We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Thank you for these resources, and for the topic! The question has been on my mind as well, as I've been seeking to learn more about the vectors o influence that connect Epicurus with later empiricists, e.g. Locke. I know very little about Locke, hut when I read summaries of his thought I see lots of stuff that seems like it could have been lifted from Epicurus more or less wholesale.
Who do you think had greater influence on development of science--Epicurus, or Aristotle?
Thanks very much! This was a really nice surprise! And I love the e-card, with the depiction of Epicurus looking out over the Saronic Gulf (at least that's how I interpret it...but correct me if I got this wrong!).
Hope everyone is having a pleasurable week. 
I've been enjoying the great company each Sunday.
Sometimes there is guilt at feeling pleasure or happiness after a loved one passed away. I told myself, "how can I feel happy after losing my father?" But he wouldn't have wanted me to stop living just because he is no longer alive.
Agreed. I've actually found over the last few funerals I've been to, that sharing stories about the one who died, especially when coupled with photos or a slide show of photos, is helpful and bittersweet, and pleasurable. Giving people a conversation starter with the photos is good. The first time I remember this is putting together the photos for my grandmother's funeral. Family joined in. But after the funeral, it can be hard. Epicurus' philosophy drives home though the preciousness of life, both remembering the life of the one who died and the life we go on living. We should not feel guilty for going on living. The dead live through our memories of them. That's the only afterlife we get. Famous people may leave books and writing and now video and audio, but they're still only memories.
It also, I think, drives home the importance of cultivating good relationships with people while they are alive. The more joyful the relationship, the more consoling are the memories. And when you lose someone with whom you're estranged to some degree, the sting is that much more painful.
Thanks, everyone!
Hello everyone:
In my readings to this point, I've noticed that Epicurean therapy concerning death mostly relates to fear of our own death. The Epicurean argument is that we should not be afraid of it because we will lack sensation and perception after we have died. I find this argument convincing.
However, we will not lack sensation and perception when those around us die--e.g. friends, family, or pets. How does Epicureanism approach this problem? What are some relevant passages?
Nature shows us that people are resilient in the face of loss, but we usually go through a grieving process. Grief could be considered a kind of disturbance and thus a hindrance to attaining or sustaining ataraxia. How is this apparent dilemma addressed?
I have a hunch this is discussed in a thread somewhere on the site, so please feel free to direct me accordingly.
I
Bryan thanks very much for this! I was interested primarily in the text, though I'm sure the commentary is valuable as well.
Thanks also to you, Don, for the WorldCat link. Possibly some options there.
Hello! Here I am, four years later, with the same question. Any leads?
how prominent supernatural or pseudoscience is ingrained into pop culture...
...And so on and so on ...
And Don your list didn't even include Dune, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.
Dating myself now, but can't resist mentioning "Escape to Witch Mountain"--much loved at age 7.
Also: Close Encounters of the Third Kind...fun mix of science and pseudo.
"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?
Are these fears actually newfound, though? Or are they just modern variations on age-old themes: illness, disadvantage, mortality, the long-term fate of the universe?
Epicurus acknowledges the causal nexus, aka "necessity." Lucretius startles his readers in DRN 5 with the news that the world will end, though hopefully not just yet. Things like genetic predispostions and brain chemistry--seem to fall into the bucket of "necessity;" that is, they are causally determined, though we may make various choices in response to them.
That might suggest that the Epicurean prescription for dealing with them would be more or less the same as in his time, at least in terms of general principle.
Display More
Modern science now has tools to better examine and correlate mental states with our feelings, using enhanced bio-feedback tools.
There is an interesting organization that is conducting rigorous research into the sphere of noetics. The Institute of Noetic Science (IONS) conducts scientific research into understanding the power of the human mind. They are also testing theories of how the human mind can gain extraordinary knowledge thorough ‘natural’ means (e.g. clairvoyance, esp), using scientific methods.The term “Noetic” comes from the Greek word noēsis/noētikos that means inner wisdom, direct knowing, intuition, or implicit understanding.
