Posts by Sid

Joshua my reading of this is that Jefferson was being sarcastic, essentially claiming the only benefit of Epicureanism and other materialist philosophies is that it shows they cannot possibly succeed. It’s curious though that he should characterise Epicureanism as a narrow sect in which people lived alone?! Wasn’t it actually the opposite? Plato and Aristotle may have fed thousands figuratively, but only Epicurus actually broke bread with his fellow men in friendship. It really greatly saddens me to see such purposeful misrepresentation of Epicurus and his message throughout history.

Don the point you’ve raised is very topical in our current times. I won’t go into examples but there is such a thing as too much democracy 🙂. Not all people are informed or wise enough to make decisions which are in the best interests of the country or humanity at large. Unfortunately it seems that the majority often fall in this category. My impression was that Epicurus in general shunned the public life so as such I’m not sure he held an active view on what form of government would be best placed to ensure the good of all. Of course I’m not an expert on this and happy to be corrected,

Just starting a thread for any Singaporean Epicureans .

I’m relatively new to the forum so apologies in advance if I may be repeating a thread that already exists elsewhere. The reason I‘m starting this thread is to get a view on the Epicurean position on free will. The general sense I get is that the Epicurean stance is one of compatibilism, i.e. some things happen deterministically while other happen out of free will. Is this understanding of the Epicurean stance correct? I’d also be curious about the ethical implications of this view. Any guidance is much appreciated 🙂.

Thanks Eikadistes I agree, while Epicurus clearly states reliance on the senses as the only way we can know the world, Advaitha classifies the world as ‘maya’ or illusion (as in what we sense is only illusory and not real in the ultimate sense). The neo-Advaitha tradition (esp. Tony Parsons et al) take this to ridiculous lengths asserting that there is only ‘nothing and everything’. As such this philosophy doesn’t seem to offer anything at all of any value, yet curiously many people seem to flock to it…To paraphrase a famous philosopher there is no use of philosophy unless it makes a tangible difference to our lives.

On the point of Mahayana Buddhism, or Buddhism in general is that the ethical doctrines seem more compatible with Stoicism the emphasis being on virtue or accumulation merit, though of course this is more pronounced in Mahayana given the whole Bodhisattva ideal.

Thank you so much for the kind welcome. Really happy to be here .

Quote from Don

Welcome aboard the forum!

Thanks so much for the welcome Don. Greatly looking forward to interacting with all the folks here.

Incidentally since we are comparing vs. Buddhism I’m just wondering has anyone looked at other non-dualistic teachings like Advaitha? It would be very interesting to compare I think, especially since Epicureanism stresses reliance on the senses, but radical Advaitha dismisses the entire concept of an external reality altogether .

Just one observation of mine on the topic of Buddhism. In the west where people are increasingly finding it difficult to believe in a theistic view of the universe, Buddhism seems to have become popular as several Buddhist teachers have popularised it as a rational and non-dogmatic way of life, rather than a religion per se. However this presentation of Buddhism is not entirely accurate. Though Buddhism doesn’t have a creator entity Buddhist cosmology is full of supernatural beings. My own initial attraction to Buddhism was because I just couldn’t rationally accept the teachings of Hinduism and the abrahamic faiths. The Buddha’s exhortation to not accept things on faith and his encouragement of critical thinking really struck a chord with me. However as I dived deeper into it I found the same issues with Buddhism as with other faiths. For instance the concept of Jambudvipa and Mount Mandara go entirely against any modern scientific view. Also many sects of Buddhism do worship Buddhas for the sake of emancipation from this world…so even though a buddha isn’t a creator deity we still have a system of faith and submission via prayer similar to other religions.