Posts by Eikadistes

There's a wonderful series of facial reconstructions of ancient Greek personalities on the following website: https://www.greecehighdefinition.com/blog/2020/11/1…and-politicians. While Epicurus is not featured among them, I located an artist's reconstruction of our favorite philosopher elsewhere on the internet:

Recently, I've come to think of this like the weather forecast:

Is a "good day" a day that isn't rainy? Or is a "good day" a day that is positively sunny?

... and what's the difference, anyway?

Is Partly Cloudy not also Partly Sunny?

Similarly, does not the absence of pain and suffering indicate the presence of pleasure? I think it must.

There's definitely a danger of mistaking "ethical egoism" or "ethical hedonism" as being quiescent and withdrawn due to the implication that anything defined as "ethical" is necessarily reminiscent of a meditating Buddha, or a passive guru, or a stoic priest. I think this is what leads people to automatically assume that Epicurus wanted "painlessness" rather than "pleasure-fulness", or why he'd prefer "a sky without clouds" rather than a "sunny day". Not because there is any physical difference, but because they are afraid of embracing pleasure, and use the first one as a euphemism for what's really going on.

Throughout history, there's a trend – though, not absolute – for neo-Ideologies to actually be syntheses between ancient systems and contemporary counterparts. We often observe neo-Ideologies when an apologist attempts to demonstrate coherence between an older, heterodox tradition, and a dominant, modern orthodoxy, despite their apparent contradictions.

With this in mind, the question becomes, "Can Epicurean philosophy incorporate innovations – which can be demonstrated to be 'coherent' with Epicurus' teaching – and still be considered 'classically Epicurean'?"

Let's look at the practice of Vipassanā meditation. A number of studies seem to demonstrate that this specific form of meditation will reliably reduce emotional disturbance, and remove psychological barriers that keep people from improving their circumstances. The practice, itself, seems to be coherent with Epicurean materialism. On top of that, even when we look at the Eastern philosophy behind the practice, we see more nuance: the Abhidarma text from the Therevāda tradition of Buddhism makes a defense of atomism: "An atom (paramänu) is the smallest rüpa (form). It cannot be cut, broken, penetrated; it cannot be taken up, abandoned, ridden on, stepped on, struck or dragged. It is neither long nor short, square nor round, regular nor irregular, convex nor concave. It has no smaller parts; it cannot be decomposed, cannot be seen, heard, smelled, touched. It is thus that the paramänu is said to be the finest of all rüpas". While the practice of meditation is deeply rooted in Buddhism, the physical practice, itself, has psychiatric utility by using natural tools. So there is coherence between large parts of the philosophies. This suggests that an adoption of some "Buddhist" practices can still be Epicurean, in the same way that the reverence of The Buddha has been adopted as an acceptable practice for orthodox Hindus to adopt (as long as The Buddha is seen as an inferior avatar to the Supreme Brahman).

Now, that was an example of a religious tradition that provides some level of coherence with Epicurean philosophy; let's consider an example, of a non-ideological, scientific discipline that conceptually agrees with Epicurean philosophy, but arrives at incompatible conclusions. While Epicurus appropriately grounded celestial phenomena in physics (as does contemporary meteorology and astronomy), he made a number of errors in his conclusions. Even though he acknowledged the limitations of the 4th-century, a number of his guesses were notedly inaccurate. If we held contemporary scientific disciplines to the same rigor as we would ideologies, should we not consider Epicureans who accept contemporary meteorology and astronomy to be, necessarily "neo-Epicureans"? I think we'd agree that that is unreasonable, since everyone since, at least, the Enlightenment would not qualify as a "Classical Epicurean".

That being said, the category of "neo-Epicurean" is still relevant, and important. So, I think that would be defined as any philosophy whose original tenets are in overwhelming contradiction with the doctrines of Epicurus. Thus, one of the two philosophies would have to be altered to gain coherence with the other. An example may be a Thomist Christian who claims to be "Epicurean", and revere Epicurus due to his exploration of the material world, while being rather mistaken in the larger picture of Epicurean philosophy (and failing to recognize his Peripatetic influence). This (hypothetical) attempted synthesis between Christianity and Epicurean philosophy would be an example of "neo-Epicureanism". Similar (to reference a recent project), a synthesis between "Dudeism" and Epicurean philosophy would, with these parameters in mind, qualify as "neo-Epicureanism". Dudeism is compatible with Agnosticism, Taoism, and Zen Buddhism, each of which conflict with Epicurean teachings ... at the same time, Dudeism also conflicts with some of its inspirations in its promotion of a hedonist ethics. So, we have ethical and ontological coherence, but the epistemology and aesthetics differ. These are pretty irreconcilable differences, so I'd say this would be "neo-Epicureanism", and, while I'm thinking about it, I think this is the fundamental, distinguishing variable: "Are the differences fundamentally irreconcilable"?

A minor example, which I see as being coherent with Epicurus' doctrines, thus, being "Classically Epicurean", would be Thomas Jefferson. If we hold him to the same rigor, he should be considered a "neo-Epicurean", since he clearly invokes the mythology of the "Creator" in numerous documents (which is at utter odds with the Epicurean notion of an eternal universe). But if Thomas Jefferson cannot be considered a "Classical Epicurean", then who, after the 2nd or 3rd-centuries CE can? If we can accept Jefferson as an authentic Epicurean, even though his deism hints at a finite universe, then couldn't we just as easily accept movements like Secular Humanism as well as mock religions like Satanism and Pastafarianism? For that matter, there's a lot of coherence between the ethics and physics of atheists and agnostics despite their being theological differences. Specifically, the issue of theology seems to be minor to most of us – I think a tremendous amount of this group identify as "atheists", even though this is a direct contradiction with Epicurean orthodoxy.