“At the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), we are inspired by the power of science to explain phenomena not previously understood, harnessing the best of the rational mind to make advances that further our knowledge and enhance our human experience.The mission of the Institute of Noetic Sciences is to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through scientific exploration and personal discovery.”
I found some of their research articles helped understand what Epicurus taught to have mental focus (ebole).
Hi, Patrikios,
Your post raises for me the question of whether we might find in Epicureanism something analogous to samadhi in the Indian traditions, perhaps with ἐπιβολή playing a role. Mental focus is central part of vipassana, for instance. And those traditions report all manner of unusual states--whole catalogues of them. I notice that the Wikipedia article on the Institute of Noetic Sciences explicitly references samadhi.
A difficulty would lie in connecting non-materialist/dualist religious-philosophical systems with Epicurean materialism, but "difficult" doesn't mean "impossible." If deities can be composed of atoms, then presumably paranormal states with material explanations are possible as well.
Just speculating, for the fun of it!
E
Also, an addendum regarding determinism: current science does breathe fresh life into the debate over free will; however, scientific determinism differs from the theistic determinism of Stoicism or Calvinism. There's no god, whether providential or wrathful, behind the machine. I think this distinction has implications for the emotion of fear. One has reason to tremble in a deterministic universe ruled by a capricious deity or deities. But if God is either non-existent or non-interventionist, one can instead focus on identifying causal conditions and taking appropriate action.
Agree, this is an interesting question! Here' my lunch-hour take:
Science has contributed by being able to explain more and more phenomena that, in the past, people might have been inclined to attribute to gods. The more explanatory power science has, the less room there is for supernatural explanations. There is simply less and less for the gods to do.
As an example, in diagnosing certain mental disorders, we can look at the functioning of the amygdala, or whether or not someone has sustained a frontal lobe injury, whereas 500 years ago folks might have claimed possession by spirts (good or evil).
In other words, modern science hasn't changed the basic principles underlying the Epicurean approach, but it has expanded the applicability--and, in so doing, made the competing supernaturalist approaches less plausible.
It might also help prevent relapses of the kind Lucretius mentions in Book 5 of DRM...at least, one can hope so!
How well do you think modern-day Epicureans navigate the relationship with tradition--given that Epicureanism in classical times was said to value orthodoxy (to the point of not disagreeing with or criticizing the Hegemon), and yet there are obviously a few areas where rethinking is necessary, as in some parts of the physics.
As you may be able to tell from my last post, I think the modern-day Epicureans don't have nearly the level of problems the modern-day Stoics have in keeping closer to the ancient school. I've read the complaints about the Epicurean school having to do with their being dogmatic or not disagreeing with the teacher. I'd have to look up where those came from, so I won't discuss specifics. Part of this from modern commentators it seems to me has to do with being hung up on the word "dogmatic" itself. "Epicureans were dogmatic," as in Diogenes Laertius 10.120: "He will be a dogmatist but not a mere sceptic." I addressed this on my site: https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…remain-in-doubt Dogmatic doesn't mean keeping to strict orthodoxy, it means being willing to take a position as opposed to remaining skeptical of everything, or as the word used means, "to be at a loss, be in doubt, be puzzled."
When it comes to the physics, I'm not overly concerned about the specifics. The Lucretius Today podcast did a great job of working through the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles and mining those for some great practical insights! The specifics don't matter. What matters is that Epicurus taught that we live in a material universe, governed by understandable laws that can be known; where we lack sufficient evidence for a conclusion, we withhold judgement and accept that there's a material cause until sufficient evidence is available. We are not ruled by Providence as the Stoics would have us believe. If you read the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles or sections of Lucretius, Epicurus and Lucretius are constantly writing "it could be this way, or this way, or this way..." and accept that there's a physical cause for the phenomenon they're discussing. Lucian in "Alexander the Oracle-Monger" writes that an Epicurean could find the physical mechanism behind the Snake-Oracle even if wasn't readily apparent.
That unswerving commitment that we live in a physical world, not under the thumb of capricious gods, is what makes it possible to be a modern-day Epicurean.
