Posts by Godfrey

Starting with Diogenes Laertius is a good way to get an overview, then reading DeWitt next would give an in-depth view. Then the two Ciceros; I might even read these before DeWitt.

The first I ever heard of Epicurus was when I read Cicero's On The Nature of the Gods. I was trying to come to grips with the Stoic idea of providence... after reading Vellius I haven't touched another Stoic text! So this and On Ends could come before DeWitt, and then when reading DeWitt one would have read most of the basics.

Reading Philebus before Lucretius seems interesting to me as it dovetails well with DeWitt's commentary and really points out the contrast between Epicurus and Plato. By this point one might be ready for Lucretius....

I really wish that I'd had a list like this to work through when I started exploring EP. I did use Elemental Epicureanism (and still do) and Hiram's "getting started" page, but with so little background in philosophy I had no sense of the scope of the texts or the relationships between them.

If this is "my" thread I can only say that I'm learning as much or more than anyone from it and I'm quite grateful for and impressed by everybody's posts!

Both the rise of religion and the subject of "images" belong with this topic and I for one would like to pursue them. Maybe they could be split off into "part 2" and "part 3" threads, if only because this one is getting pretty long.

To focus on "immortal", VS 78 and the end of the letter to Menoeceus mention immortal goods. In the Greek text on Monadnock each of these as well as PD 1 have what appear to be slightly different spellings of the word. I'm clueless about Greek; does anyone know if these variations have any significance to the discussion? (I might not even be looking at the right words, please pardon my ignorance if that's the case.)

The woman in this podcast is Ingrid Fetell Lee, a native English speaker. I'm guessing you're referring to Marie Kondo (Kondo is mentioned in the book though).... Ingrid FL might say to paint your steering wheel yellow or put a hula girl on the dashboard, but wouldn't say to tidy up! She also has a practice of "joyspotting" which is noticing things that bring you joy as you go about your day. She's concerned with things in the environment, but the practice doesn't have to stop there.

Her aesthetics of joy include energy, abundance, freedom, play, transcendence, magic, renewal, and some others that I can't remember. But nothing to do with frugality or minimalism.

I had no idea that the Mormons believe such things!

Just from my reasoning it seems that the gods evolved, are born, and are quite smart about being blissful and staying alive. If they, individually, extend back an eternity then they'd have to be a separate class along with atoms and void, which doesn't seem to be the case.

"Immortal" is a perplexing word. I just Googled the definition and most sources define it as "deathless". This has no implication of extending back in time. But to cloud the issue, one online dictionary says "living forever", which seems ambiguous in this regard. Another definition is "one who's fame is lasting". But these are all definitions of the English word, not the Greek.

I just listened to this podcast, which is an interview with the author of "Joyful" the book I mentioned above.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hac…er_id=505417834

You can listen on the Google Podcasts app, but I can't find a way to link to that.

The interviewer got on my nerves, the interviewee had some thoughtful insights which could be applicable to one pursuing pleasure. They very briefly discussed happiness v joy, then got into a discussion of the 10 aesthetics of joy as described in the book.

Actually, for us moderns, many innovations of Epicurus are common sense. So the ones that aren't (like the gods) uncomfortably challenge us perhaps in a way that he challenged his contemporaries.

According to DeWitt, Epicurus never described the gods as "immortal" but as "incorruptible". He goes on to say:

"The reasoning behind this doctrine of incorruptibility is readily discerned. From the doctrine that nothing exists except atoms and void it follows that the bodies of the gods must be corporeal. Gods are zoa, "animate beings." They are thus units in the ascending order of Nature, as is man. Being in this order and corporeal, they cannot be deathless. If deathlessness were inherent in their nature, they would be in another class by themselves. Since they do belong in the same class as man, it is a logical necessity to think of their incorruptibility as by some means preserved. Since in the cosmos of Epicurus, unlike that of Plato, this incorruptibility lacked a superior being to guarantee its continuance, the sole possibility was that the gods preserved it for themselves by their own vigilance. Thus it must be discerned that just as the happiness of man is self-achieved, so the happiness of the gods is self-preserved."

This brings to mind images of animals wandering the savanna, nomadic tribes, space opera. Also images such as "two faces or a vase?" or "young lady or witch?"

Like many innovations of Epicurus, understanding his take on the gods involves a new way of seeing. Personally, I feel like I just got a new pair of glasses and am still tripping when I descend a staircase.

