I’d like to add that, at the other end of the spectrum, one can have such a closed-fist mind that all they have is conviction: their “truth” is the only acceptable “truth,” must be all the “truth” and nothing but the “truth.” Evolving evidence be damned. (For example, certain scriptural-literalist religious fundamentalists.) The possibility of alternative explanations (ala Epicurus) rejected out of hand.
Guilty. 
This brought to my mind the following question:
How much did Epicurus "borrow" from the existing cultural and philosophical environment and "adapt" into his philosophy?
We know Epicurus didn't blink into existence and seal himself inside a hermetically tight Garden. What ideas did he pick up from simply growing up and developing his ideas in Samos, Ionia, Asia Minor, and Athens? How did he take existing ideas and use and adapt them? There have to be some.
I am sure these 2 are obvious to everyone here but I will throw them out there to start the conversation
and
Aristippus and the Cyrenaics have a book devoted to them called "The birth of Hedonism". There is a famous story of Socrates trying to tell Aristippus to go easy with partying and women but he didn't listen. (Story could be legend)
Democritus is the father of Atomism.
Admin Note:
This post is copied from an earlier thread and the title has been renamed - it has been edited for brevity and to highlight the main question. For the full original post and earlier thread, you can read it here.
**********************
To start with here is two definitions of Eclecticism:
- the practice of deriving ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources. "the eclecticism of his work consciously reflects his upbringing"
- 2. PHILOSOPHY the theories or methods of the ancient Eclectic philosophers, who did not belong to or found any recognized school of thought but selected doctrines from various schools of thought. "there was a double movement going on, towards Eclecticism on the one side, and towards Scepticism on the other side"
What is being spoken about with this question is this. Is Epicurean philosophy lacking in any of it's 3 main parts - Physics, Canon and Ethics so that it needs to be supplemented with another philosophy or practice?
Many people take bits and pieces of neo-Epicureanism - asceticism, "enjoying cheese", simple pleasures but ignore the entire corpus left behind and being spoke about today, missing the entire reason Epicurus spoke about pleasure to begin with.
Has eclecticism influenced your EP? Do you think it's beneficial, what do you think the dangers are?
To start with here is two definitions of Eclecticism:
- the practice of deriving ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources. "the eclecticism of his work consciously reflects his upbringing"
- 2. PHILOSOPHY the theories or methods of the ancient Eclectic philosophers, who did not belong to or found any recognized school of thought but selected doctrines from various schools of thought. "there was a double movement going on, towards Eclecticism on the one side, and towards Scepticism on the other side"
Some famous examples throughout history are:
What is being spoken about with this question is this. Is Epicurean philosophy lacking in any of it's 3 main parts - Physics, Canon and Ethics so that it needs to be supplemented with another philosophy or practice?
What is not being spoken about is whether we should take Epicurus physics directly as true and ignore any modern scientific discovery and advancements. Obviously we update as we go, just as Epicurus would.
Many people take bits and pieces of neo-Epicureanism - asceticism, "enjoying cheese", simple pleasures but ignore the entire corpus left behind and being spoke about today, missing the entire reason Epicurus spoke about pleasure to begin with.
So what is the danger or benefit to people committed to saying "Epicurus was more or less right about everything related to living and nature"?
The most obvious one is losing identity all together. A personal anecdote from living in a monastery in the Catholic Church is that it wasn't Catholic. They were practically Buddhists that said Mass.
Has eclecticism influenced your EP? Do you think it's beneficial, what do you think the dangers are?
I have read a few humanists popular works, from a purely lay mans point of view, humanism really falls into the trap of using reason to the neglect of all else i.e. emotional intelligence, feelings, our senses etc..
Which from my conversation both online and in person with humanists leads to either a utilitarian greater good end goal or some abstract goal such as "freedom, peace, joy". Which leads to the question "what exactly does that look like for you?" in the end instead of being grounded on our immanent reality it once again leads to a goal which is in the sky in the intelligible realm.
It also places once again too much stress on humanity and somewhat divinizes us but that's minor, what I mean though is that it doesn't treat us like the animals we are and misses the mark of what our Good truly is, pleasure.
Now overall humanists are fine it isn't to bash them, although one final critique is that humanism really has no fire underneath it, it doesn't really challenge the theist or the atheist it's just kind of there. Epicurean philosophy at the very least challenges both the theist and the atheist, the former to stop forgoing their pleasure for some unseen post death bliss and the latter by truly asking them to find "meaning" in pleasure. (Many atheists my age become nihilists or super skeptics)
Anyway just some unrefined thoughts.