So the question is: "Where do we draw the line"? Can atheists be "Epicurean"? Or are atheists, necessarily "neo-Epicurean"? What about atomists and hedonists who practice Hatha Yoga, or Vipassanā meditation? Are they "Epicurean" or "neo-Epicurean"? How about most of us since Newton who correctly understand that people can simultaneously live on both sides of the planet due to our modern understanding of gravity? Are we all "neo-Epicurean" because we have synthesized Newtonian physics with Epicurus' incomplete physics of "the downward force"? I'm positive that Epicurus would accept most of the conclusions contemporary physics, and would adopt its methods and findings. Perhaps the data from the Hubble telescope that suggests universal expansion would force him to re-consider the "eternal" quality of particles (which seem to not have existed while the early universe was too hot). Given that, a good question is this: should anyone who accepts "the Big Bang" and the Principle Doctrines be considered a "neo-Epicurean" due to their acceptance of a finite cosmos that once lacked particles?

I'm not sure. I think that will be subjective between individuals. I think that foreign practices can be coherent with Epicurean philosophy, regardless of the ideological demands of their foreign, source material. We can adopt the practice of Hatha Yoga without adopting Pantajali's metaphysical dualism. We can adopt Vipassanā meditation without accepting the emptiness of Buddhist ethics. In the scientific realm, I think we can accept the observations of the Hubble telescope that challenge the eternal cosmos without in any way being considered to be "neo-Epicurean". I think that "neo-Epicureans" would have to be individuals who claim to identify with another tradition, yet see Epicurus as a major influence. In this sense, we might see Dudeism as a form of "neo-Epicureanism", or, for that matter, even some Mormons who admire Epicurus (if there are any), due to their multi-world, material cosmology.

But there will always be disagreements. The Church of the East, the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and Evangelical movements all claims to be the most authentic manifestation of Christianity. Sunni and Shi'a Muslims claim the same thing – and positively love fighting about it. Surely, some Epicureans will identify as atheists, whereas some might be agnostic; I argue that as long as they are hedonists who accept an epistemology of the senses, an ethics of pleasure, and a physics of atoms, they are fundamentally Epicurean, even if they have minor disagreements in the conclusions of Epicurus; as long as the methodology and doctrines are coherent, its still "Classical Epicureanism"; whereas Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Toaists (etc.) who admire Epicurus, and attempt to incorporate his easy-going nature and his suspicion of being manipulated, but reject atomism or hedonism, are "neo-Epicureans".

Or is that Sindarin? (I think it's actually Sindarin).

ANYWAY, it's been a while since I reviewed the grammar and syntax of Quenya.

Tolkien's Catholicism always interested me! He provided an interesting translation of the Lord's Prayer in Quenya:

You remembered perfectly, Eugenious!

May I add:

Or ilyë lëor nort' Anar ar Eleni tennoio marir;

Úvan equë Aure ná carna, var mer' Eleni namárië.

Above all shadows rides the Sun and Stars forever dwell;

I will not say the Day is done, nor bid the Stars farewell.”

(I have the Sindarin translation of this poem tattooed on my chest:)

Or 'waith bain nôr Anor a Giliath an-ui dorthar;

Ú-bedithon iGalan garnen, egor aníro iñGîl no-vaer.

YAAAS! Another Tolkien fan!

Let me edit the previous statement for more nuance: the character called "Jesus" as presented in the "Gospel of John" espouses a theology that is suspiciously similar to the writing of Philo of Alexandria.

Based on my readings, the philosophy of Philo of Alexandria was a literary inspiration for John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. He synthesized neo-Platonism with Messianic Judaism. Even if John the Baptist and Jesus weren't reading his literature, their own conclusions are suspiciously similar to those of Philo.

Donald answered his own question in the conclusion of his essay:

"Jefferson did identify more with Epicureanism than with Stoicism...".

He puts a lot of emphasis on Jefferson's reading list, which included a lot of Stoic authors ... as are also on our own reading lists. We would be incomplete and uncommitted Epicureans to not have meticulously studied the works of Epicurus' opponents. In the same way that American atheists tend to have a more dedicated and complete knowledge of Christian history than Christians, Epicureans – as the underdogs of philosophical history – have also arrived at conclusions through being unconvinced by the literature of Academics, Peripatetics, Cynics, Skeptics, and Stoics.

Most of us are trained Stoics and Platonists without realizing it. Those philosophies "won" the battle of history, and the fruits of their literature (though largely spoiled from our perspective) have been subliminally woven into our upbringing. Anyone raised in a church (upwards of 70% of the American population) are familiar with Platonic hypotheses, without realizing that it was Plato (and not Christ Jesus) who contributed them to history. The word "stoic" is ubiquitous in our vocabularies, usually framed as an admirable quality; whereas the word "epicurean" has been relegated to mean "luxurious food-lover".

Jefferson also spent the time to re-write the gospels in accordance with materialism – by no means would we consider him to be a Christian. His interest and appreciation of Stoic works does not make him a Stoic anymore than his interest and appreciation of the Beatitudes makes him a Christian. He is an Epicurean, through-and-through.

Did Donald answer the question himself?

I'm curious what possible support he could provide for this counter-intuitive thesis.

Happy Birthday, Elayne!

May the wind under your wings bare you where the sun sails and the moon walks.

Noted observation, Elayne! I appreciate that. I think I will re-work the conclusion a bit.

Cassius, Hiram actually created me a login with the Society page to publish the piece after he read it, so I'm just posting this for peer review.

