Posts by Mathitis Kipouros

Quote from Cassius

It is definitely taking longer to make progress then I had hoped, but I do think the participants here already have helped build a resource the likes of which have not been available for a very long time. And we have taken steps to identify a core of people who are not content to define their goal in life as a pseudonym for nothingness.

I think most of us here already can articulate that vision in core terms that are sufficient for our day to day use, even while we enjoy pursuing further details.

As I see it, this is the "base camp" for the "strain" of Epicurean Philosophy you're promoting. I use "strain", because, [apparently to me] like it or not, this is an alternate path from the popular consensus, and from the academy; this comes from my yet-very-poor knowledge about this "strain". But if I were wrong (and I've already found the thread about Epicurean documents - from Charles - that makes me think that perhaps I am), this could be the "base camp of Classical Epicurean Philosophy", and an effort would be worth it to promote it as such, and also to keep the quality and level of posting around here "high" (as it seems to me you're doing already).

Quote from Cassius

so the issue is how to find and connect with those, who aren't necessarily going to be found on Facebook or Reddit or Twitter, or hanging out in philosophy interest groups (the last of which is possibly the most toxic of all, as it appeals to eclecticism and skepticism).

From the basis of what I said lines above, I would suggest exploring the possibility to create a "wiki-style" section of the platform, where users with the right privileges would write and edit the resources put there, and that could be accesible from the outside as the go-to place of everything Classical Epicureanism. This wiki would allow to keep the forum focused on conversations, and have a separate side for definitions and reference to resources. Easier said than done, I would guess. But I've seen it applied to many different groups of interest throughout the internet, so perhaps it is feasible. One of the advantages of it is that you could keep this forum closed from the search engines to allow for the privacy need for quality discussion and conversations, and have the wiki with all the accepted definitions open to anyone with access to a search engine; and when somebody looks for something they've heard about, they would come up with the wiki, instead of another source of the academic consensus that could get them confused.

Quote from Cassius

Good thoughts. What word would you suggest as more appropriate than "activism"?

Quote from Don

but even DeWitt used it to describe Epicureanism.

That's what I was going to propose; looking if Dewitt proposed something.

Quote from Don

the word that maybe best describes what you're proposing is evangelism.

This came to mind as well. But I do think that, while evangelism has been used more often in secular contexts (it's even used in the to talk about the promotion of consumer products), it does have a religious load within it that may deter some people who would otherwise get interested and benefit from these "teachings towards living a good life".

Having said that, we do not need to go around using it in every propagandistic (talk about loaded terms) effort. It could be used as a word that "within the circle" is clearly defined as not relgious, and used only in its secular connotation of bringing the good news; a connotation that, apparently is recognized (from the Wiktionary):

Etymology[edit]

From Old French évangéliser, from Latin evangelizare, from Ancient Greek εὐαγγελίζω (euangelízō)

Verb[edit]

evangelize (third-person singular simple present evangelizes, present participle evangelizing, simple past and past participle evangelized)

1. To tell people about (a particular branch of) Christianity, especially in order to convert them; to preach the gospel to. quotations ▼
2. To preach any ideology to those who have not yet been converted to it. quotations ▼
3. To be enthusiastic about something, and to attempt to share that enthusiasm with others; to promote.

None of the ones I put in bold talk about having the goal of converting anyone, bu rather more about where the effort is focused and that it implies some joy on the part of the promoter, which I guess are rather descriptive of what we're talking about in this thread.

So perhaps, if it were clearly stated, somewhere around the site, that the meaning of the word as used here absolutely does not imply the religious connotation, it could be used to clearly convey what we're talking about; and if we (as DeWitt does in his book about having a need to constantly remind of the falsehoods attributed to Epicurus) take the time to make the necessary clarification in the posts or communications more directed towards newer audiences, we would be diminishing the risk of confusion.

Apparently the word was coopted by religion later, but at the beginning it didn't have that religious connotation. I kept reading and I found this about its etimology:

Latin[edit]

Etymology[edit]

Late Latin borrowing from rare Ancient Greek εὐαγγελίζω (euangelízō), active voice variant of deponent εὐαγγελίζομαι (euangelízomai, “I bring good news; I preach the Gospel”), from εὐ- (eu-, “good”) +‎ ἄγγελος (ángelos, “messenger, envoy”), of uncertain origin.

Ancient Greek[edit]

Etymology[edit]

Cognate with Mycenaean Greek 𐀀𐀐𐀫 (a-ke-ro), but origin uncertain. Probably a loanword, and probably related to ἄγγαρος (ángaros, “Persian mounted courier”) (whence Latin angarius), which is probably from an East Asian language...