Hi, Don,
The Stoic reliance of Providence was a turn-off for me as well--probably the main issue that drew me away from it, after some initial interest. More specifically, I don't think the Stoics handled theodicy very convincingly. They actually seem to me even less plausible than the Abrahamic religions in that regard. Plus, if one's going to accept a notion like Providence, why not go a step further and personalize it--make it a God you can talk to?
Since, as Emily Austin suggests, modern-day Stoics are closer to Epicureanism, I wonder why they self-describe as the former. Something to do with Marcus Aurelius? Or maybe--at least in the U.S.--the concept of "pleasure" conflicts too much with the Protestant work ethic?
Regarding Epicurean physics, I did hear this covered in the Lucretius Today episodes dealing with relevant sections of De Rerum Natura. I'm very interested in listening to the other episodes that you mention.
Robert , have you read Voula Tsouna's paper on epibole, where she talks about the process of how we should study and pay attention to the words and meanings of Epicurus writings.
https://www.bsa.ac.uk/wp-content/upl…ACT-HANDOUT.pdfIn her paper on prolepsis, she emphasizes the role of mental focus in learning Epicurean concepts.
“For what I label the Lockean view typically involves the idea that preconceptions are formed passively, without any movement of thought, whereas what I call the Kantian view is accompanied by the contention that epibolē, a mental focusing, is an integral component of the formation of basic concepts.”
https://www.academia.edu/32563844/Epicurean_Preconceptions
I find that understanding these concepts of prolepsis and epibole are key to better understanding how to integrate the simple, but powerful, practices of living prudently, pleasurably, and pleasantly.
Hi, Patrikios--I just finished reading the paper on epibole--thank you for suggesting it! A quick reaction (assuming I understood Tsouna's line of argument) is that it sheds some light on why memorization of the teachings is important. It seems to form part of a mental training that leads first to epibole about specific topics and ultimately to the cosmic-level view that Lucretius and Philodemus both attribute to the the Epicurean sage. Does this seem correct to you?
I'm going to dive into the paper on prolepsis next, as this is a concept I've had trouble grasping. It's interesting that epibole and prolepsis are both so integral to your Epicurean practice(s)--interesting because they're both a bit difficult, and are part of the canon rather than the ethics (which seems to be the most accessible part of the philosophy).
I'm late to the game here, but I'd offer that philosophy - as conceived of in the ancient schools - was always meant to be lived. One chose a school (or took a more eclectic approach as I'd argue Cicero does in certain ways), and lived one's life in accordance with what one learned from one's teacher and one's school: Stoic, Peripatetic, Platonic, Skeptic, Epicurean, etc. As time went on, "religion" moved into that sphere - I'm thinking especially of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism (although some call that a philosophy - depends on the flavor I suppose), especially when those major religions got the imprimatur of government authority... like when the Roman emperor decided it would behoove him to have one emperor, one religion, one empire kind of thing. Later, philosophy became (in the popular and academic mind) a "subject" one studied apart from living one's life. In more recent time, the ancient schools - I'd argue spearheaded by "Stoics" (and, yes, I'm putting it deliberately in quotes) - have seen a revival of sorts, including philosophical counseling. Our little corner of the internet is one of the ways Epicurus' philosophy is part of that renewal, revival, and renaissance.
Yes, it's the applied aspect that's been on my mind. Perhaps because we most often encounter philosophy as an academic subject, the province of scholars and historians, it can seem more like intellectual entertainment than an approach to living. And, as you point out, when folks today are interested in the question "how should I live?," religion is the go-to.
Just curious--could you elaborate further on your view of modern-day Stoics? I haven't delved into that corner of the philosophical world too much, other than listening to a few podcasts, but I'm interested to know where you see the divergences (from actual Stoicism). How well do you think modern-day Epicureans navigate the relationship with tradition--given that Epicureanism in classical times was said to value orthodoxy (to the point of not disagreeing with or criticizing the Hegemon), and yet there are obviously a few areas where rethinking is necessary, as in some parts of the physics.
