Posts by Joshua

I wrote this post earlier. I wasn't sure if I should post it, since I'm largely out of my depth here. I'll drop it here anyway—think of it as the words of an overconfident contrarian interlocutor. It doesn't really feel like my voice when I read it again; I'm not even sure that it is actually my opinion.

——————

Quote

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

from Karl Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. I've highlighted in bold the passages where he departs significantly (in my view) from Lucretius.

It is true that Lucretius (and Epicurus) developed a critique of religion that derived in part from its role in biological and cultural evolution. But the urging to abandon religious fear—and, by extension, religion's false consolations—is an urging that Epicurus presents on its own foundation. The secondary case—the urging for Man to abandon his soulless economic conditions through revolution—is one that was never made; indeed, one that seems not to have been considered.

A clue to this may be found in Epicurus' refusal to instate in his Garden a Pythagorean-style 'commune', which he believed would betray a lack of trust among its members. Possibly Epicurus would not have been surprised by what followed. What Marx desired was to re-invert the mistaken inversion; to correct what was badly wrong in mankind's relationship with the material, both spiritually and economically—the halo, and the 'vale of tears'. Both of these were best represented in the ancient world by Platonism; it had a class or a caste system. It had an ethereal and incomprehensible metaphysic. It had a political theory, not only descriptive but prescriptive. That was the system Marx inverted. That was the original error whose over-correction and mirror-image was Marxism.

Where Marx and Plato sought to instruct nations, Epicurus addressed himself to individuals. Where Marx and Plato denied to the poor masses¹ the capacity to arrive at metaphysical truths, Epicurus taught even slaves.

Epicurus did not build castles in the air. He developed a philosophy on the ground that was prudent and practical, and tailored to lived experience. It didn't call for a revolution in political life—nor did it call for a philosopher king. It called only for the mental discipline of the student, and a willingness to try.

He didn't engineer a utopia; he plotted the course of a happy life. If he has an heir among political theorists, we should look not to Marx, but to Thomas Jefferson.

———

¹For Marx, the "oppressed"; for Plato, the 'baser metal'.

Yeah, when I was driving long-haul I wanted to make a point of visiting, but I never did get the chance.

Frances Wright's grave is in Cincinnati.

Happened to be in this subforum for another thread, and popped in to this one again. Just an update; my family had planned a trip to Nashville (partly to see the Parthenon mentioned above) in June, but of course the pandemic caused us to cancel. So unfortunately I'll have to make it there another year!

Note; Cassius, you may want to review this thread for placement. I don't know whether this location is already known to us.

There is a house from the 2nd century in Autun that contains a number of fragmentary mosaics portraying the authors Epicurus, Metrodorus, and the poet Anacreon along with inscriptions. In fact, this mosaic provides the rationale for attributing V.S. 14 to Metrodorus rather than Epicurus.

The discovery was made in 1989.

Anacreon: Greek lyric poet, notable for his drinking songs and erotic poems.

Charles, if you're listening, I've found a few names that are more in your line; Jacques Du Rondel; Valentin Phillipe Bertin du Rocheret; and Charles de Marguetel de Saint-Denis de Saint-Evremond, 1614(?)-1703. I'm on lunch right now, I don't have time to pursue all of these threads at the moment but will look into it later! Saint-Evremond might already be known to you?

That's an excellent additional line of inquiry, Godfrey!

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/yahwe…ture-went-wrong

I was thinking about Epicurus' notable appreciation for the Iliad, and his ability to argue his case using the favorite work of his opponents, when I found this article.

The author argues that the amoral and oversexed Pantheon of the pagans was actually preferable to the founding myth of Christianity, where a sexless Yahweh begat an abstinent Jesus by a virginal Mary.

"They fuck you up, your mum and dad", said the English poet Philip Larkin. But that fucking-up started a very long time ago. If we cannot hope for a mass outbreak of Epicurean philosophy, a return to paganism would still be a step back toward sanity from the really wrong path we're on.

Yes indeed, Cassius. It's a very thorny subject. But to come to Gardener's problem, I think that making time for self-care is an excellent idea! We—certainly those of us in America, but I'm sure elsewhere as well—we're too busy.

My experience with meditation was mostly frustrating, but one thing I do greatly miss from my Buddhist days is the morning tea ritual. I must get a teapot again!

It's about making time for a thing, and enjoying it fully. Like Thoreau said;

Quote

I grew in those seasons like corn in the night, and they were far better than any work of the hands would have been. They were not time subtracted from my life, but so much over and above my usual allowance.

This has been an interesting conversation!

In some ways I'm feeling very sheltered from all of this. I work outside everyday in the forests and coves and bayous of the Choctawhatchee, with ample sunshine, gentle breezes, and the lapping sound of the waves of the Gulf of Mexico.

My hometown in Iowa is a major hub of meat-packing, and things are really getting bad there. I'm certainly glad I'm not still driving truck during these times.

Perversely, my most intense personal frustration these days is the would-be prophets in my family and social circle who are interpreting the pandemic as an "end-times" event with increasing urgency. By denying these people omniscience, I am earning for myself an assortment of nicknames of a kind common among cranks; I am "programmed", or a "sheep", or I need to "wake up". You know the kind I mean.

This, too, shall pass.

Here is a poem I shared here a while back. I found it soothing to reread it just now, odd as that might seem.

Excellent thread so far!

Here's a short list off-the-cuff of things I personally consider to be non-negotiable. To be an Epicurean, in other words, is to embrace at least the following;

1. A thoroughgoing materialism. A universe that is strictly material, and strictly natural, with no supernatural element whatsoever.

