I think we're doing good as long as we stay away from partisanship and campaign ads.
Well, I am partisan on some issues -- but I am also a pragmatist (I hope).
I think that's a really good way to put it, as a function of practicality.
Posts by Eikadistes
Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
-
-
[The comment about “far removed from politics” might be a bit overly strong – especially considering the adaptations of Roman Epicureans; viz. the essay “Caesar the Epicurean? A Matter of Life and Death” by Katharina Volk, recently shared by Cassius.]
It's tough to distinguish what is political versus what is not political.
I could see Lysimakhos (King of Thrace) suggesting that Epikouros was being very political when he offered his finance minister, Mithres asylum from a sentence. When you additionally consider that the Epicureans paid Mithres' bail, housed him in the Garden, and then helped him escape ... a few things come to mind. Perhaps the Underground Railroad? Perhaps Edward Snowden (not approving or disapproving one way or another)? Perhaps North Korean refugees, or any of the millions of refugees from the conflict in Rwanda? Seeking asylum in a foreign country to escape punishment is a supremely political maneuver. Epikouros, himself, seemed not to have fit into the culture of Mytilene, so political awareness was important for him to navigate his social context and find the right group of friends.
Then again, Epikouros never held political office, and advised others against doing so.
But he certainly knew how to play the game. He understand inheritance laws, and financial loopholes, and was able to play the system to ensure that non-Athenian residents maintained de facto ownership of the Garden. The residency laws of Athens were written to prevent the very thing Epikouros forced, which was ensuring that the estate was managed by a citizen of Mytilene (Hermarkhos). As far as modern lawyers and inheritance laws go ... that was very political.
Of course, he never engaged in theory, and never promoted a "best form of government".
Though, in the last 10 Key Doctrines, he seems to indicate (to me, at least) that we can pass a moral evaluation on temporary laws, such that they can be categorized as being either "just" or "unjust". Passing that moral evaluation on legislation seems categorically political to my eyes. In fact, that evaluation is often the spark that leads to an impassioned, political debate. Or, to suggest that a wise person will not necessarily follow every law in every context might be interpreted as a suggestion to violate unjust laws, if not doing so leads to greater pain and anguish.
I think we're doing good as long as we stay away from partisanship and campaign ads.
-
Theologically, the Epicureans endorsed the existence of deities, whereas the Indian materialists saw them as being pure fictions of misinformed, human imaginations.
Well…we have to take into account the dangers of "heresy" at the time, and also consider the complete re-definition of the word "gods" by Epicureans. When it comes down to it, don't Epicureans and Charvaka both think about the same of supernatural gods, gods in the sense of Zeus and Ganesh? I suppose that Charvaka rejected them more absolutely, whereas Epicurean philosophy remains open to the psychological/social usefulness of symbols and rituals?
Very true. Neither group tolerated supernatural propositions.
I think that Charvaka philosophers viewed the "religious experience" itself as a delusion and prayer as totally ineffective, whereas Epicureans saw the experience (as he describes early humans encountering inspiring visions in dream-states) as natural (as he did prayer), and of psychological value. I think the Charvaka opinion is a bit more like modern atheists.
Well, I guess that's one of the key points: they were atheists.
-
There is not, to my knowledge, any significant historical link between the two at any point in time.
I need to correct myself here, because Democritus (according to Diogenes) may have travelled to India and learned from the "Gymnosophists". We aren't precisely sure which of the "Gymnosophists" he meant (I'm not sure that the Greeks realized there were a dozen, different, mutually-exlusive Indian philosophies). Pyrrho ran into them as well, but (I maitain) he met Ājīvika philosophers (ancient Indian skeptics). Nonentheless, Democritus' "Gymnosophists" could just as easily have been Vaisheshika atomists, or even Jains (whose theology he may have adopted).
-
Thanks to Don for pointing to that thread. We have several people who are particularly familiar with those philosophies and I seem to recall that Eikadistes' knowledge was particularly detailed.
Indeed.
What do we know about the differences between Epicurean Philosophy and Charvaka / Lokayata?
Hi, Julia!
One of the biggest differences we notes between the Epicurean Tradition and ancient Indian materialism is the tone: Epicurus recommended that we treat our neighbors with respect, whereas the writings of Charvaka are fairly critical and mocking. I like it, personally...
There is no world other than this;
There is no heaven and no hell;
The realm of Shiva and like regions,
are fabricated by stupid imposters. – Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verse 7Theologically, the Epicureans endorsed the existence of deities, whereas the Indian materialists saw them as being pure fictions of misinformed, human imaginations.
The philosophers of the Charvaka tradition also rejected atomism, whereas (interestingly) no less than two, orthodox branches of ancient pre-Hindu philosophy both proposed a form of atomism (and Diogenes Laërtius reports that Democritus, himself, may have travelled to India to advance his education: "Some say that he associated with the Gymnosophists in India".
It is possible that Democritus borrowed atomism from the Vaisheshika tradition.
The Charvaka were physical pluralists, like Empedocles, so they divided the material world into elements, and associated atomism with orthodox, religious philosophy.
Nonetheless, we find many more similarities than differences. Both rejected the afterlife, both contextualized human existence as that of an animal, both saw the emergence of consciousness as a temporary phenomena that will burn out like a candle, both were materialists and hedonists who affirmed that pleasure is the positive goal in life.
An interesting point to note is the framing of Buddhism as the "Middle Way". Whereas Hindu eternalism is on one extreme, so Charvaka was recognized as being the opposite. Contrary to every orthodox philosophy (and a few heterodox), Charvaka also rejected karma and reincarnation.
-
Happy birthday, my friend!
