Posts by sanantoniogarden

Salud and welcome dlippman !

An analogy (imperfect at best) I use to describe prolepsis, which should be familiar to most these days, are the cameras on our phones. Say that your mind is like a camera constantly taking pictures of various things. Take a picture of a big tree, little tree, wide tree, narrow tree. Eventually the photo album on your phone will suggest a file simply called "trees" or "sunsets" because it has recognized (pattern recognition) the similarities between various individual pictures (sensations) and organized them into an album (prolepsis). Now an analogy which would apply to gods might be something like taking a picture of a ball, a bat, a base, manicured grass, chalk lines, and a foul pole, eventually suggesting a new file called "baseball". However abstract concepts like gods and the game of baseball would require a language to flesh out, I feel. Once again imperfect at best but maybe helpful to some.

Thank you for sharing this!

Very interesting, thanks Kalosyni !

I plan to purchase the soft cover soon!

Much appreciated Cassius !

Welcome!

Just finished reading the article by Jeffrey Fish and was curious if anyone had reading suggestions concerning Epicureanism and politics?

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

TauPhi and this https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/13/tec…-ja1Tm-aw%3D%3D.

Quote from Kalosyni

"On the flip side, you could say that modern science has resulted in germ-warfare and nuclear weapons"

Fritz Haber is an interesting personification of this. He helped develop the Haber process, which is still feeding billions (absolutely good) but also contributed the creation of zyklon b (absolutely evil)

Quote from Robert

"scientific determinism differs from the theistic determinism of Stoicism or Calvinism"

Right, it's the implications of this scientific determinism that has my attention. I expect most of us generally accept that the epicurean gods are material and do not interfere, intervene, inhibit or punish. And most will accept that modern science has continued the Epicurean mission to stamp out superstition. Now that we've done away with with the "supernatural" (a phrase I've always had issues with) we can focus on dispelling the new fears.

It's in these new found fears and anxieties. Genetic predispositions to painful or deadly diseases can make some feel trapped by some biological destiny. Psychology or neuroscience can also make some feel trapped by brain chemistry or childhood experiences (even compound the anxiety of biological destiny). Climate change can be the source of much existential dread. The interesting question is how does the Epicurean respond to these new problems?

To the point of conciseness of the categorization of desires I simply use necessary, unnecessary and vain. I feel this is a nice brief way to remember: necessary desires are Natural, unnecessary desires are natural, and vain desires are just that, empty and unattainable.

Thinking about this today and how the purpose of Epicurean physics was to help remove irrational and unnecessary fears, and how or has our modern science has contributed to this end? For some I imagine understanding germ theory, pathology, maybe some basic genetics (and other disciplines) would remove the fear of some godly whims, but for others this knowledge might create new fears of some almost deterministic fate. Curious what the forum thinks

Welcome!

I like the simplicity of the moon symbol, however it's similarity to the crescent and star might be confusing for some and offensive to others.

I'm hesitant to say that Epicurus would hold that Desires are either wholly painful or wholly pleasurable. Desires have to exist in a sort of neutral Natural sense almost entirely biological. Most of the basic Natural and necessary desires are driven by biological instinct, to satisfy hunger and thirst, shelter from the elements and a community of friendship to shelter from the human predicament.

It seems that on a surface level saying that all Desires are painful might lead one to the ascetic side of Epicureanism. To my understanding there are only two states one can exist in, pleasure or pain, if all Desires are in fact painful, the removal of those Desires would increase one's pleasure more than actually satisfying those Desires. You never have that desire you never have that pain. Because as we all know satisfying a desire would lead to more desires (more pain) unless one educates themselves (where the calculus enters). If all Desires are pleasurable, would it at all make sense to have that desire delayed as long as possible, since desire is wholly pleasurable? Because satisfying a pleasurable desire would remove that pleasurable desire and briefly increase pain until a new pleasurable desire is found? (Playing devil's advocate with these questions)

I like the first Mondays idea and focusing on the Principal Doctrines, not just for new members and people new to the philosophy but having more experienced guides present to really sharpen and condense answers to the most basic questions that people have.

The doctrines should be supported I think by references to the letters as much as possible. This is so that people's first conversations are about Epicurus own words and leaving the secondary sources and commentaries for later study and conversation.