Noun[edit]

ἄγγελος • (ángelos) m (genitive ᾰ̓γγέλου); second declension (Epic, Attic, Ionic, Doric, Koine)

1. a messenger
2. one that announces
3. (later) angel, heavenly spirit

This may be a bit off-topic, but I must say the title is a bit misleading with the “activism” in it. Perhaps I’m mistaken but for me it connotes political and or social change-seeking activities.

Other than that, I can only complement by sharing that it’s noteworthy for me that you didn’t include the Dewitt's thread as one of the places to engage more in order to have more of the dabbling Epicureans dive deeper.

Also, the Lucretius podcast is a lot of fun, but it is indeed (and I think you may have implied this too in one of your posts) a bit harder to digest for people new to the Epicurean philosophy since, even though you guys do a great job at trying to make it relatable to this newer audience (believe me, it’s part of what’s gotten me hooked), it’s not addressing directly the common confusions that exist, and that I assume you bundle in “neo-Epicureanism”.

Oh, and also, I like the overall strategy you’re proposing here, great work; I’m looking forward to know more about this Epicurean College.

Hello,

I’m a bit interested in knowing where Epicurean Philosophy falls in the more general classifications that exist in philosophy. My desire is to be able to perhaps later expand my exploration of philosophy further from epicurean philosophy while being able to stick to the same “camp”, so to speak. The reason for this is that so far what I’ve read I’m liking, so I’m trying to somewhat approximate to the essence of it, so as to be able to find relations to later philosophers that are in the same camp but perhaps not explicitly Epicurean, since, from what I read in Dewitt’s synoptic view, the influence of Epicurus has passed-on rather unacknowledged. I’m no philosopher nor I’m knowledgeable in the history of the subject so I’m throwing punches in the dark here; please bear that in mind as you read.

So... from a reddit post that seemed somewhat serious I gathered the following:

1. When it comes to ontology, there is a spectrum (I’m not assuming this is the whole spectrum) where you could put materialism on one side and idealism on the other. Assuming this is true, would you say Epicureanism falls within materialism and “Platonism” (does such a thing as Platonism exist? Would it be Stoicism instead?) falls within idealism?

2. When it comes to epistemology, there would be a spectrum where empiricism would be on one side and rationalism in the other. (The difference of the two, according the the author of the post, is that the former uses “a posteriori” justifications and the latter uses “a priori” justifications). This is more confusing for me, because I’d think that regarding to knowledge of ethics Epicureanism is empiric, but when it comes to physics knowledge, it seems to me that they were using quite a bit of this “rationalism”. So... where would you say Epicureanism falls within this “epistemological spectrum” (assuming that this is even a thing).

I ignore if there are others classifications that could be used for the different segments of a philosophical system, but if there are, please expand.

Thanks in advance!

Quote from Cassius

Also please don't interpret my comments on the DeWitt book as a "RTFM" response

Haha, no, I didn't take it like that, but thanks for clarifying.

Thanks guys for that welcoming exchange. It was very fun. I'll see you around the forum.

Quote from Don

As Epicureans, we have to respect the natural limits of our abilities. We can't solve the world's problems by ourselves.

Thanks for this post. The first time I skimmed by it but as I see it know it definitely was the basis for what I posted a few lines upstream, now that I had the time to come back and wirte a bit. I'd love your comments about it if possible Don

Quote from Martin

Sedley's article referenced by Cassius above is probably a good read for the topic.

Yes I downloaded it for reading later. Thanks Cassius

Thanks for your perspective Martin - also, the aeon article was a great recommendation on the topic.

Quote from Cassius

As another example, I regularly regret that the ancient Epicureans had to face the decline and fall of their civilization to Christianity, but I try to budget the time I spend on that to a minimum since unless I am able to build a time machine before I die, there is precious little I can do about it!

I would love to get more into this, without having an opinion about it, and mostly out of curiosity, but I don't know if you guys would regard this thread as the place for that, or that the thread has already taken many ramifications and whether that is ideal for the organization of information in the forum. Anyhow, and a bit related to this... I discovered the discord today. I bumped into Charles there and we talked (or I guess I did, I don't know if he endorses what I'm saying) how that (discord) could be an environment prone for discussion of less organized ideas, ans possibly to dispell the doubts of new students like myself.

Quote from Cassius

39. The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus."

Thanks Cassius

First question: This is the 39th passage from what text? Are there any arguments related to it that could give a logical explanation of why this is the case?

I guess that what could bother me is if there would not be a logical path traced by the philosophy that could lead the most people to care about those who need help/guidance to get out of their dire situation, which I, somehow, and it could be my years of catholic indoctrination, believe is something that could be to the benefit/pleasure of most. I wish there were an argument in favor of this from within the philosophy. This is what Don addressed quoting something outside the philosophy.

But I do recognize that we need to be aware of the limits. I was reading the other day that "complete" communication can only happen when two people are physically together. The person talking about it, a scientist, specifically a philologist, quoted many studies that said this is empirically proven (that a message conveyed directly, looking at the other person, and their body language and gestures is more complete and better communication than just talking without being there or, I guess even worse, "texting").