Yes, the more we discuss various aspects of the philosophy, the clearer the ideas become. There's so much more than is initially evident and it gets more interesting the more I get into it.

And the gods are definitely a juicy topic with which to deepen one's understanding!

Quote

To be clear, I do not believe Epicurus was lying or trying to hedge his religious beliefs.

I agree with this as well.

As a non-philosopher, I'm working my way from a superficial understanding to a deeper understanding of the philosophy. The theory has been put out there that Epicurus was playing it safe on the gods, which is why I asked about that in my initial post. Now I can see the evidence is such that it puts the lie to that idea.

Quote

Lots of these words have multiple meanings but to focus on "required" -- required for what?

Required to exist.

Also in the interest of deepening my understanding of EP, I'm wrestling with the question of whether or not believing in gods is a necessary part of the philosophy. As an atheist from a culture that does not seriously recognize polytheism, it's challenging to adopt a belief in gods. Relating to what I said in my initial post, I think it's a serious question to consider the place of the gods in EP and some evidence of this is the amount of thought given to this by "professional" philosophers.

Diogenes is quite explicit in spelling out various misconceptions of the gods, and I think that these are readily acceptable to anyone practicing EP. And he and Epicurus both state that gods exist. As far as I have gone with this is that it is probable that godlike beings as generally described by Epicurus exist and that the "idealist" versus the "realist" interpretation makes the most sense to me.

Obviously this isn't a superficial topic. I'm finding this discussion very illuminating, apologize if I've offended anyone, and look forward to its continuing.

Hiram, I was actually reading your linked essay, among other things, before starting this thread and was coming to similar conclusions as you did.

As I'm currently understanding the gods, there are several options, including:

- They're theorized from the hierarchy of beings and are probable advanced beings in an infinite universe

- We have a prolepsis of gods. But why couldn't this be simply a concept, similar to justice? To me, this prolepsis doesn't necessitate corporeality. Does a prolepsis mature through various stages (if I'm not mistaken this is DeWitt's take) and if so, wouldn't it be affected by culture?

- The gods are poetry.

None of these, to me, say that the gods are necessary. This goes to Long's idea that Epicurus' necessity is for proper conditions, not an end result. So some version of gods are possible given these conditions, even probable, but are not required.

The Long essay brings significant nuance to the discussion of chance and necessity. Key takeaways for me:

- Necessity for Epicurus is that certain conditions must be met in order for a given thing to happen, as opposed to the idea that the given thing must happen.

- The swerve has an exponentially greater impact on the atoms of the mind than on atoms of standard matter. This is because (as pointed out in today's Daily Lucretian) atoms composing mind are round, lightweight and quick to move as opposed to standard atoms which are rough, heavier and slow to move. This explains why we have free will while the universe is not in total chaos.

Makes perfect sense, but I hadn't made the connections before reading the essay.

Quote from Cassius

The system is not at all "chance" in the sense of chaotic, but is governed by what amounts to "natural law" that arises from the properties of the atoms and the qualities of the bodies that they form.

This is what I was thinking, except I missed the point that the "natural law" arises from properties of atoms. Quite a big oversight on my part: I was imagining the "natural law" arising after the combinations of atoms.

Quote from Cassius

Did Dewitt say that there are MORE immortals than mortals?

On double checking, he said "cannot be less than" the number of mortals. Can you explain his reasoning on this? This is one of the things that baffles me about isonomy.

I'm off to read Long now.

There is so much here to digest, I'll try to narrow down my comments and questions as much as possible to help wrap my head around things. (Cassius, your comments on pleasure are quite interesting and could make another thread in themselves!) For the most part I totally understand and agree with the points made. I'd like to focus on 1) an infinite system, 2) chance, and 3) isonomy.

1) In EP, the number of atoms is infinite. The types of atoms are innumerable. If my thinking is correct, the types of combinations of atoms would therefore be innumerable but not infinite (innumerable type x other innumerable type = seriously innumerable). If the types of combinations were mathematically infinite (although it could be said that, practically speaking, they are infinite) then the probability of any given thing existing in the universe would be 100% and if I'm not mistaken this doesn't seem to be the case in EP.

2) Regarding chance, my understanding is that chance is involved in the combinations of atoms. Once compounds are formed there are properties that affect future combinations, but as a general idea chance is a factor in the Epicurean universe (but not in the life of a wise man). If it were not a factor, then all would be by necessity and such is not the case.

3) Isonomy is where I get completely confused. DeWitt lists three aspects of isonomy: "first, that in an infinite universe perfection is bound to exist as well as imperfection; that is, 'that there must be some surpassing being, than which nothing is better'; second, that the number of these beings, the gods, cannot be less than the number of mortals; and third, that in the universe at large the forces of preservation always prevail over the forces of destruction."

DeWitt also mentions an isonomy of values as well as of things. Perfection and imperfection are values, but they are ideas of man and at the scale of man and not at the scale of the universe, to my understanding. Otherwise, wouldn't they be Platonic Ideals? And how can "equitable apportionment" occur in a chance system? Is the reason for more gods than mortals because the forces of preservation must exceed the forces of destruction in an everlasting universe? I'm completely on board with his third premise of preservation exceeding destruction. My understanding, however, is that that would apply only to the atoms. All else is compounds and is subject to dissolution.

The plot thickens! Yes I'm planning to continue this discussion. Tonight is date night though, so it won't be for a while

Thanks Nate and Cassius! Lots digest....

Lately I've been thinking about the Epicurean gods and would like to share some thoughts.

It's commonly acknowledged here that physics has advanced a great deal since Epicurus' time, but that Epicurean physics is still valid.

As for the gods, although it probably exists I haven't seen any discussion regarding the advance of religious thought since Epicurus. Today in the West there aren't gods, just God. Although valuable, the discussion of Epicurean gods is purely abstract to us living today as Epicurus was responding to the culture he lived in. Today God has replaced the gods, and it seems that is the idea that we must address if we want to truly live EP.

So, firstly, EP completely neuters the current idea of an all powerful God who created the universe and such. Therefore it seems that atheism is the only choice for an Epicurean, at least until further evidence becomes available. For me, having been raised Presbyterian, this isn't a choice that I make lightly even though I've been heading this way for a long time.

Secondly, what could have prompted Epicurus to make such an effort to retain the gods? What are the advantages of religion in general, regardless of which god or gods is/are concerned? Community, shared belief, safety.... He says that there is an anticipation of the gods; could this be simply awe and reverence for the universe we live in? Which I find increases once the idea of god is discarded.

What about Epicurus trying to avoid the charge of impiety? Or was he testing his ideas with the culture he lived in, which is something that we, too, must do.

What exactly is a social contract? Are these pertinent?

- An example of a just withdrawal that comes immediately to mind is the civil rights movement of the 60s. Which leads to the example of current redefinition of societal norms underway. Also the continual pendulum of economic redistribution. These are examples of harm or disadvantage.

- Also involved is the change of relative strength between two parties. One party often initially negotiates from a position of relative weakness, but if their relative strength increases then they renegotiate. Justly, it would seem.

Bailey continues: "...the gloomy billows of care. For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature."

Or Smith: "...This terrifying darkness that enshrouds the mind must be dispelled not by the sun’s rays and the dazzling darts of day, but by study of the superficial aspect and underlying principle of nature."

Quote

Maybe the final point to make is that it's empowering or even scary to think how much of all this is in our own hands, and that we have to decide for ourselves, but I think that's compelled by the nature of the Epicurean universe in which there are no gods telling us what to do and no "ideal patterns" to go by either -- not even any absolute standards of virtue or justice. We're really no different than any other animal -- we're here for only a short time and the best we can do for ourselves is use our time as productively as possible -- with "productively" being judged by the "feeling" we get from our life.

Well said Cassius! This relates to the discussion going on in other threads about the philosophy being a complete system beginning with a world view (physics) and working it's way to the practical application and consequences of that world view.

It's easy to take the physics for granted as it's more or less accepted scientific knowledge these days. Growing up in a primarily monotheistic culture which is at the same time science based, at some point it's necessary to really dig into the ramifications of the physics, and at that point it is "empowering or even scary" to embark on the Epicurean path.

Regarding choices and the hedonic calculus, I've been experimenting with what I might loosely call "Epicurean mindfulness". It's a fledgling attempt to apply the Canon to choices, and I guess the main benefit is to use it as a structure to maximize intuition and feelings. Basically it goes like this:

- Name the problem at hand

- Observe: what do I know about it, what do my senses tell me?

- Pause: just stop, and allow my intuitive mind to do it's work. The feelings tend to weigh in here, probably because I'm not drowning them out with thinking.

- Sometimes that's it; sometimes I add the thought of acting to maximize pleasure and see where that leads.

It's not a formula, but sometimes it's a useful tool in the toolbox fwiw.