As oters have mentioned, Epicurus took part in commemorations (rituals) of his own birthday, his family's, his friends, and took part in the large city festivals regularly. I think you can also incorporate an Epicurean mindset when taking part in holidays - even if you attend church services as pro forma with family. Epicurus and the early Epicureans took part in rituals and processions and other civic affairs that paid homage and sacrifice to the gods; but I'm convinced they were not (mentally) taking part the way most in the crowds were participating. They saw the gods differently, but could take pleasure in the festivities and even the sacrifices which were a part of every civic festival. So, enjoy our (American) secular festivities like Thanksgiving, or "religious/secular" events like Christmas.. but feel free to put your own Epicurean spin on things even its only to yourself.
I'm reminded of an interview I heard recently with a British actress who had grown up Catholic. She had lost her faith many years ago, but still loved the ceremonial aspects of Catholicism--indeed, she said it was her first introduction to theater.
If I'm thirsty, and convince myself that I need to have soda, beer, or whatever, might that also be an example? After all, very often a glass of water will do just fine.
I think that here we're talking about the necessary / unnecessary / etc analysis, which yes addresses the problem that through our own mistake, or through outside conditioning, we end up thinking that we have to have X in order to be satisfied, but in truth Y would produce a better overall pleasure over pain result.
The thing I like to caution against, though, is thinking that what a person should target is "just enough to get by" as if "just enough" is the goal. The goal is choosing the "most pleasant" option, rather than the "just enough" option, and I would argue that there is a very important difference between the two. Sometimes the soda, beer, etc., is in fact the most pleasant option and worthy of being chosen.
As VS 63 is usually translated, "Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess."
Thanks--that's a helpful clarification. FWIW, I had in mind situations in which our pleasure is diminished by not having something we think that we need (e.g. alcohol or coffee). This can happen while traveling, for instance, or when attending a party where booze is not being served. Habitual attachment to an unnecessary pleasure creates mental turmoil (and sometimes unpleasant bodily sensations as well, aka withdrawal symptoms).
Display MoreAgain, reasoning through things, regarding beer...which contains alcohol...and so wouldn't be considered healthy. (see article excerpt below).
But perhaps once a month or less, or according to each person's choice and avoidance, and if you have a strong enough liver (as people age the liver isn't functioning as well.)
I personally have decided that I won't drink alcohol unless it is a very special occasion (such as a wedding).
Plus it's important to be sure to eat some food when drinking alcohol so that the absorption is slowed down.
As explained in this article, alcohol metabolism also results in the generation of acetaldehyde, a highly reactive and toxic byproduct that may contribute to tissue damage, the formation ofdamaging molecules known as reactive oxygen species (ROS), and a change in the reduction–oxidation (or redox) state of liver cells. Chronic alcohol consumption and alcohol metabolism are strongly linked to several pathological consequences and tissue damage.
Yes, I think the calculus delivers different results as we age. I'm in my late fifties now and less inclined to bring on a hangover. I also don't take the health of my liver for granted, or assume that I'm immune to diabetes.
None of which means that I won't order a beer at the family event I'm attending this evening.
So, looking at one of the Vatican sayings: VS71. Question each of your desires: “What will happen to me if that which this desire seeks is achieved, and what if it is not?” simply requires I create a daily/weekly/monthly practice to ask myself that question. Whether that becomes my personal "ritual" to live a happy Epicurean life remains my task.
That's such a great, practical approach. I found several occasions today to apply it at work--e.g. the wish to argue with someone, not reply to an email, etc.
Exhibit A to my last post. If anyone wants to comment on it I'll crosspost this to physics, but the number of similar articles is innumerable and this is of note only because it's new. These guys have been organized for 2000+ years and the drumbeat never stops - so neither can our organizing an immunization.
Ugh, yes. Thing I wonder about is to what extent these folks know they're BS-ing.
Epicurean philosophy teaches you to immunize yourself against many impositions by giving you a basic orientation toward the universe that helps defeat those negative forces in life.
There are so many things that are part of common culture that have nothing to do with a living a pleasant, pleasurable, and "blessed-as-if-living-like-the-gods" life -- and they are all just "empty opinion" (I'm especially talking about what we buy, and what we think we should buy, based on what everyone else is doing - food, clothing, home decor, etc.
If I'm thirsty, and convince myself that I need to have soda, beer, or whatever, might that also be an example? After all, very often a glass of water will do just fine.