So what I'm trying to say in this last paragraph is... I guess... that perhaps if all of us were aware of what's good for us, what's pleasureable and painful, we could see the pain being relieved, the pleasure being experienced, if we focused only on improving the dire situations of the people that our within our reach. So there's probably no point in starting a non profit to help the most people that you're probably never going to even meet (unless I'm going to get a lot of pleasure from the starting up of the organization, but this would be beside the point); if you don't get this pleasure, perhaps your efforts would be better spent trying to help those who are actually within your reach, if I come accross them (or seeking them if that brings you pleasure); and if you enjoyed communication, and had a pain brought to you from the awareness of the dire situation of many people, bringing this sort of arguments to the most people within our reach would be the most effective way of helping.

Is there anything said within the philosophy about spreading its message? Oh my... I didn't mean to get evangelical... it just happened. But having these arguments at hand as a reminder for yourself and in case you get in a conversation about it with a non epicurean would be very valuable.

Quote from Cassius

First, I do not think it would be correct to say that Epicurus would have considered some abstractions "good" and some "bad." Good and bad are themselves abstractions and the issue is not that some abstractions are good and bad; the issue is always ultimately (1) abstractions do not exist outside our minds and (2) ultimately it is always pleasure and pain that are of significance to us.

This is clarifying, thanks.

Quote from Cassius

So we come back to the analogy that abstractions are like "virtue" - they are tools of great power that are natural for us to use toward the natural end of pleasant living, but when considered to be ends in themselves they can lead to great error and more pain / less pleasure.

This is one of the main takeaways for me from listening to the podcast. Because the popular discourse doesn't address very well what the position of the Philosophy with respect to virtue is. I'm sure I'm not using the right words, but what I'm talking about is the need for virtue in order to be able to rely on pleasure/pain, and the uselessness of virtue without it. Echoes of the "disconnect" that Erich Fromm used to write about come to mind. And of course, ying/yang, right/left brain, and all the others we've heard about.

Taking this sidetrack a bit further... This disconnect is real, though. I'd bet that to the regular person, when you tell them to become aware of what they're feeling, to get out of their mind, the last thing that comes to their mind is to address what they can identify as pleasurable or painful. Even in guided meditation, where one of the main techniques is to become aware of the senstaions in your body, making a value judgement about what feels painful or pleasureable is completely out of the question. This is radical stuff. And it's been squeezed out of us for years (our connection to pleasure/pain). Or at least it hasnt been addressed for development as the rational part of us has. So interesting...

Please, as you read this post, bear in mind I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate as a way to help my understanding of the philosophy.

Quote from Martin

We feel empathy with the less fortunate and the downtrodden. If we did not care at all for them, we would feel pain. Helping some of them where we can with reasonable effort increases our pleasure.

Moreover, caring for the less fortunate and the downtrodden may make it less likely that our security and thereby pleasure is threatened by violent revolutions or crimes committed under the pretext of justice for the less fortunate and the downtrodden.

Yes. The hard part is being able to connect your lack of action with its potential consequences that far in the future. Is there anything said about immediate vs. long term pleasure?

Also, when you see a man begging for change in the street, old and tired, the pain you feel in your stomach and heart (which I think is a feeling inherent to us, and most animals; inherent as language is an materially inherent faculty of humans - as I understand from the little I've read/heard of Chomsky) will not go away if you give him change. Perhaps if you give him enough to stop begging for the day, or the week, you may feel a bit better; but perhaps you may even feel bad because you're taking the whole responsibility by yourself, to the detriment of your finances (assuming you decided to be his sponsor for the week). This opens two other ramifiations:

1.- The problem is societal.

It becomes apparent that if you decide to address your pain, the solution is not to take it upon yourself to solve it by yourself. It is something that would be better solved as an organized society. This opens the posibility with more probability for a negative balance (a lot of work not necessarily aligned with what makes you flow, perhaps not that satisfactory in terms of the effectiveness of said work, time away from pleasurable things/experiences, political exposure, etc.) than a positive balance if you decide to solve it by yourself; so solving it as a group is the most pleasureable way for everybody; thus, involvement in state matters is something that could bring you more pleasure in the long run than not. What's the approach of Epicurean philosophy to this problem?

2.- The most pleasureable solution is to ignore it.

The second time you ignore it you start to become numb to the situation. And then the problem persists, but you're less aware of it. And then, when somebody even brings it up, you're probably so jaded you not only ignore the person but perhaps even think of him as a fool.

I guess, one expectation of somebody new to Epicurean philosophy would be to find that it comprised an extrapolation of the immediate pain/pleasure morality to something that would make it easier to find a well stated argument in favor of investing yourself in the formation of a society conducive to increasing the pleasure of everybody in the long term.

