Posts by Eikadistes

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

Neo Platonism is the singular most impactful philosophy on all the big theistic religions whether they want to admit it or not.

Quote from ThinkingCat

Is it right that there is no writings directly from Epicurus left?

Not at all. Among those works that have survived are his Epistles to Herodotus, Pythokles, Menoikeus, and Idomeneus, in addition to his Last Will. We have a list Key Doctrines from a similarly named work, and two, preserved lists of Sayings. We have several hundred fragments from Epicurus' works, famously organized by Hermann Usener. In addition to those source materials, we have secondary sources from Epicurean opponents who cite Epicurus directly, or else, Epicureans, themselves, who reinforce the original positions of Epicurus. As Epicurus' school is renown for being doctrinally conservative, we find more historical consistency between ancient Epicureans than with their opponents.

Great use of Firefly, Don !

Quote from ThinkingCat

Anyway my colleague is willing to do cocaine and will go through the come down afterwards because he argue’s that the pleasure outweighs the pain. [...] It could be argued in this scenario that he is being Epicurean?! Thoughts!

Recreational drug use is a natural desire, though unnecessary. If he has performed the appropriate συμμέτρησις (weighing advantages versus disadvantages) and has determined that the high is worth the crash, then it's worth it.

There are a few considerations to cocaine use. First, Epicurus generally recommends against intoxication:

"The wise man will never indulge in drunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet." (Wise Man Saying 13)

Cocaine intoxication stresses the cardiovascular system. At the same time, it tends to provide users with more utility than do depressants (like alcohol.) Beyond a heightened state of alertness that can propel someone to accomplish more tasks, cocaine has been demonstrated to enhance creativity by reinforcing divergent thinking. Of course, long-term, habitual use of the chemical can lead to permanent health complications that should be considered, and withdrawal symptoms (feeling like bugs are crawling under your skin) may weigh the scale against usage.

Epicurus provides another parameter we should consider:

"[S]elf-sufficiency we believe to be a great good, not that we may live on little under all circumstances but that we may be content with little when we do not have plenty, being genuinely convinced that they enjoy luxury most who feel the least need of it" (Epistle To Menoikeus).

Unfortunately for users, cocaine is one of the more expensive drugs, and generally harder to acquire a quality product. Unlike alcohol, which is cheap and ubiquitous, a cocaine habit is much harder to maintain due to socioeconomic factors. The habit depends on availability, and the availability is further determined by affordability. While cocaine might stimulate him in a pleasurable way, there are healthier (and cheaper) ways to achieve a similar high. Additionally, withdrawal symptoms make it harder to focus and generally maintain a healthy equilibrium.

There are also legal consequences to consider:

"It is impossible for the man who secretly violates any article of the social compact to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for until his death he is never sure he will not be detected." (Key Doctrine 35)

"The wise man will not object to go to the courts of law." (Wise Man Saying 19)

The federal statute on limitation for illegal drug use is 5 years, and, depending on your location, and the temperament of law enforcement in your area, using cocaine may make you a target, or an easy arrest. Furthermore, having a record that includes possession charges can complicate future legal struggles. Of course, this is not necessarily a problem if you are a member of the upper class, as law enforcement overwhelmingly targets poor communities.

"[Epicurus] asks himself in his Problems whether the Sage who knows that he will not be found out will do certain things that the laws forbid. He answers, 'an unqualified prediction is not free of difficulty' – which means, 'I shall do it but I do not wish to admit it.' (Plutarch, Against Colotes, 34, p. 1127D)

The law is not absolute and is not necessarily just, and it is up to each of us to determine what is best for ourselves. Overall, I think rare cocaine use is generally fine in healthy adults, of course, to each their own.

"Provided that you do not break the laws or good customs and do not distress any of your neighbors or do harm to your body or squander your pittance, you may indulge your inclination as you please." (Vatican Saying 51)

The image I shared above Pre-Christian Philosophers and Pathfinders of the Way is a contemporary work based on the frescos at the Holy Monastery of Vatopaidi on Mount Athos in the style of Orthodox iconography. The Christian artist depicts Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Homer, and others right alongside St. Paul and Justin Martyr. Many Christian theologians (such as Justin Martyr) have proposed that Plato (for example) went to the Kingdom of Heaven, and apologized for his heresy as a consequence of being born prior to Christ's ministry. Not so for Epicurus.

