Posts by Mike Anyayahan

Yup. It's worth looking into. But I feel this happiness is not Eudaemonic as that of Aristotle's.

In the last paragraph of the part XVI of Book 1 of On Ends, Torquatus said "...and that to live happily is nothing else except to live with pleasure.

I"m not sure whether it has o double meaning or a problem in translation.

What about happiness? Is tbere any need to make a distiction between it and pleasure?

Cassius and Hiram Thanks for your kind concern. My family and I are safe. Our place is not in the affected areas, but the areas that are affected especially the places I used to live are now covered with ash fall and mud. Some of them are like ghost towns now. It makes me imagine how the old kingdoms in the desert world were wiped out by sands and mud. Some places are already deserted. Many people are now in various evacuation areas. They left their dogs and other domesticated animals, vehicles, and so on, yet the condition in the evacuation areas is also bad. I can't imagine how families with young children cope up. We're fortunate we live south of Luzon.

Quote from Cassius

If someone is so tightly wound that they can't laugh at a joke like that, then they might claim to belong to a super-fundamentalist Epicurean sect!

lol Humor is the name of the game for me. If the poets of antiquity were melancholic, my poetry is humor. This is why I tell my friends to eat cheese instead of saying cheese when they ask my to take a picture on them.

Quote from Cassius

I think that's an important point. I understand why people do it when they live in a super-religious atmosphere, but "atheism" has always seemed to me the assertion of a negative, rather than the assertion of anything positive, and asserting a negative hardly seems like a unifying them. The Epicurean theology gave them a "positive" to assert, along with the rest of the philosophy, as points of like-mindedness between them.

Yes. Nothing is pleasurable in bothering myself whether or not god exists. It's enough I have figured out my take in this issue, and I move on to something more positive.

Quote from Elayne

Mike, I am glad you are here and want you to stay. I have enjoyed your posts.

I call myself an Epicurean and am atheist in the same sense Epicurus was, in that neither of us believed in supernatural gods.

I am open to the possibility of the gods he talked about. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but I lack the confirmation of intuition and "images" that he experienced. I call myself an Epicurean in general, because I don't think that was the kind of atheism he was opposed to. I am not atheist in respect to his gods.

Thanks Elayne! I'm also glad to know we have similar views on these issues. I'm atheist, but I do not put so much time and effort on atheism. The least I can do in dealing with Epicurean god is to become an apatheist. I don't think it would affect my belief in the rest of Epicurus' thoughts. Again, I'd like to give an analogy. I love eating chicken, but I do not eat the wing part. I remove it and give it away to anyone who likes it. Still, nobody tells that what I have eaten is no longer a chicken...unless I have turned it into a chicken hot dog.

Quote from Oscar

No, the Garden didn't continue uninterrupted and so there's no conservative framework that I'm aware of

Yes. It makes sense, too. As far as I know, The Garden would accept people from different walks of life such as slaves and women. This attitude doesn't show any exclusivity and conservatism.

Quote from Cassius

However if any come to my attention, or I decide to start such an organization, you'll be among the first to know!

And if that happens, what would you think of me who believes in all the teachings of Epicurus except in the context of god?

Quote from Hiram

As far as I'm concerned if you think that we should live pleasantly following the guidelines in L Menoeceus, and if you agree with the basic scientific understanding of the nature of things and reject all supernatural "reality", you can proudly call yourself Epicurean because Epicurean teachings are guiding how you live your life.

Hiram That is also how I think of it. Then, I'm an Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

All of your posts have been very constructive and as far as I am concerned it is very proper that you are here. We aren't in the business of "judging" anyone as a person, we're just evaluating posts as they come in and trying to build a like-minded community.

Thanks Cassius When I came across Epicureanism, I took time studying the basic principles using all the available resources or references I could have such as the original texts, Wikipedia, blogs, social media conversations, and Youtube videos. Immediately, I fell in love with all the teachings of Epicurus...except only in the context of god.

