Posts by Julia

The introduction of Warren's Cambridge Companion On Epicureanism says its chapters entitled "Epicurean atomism", "Cosmology and meteorology", "Psychology", and "Action and responsibility" are the ones which discuss "the major subject areas" of "physics and metaphysics".

I suppose "metaphysics" really does need an obligate qualifier, such as "esoteric metaphysics", "Platonic metaphysics", … in the same way as one wouldn't write in a vacation postcard "Dear friends, we landed safely. There is weather." Instead, weather is one of those words, which always need further qualification, too.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Eikadistes

After all, the Garden "supposes the study of nature provides the proper space for the voices of the facts."

Sounds like you have a particular reference in mind there Eikadistes?

If I may?

"Nevertheless, she [Epíkouros’ school] has withdrawn the Dialectic [and] rejects it for want of qualification; for they suppose the [study of] natural [phenomena] provides [the proper] space for the voices of the facts." from Eikadistes' own translation of Diogenes Laertios (10.31).

Quote from Cassius

This might be an American take and not have the same effect in Europe.

Same in Europe, I'd say, except less witchcraft, more esoteric (in case that matters…).

Quote from Joshua

For example, the claim in alchemy that lead can be transmuted into gold through basic chemistry (rather than high-energy particle physics) can be tested, has been tested, and has not produced the desired result

Quote from Joshua

Both words, physics and metaphysics, had each of them one meaning in antiquity, and have both of them quite another meaning now. In antiquity, both branches were viewed predominately through the lens of logic, and neither of them were subjected to the method of rigorous experimentation against the standards of reproducibility and falsifiability. In modern usage, that method has come to mark out the shifting boundaries between the scientific study of nature and the non-scientific, the latter of which includes both common pseudoscience (the claims of which are usually falsifiable and generally have been falsified) and what we call the philosophical branches of metaphysics, theology, eschatology, etc.--the claims of which are often not falsifiable.

[…]

Both Aristotle and Epicurus discussed whether motion was possible, and whether anything can come from nothing, and whether atoms and void or love and strife or the four classical elements were the building blocks of nature, and both Aristotle and Epicurus referred to their studies of these questions as physics. We should focus our attention instead on clarifying, when necessary, the distinction between the ancient and the modern meanings of that word.

I agree

Thank you for all the work and effort you do to keep the forums up and running. It is very much appreciated! 🏆

The ancient papyri, labelled SFOTSE, held together with a gemstone, inside the waning gibbous. Could easily be modified for NFFNSNC, for EPICURUS, et cetera. (I'm not good at drawing, but I'm sure you see what I mean. I forgot one radial line near the F; that's just by mistake )

Quote from Kalosyni

What do you feel is the most important aspect of Epicurean philosophy?

Personally, I'd say the method of truth-finding is at the core, because – after taking into account that we're engaging in philosophy, which implies that we're already trying to find a method for attaining the good life before whatever we do becomes specifically Epicurean (as opposed to generally philosophical) – because once the method of truth-finding is given, I'd expect that one would, with time and effort, rebuild something reasonably similar to Epicurean philosophy.

To rephrase that, I don't firstly hold Epicurean philosophy as divine; I don't even hold it as useful first; I first hold it as true, and thus, that which generates that sensation/feeling of truth, to me, is the core – and it is from truth, that everything else follows.

The feeling of conviction is a fundamental human emotion, which can be triggered by deep brain stimulation in isolation, which means: the subjects will report feeling very profoundly convinced, but they won't be able to tell you of what – they're just very, very convinced. This shows how the feeling of conviction is just as much a hardwired dimension of our emotional landscape as love and fear.

And what's more, in my experience with religionism, it was the same there: the conviction of truth preceded everything else – but couldn't be maintained, because – well… – it wasn't actually true, was it.

Is that really different for you?

Quote from Joshua

Julia, Don has a write-up that might be relevant to your question here.

And here is a thread where the question of Epicurus' birthday was raised in 2022.

Edit: another thread in the chain that led to the current paper by Don.

You're right – I didn't think to search first! Thank you for pointing me to some good places

Instead of superimposing it onto the illuminated section of the lunar surface, I tried to turn Epicurus' profile itself into the moon's surface, if you see what I mean? I'm no good at graphic design, so bear with me… (Please note I reused the AI-generated profile from this post earlier in the same thread.)

