Posts by Don

Hey! Be careful driving!

Quote from Cassius

general recommendation to be prudent in how you go about rocking the boat.

I like that take!

Ah, the Stoics! A thorn in our sides for 2,000 years

Quote from Cassius

A superficial hearing of "pleasure" as the guide of life leaves open the possibility that a human could find pleasure living in a cave on bread and water and never do anything else.

Cassius , I've seen you make the "bread & water + living in a cave" remark before and had some thoughts and questions.

"bread & water": I realize many people see Epicurus's remark about bread and water and that infamous "pot of cheese" as endorsing *only* living on bread and water and the occasional cheese. They posit an ascetic Epicureanism. I agree with you, that's just silly. It seems to be putting a Christian mortification of the flesh back onto Epicureanism. Here's my take:

I do remember some texts talking about Epicurus's occasional fasts as experiments to see how much he could live on and be satisfied. He seems to have wanted to learn what was the minimal level that could provide pleasure. I don't get the impression that that's what he did all the time; otherwise, the occasional nature of those fasts wouldn't have been noteworthy. But it seems to me he did experiment with minimalism. Not as a rule, but I'll call him minimal-curious.

In my interpretation, he does call his students to moderate their pleasures or at least to choose wisely, prudently. Not every pleasure is to be chosen, not every pain is to be avoided.

So, those who posit the "bread and water" diet take one instance as indicative of the whole experience. But it seems to me that you sometimes posit that Epicurus never ate just "bread and water" and that the idea is farcical. I come down somewhere in the middle. The division of desires appears to me to be a roadmap of what desires to pursue. And those you pursue should lead to an overall pleasurable well-being.

"Living in a cave": I don't remember the texts talking about a cave. Am I correct in assuming you use this as hyperbolic shorthand for your opposition to literal interpretations of lathe biosas "live unknown" and "Epicurus forbade being active in politics"? I complete agree that Epicureans shouldn't live in a cave. By Apollo! We have the Garden itself and the importance of friendship ready at hand to dismiss that idea! But... In my interpretation of the texts, there is, as a general rule in Epicurus's teaching, a recommendation to lathe biosas as in "keep your head down." Individuals can have different inclinations and Epicurus and Philodemus (among others) make allowances for those who do find pleasure in politics and an active political life. On the other hand, one is encouraged to write texts and to provide public instruction when invited to. And to start a school but don't attract a crowd, literally not to ὀχλαγωγῆσαι "to court the mob" or "to attract a crowd." So, by no means should Epicureans live in a cave. Leave that to Christian and Tibetan Buddhist monks. But I do see a general recommendation to not rock the boat, and I think this comes from Epicurus's own life experience. That's why, for example, he didn't teach publicly in the agora or a stoa or a gymnasium but taught in his own private property. Now, I also don't think those who see the Gardens as hippy communes have it quite right either. It seems there was a core that lived full time in the Garden including Epicurus (although I'm still not clear if there Garden was attached to his house or separate), senior members like Hermarchus, some slaves, some students, but I get the impression that it also allowed for "commuter students" too. Since they didn't combine their funds, the hippy commune or cult analogy also seems to break down fairly quickly.

To come back to the cave, you appear to advocate a strong, assertive Epicureanism and I think the philosophy makes allowances for those with that disposition. But, generally, I see a philosophy with a more nuanced approach to confronting society. Epicurus was a revolutionary radical thinker and believed he found the best route to achieving eudaimonia. But I think he knew if he tried to boldly proselytize in the agora he'd be risking a lot (see the fate of Socrates, for example) and the philosophy could be lost.

This absence of pain becomes nonsensical too when you take it a translation and replace pleasure with absence of pain, ex:

PD 3. The magnitude of absence of pain is limited by the removal of all pain. Wherever there is absence of pain, so long as it is present, there is no pain either of body or of mind or both. (Hicks)

Quote from Godfrey

Where is it that the Epicurean gods are described as being in human form and speaking Greek? Is that in Cicero? Lucretius? I wonder how that relates to this discussion....

"Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods. Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape. Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own." Xenophanes

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Xenophanes

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

They're both orderly conglomerations of atoms. The gods don't live in a cosmos. They live between cosmoi.

