has meant so many things to so many people, from the materialist piety of the ancient Greeks, to the hyper-political sensualists of Rome, to heretical medieval scholars, to Gassendi's "Christian Epicureans", to French libertines, and English atomists who overwhelmingly rejected the title of "Epicurean" to distance themselves from accusations of atheism. Here, author Stephanie Mills is using an American Vedantist, steeped in Indian Idealism, as a doorway to understand Epicurean ethics.

I do think that it is important to distinguish, as Cassius has pursued with commitment, "Epicureans" from "Neo-Epicureans" because there are so many heterodox interpretations that have obscured Epicurus' teachings. Gassendi saw Epicurus' atomist as being compatible with the revelation of Christ; the French libertines used "hedonism" as a justification for their lifestyle, but had little use for grounding their sense of morality in physics; the English materialists of the Reformation (who probably deserve the title of "Epicurean") did not want to associate themselves with atheism, which is antithetical to Epicurean philosophy, anyway.

We're up against 1,700 years of misinterpretation, largely (and ironically) attributed to self-alleged "Epicureans", themselves. As soon as we begin correlating Epicurean philosophy with the revelation of Christ, unrestrained pleasure-seeking, or, in this case, Ram Dass' interpretation of Hindu Vedanta, the teachings of Epicurus become an accessory to the modern ego.

Greetings, friends!

I hope everyone is well.

I've expanded this research drastically, and realize that the research I've put together will not fit in a single post (70,000-character maximum), so I'm going to be uploading my PDF once it is complete.

Cheers!
Nate

Quote from Don

Hmmm... After reading the ancient source text (Thanks, Cassius !!), Frischer seems to me to be going off on a DeWittean historical fiction flight of fancy. He wants to write a good story, but I don't see his conclusion supported by the ancient text itself.

That said, I found the ancient text fascinating! Certainly sets up a contrast with the Stoics, and puts that "controversy" with the "4th leg of the Canon" into a different context, too.

I've had a similar reaction to reading Frischer's literature. I'm finding a trend in modern scholarship of sympathetic authors and enthusiasts taking poetic licenses to adapt Epicurean philosophy to their social context. Many of their conclusions are based on tenuous links, and their descriptions take advantage of a historical gap due to a lack of source material. I don't necessarily think that their conclusions are incoherent with Epicurean philosophy, so I find them to be useful ways of engaging a contemporary audience; still, the authors seem to place low priority on acknowledging their personal fictions, and that can be problematic.

Quote

“Just as new, and in keeping with this spirit, is Epicurus’ attempt to create an alternative community for philosophers in which normal life could be pursued along with philosophy. Philosophy no longer criticizes or serves the dominant culture; it turns its back on it, secedes from it, and, most importantly, puts something positive in its place. That Epicureanism was for these reasons unprecedented seems to have been clear to such contemporaries of Epicurus as Damoxenus and Arcesilaus. For them, and for others such as Timon or Menippus who were caught up in the old antagonistic relationship of philosophy and society, Epicurus’ vision was either infuriating or amusing. For others, more open to change, the Epicurean alternative was attractive indeed.

The Epicurean sanction of marriage is a first indication of the new direction taken by Epicurus in solving the problem of accommodating philosophy and society. By admitting women to the school and encouraging marriage and child-rearing, the status of the Epicurean philosopher was no longer decided in terms of the dominant culture but in terms proper to the Epicurean experiment in reconstructing a past stage of history. At what was in Epicurean eyes the most desirable stage of history, men and women formed foedera based on free will and mutual interests. In was perhaps inevitable that when it came to putting this idea into practice, the women the Epicureans sought for marriage were not the eligible women of the community at large but the female students of the school, who were in a position to make their foedera for philosophically correct reasons. The number of such women seems to have been sufficiently large, at least in Epicurus’ day, and was at any rate far greater than it seems to have been in the other schools, where a Hipparchia or Axiothea – both significantly wont to dress in male attire, as if to deny their femininity – is only occasionally to be found. The hetairai Boidion, Leontion, Hedeia, Nikidion, Mammarion, Demelata, Erotion, and Philainis were connected with the school. Metrodorus’ sister Batis married Idomeneus (p. 368.5 Usener); Leonteus married Themista (D.L. 10.26). We know that Metrodorus and Polyainos were married and had children, although we do not know the names of their wizes (D.L. 10.26). It would be hard to overemphasize the appeal of a school that was willing to grant females full rights of participation in all of its activities. It would have been attractive both to women inclined toward philosophy and, perhaps more importantly, to men who sought hte companionship of such sympathetic and intelligent women.