Quote from ThinkingCat

could anyone briefly summarise why Christianity was a problem for Epicurus

Early Christians could not reconcile the two traditions, and Roman Epicureanism was an ideological competitor to Christian evangelism. "Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, 'What does this pretentious babbler want to say?' Others said, 'He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities.' (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.)" (Acts 17:18 NRSVUE). Whereas elements of Stoicism were incorporated into Christian theology (Providence, a Universal God, etc.), Epicureanism is antithetical to Christianity.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Νο. No, no, no.

My view is that *both* observations have to be made (the "greatest good" does not exist as an ideal form but does exist as a feeling which is our guide), and we have to be flexible enough to keep both in mind at the same time. Only then can we both understand where Plato and friends go wrong, while at the same time understand where Epicurus gets it right.

I think an analogue can be found in the discussion about Epicurean theology on Facebook (i.e. what is the proper descriptor for Epicurean theology? In which case, I proposed that "anti-creationist polytheism" might fit the bill).

Simply invoking the word "the God(s)" immediately invokes Idealistic notions. One responder to the Facebook post seemed to have been stuck on that point, that "the God(s)" necessarily indicates ideas like "Creation", "Fate", and "Magic". In fact, Epicurus used ϴEOΣ without implying anything related to the traditional burden of being a member of a cosmic government or in being a cosmic shepherd to sheep on the other side of the galaxy.

TAΓAϴON seems to have a similar application, in that the word popularly connotes a perfect, transcendental principle, but also literally refers to that objects that create pleasurable feelings, or pleasure itself.

Perhaps, the Paul Bloom would elect to voluntarily receive a physical disability, perhaps, blindness? Maybe he should go to a doctor and request that his eyeballs be removed so he can find more meaning in life.

See, I'm a little confused, because the purpose behind the article is not to inform us about a meaningful life. The purpose of the article is to sell his book. The purpose of the book is not to inform us about a meaningful life. It's to sell copies. He could just publish the PDF online and disseminate it for free (as many of us do). However, he is not. So his primary goal is generate wealth, and wealth is an instrument to pursue desires, and we desire good experiences, not bad ones.

So this guy is selling books to have a pleasant life, but the book tells people that pleasure is evil.

Sure thing, Paul. Sure thing.

I hear that the Ukrainians are currently being blessed with a heightened level of existential meaning.

Perhaps Paul Bloom would like to join them to re-orient himself to a more purposeful life?

Quote from Cassius

the gods are capable of feeling pain, but do not because they have so arranged their affairs so as never to be exposed to it, and in that way of looking at things they would serve as a model for we as humans to also in our own ways arrange our affairs.

This is what makes me envision the Epicurean gods as animals that have undergone countless iterations of self-improvement. I imagine the gods as citizens of an endless universe (a universe without a cosmic government), citizens who have perfected their ability to perpetually, and self-sufficiently maintain a stable, bio-chemical equilibrium so that the consistency of their lifestyle is incapable of being disrupted (including the disruption of death).

Quote from Nate

Quote from Nate

But, to reiterate: Christianity is the biggest reason.

Actually, I take that back.

The biggest culprit in the modern era (because your average American can't be expected to employ historical terminology like "Epicureanism") are restaurateurs, who have changed the definition to mean "foodie".

I think at this point it's not a matter of criticism as much as a complete re-definition of the word.

Quote from Nate

Christianity.

To be fair, Hedonists (albeit Cyrenaics, or Epicureans, or others) have always been accused of excess by their philosophical and religious opponents. One of the first criticisms we find of Epicurus comes from Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus, who accused Epicurus of being a glutton and a pervert.

Even then, Stoics like Seneca, and critics like Cicero, still demonstrate genuine admiration for Epicurus, and recognize that most of his philosophical positions were dignified and respectable.

With the (possible) sole exception of Gassendi and his followers in the Renaissance, Christian clergy, scholars, and theologians have operated on the principle that Epicureanism is at least misguided and at most pure evil. St. Augustine lambasts Epicureanism. Dante degrades Epicureans in his Divine Comedy. Pamela Gordon's excellent book The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus shows how, for millennia, opponents of Epicureanism (primarily Christians) bastardized his name with slurs (primarily accusing him of being effeminate because Christian culture has been so hostile to femininity). The examples are extensive.