Yes I agree. I am thinking this stems from the proposition that in order to remain deathless they need to be living in an area of perfect calmness, but we're in an area with very little to work with. In this context I wish we had more on the ""similarities" as that might throw more light on the term "orderly conglomeration of atoms."

From what I can read, the "similarities" are simply compounds made up of identical types of atoms. The (realist) gods are "incorruptible" because all their atoms are the same and are constantly being replenished with the same. They're in equilibrium.

For cosmos, here's the LSJ entry:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…7:entry=ko/smos

I just came across another Jackson article ,(pdf) The Gods of Philodemus:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc…7Dxq3P6xcZehnbj

I don't think this is the same one previously posted.

Edit: Hmmm... I'm seeing some similar quotes. If it is the same article, mea culpa.

One thing that struck me this morning is that there has to be a difference between gods and life on other planets. By definition in some sources, the gods "live" in the intermundia/metakosmia - between cosmos. Other forms of life would have to live within a cosmos, on other worlds. If I remember correctly, the texts talk about other cosmoi cosmoses (for lack of a better plural). Whether that translates as "world" or "universe" is irrelevant here. They're both orderly conglomerations of atoms. The gods don't live in a cosmos. They live between cosmoi.

Quote from Godfrey

A prolepsis of the gods is more difficult to sort out: is this prolepsis supposed to be the same in all cultures

Fully agree about the sorting out My take has been that he was taking about a baseline across all cultures (or at least those Epicurus knew about!), and that baseline was incorruptibility άφθαρτος and blessedness μακάριος. That's it. Otherwise, the gods were not as the hoi polloi conceived of them. I love it that hoi polloi "the many" οι πολλοί is literally what Epicurus called other people with ill-conceived ideas about the gods

For trivia: Here's the Ancient Greek word for Thanksgiving:

εὐχαριστία

[eukharistía]

And, yes, it has been incorporated into Christianity as the "Eucharist."

Here's the LSJ entry: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ry=eu)xaristi/a

Food for thought, Cassius . Thanks for digging back into Jackson. Lots to think about.

For the time being, I'm still in the Sedley/idealist camp. From my perspective, either position remains within Epicureanism so we can have a vigorous debate within the big tent

I'm posting because I just had the thought that the reason that prolepses of both justice and the gods are talked about in the texts is because both are thought constructs. The whole prolepses thing is a hard nut to crack.

Glad you found it interesting. I realize it makes reference to other entries in their book but gives enough summary to understand the context of their argument. I thought posting it was a good counterpoint to the realist position stated in the article posted by Godfrey awhile back "The Polytheism of the Epicureans" by Paul T. M. Jackson

I'm sharing a scan from Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (1987). This is their commentary section on "Gods."

As Cassius pointed out on the announcements, Thanksgiving is this week in the US. I feel this is the most Epicurean of holidays with its emphasis on expressing gratitude. In celebration, I share two Vatican Sayings that emphasize this point. Have a safe and joyful holiday to our US friends and for those not in the US, don't forget to take a moment to remember and to take pleasure in the good things you've experienced.

VS 17. It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of. οὐ νέος μακαριστὸς ἀλλὰ γέρων βεβιωκὼς καλῶς· ὁ γὰρ νέος ἀκμῇ πολὺς ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης ἑτεροφρονῶν πλάζεται· ὁ δὲ γέρων καθάπερ ἐν λιμένι τῷ γήρᾳ καθώρμικεν, τὰ πρότερον δυσελπιστούμενα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀσφαλεῖ κατακλείσας χάριτι.

VS 19. He who forgets the good things he had yesterday becomes an old man today. τοῦ γεγονότος ἀμνήμων ἀγαθοῦ γέρων τήμερον γεγένηται.

Oh, I have no qualms about Epicurean aliens! I think this is one philosophy that wouldn't even blink if life on another planet was found. "Duh," said the Epicurean. "That's cool, but we expected that all along." Plus any alien could understand, I'd bet, pleasure and pain so we'd just have to get past the language barrier to explain it.

The gods, on the other hand, are supposed to "live" in the intermundia/metakosmia between worlds. There *may* be beings who could maintain their atomic integrity and live lives of total pleasure, but *personally* I think it more likely that the gods are mental archetypes of the completed Epicurean life.

