wow, that makes sense, well I'll be ready then!
It should be a fun discussion!
I can...or anyone else, who wants to post here some direct quotes from Lucretius, Vatican Sayings, Diogenes Laertius, etc. ...anything that touches on the special topic "On Love"...would be great! 
(In our upcoming discussion, of course we will need to consider all the many meanings of the word "love").
Coming up next Monday is "First Monday Epicurean Philosophy Discussion" - Via Zoom at 8pm ET - Open to forum members.
We now see in stores all the Valentine's hype, so a fun special topic to discuss is: "What does the philosophy of Epicurus have to say about love?" And if we take the big picture view of Epicurean philosophy, let's see if there is anything which we can apply to our lives today.
We'll also have time for open discussion beyond the special topic, such as current popular forum threads or questions.
For those who haven't attended before, let us know if you are interested by posting in this thread or message Cassius or myself.
For any women out there, here is a YouTube which reflects a good understanding regarding groundless opinions (which comes up in the Letter to Menoeceus) which are neither natural nor necessary. This presents some practical ideas about common unrealistic beauty standards, which apply to all women no matter what race or nationality.
and one to illustrate an Epicurean alternative of the same scene.
I made this last year, which by using the bride as representative of pleasure and the bridesmaids as attendants gives it a more modern twist which is likely slightly different than what Cassius was envisioning.
As far as the question "is it a religion" to me goes. Does it take the place of a contemporary religion in your daily life? IE Does it inform your sense of morality and justice, do you draw comfort or strength from it's teachings? Do you endeavor to live as an Epicurean or is it just a discussion topic, would be the dividing line for me.
It is coming to me, that there can be lots of ways that one could decide to refer to how they feel about Epicurean philosophy...and now the idea of "life philosophy" is popping into my head...or "world view" -- and probably the benefit of deciding on a particular label is that if you want to talk about it to a friend who doesn't know anything about it, then you could use your chosen label to convey what you feel about it. And I could imagine that if one said it was a religion, then their friend would be asking different questions than if one said "life philosophy" but everyone can choose to go there or not, depending on how they feel.
And I do think you'd have two slightly divergent groups if one group says "we have a church and this is a religion" compared to "we have a life philosophy, and this is a practice group".
Some thoughts this morning...So there could be these two desires:
1. A desire to bring an internal "religious/spiritual" aspect to one's thoughts regarding the importance and application of Epicurean philosophy. This could be done on one's own. And there are as many ways to give words to this as there are individuals.
2. A desire to bring a group of people together for an "Epicurean Church".
My thoughts coming up: as soon as you move from what is internal to creating an externalization of this in a group or church setting, then you will have a few problems on your hands. 1) The problem of power vs. submission - who will lead the church and how will they do it. 2) How will the church deal with those who are not properly submitting to the leaders or goals of the church 3) How will the church remove a leader that is doing unethical actions, behaving in a overly-controlling manner, or working against the long-term goals of the church. 4) Since the idea of being "tax-exempt" came up and usually churches give monetary support to their leaders, there is the question of how does paying someone for their time affect how the leader leads a group, and how does it affect the people who are giving money to the leader (how they all relate to each other, and which further feeds into the problem of power vs. submission).
Tonight Vatican Sayings 63 & 64!
Open to Level 03+ members (and Level 01 by pre-approval of the moderating team).
Tonight's Agenda:
VS63. Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.
VS64. Praise from others must come unasked, and we must concern ourselves with the healing of our own lives.
This brought up the idea that the label "superstition" has not always been understood in the way that we do in the modern scientific world. Just found this book "Superstition: A Very Short Introduction"
Abstract (Chapter 1 - The Origins of Superstition):
‘The origins of superstition’ describes practices of magic, prophecy, and divination in the ancient world, and the changing meaning of superstition through time. Throughout its long history, superstition has been a transactional concept with no fixed meaning of its own except in contrast to some other, more accepted world-view. The origin of the concept is found in ancient Greece in the 4th century bce, and for the next 2,000 years, superstition stood in contrast to the religious practices recommended by the elites. The word ‘superstition’ has often been levelled at practices that, even today, we would consider magical or paranormal, and yet versions of most of these practices are still with us.
Source link:
Happy Birthday! EricR
There appears to be two camps within the current resurgance of Epicurean philosophy:
- One camp who may wish to see a special kind of reverence and a special way of interacting and disseminating the historical ideas of Epicurus, by labeling it "a religion", and there-by appealing to those who are looking for something "bigger-than-themselves", and perscribing certain behaviors in line with "religious feelings", as well as creating a "priestly/teacher class" and a "student/disciple class" within a tight-knit community that shares the same urge for how to view Epicureanism.
I feel fairly certain that most of us here on this EpicureanFriends forum do not fall into this first camp. However if there are some who do, then you may enjoy the company of others who have that same belief by checking out what is offered by the Society of Friends of Epicurus. From their FAQ page there is a link to a page explaining more about how they view things regarding Epicureanism as a Religious Identity.
Now for the other camp, as I see it myself regarding my personal view of Epicurean philosophy, and which many others here on this forum may also hold as a beneficial view: Epicureanism is (and should be seen as) a philosophy and not a religion.