I think a version of this which isn't broken in half a dozen ways might be good, but then…how to simplify the profile further without losing it's characteristics…

PS: When did "Twentier" start to be used to refer to adherents of the Epicurean school? Would this be Ancient Greek or Latin? Can anyone copy & paste the actual letters here? I have no idea how Greek numerals (…-th & …-er) work…

Eikadistes: You can probably point me to the sources for this? ↑ I know it's in your name, but I don't quite know what is anachronistic and what isn't, and so forth. (I speak neither Latin nor Greek.)

As far as I am concerned, I'm already happy with what we've got so far. What would make things even better, is if we found something that clicked with most of us here. To me, so far, that's definitely the 20er moon with four atoms (diamond) – or maybe five (sideways rhombus with a dot in the middle).

Personally, I'll not expect anyone to evangelise or use it or "buy a hat"
After that, if anyone is in touch with other groups, and likes to play ping-pong back with the "It's been a few years, but here is the epicureanfriends.com answer to the ⟐ suggestion -- what do y'all think about it?" that would be great.

I think just putting things out there and letting the free market of ideas sort it out is fine, unless, of course, you have a secret advertising budget I'm not yet aware of

For example, I liked the scroll with a Latin inscription shown in this post and might get one with, for example, the spelled out SFOTSE on it. For me, it's firstly about finding a way to…have explicitly Epicurean items about myself, be that a ring, bracelet, necklace – or a trucker cap, and secondly, I'm quite certain that having a symbol like that would serve our cause of spreading the word (but I myself just happen to not be much of a missionary type of person)

You see: Even if SoE reject whatever we suggest, that's still dialogue and they might have a counter proposal. Other than "this feels like a waste of time" (which is fine to feel that way) I don't see what we have to lose

Quote from Don

and to have it catch on

I'm willing to try – it's not like we need to invest our life savings or anything – and just see where we end up amongst ourselves and what happens in dialogue with other groups; same as the initial ⟐ proposition which started the thread. Even if whatever we come up with won't take the world by storm tomorrow, I still see value in having the conversation

Quote from Don

saints' medals and crucifixes (with the body of Jesus) still are popular with the Catholic crowd

They do use them, but – in my personal experience – I don't remember anyone wearing it openly in an everyday setting. To stick with my example, I cannot recount a bank teller openly sporting one of these as a necklace, in contrast to, say, plain crosses or stars of david, and that applies to deeply catholic areas as well. If they wear one of the ones you liked, they're mostly out of sight underneath a shirt, attached to a wall, or glued to the dashboard of the vehicle

Thank you for the thread you liked; I'll check that out!

Quote from Cassius

have you seen Bryan's more recent work in making rings/jewelry?

Not yet

To be perfectly honest, while Epicurus has his place in my home decoration, I don't see how a line-drawing like that would translate into jewellery (which matters to me personally) or clothing suitable for everyday contexts. There are an infinite number of ways to wear, include, embed, and display the religionists' symbols; on the other hand, the line drawing of Epicurus' profile doesn't strike me as something that would work equally well for everyday life. If you contrast the religionists' symbols with seal rings, fraternity rings, and family crests, and imagine those two being opposite ends of the same spectrum, you might see what I try to express: The religionists' symbols are "lightweight", whereas seals and crests are "more heavy". I'm afraid I lack adequate adjectives to express this well. Allow me to use an example:

Let's imagine a business context, such as working as a bank teller, wearing formal daytime business attire. I could, in any number of ways, easily wear a 20er moon with or without some kind of modification, such as the four dots. On the other hand, it might be tricky to wear a line drawing of Epicurus' profile – not to his fault, but simply as an expression of the times we live in. Similarly, one of the medieval Memento Mori / Vanitas figures and drawings might have been perfectly fine in their time, but today, they're rather a bit much as soon as the general public gets involved. Likewise, a cross with a detailed human body hanging from it might no longer fly, but the symbolic cross itself won't hardly ever cause any problem. See what I mean? Please note that I don't say the line drawing is gruesome or that it has connotations akin to a family crest. I'm saying that some things are perfectly fine, per se, but they still don't work in every context. Even in very Roman Catholic parts of the world I don't remember people wearing detailed crosses anymore, nor do I recall displays of Memento Mori figures in public or semi-public areas – and this is the case even though the majority of inhabitants in those regions would probably agree with the underlying message. This illustrates how not everything that works well for a wall, doorway or shrine also works well as a necklace or ring. We've set out to look for a symbol for Epicurean philosophy, not for its seal.

I would prefer something simpler, something which can be adopted as part of everyday life, something which can be used in (virtually) every situation of life.

Quote from Cassius

one of the best line drawings I have seen

Indeed!