The participants in the school were not only encouraged to marry and raise children but also to dwell together in the Garden (D.L. 10.10 citing two sources). The arrangement is not otherwise encountered in a philosophical school. The Epicurean school was thus both an education enterprise and a genuine community where, we may assume, all the normal activities of life took place alongside learning and study. Here, then, is another reason why Epicurus deprived himself of the legal loophole of the religious association: he conceived of his organization as an alternative polis, not simply as a specialized part of the traditional city-state. An ancient and non-Epicurean witness, Numenius, seems to be reporting Epicurus’ success in this with an observer’s disinterested eye when he says (apud Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 14.5.3) that ‘Epicureans in the Garden resemble people living in a well-organized state.’

(Frischer, The Sculpted World, Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruitment in Ancient Greece, 61-63)

Right off the bat, I think I need some context into what "marriage" meant to ancient Greeks.

Were they primarily economic arrangements? Was there a romantic tradition that encouraged the subjective pursuit of passion? Were they as bad at picking partners as our current divorce rates suggest we are? Were couples expected to produce children? Was marriage primarily an institution to promote reproduction? Did ancient Greek marriages suffocate women with domestic roles? Did they put excessive economic strain on men? How prevalent and severe were sexually-transmitted infections at the time? How universally-accepted was pederasty? How tolerant were Greeks on non-traditional sexual practices? For that matter, what were the Greeks traditional sexual practices? How old were men and women, on average, when they married? I'm curious because I have no idea.

Depending on the definition of "marriage" to ancient Greeks, I may have more or less sympathy with Epicurus' position. Marriage as companionship between two best friends is utterly different that marriage as marrying-off your 13-year-old daughter for political gain. Historically, "marriage" tends to imply "duty" or "social responsibility", which is antithetical to Epicurean philosophy, so if that's the tree up which Epicurus was barking, I definitely agree.

There's a consistent metaphor of harbors and storms at sea through Epicurean lore, inspired both by both Odysseus' shipwreck on the island of the Phaeacians and the later association of Epicurus with his own shipwreck, prior to establishing the Garden. Using this same metaphor, Lucretius explains how it can be pleasure to watch the vast travails of others:

Quote

"It's sweet, when winds blow wild on open seas,

to watch from land your neighbor's vast travail,

not that men's miseries bring us dear delight

but that to see what ills we're spared is sweet;

sweet, too, to watch the cruel contest of war

ranging the field when you need share no danger.

But nothing is sweeter than to dwell in peace

high in the well-walled temples of the wise,

whence looking down we may see other men

wavering, wandering, seeking a way of life

with wit against wit, line against noble line,

contending, striving, straining night and day,

to rise to the top of the heap, High Lord of Things.

O wretched minds of men, O poor blind hearts!"

(De Rerum Natura translated by Frank O. Copley, Book 2, Lines 1-14)

Display More

I share a similar feeling with this analogy living in Florida with hurricanes. For me, the stormy skies are beautiful. The winds are still captivating. The exploding power transformers are magical. Skipping work is a relief. Knowing that I don't have to fight with crowds in public is a blessing. I've always had the privilege of living beneath a safe roof on high ground.

Hurricanes mean something completely different to lonely seniors, or people living in mobile homes, or homeless members of our society, or people living within modest means near the seashore. To them, this event is an existential threat. It's not a joke, it's not a poetic metaphor, it's not something at which to smile. It's terrifying, tragic, and life-changing.

I have never lived through a non-deadly hurricane. Every hurricane for which I have been present has always lead to at least one drowning. While I was watching those trees dance in the wind, others were hiding on a floor while a tree fell through their roof. The juxtaposition between peoples' experiences based on their levels of security is staggering.

That juxtaposition also provides a learning opportunity. For every person that dies of disease, there was a case study that contributes to a future treatment. For every drowning during a hurricane, civil engineers design better and better structures, and people adopt safer and safer practices. It is always a pleasure to grow wiser and practice prudence.