Here are a few benefits of seeing Epicureanism as a philosophy rather than a religion:
1. Your personal understanding comes first rather than having to depend on interpretations outside of yourself - you interprete the extant texts as it pleases you, because you apply them to modern life and your own unique situation.
2. If you are dealing with very troubling issues, you visit a therapist rather than rely upon Epicurean teachings (and rather then relying on religious rituals or potentially relying on "teachers" who are not therapists).
3. You are free to test Epicurean philosophy and reject the parts that do not work for you.
4. You are not expected to do any rituals or attend any meetings, and you will still be respected if you don't participate, and your respect will be based on your understanding rather than adherence to "religious goals" - and there are no religious goals or rituals, rather only personal goals which you freely choose for yourself.
5. It feels safe, free, and open for those who are atheists to participate in studying the philosophy of Epicurus - because there is no group requirement regarding the "gods/god" and this is something to be considered for each person privately.
Kalsoyni here, answering on behalf of Cassius.
Cyrano, This new feature was just added, so you can just click on the dialog bubble under each person's profile on the left hand side of any post.
Wednesday Night Zoom at 8pm ET:
Open to Level 03+ members (and Level 01 by pre-approval of the moderating team).
Tonight's Agenda:
VS61. Most beautiful too is the sight of those near and dear to us, when our original kinship makes us of one mind; for such sight is great incitement to this end.
VS62. Now if parents are justly angry with their children, it is certainly useless to fight against it, and not to ask for pardon; but if their anger is unjust and irrational, it is quite ridiculous to add fuel to their irrational passion by nursing one’s own indignation, and not to attempt to turn aside their wrath in other ways by gentleness.
Thank you Cassius for your clarification on this topic in post 12 above.
More thoughts on this today...thinking it may be good to consider how popular "finding meaning" and "meaningfulness" is in "self-help" books and likely also modern therapy. And I think there is a lot of baggage with using these words -- epecially for myself since I've read quite a few "self-help" books and perhaps that is why I find it to be such an issue (and I think this is going to be a little like a hydra monster, in that it could keep coming back over and over, and I still need to think through this some more).
Joshua brought this topic up in the last podcast (Episode 210 will be up soon) and shared the historical context of "finding meaning", and this is a relatively new idea.
Wishing you a Happy Birthday Onenski !
An idea came to me that maybe the text of this could be put into a 2 column table which has a commentary running along side it with further explanation.
Thinking further about "finding meaning", a person is only going to have this question come up when they are feeling in doubt of their internal sense of resilience and when they are lacking in coping strategies -- check out this thread and the post on the BASIC-ph model for a much better way to build resilience.
In another thread the idea of "finding meaning" came up, and it reminded me about this much more useful model, which I think is much more effective for coping -- it is called the "BASIC-ph Model of Coping" created by Mooli Lahad.
It incorporates 6 aspects for good coping...and one of them is physical pleasure (under the label "Physiological").
Here is a diagram I drew:
Here is a website that has brief explanation (but it's not the site from which I created the above diagram).
Third, when such down-to-earth ideas of “meaning” are seriously considered, the notion that Epicurean philosophy offers no means to (or opportunity for) personal meaning itself seems absurd.
Further thoughts coming up in regard to "meaning". Most concerning to me in the call to "search for meaning" is the implication that happiness is not possible so that the best one can do is have a "meaningful life". This is so divorced from pleasure, especially normal animal pleasures, and shows how there is a mistaken and unnecessary distrust of pleasure. Also, missing is that we have basic human needs for social interaction and for friendship, which we need for living a happy life.
It appears to me that Frankl's advice was born out of an extreme worst case scenario which required extreme coping mechanisms - a scenario that most people thankfully will never need to encounter. We are living ordinary and secure lives which are much much different. I see the "search for meaning" as an attempt to deal with severe mental anguish, but I think it is going about the problem in the wrong way.
Ultimately if we follow that which brings both short-term and long-term pleasure, we will naturally arive at a "meaningful" life - one in which we do not have to prove that we are good or smart or talented in order to try to get approval from others. So Epicureans have a much different understanding of the word "meaningful".
We also can avoid falling into the trap that something isn't truely "meaningful" unless others also see it as "meaningful" (a "meaningful" life for some could just be one step away from a "virtuous" life, for example according to the common idea that serving others is a pathway to a meaningful life.)
The "search for meaning" is put upon a pedestal such that the word "meaning" becomes an empty abstraction, as empty as the word "virtue". It means nothing except in reference to something else, and everything always comes back to pleasure and pain, because those are what nature gives us by which to decide what to choose and what to avoid. The Epicurean goal of finding and pursuing pleasure (both physical and mental) seeks for joy and happiness in life. If "meaning" doesn't provide joy and happiness then it is worthless.
It seems that you are coming from a mindset that makes it difficult for you to think about the benefits of Epicurean philosophy, because it appears you don't agree with some basic concepts of Epicurean philosophy - especially with regard to the Epicurean criticism of "virtue". You can read more about it here:
