Posts by TauPhi

Quote from Bryan

Also, do we have any translations of Philodemus On Wealth?

This might interest you. Good stuff starts on page 37.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1671&context=etd

This is great. Thank you Bryan

Quote from Cassius

I don't know that I have any significant additional thoughts to add to comments such as those of Tau Phi that he doesn't find Epicurean theology valuable

I started my previous post with a disclaimer to avoid exactly such misunderstandings. I do find Epicurean theology valuable and very much worth studying. I don't question its importance and I don't pretend it's not an integral part of the whole system. I study Epicurean gods as closely as any other area of the philosophy because I want to understand it the best I can.

I do question attempts to incorporate gods in our lives at all cost because it was an Epicurean thing to do two thousand years ago. Philosophy should make it easier for us to live our lives in a way our lives are worth living. It should not be a game of who can be the most Epicurean of us all.

I'm not trying to be a contrarian for the sake of it but no matter how hard I try I keep seeing problems with these:

Quote from Cassius

1 - As inoculation against the idea that humans are alone in the universe, and that we therefore occupy some kind of special and supernatural focus of existence. For most ordinary people who think that we are alone in the universe, that's a prescription for a slippery slide toward all sorts of mysticism.

How come existence of gods in intermundia, outside of our universe and outside of our reach, can be an indication that we are or we are not alone in the universe? For me, introducing gods to our lives, even for the sake of emulation or as weapon against anthropocentrism, is a prescription for, and not against, mysticism.

Quote from Cassius

2 - As important for understanding that while "pleasure is pleasure" from a conceptual point of view, there are important questions to be answered as to which pleasures to pursue in life. Contemplation of the nature of a truly blessed existence - one which even though "godlike" must act to sustain itself - is similar to Epicurus' views of reverence for men wiser than ourselves. It's an important aspect of our own drive to use our lives in the most pleasurable way, and not to settle for less than what we are capable of obtaining.

How can anyone contemplate the nature of a truly blessed existence if no one knows what a truly blessed existence is? Again, it's an exercise in futility. It's nothing more than: I want a truly blessed existence to be like x and y because I feel good making x and y a truly blessed existence. Gods are not needed for us to establish how to live our lives. We can do it with experience and course correction. I also don't see similarities between gods and wise men. Wise men lived their lives. They have something valuable to teach us because they are human and we can learn from their solutions to their problems as we face similar problems. With Epicurean gods we have nothing to relate to. They live in alien worlds, live alien lives, have alien values and alien experiences.

I'd like to offer some of my thoughts about few things you said in your last post Cassius.

Before I start, I should clarify that I'm all on board with studying Epicurean theology as any other aspect of Epicureanism for the sake of understanding the philosophy. I do, however, see few problems with taking everything Epicurean at face value just because Epicurus came up with it. And by 'it' in this case I mean 'emulating gods':

Quote from Cassius

The point that even the gods require some form of activity to maintain their deathlessness would likely be a significant part of Epicurean theology, giving us another useful thing to consider as points of emulation. We too have to act properly to sustain our happiness just as they do - there's no supernatural state that "hands it to us free" for men or gods.

Quote from Cassius

If even the gods must act properly to maintain their happiness, who are we to complain that we must do the same? We should emulate the gods not only in the result of being happy, but also in the process of getting there, with both gods and men acting property to perpetuate our happiness.

Epicurus had exactly the same access to knowledge about the nature of gods as we do now two millennia later. No access whatsoever. His description of gods is grounded in pure speculation and wishful thinking. He had no empirical evidence, direct or indirect, to support his claims about gods' deathlessness, blessedness or any other 'nesseses'. So what exactly are we supposed to be emulating? Because the way I see it, it looks like we are supposed to give gods qualities we want them to have and then emulate the qualities we've given them. This kind of approach is similar to: I believe chewing a chewing gum makes people happy. Therefore, from now on I'll be chewing as much chewing gum as humanly possible.

Quote from Cassius

If even the gods must act properly to maintain their happiness, who are we to complain that we must do the same?

Well, I'm TauPhi and I'd like to complain that I must do the same because I don't know what 'the same' is. Since I have no way of establishing what 'the gods must act properly' is, would I be far off guessing that to act properly means sticking index fingers in strangers' ears every Tuesday?

