Posts by Robert

Quote from Cassius

And last but not least, it's always a major red flag in my book when a formulation completely fails to use the word "pleasure." There are lots of people who have lots of good ideas on lots of things, but in my view probably the core trait of something being "Epicurean" is that it is willing to stand up and say straightforwardly that it is the "pleasure" of living that makes life worth living. It can sound like a word game sometime to insist on the word "pleasure," but anyone whose not willing to go all the way to the use of that term, in defiance of all the normal prejudice and peer pressure against it, isn't really in sync with Epicurus. Being willing and unafraid to stand up for "Pleasure," as in Emily Austin's book title "Living for Pleasure," is to me one of the best possible litmus tests to apply.

And sadly this is where a lot of the "atheist" literature out there fails so badly. The "Good without God" approach accepts the Platonic and other premise that there is a "good" other than "pleasure," and in the end that philosophical debate is the real battleground.

Hi, Cassius,

I'm glad you brought this up--it's been on my mind. Not to use the word "pleasure" would, I agree, amount to misrepresenation. So I probably should clarify that I don't see the passage as being genuine Epicureanism--but perhaps an example of Epicureanism bubbling up within a nominally Christian framework,

As far as I know, no Christian would unabashedly espouse "pleasure" as a good in itself. Yet these things get to be complicated. I had a conversation recently with someone from an evangelical Christian background. I asked her what the draw was. Her answer: "it just feels good."

Quote from Kalosyni

Very interesting...partly Epicurean: "no spiritual treasure to be found apart from the experiences of human life on earth".

But there is a lot to unpack in the sentence: "My life depends on ignoring all touted distinctions between the secular and the sacred, the physical and the spiritual, the body and the soul."

And in my mind this is still talking about a search for something "supernatural". Then the following sentence says: "there is no way to God apart from the real life in the real world". I would wonder about the idea of "finding a way to God" -- is it some kind of (Platonist) drive to find perfection, or an ideal form, or ideal love, etc ?

Quote from Robert

(though perhaps perfect and incorruptible, as an Epicurean deity should be)

For myself, I don't think that there is enough within the Epicurean extant texts to flesh out this idea (of an Epicurean deity) into any type of "spiritual practice".

Also, I wonder how to properly define some of these words...especially "sacred" and "spiritual"... which may not have a place within the Epicurean philosophy. But I do think we should look to Lucretius' poem or Cicero's Torquatus section in order to conceive of the idea of the "soul".

There does remain the question of what happens to "mystery", the "unknowable", or "magick", etc. for an Epicurean (or in ancient times the Eleusinian Mysteries). But when we consider the Epicurean stance of "death is nothing to us" (which in practice is actually a much deeper and complex idea than the way that it sounds on the surface) then the "supernatural" is no longer needed, as well as the "spiritual" or the "sacred".

Perhaps Eikadistes or Don may like to add some other additional ideas on this.

Display More

Hi, Kalosyni,

The problem areas you've pointed to do complicate the alleged (by me) Epicurean-ness of this passage! I do wonder, though, if this is a case of the writer faltering a bit in the face of her opening declaration ("no spiritual treasure to be found apart from the experiences of human life on earth") and its implications. In rejecting the various dualities she mentions, is she implicitly embracing a materialist perspective, whether she acknowledges this or not?

I'm interested in the passage partly because of claims (by DeWitt and others) that Christianity has a history of appropriating Epicurean ideas and practices. I've been keeping an eye out for possible instance sof how this is done...

All--a friend on social media posted this. When I read it, I thought "hmm, this sounds quite Epicurean." Thoughts?

I can see some possible objections. An Epicurean might not use the phrase "becoming more fully human," and "God" here is presumably the Christian version (though perhaps perfect and incorruptible, as an Epicurean deity should be). Still, the idea seems to be that we humans can reach a divine state through a practice of mindful living, as opposed to traveling after death to some mysterious region outside of physics and nature.

Quote from Cassius

Robert we have a lot of former Buddhists here, so you might find this subforum interesting, especially if you find yourself wanting to discuss points of comparison.

But to you (and all new people) who just get starting reading the forum, please feel free to post questions or comments in any section as you are getting started, and don't worry about waiting to try to read everything before you post.