But, to reiterate: Christianity is the biggest reason.

(You can read Gordon's book for free at this publicly-hosted location that in no way, shape, or form implicates EpicureanFriends as infringers of copyright: https://librosycultura2.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/gordon…of-epicurus.pdf)

Christianity.

I'm thinking of approaching this from a different angle.

Can we disprove the following assertion?

The gods are grateful to Nature, for, without the eternal atoms, they would not enjoy pleasant lives.

I really like that proposition Joshua . That really answers the question in my mind.

KD1 is just identifying that the gods are immune to the petitions of Earthlings.

It does not provide a blueprint for Humans Pursuing Happiness that discourages the practice of gratitude.

As I read it based on those sources, Hermarchus (and/or Philodemus) were thinking along the following lines:

1. The gods are blessed (KD1).

2. b is an element of the blessed life.

3. The gods must therefor possess b quality.

In the previous citations, the Boys argue that the gods have friends:

1. The gods are blessed (KD1).

2. Friendship is an element of the blessed life.

3. The gods must have friends.

At first glance, this argument does not seems to work for gratitude:

1. The gods are blessed (KD1).

2. Gratitude is an element of the blessed life.

3. The gods must be grateful.

But given the point that Joshua suggested (that "anger" and "favor" in KD1 are not descriptions of the gods' personal qualities, but rather, examples of human provocations toward which the gods are deaf) it seems to be more consistent; I have trouble accepting that living beings that have friends and enjoy having conversations would not experience gratitude toward the blessed nature that allows them to enjoy the pleasure of those friendships.

Quote from Don

Quote from Nate

It seems to me that he (and apparently Hermarchus, based on fragmentary attestation I'm still trying to organize) had concerns about the status of the gods' social lives and their speech patterns

If you compile those sources, I'd be very interested to see them.

My access to primary sources is limited, but these reputable sources feature secondary attestation:

Quote

"One specific thesis is however attributed to Hermarchus, cited at Philodemus On Gods, PHerc. 152/7, col. 13.20–41:25 the gods breathe and are not mute but converse with each other, since felicity is incompatible with lack of conversation. He is even said to have provided an argument: the gods are living beings, and the notion of a living being entails that of breathing, just as that of a fish that of water and of a bird that of wings; breathing, we may infer, is a ‘permanent property’ of the gods. Philodemus col. 4.8–13 adds that their language is Greek. He also tells us, col. 10.25–30, that the Epicureans not only accept the existence of the gods of the Panhellenes but say that there are even more. But we are unable to determine to what extent the ideas found in our later sources may be traced back to Hermarchus and Epicurus." (The Cambridge Guide To Hellenistic Philosophy 456-457)

And also:

Quote

"Philodemus asserts the connection in fr. 13, 'Those who attempt to deprive them of imperishability must [also] deprive them of blessedness'; and the same idea seems to underlie the discussion of the gods' use of language which eh cites from Epicurus' successor Hermarchus in cols. xiii.36-xiv.6:

'And one must say that they use speech and converse with one another; for, he says, we would not consider them more fortunate and indestructible [...] if they did not, but rather similar to mute human beings. For since in fact all of us who are not maimed make use of language, to say that the gods either are maimed or do not resemble us in this respect (there being no other way either they or we could give shape to utterances) is extremely foolish, especially since conversation with those like themselves is a source of indescribable pleasure to the good.'

[...] Hermarchus wrote a treatise Against Empedocles in twenty-two books, and Bernays' suggestion that Plutarch On the Cessation of Oracles 420c-e [...] is derived from it has been generally accepted. Certainly it is the most economical hypothesis that this vast work was both Plutarch's source for the Epicurean attack on Empedocles and Philodemus' for this argument and for the further points about divine physiology for which he cites Hermarchus by name in cols. xiii-xiv." (Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustuns 218-219)

That leads me to another question:

Were/are the god(s) animal(s)?

If not, how can a feeling-being be "eternal" in the temporal sense of things?