Edit: I also am in general not a fan of eclecticism (which humanism is in a lot of it's forms), perhaps a topic worth discussing Cassius? Can't find another thread directly on it..
In case you're interested:
Thanks for sharing this Don, it's your own blog?
Interesting on the sexual relationships
epicureans generally think that the sage will never succumb to lustful desire or be overwhelmed by sexual passions
Is this to say that they will not give into an urge but will carefully use their practical reason to weigh whether having sex will amount to more pleasure or pain? (obvious mention the act itself will be pleasurable) or is it saying the Epicurean Sage will forgo sex all together?
Can't wait to get to the arguments for friendship, my translation says the Wiseman should love friends as himself (paraphrasing) interesting to hear the discussion.
Making the most of my Monday off
The idea with this meme is that the middle guy thinks the guy on the left is an idiot for his simplistic view, only to have a "high iq or enlightened" person (hence to robes) to the right to agree with the person on the left.
There is the idea that if you think pleasure is the Good(tm) you are a bit slow minded, oh well let me be a piggy in Epicurus' farm.
I don't think so I can't recall any from plato anyway
"Logic, on which your school lays such stress, he held to be of no effect either as a guide to conduct or as an aid to thought. Natural Philosophy he deemed all‑important."
I am wondering what exactly do we mean by logic, does the above text from Cicero refer to things such as syllogisms e.g.
1. Socrates is a man
2. All men die
3. Socrates will die therefore
One criticism I have is that it solves nothing, there are famous arguments for Gods existence in catholic tradition but they really have no power of demonstration or convincing.
I have gone from about 110kg to 87 kg in about 6 months from just eating 500-700 calories less than my daily intake and doing either an hours walk or jog (at a leisurely rate not killing myself) the main thing is being happy when you feel hungry and saying to yourself "I am losing weight". At least for me even if I am at 200 calorie deficit I still feel very hungry so I had to accept it.
I also do IF so I eat from 1 pm - 9 pm
"Moderation" is never the ultimate goal either, any more than calmness is the 'ultimate' goal. Moderation in eating is a tool to find pleasure. It's pleasure that is the ultimate goal and sometimes you're going to eat more than other times. So I'd say you never set out to "Find moderation," you set out to find pleasure, through which moderation is often (not always) an appropriate tool.
Great point all things must be means to an end which is pleasure, it's good to be temperate in eating and drinking insofar as it leads to a pleasurable life, so then we can say it's good to over indulge insofar as it leads to a pleasurable life, when and where you should over indulge only you can calculate.
Listened to a lecturer from about 10 years ago on Epicurus it gave me the idea of a prompt.
"Epicurean Philosophy teaches that absence of pain is pleasure"
"Ok, but isn't the goal of Epicureanism ataraxia and not pleasure? Also isn't the absence of pain just a tranquil state?"
How would you respond to someone like this?
For me all I could say is without a least some knowledge of the physics and canon it probably won't make sense.
Thinking about another reason I like Epicurean philosophy is that it is a full examination of reality, with Stoicism etc... it seems like they just pick a choose. For me that's unattractive, I want a view which encompasses all of reality not merely the ethical side, as at that stage it just becomes endless debate over which ethic is right with no answer. Anyway just a tangent.
I find a practice of "lectio divina" on the texts of Epicurus or even some of the in-depth messages here on this forum. Just reading over it slowly, thinking about what it could mean in different circumstances and really having a "conversation" with yourself about the text. For one it keeps EP on the mind. Rather than just a skim reading or reading for knowledge but filling your mind and chewing on the text, one of the only few good practices from Catholicism but it's far older than that.
The free knowledge on this forum is just amazing thanks everyone
Experientially I have discovered this to be true but I don't think I could explain it in a good way.
Interestingly I am not sure that I would agree that "absence of pain = pleasure" can be "discovered to be true experientally" -- at least not fully.
Well by this I mean I examined the claim and originally dismissed it but after studying a bit more in the past 6 months (and further loosened the fetters of catholicism/monastery life) I have accepted it due to the fact for Epicurus there is no neutral state it's always one or the other. After this experientially I have experienced it, not that it's some magical infused contemplative pleasure but just a low hymn of pleasure.