This isn't like a computer tech forum where the standard answer to basic questions is RTFM. We have some basic materials or locations to which we can point you, but more than that our participants enjoy going through basic points with "newer" people. Doing that regularly helps us sharpen our own understanding and reminds us of the basic points, rather than staying deep in weeds, as we can tend to do when we're discussing some history or translation or textual issue. TThe basic points always need to be our primary points of discussion.

Thank you, Cassius!

This online community is an amazing resource. I've been struck by how little material on Epicurus is available to the general public--and how much has to be dug up from (sometimes obscure) academic journals--so I see great value in what you're doing here.

I did try to prepare a bit by reading DeWitt, but I will definitely take your advice and not shy from askib questions.

Quote from Don

Quote from Robert

Thank you for the recommendation! I did have Living for Pleasure on my list; I'm now moving it up in the queue. Excited to start reading it.

I describe it as erudite but conversational. It's very approachable but comes with a deep understanding of Epicurus's philosophy. Hope you enjoy.

Her article "Are the Modern Stoics Really Epicureans?" is worth a read, too!

https://www.hnn.us/article/are-th…ally-epicureans

Quote

As a more controversial point, I suspect that many Modern Stoics are already Epicureans, at least by the standards of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Let me explain...

Thank you, I will read this first! I found Stoicism to be a letdown. With superficial exposure, there seemed much to agree with--but I suspect the aspects I found appealing were "Epicureanism in disguise."

Quote from Twentier

Quote from Robert

Hello, friends! I look forward to many interesting conversations here.

I'm a newcomer to Epicureanism, and have been immersing myself in a sort of self-conducted crash course over the past several weeks. I read DeWItt (based on recommendations here), several of the essays in "Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition" (Fish/Sanders), Robert Brown's "Lucretius on Love and Sex," and most recently Voula tsouna's book on the ethics of Philodemus.

My entry into philosophy came via Buddhism. After exploring that path for several years I concluded there were too many things that i couldn't accept. And I noticed that when I put the problem areas aside, the results looked quite a bit like Epicureanism. That got me interested in learning more.

I live in Maryland, work in university communications, and have four cats. Nice to meet everyone, and thank you for making this wonderful resource available!

Welcome, Robert! I think you will find some interesting discussion about comparisons between Buddhism and Epicurean Philosophy here: 2022 Epicurus vs Buddhism Compare and Contrast Thread. (I actually just re-visted it, inspired by some new, yet unrelated investigation I've been doing).

Indeed, that's a useful and quite thorough discussion! Some of the points raised resemble ones I've seen in debates between "secular" and "traditional" Buddhists--the former generally wanting to drop karma/rebirth and supernaturalism in general, and also being less nihilistic. Buddhism as taught in the suttas is extremely pessimistic--with complete oblivion being seen as the ultimate "happiness."

Buddhist traditionalists accuse the secularists of being, essentially, modern-day Chārvākas--and, as you noted in the thread, it's not a big leap from Chārvāka to Epicureanism.

Anyway, thanks for pointing me to this very interesting thread!

Quote from Don

If you haven't read Emily Austin's book, Living for Pleasure, highly recommend that one for you to add in your "self-conducted crash course" Great phrase, by the way. Her book is by far my personal favorite for an introduction to the philosophy.

Thank you for the recommendation! I did have Living for Pleasure on my list; I'm now moving it up in the queue. Excited to start reading it.

Hello, friends! I look forward to many interesting conversations here.

I'm a newcomer to Epicureanism, and have been immersing myself in a sort of self-conducted crash course over the past several weeks. I read DeWItt (based on recommendations here), several of the essays in "Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition" (Fish/Sanders), Robert Brown's "Lucretius on Love and Sex," and most recently Voula tsouna's book on the ethics of Philodemus.

My entry into philosophy came via Buddhism. After exploring that path for several years I concluded there were too many things that i couldn't accept. And I noticed that when I put the problem areas aside, the results looked quite a bit like Epicureanism. That got me interested in learning more.

I live in Maryland, work in university communications, and have four cats. Nice to meet everyone, and thank you for making this wonderful resource available!