Quote from Martin

The swerve is not evidence for the existence of free will but a precondition for the existence of free will in the sense of agency. In a materialistic universe, some kind of swerve is necessary to avoid determinism. Pursuing pleasure as the goal makes only sense if we have agency to deviate from a deterministic path.

Could you please elaborate on how the swerve is a precondition for the existence of free will? Sorry again if this is basic stuff, feel free to redirect me to a source if it is, or please just say so.

Thanks Martin.

Well, let me try to share what’s been appealing and what’s been confusing. Please forgive, as many of these may be misattributed or not related to Epicurean philosophy, but this is where my understanding of it is today.

It’s appealing to hear that it might be possible to have a framework that could be helpful to understand the world and how to navigate it in a very pragmatic way, within our reach, and with many tools we already possess.

It’s appealing in that it could help to get rid of habits formed by years of accepting “abstractions” as real, and to learn to identify these abstractions.

It’s so refreshing to find people who are honest enough with themselves and with others about the super natural being non existing (or completely irrelevant to our experience). It makes me think of the fear, hypocrisy or self-imposed-unconsciousness necessary to be able to live every day by these beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been guilty in the three accounts.

It’s relaxing that, apparently, to understand it you can approach it in a “what you see is what you get” attitude, with plain language and without overly convoluted concepts. It feels straightforward.

It’s liberating in that it faces you with the reality that whatever enjoyment or happiness you can expect to experience will have to happen before you cease to exist, and forgetting about doing stuff for “the points you’ll get in the virtues exam nobody is grading”.

It’s good to know that it’s not a philosophy of libertine hedonism and debauchery.

Many of the following also may be because of my status as a new “student”, so please bear with me:

It’s confusing that some abstractions are bad and some good, so how to draw a line. Like higher math or complex music theory etc.

It’s unappealing that it may be perceived as a selfish way to live life and act in the world. It worries me that the ethics won’t comprise a care for the less fortunate and the downtrodden. Or that morality would be not relevant to it because of its ultra materialistic foundation.

Getting really out of my depth... it’s confusing that the swerve (or whatever it is called in modern terms... what is it? What they call a “quantum jump” or “atomic transition” perhaps?) happens for no reason at all and from that we can derive a conclusion of this as evidence of the existence of free will. Perhaps this is a non-issue, since it’s evident that free will exists, or at least our experience makes us feel it that way, which is what is relevant, but I dare to share something that in my huge ignorance I found a bit paradoxical (please do forgive me if this is very basic stuff): if we don’t have any control over the swerve, then we are at it’s behest, regardless of it happening for many reasons or any reason at all, no?

I hope I’m not taking too much of your time for stuff that I will come to answer with a bit more study later on, by taking advantage of your prompt, Cassius.

Thanks for the welcome guys. Please forgive my typing since I’m on my phone and English is my second language.

I came to the site through the Lucretius Today podcast, which I’ve been enjoying and binge-listening to for the last days/weeks; thanks for that, Cassius and friends. The views put forth there have been eye opening. It makes me glad to say that being exposed to these has made me feel more comfortable with many views I already held myself, some of which I lived by, but that were hard to reconcile with what my “philosophy of life” was until now, which is changing.

Where do I stand about Epicurean philosophy? I’m new to it, but I wouldn’t say I’m still “on the fence”; I think I’m past it now, but I do have some questions I’m looking to answer.

Sadly I haven’t been able to read a lot yet about epicurean philosophy. I’ve read enough to know that the popular understanding of Epicurus is mistaken. I was disappointed to see that most readily available resources don’t go deeply enough to make it past the common places we all know about.

I later learned that Lucretius could be a valuable resource to learn more, and thus discovered the podcast. This is apparently opening a new world for me. I’m about to order a copy of Dewitt’s book to more seriously start studying about this philosophy. What I’ve learnt so far I’m liking. I feel, after searching a lot, that I’m on my way to find a worldview that will actually make sense.

I say this because I am “recovering” from stoicism and religion.

It’s easy to see how these can give you tools to cope with hardship. They can help you to find peace when in turmoil. But, putting that aside, there were many things that, for me, “didn’t hold” in the long term.

As good as they can be as coping tools, I find them also having the potential for subjugation, rather than liberation. I think they can put you in a disposition to accept, a bit submissively, or with resignation, the lot that’s been “given” to you. This, to me, makes it obvious why western religion borrows so much from stoicism.

But I’m not here only as a rebound from stoicism, but rather because epicurean philosophy, after going past the common places mostly talked about, seems promising as to having the potential to be a philosophy for the good life, achievable in a more practical and intuitive way. Thus, I wish to learn more about it, and hopefully one day be able to contribute to the conversations in this “garden” of the internet