I'm fully aware that my chewing gum and sticking fingers examples are absurd but giving gods serious qualities for emulation doesn't make anything less absurd.

Epicureanism is really close to my heart. There's a plethora of beneficial ideas in this philosophy that can be applied in our lives but there are also things demonstratively wrong, or worse, impossible to prove or disprove like Epicurean gods and trying to incorporate these ideas in our lives may not be such a good idea.

Quote from Cassius

We should emulate the gods not only in the result of being happy, but also in the process of getting there, with both gods and men acting property to perpetuate our happiness.

There's no need to introduce a middleman in the form of gods. By trial and error we can establish things that make our lives worth living for ourselves. There's no need for shifting responsibility or seeking some form of reassurance in imaginary, better versions of ourselves. Instead of looking at fairy tale creatures, let's focus on studying our reality among people like us who also try to figure stuff out without an superpowers like immortality, indestructibility or other made up qualities.

Bryan One more thing I forgot to mention. When I was looking around for Usener's Glossarium I stumbled across this:

https://cal.byu.edu/macfarlane/herculaneumfriends/assets/Vergara_AFoH2019_ResearchReport.pdf

I think you mentioned you were working on 'On Nature' recently. Apparently, Claudio Vergara in 2019 tried to create Glossarium for 'On Nature'. I have no idea how far he got with it but there's a contact info at the bottom if you find his work interesting.

This may be difficult to find but I quickly checked ebay and there's one copy on sale right now for around $50 plus whatever shipping cost may be (the seller is from Italy).

I would argue that equating "being open to luxuries when they become available" to "waiting for them to drop in your lap without making effort to obtain them" is wrong. The latter should not be the action one takes based on the former observation. That's a direct route to stagnation and I don't think anyone who spent more than five minutes contemplating human nature would accept stagnation as a desirable goal. Epicurus clearly was a proponent of the opposite of stagnation. He tried to remove all the unreasonable human fears which cause stagnation so people at least have a reasonable chance at living their lives instead of simply existing.

To me, "whatever you have is good enough" is not a bad approach in itself. I would argue it's one of the hardest things for us humans to truly realise and appreciate. That approach has nothing to do with being on the rack smiling like an idiot. A wise person would steer his life towards a green field where he could lay in the grass and enjoy a good weather instead of dealing with 'on the rack situations'. And in those rare cases where being on the rack in unavoidable even to the wisest, a wise person would be there smiling knowing that the rack has to be good enough.

So I guess, the trick is to learn how to truly appreciate a glass of water, to learn how to prepare a delicious cup of tea if that's possible and when teleported on Tuesday morning to the middle of Sahara desert by whimsical aliens (who happen to fly by the Earth playing tricks on people) and inevitably dying out of thirst on Thursday evening - to smile, say 'oh, well' and show a middle finger to the sky laughing out loud knowing perfectly well that the aliens have absolutely no idea where they could stick that finger. Repeatedly.

I like your post DavidN and I'd like to add slightly different perspective for you all to consider.

Whether we live under the impression of free will in deterministic universe or live having free will in indeterministic universe ultimately is indistinguishable for us humans. To be able to experience determinism one would require computational power we humans simply don't possess. Due to our limitations even if the universe is perfectly determined from start to finish, we have no option to experience the universe this way. In other words, even if we are part of a complete information game we are only capable of playing the game as if it would be an incomplete information game.

My point is, there are aspects of our reality where existence of something or lack of it does not change our situation a bit. In deterministic universe we live like we have free will; in indeterministic universe we have free will. The outcome for humans is the same. I can illustrate my point with more examples of the same outcomes despite opposite realities. Epicurean gods exist but we cannot have interaction with them equals to epicurean gods do not exist. Multiverse is a thing but we have no access to any of its infinite universes equals to there's only one universe. John Smith got his innate intelligence tested and now he knows it equals to 83 of whatever-units-of-intelligence. And now what? He's 83. Cool. He can't do anything with this knowledge. He can't be smarter nor he can be dumber.

Thinking and talking about things like these is very pleasant and intellectually stimulating but I personally wouldn't organize my life around (in)determinism; (lack of)gods; (multi/uni)verse or my (in)ability to connect dots better than John Smith.

