Posts by Scott

Thanks, Don, and Joshua thanks for all the citations! Great work digging all that up! There is plenty to indicate the kindness of Epicurus and that of EP as a philosophy in general, perhaps especially from Diogenes of Oenoanda. Kindness and benevolence, love and help, etc. All good stuff. But I was pondering this and it occurred to me there is still something a little "different" about compassion than what we find in these citations. Some flavor. I did some etymology work on it (e.g. https://www.etymonline.com/word/compassion).

Then I took the dog for a walk, and it struck me. Compassion deals with suffering. It calls for suffering. Pretty much requires it. That seems obvious to me in hindsight. That's what really differentiates it from benevolence and love and help and such.

So then I thought... Buddhism, which has been a long time influence in my life, has "suffering" as a seminal concept, as we all know. And would it be any surprise then that compassion is likewise a Buddhist primary motif, which it is, especially from the Dalai Lama and other Mahayana versions, but to greater or lesser extent it pops up in most of the strands of Buddhism. Suffering is also a big deal in Christianity. The passion of Christ, etc. Perhaps Epicureanism just didn't and doesn't have suffering as such a center piece. Although certainly aware of it and concerned to address what we generally find translated as "pain" in EP materials, is it not simply the case that Epicurus put the positive in front, not the negative? His focus was more on pleasure, not on escaping pain, right?

"certain groups of people will never agree"

Some folks are just not meant for enlightenment

Pretty much everyone in this EF forum understands that EP gets a bad rap from mainstream culture, and has ever since Stoics and Christians and similar "transcendent value" ethics have held sway. An (abbreviated) version of the most common critical narrative goes something like this:

*Epicureanism is about hedonism, which means they pursue pleasure instead of the (grander) {virtue/deity worship/other abstract/transcendent values/value systems}. Chasing after pleasures is shallow, unreliable and dangerous to oneself and society.*

Challenging this narrative is difficult, at best. Arguing that going after pleasure as your final goal makes more sense than going after abstract transcendent values ("ATVs" lol ) as a final goal is an uphill battle. As Cassius said in the thread on Eusebius: "Christians and most of the rest of the world think that Epicureans are monsters. Or that Epicurus was an Antichrist even. This is why we can't get too complacent and think that "everyone wants to be happy" means the same thing to everyone."

Exactly! So I'd like to throw out some thoughts about one way to deal with this. A "re-framing" (for us, but also for those with whom we engage). Probably some EFers have already used this kind of approach and apologies if this is nothing new to you, but in any case I think this can be an effective approach to presenting EP to the world, so I'm just writing it down and putting it out here.

I'm suggesting a way to simply be more honest - to put everything on the table - and in so doing be better able to directly challenge the challengers, because in fact the honest truth is THEY are all chasing after pleasure just as much as every other organism. This approach is a slight twist in direction, but I think a significant, and impactful one. I consider it pretty easy for instance to point out to an anti-EPer that what they are doing is done because they want to feel good. Feeling good is what we mean by pleasure. They will resist this approach at first, of course, but ...we all know they WANT pleasure, so does every other being, and this is ultimately inescapable. This point must be won first, and I think it can be won, if pursued. You really have to go to unusual lengths to try to disagree with this point (I'll work some of these up I've heard and list some of them later. I invite others to share any arguments against this and know resolutions).

Some of the elements of this re-framing would probably include items on the list below. Note, again, that this is an offensive move to expose underlying motivation(s) in ATVs rather than the defensive approach of first arguing for EP's perspective. The points below for that reason overlap a bit - the goal of them is to break up misleading, incorrect mental habit patterns about motivations.

• ATVs create a feeling of belonging - as "membership" in any group can - but is dramatically stronger because there is a god or some other abstract Super-Value they all share, making them all feel sort of Super-Special. This FEELS VERY GOOD.
• Having a religion or ethic based on something "transcendent" gives individuals a feeling of being in touch with MEANING and POWER - that is very comforting. Comfort FEELS GOOD. The individual is motivated to do this because they want to **feel good** about themselves. (I have found most anti-EPers would have to eventually agree to this, though as I said earlier, they may be blind &/or resistant to this at first blush.)
• Abstract Transcendent Value systems help an individual avoid feeling deeply lost and confused because it gives context and explanation for the world and how one should act in it, absolving the individual from wrestling with trying to figure all that out (assuming they can hang on to their belief strongly enough to avoid doubt). This FEELS GOOD and reduces anxiety.
• Having an ATV makes one feel "safe". Safe FEELS REALLY GOOD - Example thought experiment for an anti-PEer: Consider if your religion/philosophy was established in such a manner that the result of following it would be that you will go to the tortures of hell *forever* ...would you follow it? For instance if your god said to humans "I command you to do this and do that, and as a result you will go to hell." I have challenged Christians with this and after getting them beyond "that's stupid because it would never happen" (I just insist this is a thought experiment, I KNOW it would never happen) then they have agreed with me they wouldn't follow that path. Boom! If this doesn't make the point that feeling good is the ultimate "what it is all about" I don't know what does!

