Posts by Don

Quote from Godfrey

Very well done Joshua !

Very nice work. I kept imagining a David Attenborough voiceover. I can definitely envision the possibilities with this application now. Thanks, Joshua .

To my eye, Metrodorus looked younger - more youthful - than either Hermarchus or Epicurus.

Epicurus.info : Photos - Capitoline Museum (Rome)

(Μ)ΗΤΡΟΔωΡΟC

(M)etrodōros

Looks like the stone has been repaired, splitting off the initial M.

Epicurus's beard is typically more forked while it looks like Metrodorus's was more round.

I think I've seen the Hermarchos bust referred to as Epicurus in the past, but the base clearly has Hermarchus's name and also a more rounded beard.

Hermarchus's eyes also seem more "sad" (droopy) while Epicurus seems to have a more intense gaze with his brow furrowed in the center.

The base of this statue reads Ἕρμαρχoς Hermarchos and is the image on the book cover to the left.

Quote from Creative Air

Apologies for the long introduction and again I'm grateful for what all of you do here and the knowledge you impart to continue the Epicurean tradition. Thanks!

Thank you! for the heartfelt introduction to yourself and your path. That is an excellent and eloquent first post. No apologies necessary at all for the length! I enjoyed reading it, and you'll find a number of us here with similar backstories.

Welcome to our little virtual Garden! Salve! Χαίρε!

Coming from the world of planning library programs, 7 is great! I would be thrilled with that number of attendees at a book discussion. Congratulations!

There's also Paint.net that's a stripped down GIMP alternative... Although as I understand GIMP is much more robust.

Can't wait to see it!

Here's a post I did last year about DeWitt's "summum bonum fallacy" and the thread includes a link to DeWitt's paper dedicated to the topic, too:

Post

RE: From The "Golden Mean" to tbe "Summum Bonum" - Useful or Deceptive Frames of Reference?

Here are my thoughts on Norman DeWitt’s “Epicurus: The Summum Bonum Fallacy” (1950).

Overall, I’m unimpressed with DeWitt’s aim of using a linguistic quirk between Greek and Latin to make a larger philosophical point. Numerous languages get by with no definite article and can convey as complex and nuanced as any language with a definite article: “Linguists believe the common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, Proto-Indo-European, did not have articles. Most of the languages in this…

Don

February 13, 2022 at 7:27 PM

On Joshua's mention of feral children:

Feral child - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Welcome aboard our little boat, Sonderling

Here's the person Ehrman references about the forged letters:

Diotimus the Stoic - Wikipedia

According to that report, Diotimus was put to death as a result of the lawsuit of Zeno the Epicurean. Ouch! Too bad there aren't more details on all that.

PS

Who Is Diotimus? An Introduction To The Man Who Made An Extraordinary Mistake

INTRODUCTION Of the Ancient Stoics, we know the least about Diotimus. He lived sometime around the early-first-century BC, and he might have known the…

dailystoic.com

I'm getting a similar vibe from humanist vs Humanist as epicurean vs Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

make sure no one gets a "this thread is too old to post in now" message

Fully realizing this thread is almost 2 years old, I've decided to post here since it appears to the most relevant (and to have context that seems applicable to my current question). I thought I'd use the quote from Cassius's post to illustrate why I'm "bumping" this thread instead of starting a new one.

Quote from Joshua

I understand humanism (lowercase) in the strictest sense to be not a philosophy, but an orientation of interest or inquiry. Art can be humanist; it needn't have anything to do with philosophy at all

Agreed and important.

Context: I've been watching some atheist and secular humanist videos on YouTube recently, and it struck me to ask myself: "Am I just a secular humanist and not really an 'Epicurean'? What these people are saying makes sense."

I seem to have come around to the idea that I'm definitely secular (or even secularist) and could be small-h humanist without being capital-H Humanist. To define terms:

secularist: Cambridge gives this definition: 'someone who believes that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country". So, yeah, under those definitions, I would consider myself a secularist.

humanist: Cambridge is a bit less helpful when it comes to "humanist" -" a person who believes in humanism (= the idea that people do not need a god or religion to satisfy their spiritual and emotional needs)" That seems a fairly loose definition of "humanism" but, if that was the definition, I would consider myself a "humanist" under that definition.

So, up to here, yeah, I think I could consider myself a secular humanist... but am I a Secular Humanist.

As shown above there are several Humanist Manifestos including the Amsterdam Declaration to clearly delineate what capital-H Humanists declare as their worldview. There's also the Humanist Manifesto III. This is where the rubber hits the proverbial road. If you look at the Amsterdam Declaration (link above), some of their "declarations" align with Epicureanism (and I provocatively use the -ism form there on purpose) and others do not. Here is the Amsterdam Declaration excerpt of their 7 tenets for easier reference. I've taken the liberty to highlight some issues that do not seem to me to alight with Epicureanism and added some Notes:

Quote

The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.

3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.

4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. [NOTE: Really? This Declaration seems just a little dogmatic from my perspective.] It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination. [NOTE: Set sail in your own little boat free from indoctrination!]

5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.

6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.

7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

Display More

As Cassius pointed out in the thread above, Humanists "declare" certain principles to be universal or to put forward ideals... possible admirable ideals... but what are those ideals based on other than dogmatic assertions.

So, I appreciate your indulgence in my stream of consciousness here. I had to talk this out... So, it appears I can comfortably think of myself as a secular humanist and a "practicing" Epicurean and not be in conflict in my own mind. However, I don't think I am (currently) a Humanist with a capital H.

Thoughts welcomed!

Welcome, Lowri834 !

(mentioned in this episode)

“Although many of us think of ourselves as thinking creatures that feel, biologically we are feeling creatures that think”

— Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, Neuroscientist and author of My Stroke of Insight.

My stroke of insight

Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions -- motion,…

www.ted.com

Start At 25:16

Bart Ehrman mentions the forged letters of "Epicurus" that tried to slander him.

Dr. Ehrman mentions earlier in the podcast that the biblical book of Ecclesiastes relied on Epicurean philosophy! I think DeWitt claims the same thing. I may have to dig into that a little more now.

Full disclaimer: I'm a big fan of Bart Ehrman's from way back.

Quote from TauPhi

the presenter standing in a car park in Athens

Around the 8 min mark

I welcome feedback on the article and what's said in the video. I hope they spark some discussion.