On “-Isms” and Pleasure Wisdom

"Epicureanism" vs. "Epicurean Philosophy"

The Society of Friends of Epicurus has dedicated extensive dialogue to the suffix "-ism". In the Epicurean spirit of παρρησíα (or “parrhēsíā”) meaning “frank speech” or “speaking candidly”, it is important to recognize that the ancient Greek language does not employ the "-ism" when referring to the philosophy of Epicurus; thus, while the word can be functionally employed for practical purposes, "Epicureanism" may NOT be appropriate word to invoke when referring to the philosophy of Epicurus. "Epicureanism" does not quite capture the nuance of Epicurean Philosophy.

-ISMs

The English suffix, "-ism" — according to BOTH common and academic usages — is employed to designate a distinctive "doctrine", "theory", "attitude", "belief", "practice", "process", "state", "condition", "religion", "system", or "philosophy". According to this definition, it is NOTincorrect to add a simple "-ism" at the end of "the philosophy of Epicurus", as it should, appropriately and accurately, render the word "Epicureanism" (or even "Epicurism").

In more succinct terms, we can visualize "Epicurean-ism" simply as "Epicurean-philosophy".

While this works for practical purposes, it may lead to several misconceptions:

[1] Bracketing the suffix “-ism” to a name often indicates devotional worship of a historical figure (consider the differences between the old, misleading usage of “Mohammedanism” versus the preferred, contemporary usage of “Islam”). Epicureans do NOT worship Epicurus as a supernatural prophet, NOR as a manifestation of a transcendental ideal.

[2] In the modern era, “-ism” is frequently used to identify political typologies. Terms like “Monarchism”, “Liberalism”, “Conservatism”, “Communism”and “Fascism” express ideological systems that — contrary to Epicurean philosophy — presuppose the existence of an ideal state or utopia, organized according to the dimensions of a perfect, timeless principle.

[3] The suffix "-ισμός" (or "-ismós") was rarely employed in ancient Greek; few examples of “-ism” (or "-ismós") exist prior to the linguistic conventions of the modern period. In giving preference to the term “Epicurean philosophy”, we acknowledge the importance of privileging ancient Greek historical sources as opposed to relying upon Latin translations.

-ISMVS

Our tradition of adding "-ism" to the end of words — in which we express distinctive "ideologies" — begins in the post-Classical period, corresponding to the Renaissance. Coming from the Latin “re-” (meaning “again”) and “nasci” (meaning “to be born”), the Renaissance, or cultural “rebirth” resurrected the innovations of Antiquity. This revival adapted translations through the Latin language, using the Romanalphabet, sheathing ancient Greek observations.Liberally, scholars began to apply the suffix “-ismus” — as we would recognize it today — during this period of New Latin.

(I'm going to call the tradition — in which modern English-speakers partake — the "Ism-ism", or, in other words, "the systemic practice of adding '-ism' to idea-expressing words". Due to the profound influence of Latin, and the linguistic conventions of the modern era, we ALL — in one way or another — have become dedicated Ismists.)

From the perspective of the contemporary world, the suffix -ISMVS or "-ismus" was first borrowed from the Old Latin language of the Romans, and later appropriated by post-Classical peoples as New Latin and Contemporary Latin. We find an abundance of "-ism" and "-ismus" in bothRomance and Germanic language families. As in Latin, the “-ism” indicates distinctive "doctrines", "theories", “attitudes”, "beliefs", “religions”, “systems”, and "philosophies".

Here, however, is where we note a difference that our Mediterranean friends have often observed: while the Greek language — like Celtic, Indic,and other Indo-European languages — has evolved from a common root, it did NOT adopt Latin conventions the same way that Romance andGermanic languages have. Ancient Greek philosophers, especially Epicurus, would not have thought of “philosophies” as “-isms”.

-ize | -ίζω | -ízō |

We receive the Latin -ISMVS or "-ismus" from the ancient Greek "-ισμός" ("-ismós"), which, itself, is a bracketing of two other ancient Greek words, those words being "-ίζω" ("-ízō") and "-μός" ("-mós"). We'll start with the former word. The suffix "-ίζω" ("-ízō") was added to nouns to form new verbs. Let's look at (x3) examples:

[1] canonize | κανονίζω | kanonízō

κανών or “kanṓn” literally referred to a “reed”, and carried the connotation of a “measuring rod” or “standard”

+ "-ίζω" ("-ízō or "-ize") rendered "κανονίζω", "kanonízō" or “canonize” meaning "to make standard".

[2] Hellenize | ἑλληνίζω | Hellēnízō

ἑλλην or “Héllēn” literally referred to that which is “Greek”.

+ "-ίζω" ("-ízō or "-ize") rendered "ἑλληνίζω", "Hellēnízō", or “Hellenize” meaning "to make Greek".

[3] synchronize | συγχρονίζω | súnkhronosízō

σύγχρονος or “súnkhronos” literally referred to “synchronous”

+ "-ίζω" ("-ízō or "-ize") rendered "συγχρονίζω", "súnkhronosízō", or “synchronize” meaning "to sync".

The key point with “-ίζω" ("-ízō") — and our Modern English suffix "-ize" — is that we can turn any concept into a verb, or, in more philosophically interesting terms, we can ACTIVATE it.

-μός | -mós

The second suffix from which the ancient Greek “-ισμός" ("-ismós") was bracketed is "-μός" ("-mós"). Contrary to the convention of ACTIVATING a word that represents a concept, adding "-μός" ("-mós") ABSTRACTS an action. We can demonstrate this convention through (x3) other examples that translate well into Modern English:

[1] cataclysm |κατακλυσμός | kataklusmós

κατακλύζω (kataklúzō) – literally meant "to wash away”.

+ "-μός" ("-mós") rendered "κατακλυσμός", “kataklusmós” or "cataclysm", meaning a "great flood".