2. A decisive rejection of an afterlife, and of the worry that there is anything to fear in death.

3. A full-throated endorsement of pleasure as the end or telos of human life. Number 3 seems to be the major sticking point for most.

These are not complete and sufficient Epicurean positions, but they are the major necessary ones.

If I added a 4th point, it would be the dismissal of Absolute Justice, Absolute Morality, Virtue, Duty, etc. These are, where they exist at all, conditional and not absolute.

People for whom point number 1 comes naturally find it increasingly difficult to accept 2, 3, and 4 as they move down the list. So they amend the texts, thereby counterfeiting the whole system, and pass it off as authentic.

And of course, I haven't even mentioned the Canon of epistemology!

I have dabbled in his letters to Atticus, and that might be a promising start for a deeper read. I recall enjoying the Everitt biography, Cassius, although it did take some getting through. I wish I could remember it better; another book lost to the flux of things!

Quote

There is more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than there is that Julius Caesar ever lived.

-Unto the Hills, Billy Graham

Mr. Graham's assertion is too ridiculous to be taken seriously, but it has got me thinking about gaps in my reading. When it comes to the literature of Rome, Cicero looms large. I've read Anthony Everitt's biography. I've read a bit of On Ends, as it pertains to our school. I once had a joint copy of The Republic and The Laws, now lost.

The Loeb collection of Cicero's work runs to 29 volumes. Thanks to Billy Graham, I'll be looking to expand the pagan collection of my small library! I'm curious whether anyone has suggestions on where I should turn my gaze?

Quote

To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he’s a liar. His logic may be airtight but his argument, far from revealing the delusions of living experience, only exposes the limitations of logic.

I tend to overuse this bit from Edward Abbey, but free will is one of the problems it seems especially to apply to.

The relationship of Socrates to his biographer is as striking to me as the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and his creator. Arthur Conan Doyle believed literally in fairies, seances, and the occult, but devised in fiction a character whose law was logic. He was a fantasist who wrote about cold reason in the same way that reasonable people write about fantasy.

It's a shame Socrates didn't write.

It has become rather fashionable among intellectuals to deny free will, hasn't it? Like Charles, I have a friend or two in that camp. Let me rephrase the syllogism in a way that balances the terms;

P1. Pleasure is the end (telos) in nature toward which human life is observed to incline.

P2. If there is an end observed in nature, then the decision to pursue that end is predetermined.

C. Therefore, the decision to pursue pleasure is predetermined.

It is a rather thorny question. Does the syllogism as I have expressed it assume (in premise 2) what it is asked to prove (in the conclusion)? In other words, does the second clause in premise 2 follow necessarily from the first clause? Could I not, for example, choose to pursue an unnatural end? Instead of a choice between pleasure and displeasure, could I choose a third way in which pleasure doesn't factor? Not because I expected a greater pleasure from this third way, but just for some other reason?

Another way of putting it; suppose I granted that pleasure as the telos provided a rationale for my decision; am I also granting, ipso facto, that my decision is predetermined? I'm not so sure.

To put it simply, I suspect that our imaginary interlocutor is begging the question.

We've been cut to 32 hours a week where I work. I've been spending my Monday off in reading; a book called Measuring America by Scottish historian Andro Linklater. There's a chapter here on the friendship between Thomas Jefferson and the Marquis de Condorcet and it's relation to the systemitization of measures. I was delighted to find that Cassius made a post on Condorcet in 2011 on his website.

This is the quote from the above link:

Quote

This resemblance between the moral precepts of all systems of religion, and all sects of philosophy, would be sufficient to prove that they have a foundation independent of the dogmas of those religions, or the principles of those sects. That is, in the moral constitution of man we must seek the basis of his duties, the origin of his ideas of justice and virtue: a truth which the sect of Epicureans approached more nearly than any other; and no circumstance perhaps so much contributed to draw upon it the enmity of all classes of hypocrites….

Happy Twentieth!

A.S. Kline, copyright 2003. Sorry, I should have included attribution!

I found this idly turning through an online collection of Horace's Odes. The last section has features of interest; a plea to quiet the tumult of war, an admonishment of false pride and narcissism, and a dismissal of 'wasted faith in mysteries' so transparently fraudulent.

I suspect that there will be many more fruits ripe for the picking! I'll order the Loeb edition for my collection.

BkI:XVIII Wine

Cultivate no plant, my Varus, before the rows of sacred vines,

set in Tibur’s gentle soil, and by the walls Catilus founded:

because the god decreed all things are hard for those who never drink,

and he gave us no better way to lessen our anxieties.

Deep in wine, who rattles on, about harsh campaigns or poverty?

Who doesn’t rather speak of you, Bacchus, and you, lovely Venus?

And lest the gifts of Liber pass the bounds of moderation set,

we’ve the battle over wine, between the Lapiths and the Centaurs,

as a warning to us all, and the frenzied Thracians, whom Bacchus

hates, when they split right from wrong, by too fine a line of passion.

Lovely Bacchus, I’ll not be the one to stir you, against your will,

nor bring to open light of day what’s hidden under all those leaves.

Hold back the savagery of drums, and the Berecyntian horns,

and those deeds that, afterwards, are followed by a blind self-love,

by pride that lifts its empty head too high, above itself, once more,

and wasted faith in mysteries much more transparent than the glass.

Welcome to Eugenios!

I'm still moving and shaking here in the Florida Panhandle. I recently bought a Dremel rotary tool—I'd like to play around with lost wax carving if I get the time. I really want to cast an Epicurean ring! I also downloaded Blender the other day. I tried a bit of 3d modeling, but that's all a bit over my head. Doesn't hurt to have a "cottage hobby" in a pandemic.