If the above points are made, EP and ATVs end up on level ground with respect to their final goals - EVERYONE is going after a good feeling, in the final analysis.

I think it is then easier to explain that EP in fact does NOT pursue "feeling good" in a foolish or dangerous way, but uses the knowledge of this universal fact about organisms trying to feel good to decide to use wisdom and prudence (things that advanced, thinking beings can do) in order to determine what is really the best way to live a good life. Wisdom and reason and prudence are CENTRAL to living the good life, according to EP. OTOH if you pretend you have no motivation to pursue feeling good, your dishonestly will be leading you astray because you can then follow something that simply isn't true. You won't have a good measuring stick for what is worthwhile to you.

Quote from Kalosyni

I think it would be good to more clearly define the word "compassion" as an active attitude rather than a passive attitude.

Sounds right, Kalosyni - I totally agree with you compassion should be thought of that way! Compassion tends to make people try to help. Compassion includes an urge to reach out. If there isn't this active element, you only have sympathy or empathy.

Thanks for staring this thread, Joshua ! You beat me to it and I'm glad, since you did a far better job than I could have

I'm pleased that we have the quotes that show that Epicurus felt and expressed concern for people generally, as opposed to just a sort of tit-for-tat kind of "concern" for "friends" (which is an idea that can come out of certain passages). As you say, what we have is somewhat indirect, not the:

Quote from Joshua

full-throated endorsement of compassion we would like to see

Compassion is not identical with being "friendly", of course, or even being "kind" or "considerate". "Caring" comes closer but still doesn't nail it. All of these are also great attributes but I'm thinking in today's use of the term compassion we have something like a powerful "feeling with" another person, combined with a desire to alleviate suffering they have. Its often a fairly automatic response, like what one has when one sees a crying child or even a hurt animal. It's like empathy but with a motivation to reach out. It does not involve any desire of a reward for reaching out (even the reward that someone doing compassionate work under the aegis of a religious organization for example might get from knowing that are promoting their ideology). Of course, one can have an affiliation with a religious or philosophical organization and still have genuine compassion - I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But compassion is one of our natural, biological responses which can yet be cultivated (even into a strong, reliable personal pattern of feeling & behavior) - or conversely, repressed into oblivion. It is perhaps a bit "unusual" in not being directly self-advantageous to the organism feeling it and acting on it, though studies in evolutionary biology and other fields have identified it as producing social benefit. Certainly acting on compassion and eliminating another being's suffering can produce powerful feelings of pleasure, even though the initial impetus may not contain an consideration of that.

Is there even a word in ancient Greek or Latin that captures this idea?

Cassius, all of these tools are good. (Tho I would say don't consider the opinion of one of the competitors as the best source fir a comparison, as they just might have a bit of bias in their position! 🙂). Signal, the only private messenger that uses open source code & peer-reviewed cryptographic protocols, is IMO the most secure of them, but jeez... EF doesn't really have military level secrets or anything anyway! All or these are good products. Threema should do fine, and not requiring your phone # is a nice touch! But I'm not sure I understand why EF needs an "emergency backup / instant messenger system". What would that do for us? Under what circumstances would it be needed?

This fellow Erlend D MacGillivray is "nly" a graduate student at the University of Aberdeen, but he's a serious scholar and offers a few interesting articles on Epicureanism:

• Epitomizing Philosophy and the Critique of Epicurean Popularizers. (Journal of Ancient History)
• The Popularity of Epicureanism in Late-Republic Roman Society. (The Ancient World, XLIII)
• Epicurean Mission and Membership from the Early Garden to the Late-Roman Republic (thesis)

Welcome, @jonathan !

Glad to have you join us!

(Pardon me but I'm backing out of this thread. I'm not meaning to ghost. I would just create more rabbit holes I think and there are probably enough already! Carry on soldiers!)

Welcome to EF, Jake cu ! At the very least, you will find many thought-provoking and worthwhile ideas here.

Some old ideas are as worthwhile today as they were many centuries ago!

Welcome, @Yannsousa ! You've come to an interesting place! I've only been in this forum a couple of months, but I have found Epicureanism quite fascinating.

Glad to have you with us. Feel free to ask questions and share!