[2] sarcasm | σαρκασμός | sarkasmós

“σαρκάζω” or “sarkázō” literally, and figuratively meant "tearing apart" or "to tear off the flesh”.

+ "-μός" ("-mós") rendered "σαρκασμός", “sarkasmós” or "sarcasm", meaning "(figuratively) tearing apart".

[3] syllogism | συλλογισμός | sullogismós

συλλογίζομαι (sullogízomai) literally meant "to compute" or "to infer”.

+ "-μός" ("-mós") rendered "συλλογισμός", “sarkasmós”, or "syllogism", meaning an “inference".

The key point with "-μός" ("-mós") is that the ancient Greeks could turn any verb into a word that expressed an abstract concept, or, in more philosophically interesting terms, it could systematize activity into an idea.

-ism | -ισμός | -ismós

The re-bracketing of the suffix "-μός" ("-mós") appended with "-ίζω" ("-ízō") presents us with “-ισμός" ("-ismós") or the suffix "-ism", a convention which systematizes a verb that has been activated from a noun. Very few examples exist in ancient Greek. A suitable example for English mono-linguists can be demonstrated in the word “Sabbath”:

[1] σάββατον | sábbaton literally means “the Sabbath” (borrowed from the Hebrew שבת or "shabát”)

+ "-ίζω" ("-ízō or "-ize") σαββατίζω | sabbatízō means “to make, observe, or keep the Sabbath”

+ "-ισμός" ("-ismós") σαββατισμός | sabbatismós means “the state of making or keeping the Sabbath”

Unlike the ubiquitous "-ismus" of Latin, and the overused "-ism" of Modern English, the ancient Greek "-ismos" is almost NEVER used. The ancient Greeks did NOT shared our zeal for Ismism. When faced with the need to express a NEW word with FRESH meaning, the ancient Greeks built words from either [1] the names of people and objects they directly knew or observed, and [2] active forces they felt or experienced, but NOTas [3] abstract systems.

So, why NOT "Epicureanism"?

The Epicurean path to wisdom recognizes that we EXPERIENCE NATURE DIRECTLY and NOT indirectly as abstract systems. Epicurean philosophy and the phenomena it observes — the sensation of an atomic reality, the feelings of pleasure and pain, and the anticipation of natural patterns — neither depends upon allegiance to a single leader, nor initiation into a secret society, nor longing for a golden age, nor adhering to institutional precepts, nor devotion to a holy ideal.

Christ's resurrection would not be known to the contemporary era without the Gospels.

Muhammad's revelation would not be known to the contemporary era without the Qur'an.

Even without the historical personage of Epicurus, humanity would still have sensed an atomic reality, felt pleasure and pain, and anticipated the patterns of nature. Humanity would still have documented the social changes throughout history, would still have seen the rise and fall of Empires and their ideologies. Humans would still have made choices with the intention of benefitting their lives in avoiding sickness and pursuing pleasure.

Without Jesus of Nazareth, Christians would not recite the Lord's Prayer.

Without Muhammad, Muslims would perform Salah to Mecca five times a day.

Without Epicurus, however, humanity would still have pursued pleasure. NATURE, itself, is so much LARGER, more important, and more fundamental than any one historical personage, including Epicurus. Vocabulary aside, the wise person would still have engaged the natural world, and pursued pleasure to its fullest.

"Epicureanism" (or, also, "Epicurism") carries a connotation – albeit very slightly – that our path to wisdom is just another doctrinal institution that advertises immaterial truths from an untouchable dimension. It is not quite as accurate to categorize seekers of pleasure wisdom as "Epicureanists" who follow "Epicureanism" as it is to identify as "Epicureans" who study "Epicurean philosophy". Our endeavor rests within our own bodies; NATURE, itself, is the greatest teacher.

All that being said …

… for practical purposes, there most certainly isn't anything inherently wrong about employing the term "Epicureanism". The "Epicurean-" part is unchanged, and the "-ism", literally, and harmlessly, identifies a "philosophy". In Modern English, this does correctly indicate our love of natural wisdom, apart from any oath to a mythic principle.

Nonetheless, the employment of "Epicurean philosophy" over “Epicureanism” serves to keep our anticipations FRESH, to indicate to others that our interactions are bigger than disembodied souls paddling ideas back and forth in a court of Mind, and to act as a reminder that the path to wisdom is not a map that has been given to us from an eternal place of perfection, but that we each carry a well-calibrated compass within ourselves to know the world and guide us to happiness.

"DON'T call [my belief system] an -ism!"

While “Epicurean philosophy” may better reflect its own etymological origin (without the “-ism”), it should NOT indicate that the suffix “-ism” should be reserved as a derogation for non-Epicurean ideas, nor exclusively employed as a polemic toward idealism. Even Epicurean philosophy,itself, incorporates atomism, hedonism, naturalism, and materialism; most certainly, these “-isms” are NOT idealistic.

While Epicurean philosophy boasts a unique foundation upon materialism (and lambasts its opponents for idealism), it should also be noted that other ancient Greek schools — ALSO — did NOT employ the “-ism”. Members of Plato's Academy were “Academics”; members of Aristotle's Lyceum with “Peripatetics”; members of Zeno's Stoa were “Stoics”. It was only later that scholars began to employ the terms “Platonism”, “Aristotelianism”, and “Stoicism”.

Furthermore, this same acknowledgment applies to religious traditions:

The earliest rendering of the religion we refer to as Judaism was יהדות or “Yahadút”, from the Hebrew word יהודי “y'hudá” meaning “the Jewish people” and the suffix ־ות (“-ót ) meaning “the tradition of”. The ismed word that we employ — Judaism — is first found in Maccabees 2 in the Koine Greek language by Hellenistic Jews, written around 124 BCE (over a thousand years after the foundation of Hebrew monotheism), rendered as ιουδαϊσμός (“Ioudaismós”).

“Zoroastrianism” is first attested from 1854 as an anglicization of the ancient Greek Ζωροάστρης “Zōroástrēs” (or “Zoroaster”) borrowed from the original Avestan word 𐬰𐬀𐬭𐬀𐬚𐬎𐬱𐬙𐬭𐬀 or “Zarathustra”. Ancient Iranians referred to their religion as 𐬨𐬀𐬰𐬛𐬀𐬌𐬌𐬀𐬯𐬥𐬀 or “Mazdayasna” translating to “worship of Mazda” (sometimes romanized as “Mazdaism”) in which 𐬀𐬯𐬥𐬀 or “Mazda” both expresses the name of the Iranian Creator deity, and also, a word for “wisdom”.

The isming of the religion of post-Classical Arabs has been identified in the contemporary era as being inadequate and largely offensive to the populations who practice it. Until the 20th century, the monotheistic religion of ٱلْإِسْلَام‎, or “al-Islām” was identified by Europeans as "Mohammedanism" (or “Muhammadanism”), inappropriately implying that the prophet Muhammad was divine himself, in the same way that Christians think of Jesus of Nazareth as divine.

People from the Punjab region of India refer to their religious tradition as ਸਿੱਖੀ or “Sikhī”, anglicized to the English-speaking world as “Sikhism”. The word comes from a Sanskrit root शिक्षा or “śikṣā” meaning “to learn” or “to study” (this recognition of the practitioner as a “student” is also found in the Confucian tradition).

The same is true of Hinduism, an anglicization of the Sanskrit सनातन धर्म or "Sanātana Dharma" meaning "Eternal Order". In fact, the word "Hindu" itself was used by non-Indians to refer to people living around the Indus river. Ancient Indo-Iranian populations would have referred to themselves as आर्य or "Arya" (from which we get the term "Aryan").

“Jainism” is first attested from 1858 as an anglicization of the Sanskrit adjective जैन “Jaina”, which comes from the Sanskrit name for the 6^thcentury >em class="western"> tradition जिन or “Jina”. The word “Jina” is related to the verb जि meaning “to conquer” similar to जय “jaya” meaning “victory”. “Jain” literally means “an overcomer” or spiritual “conqueror”.

Our rendering of Buddhism is an anglicization of the original Pali बुद्ध धम्म or "Buddha Dhamma" meaning approximately "The Awakened One's Eternal Law". The first recorded use of “Buddhism” was sometime in the late 18th, or early 19th centuries, after Europeans romanized the spelling of Indic vocabulary.

There is NO direct Chinese equivalent to the word “Confucianism” since it has never been organized as a formal institution. The word was coined in 1836 by Sir Francis Davis, a British sinologist, and second Governor of Hong Kong who reduced the vast collection of ancient Chinese practices into a title named after the philosopher Kǒng Fūzǐ (“Master Kong”). While no single Chinese word or logogram represents the collection of beliefs and practices that developed from the teachings of Master Kong (anglicized as “Confucius”), the word 儒 or “Rú” roughly translates as “man receiving instruction from Heaven” or “scholar” and identifies a student of this collective body of works.

Like early Christians, the ancient Chinese Taoists identified their universal principle as 道 or “Dào”, meaning “road”, “path” or “Way”. In China, the religious tradition is written 道教 or “Dàojiào” pronounced /'daʊ.ʨaʊ/ (or, for English mono-linguists, roughly transliterated as “dow-chyow”). This tradition was anglicized as “Taoism”.

“Shintoism”, the anglicized name for the native religious ideology of Japan provides an interesting example of an ismized tradition. "Shinto” is of Chinese origin, constructed from the Kanji logogram for the words 神 “Shén” (meaning “God”) and 道 “Dào”, (meaning “Way”)rendering 神道 or “Shéndào”. However, native Japanese populations do not employ this as often as they do かむながらのみち or “kan'nagara no michi”, loosely translated as “way of the divine transmitted from time immemorial”). “Shintoism” therefor, is an anglicization of Eastern logograms, inherited from ancient China, used to express a Japanese philosophy.

Christianity is the dominant tradition of the English-speaking world; thus, it has avoided being popularly -ismed, since those who accused other traditions of being mere “-isms” (Renaissance scholars and speakers of Latin) were overwhelmingly Christian, themselves. The rare occasion the word “Christianism” is employed (like “Islamism”), it is typically employed as a derogation by ideological opponents of the tradition suggestion radical and dangerous ideology.

Nonetheless, even early Christians did NOT refer to their wisdom tradition using the same vocabulary as do modern Christians. They used the term της οδου or “tês hodoû”, meaning "The Way". A non-Christian, Greek community in Antioch that first coined the term Χριστιανός or"christianós". Within 70 years, the early Church Father Ignatius of Antioch employed the term of Χριστιανισμός or "Christianismós" to refer to the tradition.

Pleasure Wisdom

Whether we employ the term “Epicureanism”, or the sometimes-preferred “Epicurean philosophy”, the distinguishing feature of Epicurus' wisdom is his insistence that pleasure is the supreme goal of life, that this is a tangible happiness, free from physical pain and emotional anguish, grounded in a knowable reality, formed from particles, sensible to living beings, who feel their way to pleasure, and anticipate the consequences of their choices. No cosmic principle precedes, or supersedes the universe, nor was the universe divined for any purpose greater than the satisfaction of the subjects who enjoy it. The wisdom of pleasure was NOT invented by any one prophet, nor divinely revealed to illuminate humanity; simply, Epicurus was one of many insightful friends who observed this reality, and shared in the wisdom of pleasure.