Quote from Kalosyni

The atom itself:

This symbol reminds me of the famous three body problem:

Quote from Wikipedia

Unlike the two-body problem, the three-body problem has no general closed-form solution, meaning there is no equation that always solves it. When three bodies orbit each other, the resulting dynamical system is chaotic for most initial conditions. Because there are no solvable equations for most three-body systems, the only way to predict the motions of the bodies is to estimate them

This characteristic might allude to the swerve, the motion of atoms, (after some generalisation) the shibboleth about the size of the sun, the fact that there are no absolute truths, that there is no "ten commandments" list, no universal authority for being "a true Epicurean", that the only way to solve Choice and Avoidance is to estimate the future, to predict in each moment, and so forth.

On the other hand, there are some stable three-body systems, many of which draw out simple yet beautiful patterns, thereby linking sciences and art, and some look not unlike the symbol Kalosyni just used, which is quite universally recognised as "an atom". Those stable systems might also be seen as representing the Epicurean path towards eventually mastering the contradicting aspects of life to find one's way, the duality of kinetic and katastematic pleasure (the bodies move but the system remains stable), and so on. Again, many many different interpretations are possible.

Here are some patterns of stable three-body systems (taken from Wikipedia):

→ CLICK HERE FOR ANIMATION ←

The one in the top-left corner draws a pattern similar to the four dots we discussed at length so far. The one at the bottom-left might be friends facing each other in a walled garden — but it could also be a nuclear core with a layer of electrons around it.

Numbered left-to-right, top-to-bottom: top-left is #1, top-right is #5, bottom-left is #16, bottom-right is #20.

All those 3-body systems with a circle could use the moon's circumference to represent said circle -- but they don't have to. I think we should avoid those:

#3: too complex

#10: looks like an infinite sign ∞

#13: just a circle…

#18: too complex

#19: too complex

Which are your favourites? What do y'all think about the idea in general?

Martin, do you have a suggestion?

Quote from kochiekoch

Yeah, but they'd mostly know an image of Jesus.

Well, yes. Like mostly everyone anywhere in the world knows Coca-Cola now, nobody knew Coca-Cola on day one. Today's organised Christianists operate something similar to an international corporation, which, in the past, was an integral part of the military-industrial complex and even operated a private military for aggressive conquest… I mean. I don't know. I think we should define our target audience.

What I am looking for is something that clicks with Epicureans, and which can be used in the manner of the Star of David, a cross, and so on -- as a symbol around the house, as a piece of jewelry, and so forth. To this end, it shouldn't be overly lewd, offensive or anything else that would make it hard to fly the banners due to backlash from the general public. I can see myself wearing or publicly displaying a 20er moon with four dots on it, for example.

But other than that, I really don't care if non-Epicureans know what it means. They will know with time, just like we all know what someone means when he says "In the Meditations, it says…" -- the Stoics have sort-of captured an ordinary English word. What if that diary was commonly known as "Aureliatum"? Well, then you'd know that word. What if that somehow clicked with them, and they'd all start using that word starting today? You'd learn it with time.

Quote from Don

the majority of humans - or at least *many* humans - don't like ambiguity. It's easier to live a world with cut and dried rules. Rules also make it easier to enforce a structure, a hierarchy, and in-group and an out-group.

I agree. (This also applies to modern wild Gorillas and Chimpanzees, as well as pre-historic humans, from what I know.)

Quote from Don

Who gets to name the "true Epicureans"?

I'd like to counter by example: Two anarchists meet by chance, they recognise each other by use of the anarchist's symbol of an A in a circle Ⓐ. They might exchange numbers, meet, and discuss anarchism, often in a heated debate, often disagreeing on what the right way is -- but they'll still be connected. Two christianists meet by chance, recognise each other by use of a cross. Two judaists meet by chance, regonise each other by use of a star of david. Same thing. Just because we look for and propose a symbol that we hope will click with most Epicureans of the general persuasion we have on this forum, as you outlined does not mean we register a trademark and start policing who calls themselves Epicurean… (Even though I'd love to make all those overpriced "Epicurean" wineries pay trademark royalties into a fund towards preserving the Herculaneum papyri )

Quote from Kalosyni

an Epicurean symbol must have an interface between feeling and usefulness.

Quote from Cassius

There are all sorts of combinations that apply in different contexts.

Quote from Cassius

As to the bracelets and symbolism I see that as useful but differing widely by context.

Quote from Don

From what I understand, Epicurus calls us:

to see […] to understand […] to judge […] And so on...