Quote from Joshua

is there a way to collate all this information?

I sure hope a way is found. This would be a great project for someone. Well beyond my pay grade but I'd love to see it and have an accurate (as possible) knowledge of how deep and far Epicureanism went in history!

Welcome, Jake cu ! Glad to have you join us!

Quote from Joshua

I will attempt to take Cassius up on his request for an epitome of Buddhist teachings

What you wrote seems basically correct for Theravada, Joshua. Mahayana Buddhists, however, would take issue with certain points of it. Some of them would throw out most of it.

Quote from Joshua

In view of the above list, you will apprehend the impossibility of removing rebirth, kamma [karma] or nibbana [nirvana] from Buddhism. They are integral. There are those in the secular community who keep the name of Buddhism for its ethics, or for its mindfulness, or for its psychology---but whatever it is that remains, it is not Buddhism.

You have every right to call things what you choose, Joshua. But Secular Buddhists will probably continue to identify themselves as Buddhist. In fact those who follow Stephen Batchelor's line will say the Theravada tradition is NOT true Buddhism, that it suffers from translation errors that fundamentally distorted the Buddha's message, and also that the elements you describe such as karma and rebirth and so forth were NOT part of the Buddha's message at all but rather muddied their way into the Buddha's recorded teachings over time. Batchelor suggests this happened as part of an attempt to better conform the new "religion" to the widely accepted and deeply engrained soteriology in India thought.

Quote from Cassius

Since we are devoted to studying Epicurus here rather than competing viewpoints, I doubt it would make much sense to pursue any systematic study of any "minor" religion or viewpoint unless a significant number of us here have confronted it and need "ammunition" against it.

I totally understand what you are saying, Cassius . I was thinking also that another value to discussing other philosophies and viewpoints would not just to have "ammunition" to defeat them, but to learn from how they might interface with EP and how people might benefit. For instance, a common discussion in the EF is how to IMPLEMENT Epicurean philosophy. EP per se doesn't offer much specifics on how to do this. I have found great nuggets from Stoicism and Buddhism and many other perspectives that do. These expand and augment my EP experience. And "implementation" is not the only area where discussing other viewpoints can provide benefits.

Welcome bribri56 to one of the most interesting philosophical groups online!

Welcome @Tom Karpathos ! Glad to have you with us! This is a fascinating group, and Epicurean philosophy in general is a unique and creative guide for living which is not just a historical relic but is quite capable of being used in modern life. I'm pretty new here too, but I've learned a lot already. Enjoy!

Scott

"Of the ancient Indian philosophies of..."

I know a bit about the ancient Indian traditions prior to Buddhism, but I'm no expert in those. I'm about at the Wikipedia level on that stuff But I can say a few things about Buddhism at any rate.

HOWEVER... I just completed a quick romp through the forum and it seems to me most every significant topic surrounding a comparison of Buddhism and EP has been kicked around in this forum multiple times. There are discussions on this stuff starting several years ago. The dead horse is hardly recognizable now. And it seemed to me a lot of the threads didn't really lead to any definitive answers or useful information. I think Nate was right when he said "I don't think that comparisons between Buddhism and Epicurean philosophy are helpful. They are dissimilar and historically unrelated." I would add to that that Buddhism became so variegated through time that today we would need to specify very particular Buddhist lineages/schools in order to attempt a sensible comparison. Even the most commonly shared teachings like the "Four Noble Truths" and so forth have RADICALLY different meanings between schools.

So let's take just one example here - the GOAL of the Buddhist life. The stated goal(s) of the different traditions do NOT match! There are fundamental differences. Even though many Buddhists would refer to the ultimate goal as "Nirvana", in modern "Secular Buddhism", we have the currently popular Stephen Batchelor who says based on the earliest Pali writings of Buddhism that the goal of life (aka Nirvana) may be identified as "human flourishing". Batchelor presents a modern, engaged-with-the-world idea. It is certainly not about suppressing desire, but involves working with desires so they don't become problems. But the Theravada tradition (one of the largest and oldest branches of Buddhism - also steeped in the early Pali scriptures) goes in a different direction and says the ultimate goal is "cessation of all suffering", which they also call Nirvana but this is understood as being obtained by training the mind in silent meditation (basically for years and years) with minimal contact with the outside "world". This is to produce the (frequently criticized) result of someone who is totally "unfettered" by desires (desires being the cause of suffering, in this view). Mahayana Buddhists OTOH (like Tibetan, Zen, etc.) consider the Theravada tradition of spending all your time in self-absorption trying to liberate yourself as being involved in a kind of selfishness (which is a big no-no), and so they go in yet a different direction. They hold forth the ideal of the "Bodhisattva" which is a kind of infinitely compassionate person everyone tries to become in order to go around saving everyone else from suffering. Then we have the goal for Pure Land Buddhists - to chant and pray to Amida Buddha (an incarnation of the Buddha) hoping to be delivered to the Pure Land (a kind of heaven) after death. Resembles Christianity. This rambling of mine (sorry for the length) is only a tiny fraction of understanding only 4 schools regarding just one idea - the "goal" of the Buddhist life, and believe me I have only scratched the surface!