Quote

"...And inspired before the same loud clamor, some will strive with the effort of Apollophanes [the Stoic] to advance wonderfully to the podium, but others, having landed in [philosophy's] harbor and with hopes offered them that 'not even the venerable flame of Zeus would be able to prevent them taking from the highest point of the citadel' a life that is happy, afterwards, in spite of opposing winds...." (Philodemus, P.Herc 463)

Suppose a small gang of people in poverty are set on committing theft: Let's say one member of the group (we'll call them "Buddy") has a change of heart and decides to go home at the last minute. Fast-forward several months ... the rest of the group has been caught and sentenced.

Prior to the group being sentenced, Buddy felt apprehension, knowing that, maybe, he could have gotten away with it. If he had, the money he acquired could have helped him escape poverty, as it may potentially for the rest of the gang who went through with the theft.

Just before sentencing, Buddy was kicking himself in the pants.

Upon the gang being sentenced, Buddy feels tremendous relief, like drinking water when thirsty, or eating when hungry, or making a sound choice when anxious. Their sentencing indicates that Buddy was prudent and made the profitable choice. Prior to the gang being sentenced, Buddy felt anxiety. The moment of the sentencing, Buddy feels vindicated.

It would be a mistake to view Buddy as being a sadist for feeling pleasure at a situation that leads others to pain; it would also be a mistake to judge Buddy for not choosing to perform a sacrificial act of altruism (such as taking credit for the theft to release his "friends").

It is not!

I'm pleased that another Epicurean out there is producing memes!

I believe that was a bust of Diogenes Laertius.

Upon review, we can definitely update any text that is unclear. It's meant as a teaching tool, so it may be in need of some refinements.

There's a characterization from the 2nd/3rd-century CE Greek grammarian Athenaeus of Naucratis of Epicureans as being "atom-prophets".

I can dig it.

Quote

Instead, for Athenaeus, Epicurus provides only the sharp contrasts with the Odyssey: Homer gives us the context for a symposium and stipulates who is to be invited; in contrast, Epicurus launches into the symposium without a prologue and thus presents a scene with no place or time. Furthermore, Epicurus’ Symposium is un-Homeric in that the gathering is attended solely by philosophers, whom Athenaeus dubs 'atom-prophets' (προφήτας ἀτόμων, Ath. 5.187b; cf. 5.177b). While Epicurus’ symposiasts are flatterers and Plato’s are caustic, Homer’s dinner guests temper their speech (The Learned Banqueters 5.182a). – The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus, 45-46

ἔτι δὲ ὁ μὲν Ὅμηρος ἡλικίαις εἰσάγει διαφέροντας καὶ ταῖς προαιρέσεσι τοὺςκεκλημένους, Νέστορα καὶ Αἴαντα καὶ Ὀδυσσέα, τὸ μὲν καθόλου σύμπαντας τῆς ἀρετῆςἀντεχομένους, εἴδει δὲ διαφόροις ὁδοῖς ὡρμηκότας ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν. ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουροςἅπαντας εἰσήγαγε 'προφήτας ἀτόμων' καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἔχων παραδείγματα τήν τε τοῦποιητοῦ τῶν συμποσίων ποικιλίαν καὶ τὴν Πλάτωνός τε καὶ Ξενοφῶντος χάριν. ὧν ὁμὲν Πλάτων τὸν μὲν Ἐρυξίμαχον ἰατρόν, τὸν δὲ Ἀριστοφάνη ποιητήν, ἄλλον δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ἄλλης προαιρέσεως σπουδάζοντας εἰσήγαγεν, Ξενοφῶν δὲ καί τινας ἰδιώταςσυνανέμιξε. πολλῷ τοίνυν κάλλιον Ὅμηρος ἐποίησε καὶ διάφορα παρατιθέμενοςσυμπόσια. πᾶν γὰρ ἐξ ἀντιπαραβολῆς ὁρᾶται μᾶλλον. ἐστὶν γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸ μὲν τῶνμνηστήρων οἷον ἂν γένοιτο νεανίσκων μέθαις καὶ ἔρωσιν ἀνακειμένων, τὸ δὲ τῶνΦαιάκων εὐσταθέστερον μὲν τούτων, φιλήδονον δέ. τούτοις δ᾽ ἀντέθηκε τὰ μὲν ἐπὶστρατιᾶς, τὰ δὲ πολιτικώτερον τελούμενα σωφρόνως. καὶ πάλιν αὖ διεῖλεν τὰ μὲνδημοθοινίαν ἔχοντα, τὰ δ᾽ οἰκείων σύνοδον. Ἐπίκουρος δὲ συμπόσιον φιλοσόφωνμόνων πεποίηται. (Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 5:3) <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…erseus-grc2:5.3>

I couldn't find an English translation of Deipnosophistae.