Quote from ataraktosalexandros

I was attracted to Epicurus for most of the reasons i defend in my thesis: I view him as a true philosopher in how he doesn't offer another grandiose system that may conduce happiness by unerring pursuit of a number of fixed precepts, but offers us a framework for us to find our own. Empowering perspective rather than the objective, innate feelings rather than logical reasoning and self-cultivation rather than adherence to a given morality.

This summary kills two stones with one bird. It makes a great introductory post on the forum and forecasts an enthralling thesis. Welcome Alexi.

During our most recent Wednesday Zoom call, we talked briefly about Usener's 'Epicurea'. I've done a little research on Hermann Usener since I was curious if I could find any translations of his 'Epicurea' (except the one here: http://www.attalus.org/translate/epicurus.html). Unfortunately, there seems to be nothing else available.

However, I came across something interesting that I wasn't aware of. Usener also wrote 'Glossarium Epicureum'. It's almost a 1000 pages long compilation of Epicurean vocabulary together with definitions, references and quoted passages. To good folks here, who like to go down the rabbit hole of ancient translation (and are versed in Greek and Latin), I imagine 'Glossarium Epicurum' could be as an attractive resource as Willy Wonka's factory to sugar addicted kids without parental supervision.

I thought I'd mention this in case someone finds it useful.

mind perceptions - phantastikai epibolai tes dianoias

first-hand sources:

- Letter to Herodotus [51]

- Principal Doctrine [24]

'Download' button gives you access to a thesis on PHerc. 19/698. Translation starts on page 24.

I hope that's what you're looking for.

Quote from Nate

In Vatican Saying 29, he literally compares himself to an oracle.

What is your argument here Eikadistes ? That Epicurus was an oracle because he literally compared himself to an oracle? It may seem that you are trying to put some prophet clothes on Epicurus but by putting forward arguments like that you strip him of his wisdom and present him to public eye as a naked nutcase for people to laugh at. And why wouldn't they laugh at a dude claiming to be an oracle?
Or maybe you're trying to say we should treat everything Epicurus said as gospel? In that case where's the space for philosophy? Where's the room for trying to live wisely by thinking about, discussing and putting to test Epicurus' ideas and see which of these enhance our lives and which are useless? If we take anything as infallible gospel, we are not lovers of wisdom but lovers of being led to slaughterhouse as blind sheep.

Quote from Nate

I mean to take back those words and return them to their original meanings. "Holy" originally shared a meaning with "Wholesome" or "Healthy", which are excellent descriptions of a key aspect of the Good Life in the Epicurean tradition.

Why would you even attempt to return any words to their original meaning? It's like trying to revert a river with a stick. It's perfectly normal and desirable for languages and their vocabulary to evolve together with people that use them. Languages are meant to change to allow humans for efficient communication. Active languages are not meant to be preserved in their original form and put on display in a museum. And I agree that 'wholesome' and 'healthy' are excellent descriptions. 'Holy' might have meant all that centuries ago but now it means completely different thing. And in 21st century we have words like 'wholesome' and 'healthy' and I don't see any reason why not to use them when talking about something that is wholesome and healthy. You can't expect that people telepathically know that you personally change meanings of words because you like their past meanings. You could have titled your book: 'The Hedonicon: The Wholesome Book of Epicurus' but...

Disclaimer:  Eikadistes. We don't know each other personally and we only passively exchange ideas here on the forum so I want to make sure that you don't imagine me as a vicious troll trying persistently to undermine your work. I am not that person. On the contrary, I think your book is a great collection of valuable texts and all credit to you for compiling it. All my arguments are strictly related to dangers of mixing religion with philosophy.

...but you chose to use 'Holy'. If I knew nothing about Epicurus and Epicureanism and I came across your book, I'd probably assume it's a book about another nutcase claiming the usual holy nonsense and I'd classify the book as yet another mental diarrhea. And I absolutely don't want this to happen! Your book is a collection of priceless achievement of human thought and people can benefit greatly reading Epicurean texts.

Quote from Cassius

You're definitely right in my view that people can go overboard with "kneeling." But does that mean that there is never an appropriate time in life when kneeling is the right course?