Now Epicurus had to defend his philosophy against competitors. And if I understand it correctly (and I might not - I'm not a scholar in Classical/Hellenistic Greece!) this competition was not just for recognition - money and resources were also on the line. A successful philosophical school won patrons and students and thrived. But here today in EF we don't have that situation of course. Still sometimes it feels like a battle is going on. EP against X, EP against Y, EP against Buddhism, etc. For me I just find studying various philosophies fun and interesting and - more importantly - helpful in living a good life. Differences between philosophical perspectives help clarify ideas, through contrast and comparison. This seems worthwhile. But if we're going to do comparisons of EP to Buddhism, I think it would be more productive to narrow down to particular branches of Buddhism or I think even better, just specific concepts. This approach may not help so much with the project of making EP "triumph" over other perspectives, but I think it works better to help gain useful insights.

First, the disclaimer:

I have great hesitation even posting in this thread. This should probably be 12 different threads. There is so much here to take on. Let me start with - like it or not - there are very many understandings of Buddhism, many of which directly contradict each other, and we have NO written version of what the Buddha said. We all know how difficult it is to make sense of a philosophy that has been written down, especially over years by different authors, passing through translations by different peeps in history, through various languages old and modern - now just imagine that with no certain starting point. At all. They started writing the Buddha's words down probably around 3-400 years after the Buddha had died and one could argue they are essentially still adding to the canon - there is no "revealed" or "authentic" truth / version by a god or an Epicurus or other religious leader or philosopher (of course various sects claim various parts of the canon as authoritative).

Now I'm sure some or many concepts actually presented by the Buddha managed to be maintained with some degree of correctness, and still exist in the writings we have. But it's impossible to nail this down. Again - like it or not, this is what we got.

The Buddhist common disclaimer is "oh, people at that time had great memory capabilities and they were verbally able to pass down the teachings reliably". Really? I'm calling baloney on that. Some Buddhists will also often say that this flexibility is by design of the Buddha and this is valuable, that there is no determinate path. Each person can fashion a "raft" to get to the other side of the proverbial river, and the Buddha's teachings can help, but you have to fashion your own raft. In Zen they would say the Buddha was like pointing a finger at the moon. Don't get hung up on the finger and keep looking at it - the point is the moon (and of course what the "goal" is suggested by this moon is itself another long topic).

Quote from Cassius

Don't people who are attracted to it have "some" idea of the basic teachings before they dive into the details? What are those basic attractions that get people started down that path in the first place?

Generally, modern converts to some form of Buddhism encounter one or another flavor of Buddhism (either one of the traditional/regional versions or a more modern variant, or some combination) and they learn their "basics" there.

Often people then dabble in other versions they hear about, though some folks stick with their original.

Many peeps discover "Mindfulness", then find out it came from Buddhism and other ancient Indian traditions and they look up local Buddhist groups in their town and off they go to meditate there.

It's a smorgasbord out there, and one can pick and choose. Today of course we have broad access to all different types of Buddhism in a way that was never even possible a couple of hundred years ago. While there are many shared ideas among different versions and some that certain groups argue are "core" to all Buddhism or most, in reality the ideas criss-cross in complicated ways, and there are also basic, fundamental, radical differences between many of the "Buddhisms".

Quote from Cassius

So if possible I'd like us to work on a thread for "the rest of us" - Epicureans in particular, of course, who want to get an initial grasp of what is fairly referrable to as generic Buddhism from a Western perspective. That way we can hopefully get a grasp on at least a couple of core concepts.

I think going after some core concepts is a good idea. My today is really busy, so I apologize I'm going to step away now, after having dumped this out here. I'll try to post some more of my thoughts soon regarding specific concepts, but I just wanted to first throw out this well worn wet blanket in an attempt to maybe cool the flames just a tidge and encourage more focus. "Buddhism" is a bugger to pin down. It's like one of the agents in the Matrix movie. They move fast and they morph. Hard to land a bullet on them.

Welcome, @SimonTrepanier ! Enjoy learning about Epicureanism. It's fascinating!