Posts by Clive

Oscar,

No, that is the first time I've seen 'Football Philosophers'. I noticed the Greeks won, but its a pity the goal was scored by Socrates. Thanks for posting it. I have seen the 'Life of Brian' many times - It's one of my favourite films.

I first took notice of Epicurus after I saw a TV program called 'Epicurus on Happiness', which was episode 2 of a series called 'Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness', presented by Alain de Botton. It was taken from his book entitled 'The Consolations of Philosophy'.

I've just looked that up on wikipedia. I didn't remember it, and I haven't read the book.

The only part of the program I actually remembered was the bit about Diogenes of Oenoanda. Since then I have read some books by, and about, Epicurus and the Epicureans. Most recently I have read 'Epicurus and the Pleasant Life' by Haris Dimitriadis, which I find especially interesting because it make a link between Epicurus' philosophy and modern neurobiology, which I also find interesting.

I know that the Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda have been published in a book edited by C.W. Chilton, and probably in 'Epicurus' in Lycia' by Pamela Gordon. But I haven't read either of those books yet because I haven't managed to get hold of them. Also, I haven't yet read David Sedley's 'Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom', even though he is a fellow brit.

Also, I think I read somewhere that Epicurus also said that dreams are made of atoms, didn't he? (or did I imagine that, or dream it?). So the gods were made of the same stuff as dreams?

We still don't really fully understand dreams, in terms of neurobiology (at least, I don't). Some of us now probably think that dreams, thought, feelings, emotions, etc, are holistic properties of the functioning of the brain, probably connected with processes dealing with the sorting of memories and emotions. There can also be a psychological (eg Jungian) interpretation of dreams etc, much of which seems to me to be quite astute (although Jung was open to everything, including, at times, the supernatural)

I personally tend to believe in the most firmly established principles of modern science (which is not necessarily the same as believing anything that any scientist says is true). So, I don't believe in anything that seems to me to be supernatural (although I do also see the need for numinous art). But we can't expect the ancient Greeks to have known about 'science' as we know it. Or to have known what is 'supernatural' and what is not. They lived in a pre-scientific world. I find it quite remarkable that Epicurus was able to achieve the freedom of thought to figure out that the gods have no interest in human affairs so there is no need to be afraid of them. (He could also have said 'assuming they exist' but he didn't say that, so he apparently assumed they did exist and were composed of 'atoms' - like dreams).

I don't need to think that any of the great thinkers of the past were right about everything, in order to be impressed by the things that they were right about.

Likewise, Epicurus spoke about the 'swerve'. That 'atoms' fall down with a 'swerve', because he recognised the need for indeterminacy. We now know that is not very scientifically accurate. But we can't expect Epicurus to have been able to deduce Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The mere fact that Epicurus saw the need to introduce indeterminacy into the 'atomic' model seems quite remarkable to me.

If we want anything better, we will have to take the best of what we have learned from the thinkers of the past, whilst recognising their mistakes, and try to figure it out for ourselves.

For me the most important thing about Epicurus' and the gods is that he said there is no need to be afraid of them. Whether he contradicted himself, or not, I can't decide. We know so little about the actual life of Epicurus. He was chased out of Mytilene (Lesbos), apparently in some danger to himself. I don't know the exact reasons for that. I don't know whether anyone else does. But it indicates to me that he probably did have to be a bit careful about what he said, especially given that his philosophy is about avoidance of pain. Whilst I don't know whether Epicurus said things he didn't really believe, I do have every sympathy with 'heretics' who recant when threatened with mob violence or state violence. (Botticelli, who painted the 'Birth of Venus', which is posted in this thread did the same).

From what we know about it, Epicurus' description of the gods does seem to me to be consistent with his statement that "the gods exist" and the idea that everything consists of atoms and void.

I have to go to to Dorset, tomorrow. While I am there I won't have easy access to the internet. I'll pick up the threads again when I get back home, in a couple of weeks time.

Cassius,

Where did you encounter these "stiff-upper-lipper" stoical English persons? Was it in the US?

Actually we are a mixed bunch. I did know a diagnosed paranoid-schizophrenic English person who said he was a "stoic". He used to try to argue with me about it. But he spent most of his childhood in British colonial Aden and Fiji and then came back to "grey, depressing, England" to be sent to an English 'public school', so he probably had a lot to put up with, one way and another. Sadly he died recently. I miss the talks that I used to have with him about Hellenistic philosophy and other topics.

I am not only "English", but I am descended from long lines of English rural folk, all from the county of Dorset, at least as far back as the 17th century. They were not Epicureans, some of them were Methodists, who could be a bit puritanical. One family member was transported to Botany Bay for being an early attempted trade unionist, then he was reprieved and came back to Dorset. Another was imprisoned in the Winchester Bridewell for poaching. So that might have been enough to make people stoical. But the family relatives who I remember were not really stoics.

After I was expelled from from school, at a young age, for not being sufficiently "stiff-upper-lip", in 1966, just in time for the fabled "summer of love" (1967), I escaped from mono-cultural (at that time - apart from the 'beatniks' and the 'mods' and 'rockers' ) Dorset, and went to live in the multicultural, hippy-rastafarian, ghetto around the Ladbroke Grove area of London. There weren't many "stiff-upper-lippers" around there. I think that experience probably cured me of any residual "stiff-upper-lippism".

Since that time, Britain has become much more multi-cultural, anyway. But there is a fear, in some quarters, that we might sink back into more mono-cultural "stiff-upper-lippism", now that we are "brexiting".

I have never met another self-identified Epicurean person in Britain, Surely there must be some somwhere?

I didn't really encounter Epicureanism until much later. I first took notice of it after I saw two episodes of a popular philosophy series on British TV. One was about Montaigne and the other was about Epicureans. I think the thing that impressed me most (if I remember rightly) was when the presenter was filmed in the ruins of Oenoanda, saying, something like;- "Diogenes of Oenoanda had inscriptions, such as 'buying things will not make you happy', carved into the walls around the market place, and the fragments lay on the ground here for many centuries". That was when I decided that those Epicureans were probably on to something.

Thanks Martin

michelepinto,

True, Europe is not so far. I have no intention of leaving Europe, although unfortunately the country where I live has decided to do so. It wasn't my idea. I voted to 'remain'.

Matthaeus,

Re;- "If you read further up the thread you’ll see that there are three positions modern Epicureans take on the gods issue. Two of which posit that the gods do not actually exist and one (the Traditional view) that they fundamentally do exist".

Yes, I see that now. As I am new to the site I'm still trying to find my way around it.

I don't know exactly how Epicurus thought of the gods,or how modern Epicureans think of them. I suppose I haven't read enough about it. I know that I prefer the 'allegorical and artistic interpretations of the human psyche and nature' version. But I don't know whether Epicurus would have agreed.

Is it possible that Epicurus didn't really know either, but had to say "the gods exist" to avoid accusations of atheism? Then he would have had to fit the gods in with his axiomatic "everything consists of atoms and void", so proposed material gods who existed somewhere else?

I think also Lucretius started De rerum natura with a hymn to Venus as a personification of fertility. My Latin isn't good enough to read it other than in translation.

It's only a suggestion - probably completely wrong. My interest in Epicurus has more to with his advice on how to live a pleasant life than how he thought of the gods, but I have wondered about this, myself, without coming to any firm conclusions.

Some time ago, I started looking for sites about Epicurean philosophy and related topics on the internet. I stored all of the ones that I found in my browser 'bookmarks'. I finally decided that to register with this one, so I logged into it. It usually takes me a while to actually register for new internet sites, because I find the registration procedures, and having to generate new passwords, a bit irksome. But I didn't really have any problems registering for this site, after I finally decided to do it.

I may be wrong about any of this. As I have said elsewhere, I'm not an expert. I am not aware of the point of view that says 'Aristotelian biological thought was an impediment to the advancement of biology', but it may be so. Aristotle wasn't really a scientist. Science, as we now know it, only started much later, probably in the 'Enlightenment'. But certainly not before Francis Bacon. The existence of atoms, as understood in the modern physical/chemical sense, as opposed to Epicurean 'atoms', was only scientifically confirmed in the early 20th century (after Max Planck started the train of thought and enquiry that led to quantum theory). I consider that modern biological understanding only really started with Darwin, in the 19th century. Empirical discoveries have always been made. But I don't know of any systematic biological thought before Aristotle.

Thanks,

I have been interested in Epicurus (and Democritus, Lucretius, Philodemus, and Diogenes of Oenoanda, etc) for several years, now (I have forgotten how long it has been since I first read about Epicurus). I have various other interests, too, which would probably, mostly, be off-topic on this site. I don't study Epicureanism full time and I am not an expert with regard to, either Epicureanism, or philosophy in general.

I am retired and I live in Norwich, England. I do quite a lot of reading in connection with my various interests. I don't know what else to say, really. What else would you like to know about me?

I think I agree with elli.

Re;- "These deities are described in the Theogony and Metamorphosis as having identical emotions as mortal beings". Surely that is because some of them are personifications of natural psychological forces, isn't it? Others may also be personifications of natural physical forces, such as storms and earthquakes (Poseidon). As we know, now, the emotions are mediated by the limbic system, which evolved before the cortex, in order to preserve cellular homeostasis. Of course, Hesiod, Ovid, or Epicurus, couldn't have known about Darwinian evolution or homeostasis because the systematic study of biology only really got started with Aristotle.

We don't have to worship the gods, we don't need to be afraid of them, and we don't have to agree with Hesiod (or even Ovid) about our general approach to life, but we should recognise that these emotions exist, and we need to deal with them through art, as well as through science and philosophy.