PEACE AND SAFETY - /'piːs ænd 'seɪf.tiː/

PAX ET SECURITAS – /'pæks ɛt sɛːˈkuːri.taːs/

Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια – /iː'riːniː cɛ as'faːliːa/

ΕΙΡΗΝΗ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΑ – /e.'rɛ.nɛ kǎi̯ as.'pʰaːle.a/

__________________________________________________

Do we have any instances of this Epicurean saying besides 1 Thessalonians 5:3?

Absolutely. I think the mistake is on the behalf of the inquirer. Questions about measuring the relative geometric proportions of celestial objects implies that Epicurus had such an answer, or, more importantly, cared about it, which I think he did not.

He recognized that we had a functional understanding of the immeasurably large, immeasurably distant spheres above the terrestrial regions of the World, so there was no need to posit any number, large, or small, as the predominant view seems to imply.

That's a good point and it makes me consider a few other things:

The Heliocentric model, itself, was in need of being tweaked for systems with binary stars (which are actually the most common types of systems in the universe), so Epicurus' model is consistent with contemporary relativity. That also applies to any systems (WARNING: EXTREME SPECULATION) with life-holding worlds that have stable orbits around Black Holes.

Heliocentrism carries a danger of being seen as a geometrically-ideal solar configuration to which other Solar System must necessarily conform. Relatively defaltes that.

For that matter, his speculation is also applicable to (another common, cosmic possibility, to which our own system is, again, an unusual rarity) systems where the only identifiable life exists on the satellites of gas giants. To a lunar organism making this cosmic inquiry on the moon of a Gas Giant, the discovery of Heliocentrism – which is key to a planetary organism – becomes a less significant scientific advancement than Geocentrism to a lunar organism, especially considering that a primary energy source for such a satellite would be volcanism, fueled by the shifting tidal forces of the parent gas giant's colossal gravitational force, not the Sun. Geocentrism is the Heliocentrism of Moonlings.

Given attempts to measure the relative sizes and energetic-importance of neutron stars, gas giants, brown dwars, and supermassive black holes to the possible life-supporting planetoids which orbit around them, Copernican Heliocentrism comes up sort of short.

Interesting point, that "the size it appears to be" may not have meant: that the Apparent Size or Apparent Magnitude of the star to an observer on Earth is equivalent to an objective measurement of that star's actual Size or total Luminosity; and may have meant something more like: that the non-Platonic, non-Aristotelian-influenced observations of pre-Socratics were correct; that the Sun is a massive object, in the same category of objects as stars, which are distant Suns, and that the Moon is something more closely related to the Earth, like the spheres we imagine accompany those distant Suns ... or something like that.

I agree that the rhetorical function of his mentioning the sizes of the appearances of the Sun and the Moon was to refute the Platonic hypothesis that they were deities.

The prevalent interpretation that Epicurus was arguing that the Apparent Size of the Sun is equivalent to an objective measurement of its actual Size is really an Aristotelian idea: 'the Sun is (duh) obviously smaller than the Earth, and (duh) revolves around the Earth, because (duh) look up, stupid'. It would be uncharacteristic and inconsistent of Epicurus to support this, especially when he posits the explicit existence of exoplanets. That, and also, he generally supported the idea that these physical relationships are obvious to all seeing humans, and not simply learned mathematicians, so he wasn't submitting a mathematical figure (big or small) in the first place. The point is somewhat moot.

There's something else I thought that makes this criticism more meaningless:

Suppose another solar narrative like our own, except, allow for the possibility that instead of G-type main-sequence star (our white-yellow Sun), "our Sun" is a neutron star only 20 km in diameter. It would appear to be incredibly small in the sky; it would actually be incredibly small, at that. Unexpectedly small (even to 21st-century cosmologists).