Cheers, friends!

Works Cited

Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, H.W. Wilson Co., 1988.

Beekes, Robert, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden, Netherlands, Brill, 2010.

Buck, Carl Darling, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages, University of Chicago, 1949, reprinted 1988.

de Vaan, Michiel, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, vol. 7, of Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, Alexander Lubotsky ed., Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Fowler, H.W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford University Press, 1926.

Grose, Francis, A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, London, 1785; 2nd ed., London, 1788; 3rd ed., London, 1796; expanded by others as Lexicon Balatronicum. A Dictionary of Buckish Slang, University Wit, and Pickpocket Eloquence, London, 1811.

Hall, J.R. Clark, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 1894, reprint with supplement by Herbert D. Meritt, University of Toronto Press, 1984.

Johnson, Samuel, A Dictionary of the English Language, London, 1755.

Klein, Dr. Ernest, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1971.

Lewis, Charlton T., and Short, Charles, A New Latin Dictionary, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1891.

Liberman, Anatoly, Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology, University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott, eds., Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press, 1883.

McSparran, Frances, chief editor, The Middle English Compendium, University of Michigan, 2006.

Room, Adrian, Place Names of the World, 2nd ed., McFarland & Co., 2006.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, 1989.

Watkins, Calvert, ed., The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000.

Weekley, Ernest, An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, John Murray, 1921; reprint 1967, Dover Publications.

Whitney, William Dwight, ed., The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, New York: The Century Co., 1902

I'm looking for clarification on the following quotation by De Witt:

"...Epicureanism was primarily a cult of the founder..."

In discussions with Hiram and Charles about Reddit, I was re-reading a familiar passage which contradicts my assertion that Epicurus needs not to have existed for the canon of Epicurean philosophy to have been understood. Is De Witt saying this with regards to the specific behavioral norms that were set within the Gardens? [http://societyofepicurus.com/wp-content/upl…XR_-7-gLNK9bA9c]

...all THAT being said, I think I may need to think on this a little more deeply to digest the terms "Realism", "Naturalism", "Materialism", and "Hedonism", since – according to my own definition – those, too, should be "systems of the ideal" if they are "-isms" at all, which they most certainly are, but also, are not. I think all of my thinking should be tempered against the fact that we can still employ "Epicureanism" in an appropriate, and meaningful way, without succumbing to Idealism.

Joshua identifies an important objection – I also anticipate that ANY and, most likely, ALL members of those -isms will refute my analysis. As Joshua succinctly expresses, they would no doubt say: "Stop calling [my belief] an -ism!"

I'm taking on a sensitive issues with people, because, in an enormous way, "Anti-ismism is a cottage industry!" It REALLY is. In fact, as far as ideologies go, I suspect that this idea is rooted at the foundation of all traditions.

Early Christians referred to their philosophy as ἡ ὁδός or "The Way"; it was a non-Christian, Greek community in Antioch that first coined the term Χριστιανός "Christianus". Within 70 years, the early Church Father Ignatius of Antioch employed the term of Χριστιανισμός or "Christianismos" to refer to the tradition revealed by Christ.

The isming of the religion of post-Classical Arabs has been seen by both modern academics and practitioners as offensive for the exact same reason. Until the 19th or 20th centuries, "Islam" was almost universally referred to by non-Arabs as "Mohammedanism", mistakenly framing Muhammad as being divine, like Christ is to "Christianity"

Our rendering of "Buddhism" is a Germanization of the original Pali बुद्ध धम्म or "Buddha Dhamma", meaning, approximately, "The Awakened One's Eternal Law". The first recorded use of "Buddhism" was sometime in the late 18th, or early 19th centuries, after Europeans romanized Indic vocabulary (Merriam-Webster suggest 1800).

The same is also true of "Hinduism", the Germanization of the Sanskrit or सनातन धर्म "Sanātana Dharma" meaning "Eternal Order". In fact, the word "Hindu", itself was used by non-Indians to refer to people living around the Indus river. Indic populations would have referred to themselves as "Sanatan" or "Arya" (from which we get the term "Aryan".

The term "Atheism" (rendered in its modern form in 1530 as "atheonism", from the ancient Greek ἄθεος "without god[s]") was, in fact, first used by "Atheists" to refer to themselves as a neutral, philosophical; however, as Joshua identified, the term is also used by their detractors to compare their philosophical position to a blind ideology.

I also note that people have taken the philosophical position denoted by "atheism" for millennia, since, at least, pre-Greek (pre-employment of the term ἄθεος), heterodox traditions in ancient India. Along this line of thinking, we should remember that every other belief, tradition, attitude, or religion will apply the same sort of linguistic revision: for Christians, Adam and Eve were the first Christians; for Muslims, they were the first Muslims; and in the example listed above, modern atheists will happily identify members of the ancient Indian tradition of चार्वाक or "C(h)ārvāka" as "atheists", even though some of the contextual nuances of Cārvāka will be lost in translation. For that matter, many of our friends who have adopted the term "atheist" may misinterpret ancient Greek philosophers who were not using ἄθεος, which, at the time, would not have been explicitly used to refute the idea of "God" as we understand it (being framed in a Christian world).

In out effort to identify FRESH expressions from – what I mentioned Heidegger called – originally language, all -isms will necessarily be removed from the context of the language in which they first arose. They will ALWAYS be rooted in the the Modern European tradition of Ismism, the tradition of categorizing other peoples' cultural traditions from the "enlightened" perspective of "objective" academics. Therefor, referring to any wisdom tradition around the globe (whether it be the offensive "Mohammedanism" or the much more neutral "Buddhism"), will usually be seen, in one way or another, as being derogatory to practitioners of that religion, adherents to that tradition, or philosophers of that position.