-
PS. I want to add (to be clear) that the skeptic/Skeptic distinction is valid and an important one due to the idiosyncrasies of English.
1,000%
Most "skeptics" I know are actually conspiracy dogmatists.
-
I was a vegetarian between 16 and 24. It suited me OK. To each their own with diet.
Last year, we learned that my wife's EPI medication can only be produced from pig pancreas, so the slaughter of human-like creatures with rational thought is, sadly a necessity to people with illnesses.
-
What would you do if you were Sisyphus?
(For the purposes of Epicurean theology, let's say that Sisyphus was being punished, not by a supernatural being, but by ... Oh, I don't know ... just thinking something random off the top of my head ... crippling economic debt).
Camus said he'd quit pushing the rock. That might work in the case of a petty deity. (You're already in Hell, right?)
Epicurus provides some pointers. Lucretius even speaks to this precise myth:
"In life, too, we have a Sisyphus before our eyes who is bent on asking from the people the rods and cruel axes, and always retires defeated and disappointed." (De Rerum Natura 3.995)
"But even if the wise were tortured on a rack, they would be happy, and only the wise will have gratitude for friends both present and absent alike through both word and through deed. However, when tortured on the rack, at some point they both moan and wail." (Diogenes Laërtius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 10.118)
"We must simultaneously laugh and philosophize and manage a household and administrate the economic affairs and never let go of the language of the true philosophies." (Vatican Saying 41)
Then again...
"Great stresses draw [life] short, and such times [provide] no great abundance. For the stress that is hyperbolic will bring on to death." (Bailey's Fragments 64 and 65)
I think maybe Dr. Seuss summed it up, best:
“So be sure when you step, Step with care and great tact.
And remember that life's A Great Balancing Act." -
Bryan 's dedicated transcription of Demetrios of Lakonia's fragments are inspiring. These are exactly the kinds of things I want to amass in a single location for comparison and study.
I took your transcription, put in on twentiers.com and, attempted (...heavy emphasis on "attempted"...) to provide my own translation (that needs improvement) so as not to claim your work.
Anyway! I want to find as many chunks of these sorts of texts as possible, and I mean to do so with respect to the original sources, therefore, if you can, please let me know (any one you) if you come across untranslated chunks that can be added. Likewise, I'm proud to host anyone's translations who would care to contribute to this growing resource. Anyway, thanks for your hard work!
-
Bryan I'm tagging you in another post, so heads-up.
-
Most "Yo, my dude, think about it like this..." pseudo-thinkers I know are lazy eclectics.
I think the Epicurean path requires stated devotion, frankly, like Christians, in admitting that we lack the tools to perfect our own lives, and we need a path to guide us.
My guide is the guy who figured out quantum indeterminism, and doesn't scold me for beating-off. -
-
1 point to Cicero for the salutation
I noticed that as well. Epicurus' Epistles (per Diogenes) all include introductory greetings, except for the Last Letter. Cicero provides us with that stylistic consistency, but with a surprising name.
-
Later, in Methods, Philodemos makes a statement that seems to support what was stated above: “We should refer our notion of the gods to the revelations which take place by mental perception and which guarantee clearly that heavenly and eternal beings exist.”
-
This section on Page 2 seems to assume Hermarkhos as the addressee:
"...diese Wahl fiel ihm um so leichter, als Metrodor und Polyän, unzweifelhaft bedeutendere Köpfe als Hermarch, bereits vor ihm gestorben waren. Hermarchs Bestallung zum Vormund der Kinder seiner beiden toten Freunde (fr. 14) und Epikurs letztes vertrauliches Rundschreiben an alle überlebenden Schüler, deren erster Hermarch nun war (fr. 15), sind zwei überzeugende Beweise für das enge Verbundensein und den vertrauten Verkehr der Mitglieder des Gartens."
"...this choice was all the easier for him because Metrodor and Polyene, undoubtedly more important minds than Hermarch, had already died before him. Hermarch's appointment as guardian of the children of his two dead friends (fr. 14) and Epicurus' last confidential circular all the surviving students, whose first was Hermarch (fr. 15), are two convincing proofs of the close connection and familiar intercourse of the members of the garden" (a rough rendering from Google Translate).
-
I also just remembered this in my Internet Archive favorites. No idea if it'll be helpful, but here it is:
Interestingly, on pages 20-21 of that archived document, the author notes the same discrepancy without providing a particular reasoning as to the the justification thereof.
-
I speculate that Hermarkhos would have made himself available, at least, or even as much as managing the legal transition. In any case, there would have been several, pressing reasons for him to remain at the Garden in Athens. On the other hands, I note that Epicurus wrote numerous letters to Idomeneus and "Friends at Lampsakos" suggesting to me a trend in referring to "Idomeneus & Co.".
-
Then again, upon review, Epicurus directly explains that is is writing the letter to ῡ̔μῖν (plural pronoun in the accusative) meaning "to y'all", so perhaps the letter was to a non-present group (the Garden in Lampsakos vis-a-vis Idomeneus?) It seems unlikely he would have been writing to "y'all" if that group were in his presence, or just sitting in another room, or down the street.
-
Per the Last Will, "Let them make Hermarchus trustee of the funds along with themselves, in order that everything may be done in concert with him, who has grown old with me in philosophy and is left at the head of the School [...] And if anything should happen to Hermarchus before the children of Metrodorus grow up...", so it seems that exhorting one to "watch over the children of Metrodoros" would have been received by their guardian(s), "Hermarchus", and possibly Amynomachus and Timocrates (to whom we know the letter was not addressed).
That's at least one additional bit of support for Cicero's position!
