Posts by Eikadistes

Quote from Don

All evidence points to Plato making Atlantis up for rhetorical purposes. Everybody points back to him.

Yep, yep, yep! Plato is the singular author of that allegory, and Aristotle confirms it.

On thing I'd like to add:

Only 13 years before Plato published the Timaeus (c. 360 BCE) while living in Athens, the city of Helike literally became "submerged" in the ocean due to a rare seismic event (c. 373).

If Plato didn't witness it with his own eyes, he almost certainly would have felt the seismic shock, followed shortly thereafter by the news of a horrific event just miles East of him. And if he didn't feel the shock, he definitely would have spent the next few months discussing the narrative of a known, friendly city that sank into the sea, (so long as that event captured public interest).

I maintain Helike was the inspiration behind the fate Plato assigns to his allegorical city.

Thanks for the support, Bryan ! I'm glad you like it.

Definitely let me know if there's anything you'd like to see up there.

Quote from Singleton

after finally deleting all my social media accounts

Me, too! 'Tis the season!

There are also a lot of historical trends in our culture (writing this within the borders of America) that reinforce the tone we identify as Stoic . It seems at odds with the tone that was cultivated in the Garden. As Pamela Gordon describes in The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus, Europeans slowly began to (negatively) "feminize" Epicurean teachings by associating Epicurus with traits that were not culturally valued (those traits largely being unfair stereotypes of women). Compared with the medieval stereotype of Epicureans, Stoics were seen as disciplined men of action, cunning, bold, dutiful, and admirably political. As I have witnessed throughout my life, too many of my male friends believe in suffering in silence, and too many women I know fear that their value might only be worth the chores they accomplish at home, and some even view (enviably, I argue ... though I think that is the case with men, too. Despite rejection of feminine men, your average "masculine" American man spends a lot of time watching sculpted male athletes rub against each other on a field, so I honestly question how "masculine" anyone is, really...) but anyway, I think too many women I know view women without children, who pursue careers (etc.) as "missing something". Even though less than 1% of our population identifies as being trans-women, politicians are obsessed with demonizing those people, largely because they do not cling to the harmful stereotype with which the rest of us are faced. Likewise, we (historically) has levied criticism against "masculine" females and "feminine" males. We're obsessed with allowing one's sex to define individual choices we make throughout our lives, and Stoicism (among other philosophies ... the Peripatetics are also very guilty of this) reinforces some of those harmful, culturally-biased perspectives. The notion that American man are anything but "stoic" seems to repulse traditional minds, and we often, with prejudice, look at femininity as a weakness, and something that is embarrassing or even shameful.

To popularize Epicureanism, we'd either need to hope that the rest of our culture becomes more thoughtful, more observant of nature, more welcoming toward women, more tolerant of cultural differences, more critical of prevailing beliefs ... or, we'd need to change Epicureanism. As Epicurus wrote, "Never did I reach to please the masses, for truly what pleases them, I did not understand, but what I understood was far away from their perception" (U187). I'm just grateful for (here's another shameless plug for Nature's God by Matthew Stewart) the Epicureans throughout American history that have acted as bulwarks against traditional assumptions that were reinforced, over thousands of years by the philosophies of Epicurus' opponents, like Christian superstition, Aristotle's misogyny, Plato's ableism, and the Stoic paradigm of emotions being undesirable disturbances.

Greetings, all!

I'm centralizing some of the Epicurean art, merchandise, and related paraphernalia I've created in the Epicurean Emporium. My wife was previously hosting some of the material – including her historical portraits and digital illustrations – on Etsy and RedBubble, but we've made some changes, so it is now available through https://twentiers-shop.fourthwall.com/.

I'm still uploading things and organizing the navigation. It's a big bucket of products right now, but I'm working it out.

I'm also hosting a digital copy of The Hedonicon through the site. As I posted elsewhere, I jumped off of Musk and Zuckerberg's platforms, and I'd like to move away from Bezos' as much as possible, too, so I've ported e-book to this site. It's better, anyway. Amazon only pays the author/editor pennies for a cheap e-book or kindle file, and this site isn't quite as hungry.

In a modern context, with our advances in water treatment (so we don't have to spike our drinks to kill parasites), I speculate that Metrodoros mighty apply his advice about casual sex to drinking:

"I hear that a profuse change throughout your flesh disposes you toward [drinking alcohol]. As long as you neither disregard the laws, nor dismiss those reasonably established customs, nor distress any of the neighbors, nor damage your flesh, nor deplete what is necessary, do as you please according to your own preference. It is impossible however not to be a little constrained by at least one of these complications; therefore [drinking alcohol] is never advantageous, and desirable only if it has not caused harm." (Vatican Saying 51, but replacing "Aphrodisian intercourse" with "drinking".)

That's a great video!

Are we sure this was created by A.I.? I only ask because it looks really good, and seems to be accurate. I have to assume that a digital artist created this from a geographical image of ruins. A.I. would probably make up something that isn't true and generate a generic Greek-ish sort of scene.

Pietro Galifi, Stefano Moretti, and Alessandro Furlan are digital artists that founded Altair4 Multimedia Archeo3D Production, so I would be surprised if they put their name on anything developed by A.I. I want to make sure the real artists get credit where credit is due.

Quote from ranc1

CBT and modern self-help books are mostly based on stoicism and neurotypical people view social anxiety through the filter of stoicism - which does not work in real life and it is actually damaging.

This is a great observation many of us have also observed. Welcome!

Merry Eikas and Happy Hegemon Day!

I just wanted to take a minute and thank Cassius for hosting this site, and to the admins for maintaining it. I have completely removed myself from Meta and several other social media sites that now seem to me to be instruments of politics.

It is heartening to find this harbor in the storm of digital intercourse.

Quote from DaveT

Hello, Martin. I appreciate your welcome message. I first became familiar with Epicurus' through Matthew Stewart's book, Nature's God. He traced the impact of Epicurus' thoughts in De Rerum Natura through early American history and it's impact on Thomas Jefferson and other leaders of the revolution in formulating the goals of American national goals of achieving Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

As a now retired attorney and an author, I have always been fascinated with the historical underpinnings of the founding of the United States. Now, having been exposed to Epicurus, as well as my own newly begun comparative study of the ancient Greek philosophers with Epicureanism I've happily discovered EpicureanFriends.com and this community. I'm hoping to deepen my understanding of past and present philosophy through this community. Best, Dave

See, guys! I keep harping on everyone to read Nature's God. (It is so good!)

Also, welcome, Dave! We're happy to have you.

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Eikadistes

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.

Quote from Pacatus

[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.

Quote from Julia

Quote from Eikadistes

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.

Quote from Julia

Quote from Eikadistes

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).

Quote from Cassius

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.

Quote from Julia

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 7

Theologically, 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!

Quote from Don

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."