If an act of kneeling is the act of an ultimate personal defeat and acceptance that someone else is better equipped to govern our lives then I say yes, never should be an appropriate time for such an act. I'm talking about that kind of kneeling. The transfer of responsibility for our lives; the hope that there's something bigger that will hug us and keep us safe; the inability to face indifference of the Universe.

Quote from Cassius

Similarly with "gods" and "reverence," the emotions that go along with holding something or someone in very high esteem don't seem to me as something to *always* consider as prohibited. My main view at the moment would be that the limits and circumstances for such emotions and activities need to be tightly defined, rather than outright prohibited.

Holding someone in very high esteem doesn't entitle them to become gods. Why not keeping things plain and simple? Why the need for facade and flowery, religious language that can be easily misleading? And to be clear, I'm not in favour of prohibition. It's everyone's personal choice how they perceive their reality. But when we're talking about widespread ideas like Epicureanism, I'm getting worried when I see 'holy', 'religion' etc. next to it. Epicurus was not a god, not a prophet and most definitely was not holy. He was a guy who had an extraordinary gift of perceiving how things seem to work and he was kind enough to translate his powerful gift of observation for others' benefit. And not everything he observed, described or advocated for stood the test of time. He was not an oracle and when people try to paint him as such, his legacy suffers. Epicurus was a philosopher. Let's treat him as such.

People feel good kneeling. Not to look too silly, they invented gods so the can kneel purposefully. Here came Epicurus and told them it was still quite silly to kneel purposefully. They got up to cheer him and went back on their knees to cheer him some more. People do love kneeling.

This is the path where philosophy and religion get mixed. Please consider if this is the path worth taking. Please also do not take it as a personal attack of any sort. I have no intention of attacking anyone. I'm writing it only for people to think about it. That is all.

Quote from shahabgh66

Here is the argument: From a neuroscientific outlook, when brain produces any of these six hormones of Endorphins, Dopamine, Oxytocin, Norepinephrine, Cortisol and Adrenaline, one feels pleasure.

So if someone is in a state of total inactivity, and thinks about nothing pleasurable or troubling and feels no pain in his body, the reward system of the brain is not working*. So it does not produce any hormones that create such effect which is generally known as pleasure.

I'm as much a biologist as I am a fridge but if none of the hormones and neurotransmitters are at work at any given time in one's body, wouldn't that be a strong indication that this individual is as alive as a dodo?

The site looks brilliant. Nice update. Couple of bugs I've noticed:

• 'Recent Threads' under 'Recent' drop down menu seems to be broken when not logged in (the formatting is way off). It looks ok when logged in.
• 'Activate light style' and 'Activate dark style' do exactly the opposite. You may want to switch the descriptions.

Quote from Don

It would certainly make for an interesting alternative history novel!

That instantly brings 'The Man in the High Castle' by Philip K. Dick to my mind. I can't recommend it enough. Nothing to do with Epicurus but what a mind blowing alternative history novel it is.

Quote from Cassius

But visualize the life of a blessed being helps us to work toward that ourselves, and thinking about what Epicurus would do or say if he were watching us also helps to improve our actions.

I agree with the Epicurus part but visualization of life of something that we know nothing about is like visualization of beer pong game on five dimensional table. Not doable, I'm afraid. But I don't want to start another god topic so I'll try to silence my naughty, heretic side instantly. Bad, bad TauPhi.

I might be completely wrong about it but if Epicurus had gone mainstream we would have shortly after seen Epicurean churches, popes, bibles, schisms, wars, burnings at the stakes in the name of mighty Epicurus and all 'the good stuff'. I don't think there ever has been an idea, no matter how beautiful, that when adopted by masses were not transformed over time into a big pile of stinking poo.

A parallel world that took a better turn 2000 years ago sounds great in theory but there were many turns over last two millennia caused by people that wanted to redo existing world into something better. 'Noble' attempts like that have one thing in common. They inevitably lead to genocide.

I realise I probably don't rate humanity too high and I sincerely hope I'm dead wrong in this case but I'm glad Epicurus was not proclaimed the saviour of humanity by and large and went down in history simply as a philosopher with beautiful ideas.

This is the depiction of Epicurus I like the most from the ones I've seen so far. It comes from a Polish book 'Lukrecjusz' by Kazimierz Lesniak published in 1985. There's something in the eyes that captures my attention and I think it's the closest visual representation of Epicurus to the one I have in my mind.