So, like Josh mentions, my analysis can also – quite reasonably, and responsibly – be applied to the other -isms, especially if we're trying to analyze our misinterpretations using linguistic deconstruction. That being said, for the purposes of using Reddit as a forum to introduce others to our pleasure-based tradition, I still think it would be good practice to avoid using Epicureanism whenever possible, as a means of confronting the fact that the study of nature using our feelings, senses, and anticipations is far-removed from the idealism of every other tradition. In this case, I think we can argue without seeming derogatory to others, that our tradition is NOT an ideology, just like the enterprise of science is not an ideology; whereas Abrahamic, Dharmic, and Platonic traditions require a sense of faith that an eternal, identity exists that is separate from the world of physics, only accessible to us NOW as an idea contained within our minds.

Hiram has used this critique before, but I'll re-iterate, that a succinct way to condense the lengthy points I've explored is simply to say that "we reject ideology" (defined as "systems of the ideal"). In this case, if you'll excuse my continued isming, "Idealism" can be seen as the prototypical -ism amongst all other -isms.

So, why NOT "Epicureanism"?

The path to wisdom demands that we experience nature directly and NOT indirectly as an abstract system. In other words – to connect the last few paragraphs – we should NEVER reduce the immediacy of our experiences to a mere "-ism"; were we to make the mistake of -isming our individual experiences, and the anticipations that develop from that FRESH experience, we will have stunted our own development on the path to wisdom.

Furthermore, while we may all sincerely admire the person of Epicurus, and delight in the historical texts that resulted from the activity of his Garden, our path to wisdom – unlike every other -ismic school of thought – is neither dependent upon allegiance to a centralizing leader, nor upon a golden age of history, nor upon a doctrinal institution. Christianity could not have existed without Christ and his mythic Kingdom of Heaven. Platonism could not have existed without Plato and his mythic World of Forms. Stoicism could not have existed without the Stoics and their Cosmic Virtue. Were these figures never to have existed, no one would have ever truly experienced the fantasies of their mythic promises.

Our EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHY – the natural, undeniable pursuit of pleasure – is not dependent upon Epicurus to have ever existed, because, Nature, itself, is so much larger, more important, and more fundamental than his historical personage. Without the man we call "Epicurus", we still would have sensed the energetic environment of particles around us, felt the churning of feelings of pleasure and pain within us, and anticipated the consequences of our choices. Even if the "Epicur-" part of our philosophy were missing from our language, the philosophy, itself, would be the same. Vocabulary aside, the wise person would still engage the natural world, and pursue pleasure to its fullest.

"Epicureanism" (or, also, "Epicurism") carries a connotation – albeit very slightly – that our path to wisdom is just another -ism, comparable to other doctrinal institutions, that is useful ONLY as an abstract system, advertised to misguided masses who must accept unverifiable truths that have been promised by an unknowable super-person. It is not quite as purposeful to call ourselves "Epicureanists" who follow "Epicureanism" as it is to identify as "Epicureans" who pursue "Epicurean philosophy", the natural path to wisdom. The tools for our endeavor rest within our own, natural bodies; Nature, itself, is the greatest teacher, not "religion", or any other idealisms.

Now, all this being said, for practical purposes, there most certainly isn't anything inherently wrong about employing the term "Epicureanism". The "Epicurean-" part is still the same, and an "-ism" could just mean a "philosophy" which, in Modern English, correctly indicates our loving of wisdom, apart from any oath to a mythic principle. Nonetheless, I will personally choose to write "Epicurean philosophy" whenever possible, to keep my anticipations FRESH, to indicate to other, natural beings that our interactions are bigger than disembodied souls paddling ideas back and forth in a court of Mind, and to remind myself that our path to wisdom is not a map that has been given to us from an eternal place of perfection, but that we each carry a well-calibrated compass within ourselves that knows the world, and guides us to happiness.

(One more, quick, closing thought: no one on this planet deserves the title of "Epicurean" more than a happy dog, and – ironically – they will always be incapable of assigning that title, or receiving it).

On "Epicureanism" and "Epicurean Philosophy"

I've been researching ancient Greek etymology, and have thought a lot about this over the last few days (especially with the anticipation that I'll be collaborating with Charles and Hiram, and release the aforementioned meme on r/Epicurean_Philsophy, knowing that the 9,000+ members of the r/Epicureanism group on Reddit will have questions regarding the differences between our chosen vocabularies).

Herein, I conclude that "Epicureanism" is NOT an appropriate expression of our natural philosophy, and – especially rendered through modern English – "Epicureanism" is NOT an appropriate expression of Epicurus' observations.

Our Greek friends Harris Demitiadis and Elli have presented us with valuable insights into the origins of our terminology, thus, providing us with additional tools through which we can examine our discourse. Admittedly, I have NOT really grasped the key nuances of their points (which I now believe I have come to understand), so I took it upon myself to deconstruct our terminology with the intention of gaining a fresh perspective toward the natural world.

I'd like to start with an etymological investigation. I hope that this investigation provides insight to my fellow English-only-speakers (I, myself, am monolingual), and – please – Elli, if I misinterpret the language, re-direct my mistakes!

-ISMs

As Alex Rios once observed, our English suffix, "-ism" is – correctly, according to both common and academic usages in Modern English – employed to mean a distinctive "doctrine", "theory", "attitude", "belief", "practice", "process", "state", "condition", "religion", "system", or – as he has cited, with fair reason – "philosophy". According to this widespread definition, it is not unreasonable to suppose that adding a simple "-ism" at the end of "the philosophy of Epicurus" should, appropriately and accurately, render the word "Epicureanism", (or even "Epicurism").