Lucretius does a good job of conveying that we can talk about Ceres, Bacchus, et al as long as we know we're personifying metaphorically grain and wine etc. Which, in my opinion, bolsters an idealist conception of "the gods" writ large in Epicureanism.

Quote from Susan Hill

Quote from Godfrey

Quote

It's not my personal experience of “the Other”...

Susan would you be comfortable elaborating on this? I'm wondering if that could be helpful in defining what exactly we're discussing.

It gets a bit more complicated if you are talking about Eastern philosophies where you can realize your self (atman/ jiva) as being one with God/Brahman/Perusha etc., but in most cases, an experience of the divine is of something not identical to oneself. It is of a separate consciousness, being, or intelligence.

I've always found Eastern philosophies intriguing, especially their contrast to traditional Western religions. And what you said in some ways strikes at the idealist vs realist debate within Epicureanism. Two essential elements, however, are (1) There is no supernatural creator of the cosmos (The cosmos began and is sustained by the interplay of atoms and void), and (2) The gods have no interest in "governing" the cosmos nor in having interaction with humans. If a realist position is favored, humans can have a prolepsis of the gods, the divine, but it's not a two way street. If idealist, we can use the gods as exemplars of the potential of the Epicurean path. That's a very boiled down summary but those 2 elements, in my understanding, are essential to any form of Epicureanism.

Ah! I see we can react to posts and not just like them. But you have to click on them to see who reacted. Still that's kind of cool

I think the risk is to start to believe you actually are a god. That would certainly be using your imagination!

Just to be clear: I am NOT advocating Epicurean Deity Yoga! I am not going down that kind of syncretic rabbit hole! Just trying to contextualize that peak experience in an Epicurean framework.

Quote

I'm curious why you would say "even you have experienced" peak experiences-- why the "even"? Aren't these just part of being human? I guess there are some people who don't have them but I thought most of us did.

Elayne , I certainly didn't mean any insult or anything derogatory. I sincerely apologize if that was conveyed! That was not my intention!

That "even" was put in for emphasis to show that this is a widespread - possibly universal - phenomenon. One doesn't need to be religious or spiritual.

I now realize I should have used different verbage to get that idea across.

Elayne , I honestly can't tell whether you're open to what I posted or not. Sorry.

Just to clarify:

Quote

It baffles me why imagination is seen as somehow insulting or inferior, vs having a literal image from a literal being.

That's what I was trying to convey, possibly clumsily. In my contextual reinterpretation here of "religious experiences", there are no literal beings. The "idealist" approach honors Epicurus's "there are gods" in the sense of imaginative archetypal concepts of blessedness and incorruptibility. The "images" are generated by humans "toward" the gods.

Those peak experiences - and as you say even you have experienced them - need to be accounted for and placed in a context once one "comes down" from them. "What was that all about?" My offering here is to say those experiences are what it would feel like to be a "god" - the ineffable sensation of pleasure during such an experience is what it would "feel" like to be a god. You're not God or a god, but that's a genuine experience of what it might feel like to embody the blessedness and incorruptibility of what Epicurus wrote. It's a physical manifestation of an archetypal concept using an Epicurean "theological" vocabulary.

I might even go so far as to suggest that that experience itself is the prolepses Epicurus talked about since those experiences seem so widespread.

In re-reading this thread, I began to wonder if the experiences referred to as peak, religious, spiritual, etc. are one way that people can geta taste of the gods' existence.

I am *firmly* in the Sedley "idealist" camp when it comes to Epicurus's gods. I am (mostly) convinced by his arguments, so i do not believe there are actual beings living in the intermundia. But I come back to 2 points:

1. "There are gods" but "they are not as the hoi polloi believe them to be"

2. BUT people *do* have religious, blissful experiences.

How to reconcile these? Maybe those experiences allow some to actualize the existence of those idealized gods in a physical manifestation and literally, for a short time, to feel as if they live as gods. While experiencing the pleasures of blessedness (makarios) one also experiences a sensation of timelessness which feels like incorruptibility. I fully realize this could be going well beyond the opposit pale, but i wanted to at least throw it out there. It's *one* way to reinterpret those real experiences in an Epicurean context.