But that does not affect Epicurus' credibility to me since I never dogmatize any philosophical system. I hold on to a philosophical system through understanding of its coherence and not through blind faith.

Therefore, it is not the whole package of the puzzle that I judge but every parts of the puzzle. If most parts of the puzzle are telling me the whole picture, I don't need the last few pieces just to make a judgement. If I make an analogy, I can say I am still a human being even if my hands and feet are cut off.

This is why I did not hesitate to self-declare that I am an Epicurean even though I have doubts on one part which on the context of god.

I'm curious if there is such a thing as conservative Epicureans who demand 100% fidelity to Epicurus, and I want to know whether or not they can consider me an Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

Of course it is "possible" for atheists to be called Epicureans. The question that has to be asked is "Is it proper to call them Epicureans?" And "In what context is it proper or improper to call them Epicureans."

Ok. And what is the proper context to say that an atheist can become Epicurean? I'm an atheist and I don't know if it's proper that I am here. I'm curious.

Quote from elli

Please, do not consider for yourselves either being superior to gods or lower to gods, but equally with gods, as well as please do the same for any being.

But is it possible for atheists to be called Epicureans as well?

Quote from Cassius

Our goal requires only that we find like-minded friends and that we associate with them toward our mutual happiness.

I guess this is the best answer I have come across so far. I also asked this to a group of Stoics and Taoists. I can't remember their answers. My only concern is to what extent we can say we are like-minded.

Things are beginning to make sense to me. I'm a less than a month old self-declared Epicurean, and I do not claim I have completely grasped all the teachings of Epicurus. In fact, I have high respect on all of you guys here for the profoundness of your understanding of Epicureanism.

However, it seems that Epicureanism is not at all different from other isms I've been to especially on the area if fidelity to the original author.

On one hand, it is reasonable to say that you are not an Epicurean if you hold some views that are likely to compromise the fidelity to Epicurus' basic thoughts.

On the other hand, fidelity compromises its power of application to an ever changing world in which the diversity of language and culture continuously evolves. If we say that Epicureanism is not for everyone, what's the point of telling people about it?

I do not say that fidelity is wrong nor express that revisionism is right, but fidelity requires that a system of thought is clear and complete.

We know that most of Epicurus works did not survive. Only a few fragments from other authors of antiquity are available to us. Moreover, the distance of our time from Epicurus is quite long. Who would know what we are all saying here is what exactly what Epicurus was thinking since even the available original texts keep Epicureans divided in thoughts or views?

Nevertheless, it is also reasonable to say that we are not Epicureans if we are too remote from the basic principles of Epicureanism.

My only question is "To what extent should we stop calling someone Epicurean?

Elli This is interesting! Thanks!

Quote from Oscar

Well you've come to the right place, this is the premier online platform to learn the teachings of Epicurus! I don't think any other online Epicurean platform can, currently, say that.

Oscar Yes. That's what I feel. Discussions are very healthy here, and I have already learned so much in just a few days of engagement. Cassius recommended me to read Norman DeWitt's book which I have just downloaded. I long to get deeply into it.

Quote from Oscar

No worries, I've made the same mistake before...

Oscar Yes. It's nice to learn from mistakes. I'm just a less than a month old Epicurean. I have been a Marxist for more than 20 years so adjustment in the language I use is quite a challenge for me so far.

Quote from Oscar

friendship is meant as the most important means to the end that is pleasure.

Oscar Well, you're right. I guess I was wrong when choosing the right words when I mentioned "chief pleasure" while in fact what I meant was the PD 27 "Of all the means which are procured by wisdom to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends."

I stand corrected.

Cassius There is no argument about it because this is not also how I think of "living unknown." I know that Epicurus puts friendship as chief pleasure, and this is diametrically opposed to solitude. Moreover, Epicurus' teachings on justice and and social contract are obviously a sign of active participation in public affairs.

What I think of living invisibly when I say it is simply to live a life free from disturbance and annoyance.