In more succinct terms, we can visualize "Epicurean-ism" as "Epicurean-philosophy".

This works for practical purposes, and – as I'm sure you would agree – no one in this thread, or this forum, or this webpage will be mislead by my meaning if I replace "Epicurean-ism" as "Epicurean-philosophy", or vis a versa. HOWEVER, in doing so, I propose that we are missing out an an important teaching opportunity that has been lost in translation.

-ISMVS

Our tradition of adding "-ism" to the end of words – in which we express distinctive "philosophies" – begins in the post-Classical period, corresponding to the Renaissance, the cultural "rebirth" of systems and ideas from the ancient world, translated through the Latin language, using the Roman alphabet, sheathing ancient Greek observations.

(I'm going to call this tradition – in which ALL English-speakers partake – the "Ism-ism", or, in other words, "the systemic practice of adding '-ism' to idea-expressing words". We are ALL, necessarily, Ismists in some respect.)

From the perspective of the contemporary world, the suffix "-ismus" was borrowed from the Old Latin language of the Romans, and appropriated by post-Classical (and Modern) peoples when using New Latin and Contemporary Latin. For centuries, our adherence to Ismism has been helped European thinkers minimize the losses that occur in translation. We find an abundance of "-ism" and "-ismus" in both Romance and Germanic language families, and – as with Latin – they express the meaning of distinctive "doctrines", "theories", "attitudes", "beliefs", and "philosophies".

Here, however, is where we note a difference that our Mediterranean friends have often observed: while the Greek language, like Celtic, and Indic languages, has evolved from a common Indo-European root, these languages have NOT adopted Latin conventions the same way that have Romance and Germanic languages. In the unique case of the Greeks, Latin was – as I'm sure is more than obvious to us all – heavily influenced by the parent of ancient Greek.

-ῐ́ζω | -izō | -ize

According to my research, we receive the Latin "-ismus" from the ancient Greek "-ισμός" ("-ismós"), which, itself, is a bracketing of two other ancient Greek words, those words being "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō") and "-μός" ("-mós"). We'll start with the former word, first. The suffix "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō") was added to nouns to form new verbs. Let's look at (x3) examples:

1. κανονίζω – kanṓnízō – canonize

κανων (kanṓn) – literally referred to a “reed”, and connotatively implied a “measuring rod” or “standard”.

+ "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō" or "-ize") renders "κανονίζω" or "canonize", meaning "to make standard".

2. ἑλληνίζω - Héllēnízō - Hellenize

Ἕλλην (Héllēn) – literally referred to that which is “Greek”.

+ "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō" or "-ize") renders "ἑλληνίζω" or "Hellenize", meaning "to make Greek".

3. συγχρονίζω - súnkhronosízō - synchronize

σύγχρονος (súnkhronos) - literally referred to “synchronous”

+ "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō" or "-ize") renders "συγχρονίζω" or "synchronize", meaning "to make synchronous".

The key point with "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō") – and our Modern English suffix "-ize" – is that we can turn any word into a verb, or, in more philosophically interesting terms, we can ACTIVATE it.

-μός | -mós

The second suffix from which the ancient Greek "-ισμός" ("-ismós") was bracketed is "-μός" ("-mós"). Contrary to the convention of ACTIVATING a word that represents a concept, adding ("-mós") ABSTRACTS an action. We can demonstrate this convention through (x3) more examples that translate well into Modern English:

1.σαρκασμός - sarkasmós - sarcasm

σαρκάζω (sarkázō) – literally, and figuratively meant "tearing apart" or "to tear off the flesh”.

+ "-μός" ("-mós") renders "σαρκασμός" or "sarcasm", meaning "(figuratively) tearing apart".

2. συλλογισμός - sullogismós - syllogism

συλλογίζομαι (sullogízomai) – literally meant "to compute" or "to infer”.

+ "-μός" ("-mós") renders "συλλογισμός" or "syllogism", meaning a "computation" or an "inference".

3. κατακλυσμός - kataklusmós - cataclysm

κατακλύζω (kataklúzō) – literally meant "to wash away”.

+ "-μός" ("-mós") renders "κατακλυσμός" or "cataclysm", meaning a "great flood".

The key point with "-μός" ("-mós") is that the ancient Greeks could turn any active verb into a word that expressed an abstract concept, or, in other words, it could systematize phenomenal activity into an idea.

-ισμός | -ismós | -ism

As I have come to understand it, the re-bracketing of the suffix "-μός" ("-mós"), appended with "-ῐ́ζω" ("-ízō") presents us with "-ισμός" ("-ismós") or "-ism", a convention which systematizes a verb that has been activated from a noun. I was only able to identify five instances of this in ancient Greek, only (x1) of which provides a suitable example:

σάββατον - sábbaton - literally, the “Sabbath” (borrowed from the Hebrew "שַׁבָּת" or "šabbāṯ")

σαββᾰτῐ́ζω - sabbatízō - meaning “to make, observe, or keep the Sabbath”

σαββατισμός - sabbatismós - meaning “the making, observing, or keeping of the Sabbath”

As I mentioned before, unlike the "-ismus" of Latin, and the "-ism" of Modern English, the ancient Greek "-ismos" is almost NEVER used. The ancient Greeks – whose tremendous influence on our own intellectual conventions cannot be overstated – do not seem to have shared our tradition of Ismism.

Here, I'll employ a phrase I first read in a translation of Heidegger's Being and Time: that phrase is originary language. Based on my above research, it seems to me that the ancient Greeks – when faced with the need to express a NEW word with FRESH meaning – built the words that would fill their minds and guide their anticipations from either (1) the names of people and objects they observed, or (2) active forces they experienced, but NOT (3) abstract systems.