In my opinion, these aspects are all symbolised in the waning gibbous (20er moon) with four atom dots. Let me recap, in no particular order, the symbolism as far as it was outlined:

• The four dots represent the atoms, and the space between/around them, is the void
• Historically, the moon and the stars (which the four dots can also be) have provided literal guidance to traveling humans, just as they provide figurative guidance to us
• The celestial bodies have inspired art, poetry, and scientific research
• The four invisible lines between the dots represent the quadrifugaco, the lines of the tetrapharmakos
• The four lines are invisible, because abstract concepts stem from the biochemical reality material atoms form in our brains, but they don't have a literal, direct existence in the sense of a Platonic realm of ideal forms
• The space between and around also points to where the Gods live.
• The different size of the atoms alludes to both the Epicurean ideas about not every atom being equal, as well as the shibboleth about the size of the sun
• It could also be seen as an eye, as in Sic Fac Omnia Tamquam Spectet Epicurus.
• The moon ties back to an ancient tradition as well as The Man himself, and…
• also to the Epicurean emphasis of friendship and community, and with that, it ties into
• to Epicurean ideas of justice (because without it, we couldn't be friends for long…)
• The dots can be a birds-eye view of four people in the garden (represented by the moon)
• Because they're "on the moon" an emphasize of lathe biosas can be seen, too
• The points at the top (a triangle pointing up) and bottom (a triangle pointing down) of the diamond shape represent Pain and Pleasure.
• The points to the left and right (triangle pointing left and right) represent Choice and Avoidance
• They can also be Right and Wrong, as in ethics and justice
• The four atoms can be: Physics, Atomics, Canonics, and Ethics
• The lower three atoms can be Sensations, Anticipations and Feelings, leading to the upper one: our Judgement about what is true in the world
• The four atoms are arranged in a diamond, the most durable natural physical substance (we currently know of), representing for the unshakable enduring trust in the Canon and the physical nature of the Cosmos with no supernatural intervention.
• The 20th moon is perpetually "born", "grows up" and "dies" again, which can be seen as a circle of life
• However, in moving through it's cycle, moon might fade from view, but it never truly disappears: nothing comes from nothing.
• It can also represent the linear, steady, forward-only passage of time (we cannot turn back time, not can we pause it)
• The space around the moon is as infinite as the universe itself
• Three atoms can be the canon, with the fourth being
• Even on nights we cannot see the 20th moon, anywhere on the night sky we can usually find four stars roughly arranged in a diamond on both hemispheres; this symbolises the eternal wisdom in what the four atoms represent, how they're there every day of the week, at any time of the day, and can offer us guidance through life even when it's not a time to celebrate
• This is also represented by the earth's moon looking that same way on earth practically forever (100 million years from now, human descendents will look back at me with an amused chuckle)
• because any constellation will do, it also says that there is no special meaning to the stars, symbolising the stance against superstitions (as can be found in like today's zodiac signs, ancient Babylonian / Hellenistic astrology, religionism, etc)
• …

That's a total of 27 interpretations already (I'm sure more could be found), and I argue that is not a weakness, but a strength: The symbol offers something for everyone, making it viable for broad adoption, and leading to the 28th interpretation: There is no universally agreed-upon authority issuing decrees about what "a true Epicurean" is. The symbol itself is a space for exploration, it is what your senses and judgement tell you it is, and that meta-level is itself Epicurean

(Copy & Paste from Don in this post.)

Quote from kochiekoch

I don't think most people would have a clue that the waning moon is Epicurean. Also true of the four atom dots arraigned in a diamond.

Why is that so bad? I could generalise it, and it would remain true: "most people would have no clue what Epicurean philosophy is" — and, as far as the general public is concerned, the same would also hold true for Epicurus' face.

I don't think that – with regards to finding a symbol – this a problem, or if it is, it isn't one we can solve. You see, it's probably true that in some parts of the world most of the local people there would have no clue what the christianist fish symbol means — but some people would know, some people would recognize it, and it could be the beginning of a bond over shared values. Some other people might not recognise it, but get curious and ask, which could be the beginning of a nice conversation, the beginning of a connection over something more than the weather.

And also, those who use the symbol would know what it means to themselves, it would be a reminder, a little non-supernatural ritual or charm, which is also something valuable.

That's enough for me

Quote from Kalosyni

Here is something I made using Canva layers (for the shapes and colors) together with a text-to-image (the woodcut).