In a parallel timeline, that society would not have accurately measured the diameter of their parent star until their 21st-century. However, both that society, and our own would have functionally measured the comparative size of the star since antiquity

Epicurus' observation is still true when taken to mean that all of these objects are what they appear to be, compared to tall trees, massive monuments, and huge mountains: immeasurably massive and immeasurably distant on cosmic scales. Thus, they are "about the size they appear to be", or, in other words "immeasurably large".

Whether one's planet's parent star is a G-type main-sequence 400x as massive as the Earth's Moon (and almost exactly 400x as distant), or whether it's a neutron star barely one-third of the size of Rhode Island, the human ethical condition is unchanged. Furthermore, excessive speculation about these measurements without the necessary scientific tools will inevitably lead to superstition and mysticism, so are to be avoided.

Thinking out loud...

While Epicurus sailed the Aegean, he would have seen how the Sun and the Moon maintain their size, no matter where they are located in the sky, nor in which direction they are moving; whereas, even the tallest mountains of Greece shrink in the distance as we sail away from them at a moderate pace, so the Sun and the Moon must be immeasurably larger by comparison than a mountain.

If some of the light of the Sun can still be seen when the Moon is in front of it, then the Sun must be larger than the Moon, and must be removed from the Moon by a distance greater than its own diameter (already defined as being "immeasurable large by comparison"), so the space between the Sun and the Moon must be at least as immeasurably large as the diameter of the Sun.

For a distant object to appear larger than a nearer object, it must at least slightly larger; for a severely distant object to appear larger than a significantly nearer object, it must be much larger than the closer object. The Sun is removed from the Moon by an immeasurably-large-by-comparison amount of space, so the Sun could be immeasurably larger by comparison than the Moon.

I suppose I'm postulating then Epicurus may have had more nuanced opinions about the celestial spheres than we have documented. Simple knowledge of the eclipses should seem to have demonstrated that the Sun is, at least, demonstrably larger than the Moon, if not incredibly larger. Surely, Epicurus saw that the moon seems larger than distant mountains, which are obviously immense.

The morning of August 15th 309 BCE, while Epicurus was teaching his first pupils at Lampsacus, a total Solar Eclipse darkened his sky. No doubt, Epicurus would have spent time addressing this phenomena with his students.

Anyone who witnessed this event could have made the following observations:

1. Parts of the Sun are still visible even when the Moon slides in front of it, so the Sun must be bigger than the moon no matter where it is.

2. The body of the Sun goes behind the Moon, so the Sun and the Moon must occupy different regions of space, the Sun being further away.

3. The body of the Moon is not damaged, so the Sun's distance behind the moon is at least greater than the size of its own diameter.

Given these observations which I am certain Epicurus would have made, I'm curious why he suggested that both celestial objects are about the same size. Do we have any documentation of his estimation of the size of comets?

__________________________________________________

ASTRONOMICAL EVENTS DURING THE TIME OF EPICURUS

COMETS

Epicurus would have witnessed several comets throughout his lifetime. The only one I confirm is Halley's Comet which he would have seen in above the hills of Colophon with his Democritean teacher Nausiphanes in October of 316 BCE.

SOLAR ECLIPSES

It is an incredibly unique and rare coincidence that Earth's ONLY star, and Earth's ONLY satellite appear to be the SAME SIZE to Earthlings. We have not seen this mathematical accident replicated on any of the thousands of exoplanets we have discovered.

Interestingly, NASA has a database of all Solar and Lunar eclipses. [https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-0399--0300.html]

Throughout Epicurus' lifetime (341 - 270 BCE) , there only seems to have been a single Total Solar Eclipse (between the years 320 BCE and 301 BCE.) that would have placed both Lampsacus and Athens directly in the Moon's umbra.

I'm going to do more research to flesh this out, but we should be able to accurately define every solar eclipse, lunar eclipse, and comet (at least the ones that are still around) that Epicurus would have directly witnessed in ancient Greece.

It could be possible Epicurus happened to have lived in a time period where Total Eclipses over Athens were rare, and, thus, an unreliable phenomena to drawn conclusions from due to its rarity, so, perhaps it wasn't of great interest.

Witnessing [Distant Object I of Size A] seamlessly slide behind [Distant Object II of Size A] begs a few geometric questions about the objects' spatial relationship.