Hmmm… I think – and y'all might disagree – but I think a symbol should be so simple that an average 8yo child could reproduce it. It shouldn't be harder than learning by heart how to draw a specific Chinese character (正体字), and I think this simplicity is actually an important aspect of these types of symbols

I feel like I'm saying "No" to everything, but I don't do that for the sake of it, nor do I mean to be confrontational, and I sincerely hope I'm expressing myself well. I do appreciate everyone's opinions and thoughts on finding a good symbol!

Quote from kochiekoch

I prefer roses. Also symbolic of Venus and a lot more common and easily obtained.

Roses are, indeed, more easily obtained, but roses are so very common and as a symbol are so heavily pre-charged already, that I wonder if they would serve a symbol's purpose of providing recognition with a reasonable amount of certainty…

I remain skeptical regarding whether Venus Physica is the way to go. I think there is a difference between "metaphorical" and "symbolic", and to me, Venus is more metaphorical than symbolic, which remains true, whether or not she was Memmius' and Lucretius' favourite. Venus as a metaphor can be exchanged for something else, without changing Epicurean philosophy as such. On the other hand, the atoms, the tetrapharmakos, the 20ieth, and so forth, are fixed — they will exist practically forever, and even if we live on Mars someday, moon on earth will still look the same on that day. I think that's beautiful and poetic

And also: In my opinion, what Lucretius expressed in those lines Don cited is that everyday language need not be relegated (lest one annoy people), so long as people don't take it at face value; just because Lucretius made explicit that the focus is on what people believe, not how they phrase everyday things — where I live, they say "Oh my god!" and "Inshallah!" all the time without thinking much about it… —, that doesn't make it an ideal or something aspirational. Lucretius doesn't say "Do use names of gods for things!"; he says "Let people stick to their old habits, as long as they know it's not real." Doesn't he?

So far, my personal favourites are still the waning gibbous (20er moon) with four atom dots arranged in a diamond, and the sideways rhombus with an atom in the middle

I also liked the visual of the common myrtle, but I was skeptical as to its symbolism, because — well… — Epicurean philosophy is not primarily about Venus or Aphrodite, so it would, in effect, place a rhetoric device, a poetic figure at the centre of things. See what I mean? It would be sort-of similar to using Iphigenia as a symbol, would it not?

What I thought could be done is, one could interpret the anther of the myrtle flower as atoms flying into mostly one direction, the filament of the stamen would be their past flight path through the void. It could also be interpreted as the pistil being Epicurus and the stamen being people at the garden. One could arrange the stamen such that they shape the four lines of the tetrapharmakos, as in the diamond/rhombus symbol. But then what are the petals? There might be three in a drawing, showing the three-legged canon of truth.

A flower, just like anything else, should, in my humble opinion, have a good amount of symbolism to go with it; symbolism which is Epicurean in a more narrower sense of the word than Venus or Iphigenia would be on their own.

Quote from Eikadistes

Quote from Kalosyni

But I like this concept that Eikadistes made some time ago... I've made it as a plain symbol without words:

In the even that anyone else wants to play with the gibbous moon design, I'm happy to share with you high resolution versions of the wordless transparencies I created for the Hedonicon and elsewhere.

I would appreciate that, Eikadistes!

Don, do you have a vector file of your Four Atoms version of it? If not, that's okay, too: The picture you uploaded is quite high resolution, and looks like it should be easy enough to trace

If y'all would like to release any file/symbol into the public domain, you can do that using the following template (for example). This effectively voids your own copyright to the specified file/symbol, thereby granting perpetual unlimited usage rights to anyone and everyone. To illustrate: The original text of De Rerum Natura and classical music are in the public domain, but Stallings' translation of DRN and today's number 1 pop song won't be in public domain for many years to come. Template:

This work (the file & symbol uploaded in this post by myself) is dedicated to the public domain and is marked with CC0 1.0 Universal. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

(Happy Birthday To You is a well-known example for why this can matter. Please know that I do not assume ill-intentions by anyone here. Copyright is just a topic that is very present in my mind in general )

Don: Is there an astonished / surprised superman in here, too?

Of what we have so far, I still like this symbol best.

Quote from Don

My major misgiving about the moon I'm using is that it can be interpreted as a moon with a surprised look on its face. (Once you see it, you can't unsee it.)

I still don't see it. I mean, I can cognitively suppose that the two atoms left/right could be eyes, and the atom at the bottom could be a mouth, like with this smiley "" but then what's the one at the top? The 3rd eye? And how come the right eye is bigger than the mouth? I really don't see it! Is Don the only one who sees it, or am I the only one who doesn't?