Reverence and Awe In Epicurean Philosophy

If someone wants to make a suggestion as to how we organize the discussion of these several different issues/threads, feel free. Failing any brilliant suggestions otherwise, I suggest we plow ahead here. Maybe at some point we "pin" a post that consists mostly of links to the various parts of the discussion. - or perhaps a paragaph describing the general reason for the topic, and then within the paragraph we link the terms to the proper threads. This isn't a "wiki" here but that's not a detriment I don't think - we want discussion, not just tons of links, we just need to discussion to be findable and manageable.

Quote

I suspect I have found myself alone here in these ambitions, which is awkward. So I really think it would be appropriate for me to wrap it up now and stop forcing my agenda.

Susan thank you for taking the time to write all that! I do not think your statement I quoted is correct. As far as I can tell your quotations from Dewitt are 100% accurate, and though I have less confidence in Sextus Empiricus I think the strong weight of the quotes go in the direction you are headed.

I am less comfortable with "communication" but even that is subject to the ambiguities involved - did the Epicureans really consider Epicurus to be a god? If so, there were certainly humans who communicated with Epicurus, and also those who came after Epicurus has died have an awful lot of info about him as a person.

I see our project as entailing much division of labor and many different specialties, so I for one welcome this.

OK I have a few minutes to come back to this.

Quote from Susan Hill

These things are real. But if we adopt an epistemology that fundamentally rejects all of these experiences as valid or valuable, and completely rejects them as a means of knowledge of the divine or of connection with the divine, then we are rejecting a very significant proportion of Epicurean doctrine, not to mention human experience. It leaves no room for further exploration, let alone personal spiritual development.

I do not read anyone as saying that we should, or the texts say to, reject any data from any of the three legs of Epicurus' canon. I see everything as a question of verifiability combined with questions that relate to "inference" as discussed in Philodemus. If I read Elayne correctly she is pointing out that there is a tendency to see organization where it does not exist, but that to me simply raises the issue that we need to be especially careful to make sure that our conclusions are well supported.

But there are very deep questions and that is just a superficial comment. It is easy for us to jump to conclusions about what each other are saying. The best way to avoid miscommunication is to be very clear.

I suggest we keep going on the details of the texts, and perhaps even after we have identified enough specific texts and issues, we schedule a special skype call to discuss it.

One of the difficulties in quoting the texts is that cases can be made for conclusions out of alignment with the philosophy as a whole, if one is not cautious. Although I like DeWitt, I don't consider him necessarily accurate on every single issue, and I feel most confident taking the PDs, VS's, and letters as a whole than I do working from his quotes.

I could quote Epicurus on specifics about elementary particles which have clearly been shown incorrect by experimental data. If I insisted someone must adhere to that or not be considered Epicurean, I would think refusing to integrate new evidence would make _me_no longer Epicurean. Because I am using his basic process, I think needing to update specific details, such as about how the senses function, is in keeping with the original philosophy.

In the same way, we have new information about how the brain works that I think requires careful consideration of the details regarding the trustworthiness of individual prolepses. We clearly cannot say all intuitions are true-- no one here I think is arguing that. And now that we know humans have a documented tendency to assign agency, and we know more about dreams than Epicurus possibly could have guessed, I think it is not Epicurean if we fail to consider how this affects certain details about the prolepses.

For the justice prolepsis, and many of our deeply embedded patterns, there is not an outside standard which would contradict us. Justice has no meaning apart from prolepsis. For another example, simply the action of perceiving size along a spectrum is a thought pattern, a prolepsis. Assigning names to objects is a thought pattern. Where we see boundaries between objects-- a thought pattern. Object permanence is one. We couldn't even think at all in a way we would recognize as thinking without these thought patterns. Some prolepses are such a part of our thoughts that we literally can't encounter reality without them. We do not perceive "raw" sense data-- we automatically organize it, in species specific and sometimes individual specific ways. When I read about the prolepses, I thought Epicurus was absolutely brilliant for getting this. I knew it already, but I had access to so much research and didn't figure it out myself. It's old hat to modern researchers, but back then? It bowled me over. What an intellect!

Those are the prolepses without which we cannot function. They are fundamental and different from both feelings and senses. They are what keeps the philosophy from being entirely empirical, because they cannot be taken out of the picture.

There are other intuitions which make assertions about material fact, such as agency perception, sunk cost fallacy, proximity bias-- these prolepses had evolutionary advantages, but when held up to the light of evidence, they aren't as reliable. These are intuitions which can actually be overcome by repeated consideration of evidence. It's possible to function without them, but usually only by intentionally planning to do so.

I cannot imagine Epicurus ignoring research about hyperactive agency detection, the neurobiology of dreams, etc. It would be incompatible with the whole of his philosophy to stick with old explanations for those phenomena when we have newer evidence for other causes that fits our observations better, from a physics standpoint. To me it is nearly insulting to him to think he would not integrate the newer research.

That doesn't mean anyone has to outright ignore such experiences or that I can say "what you think is happening definitely isn't happening -- but it has to be on the table to question these reports, in light of evidence. To use science to study ourselves is Epicurean.

As to whether a pig could be a god-- IMO we can't say that isn't possible. We would have to establish a standard for rationality and virtue for another species whose minds we can only guess at. We do not propose any absolute virtues, so how would we know how to recognize them in another species?

The emphasis on natural science in his writing is much stronger than details about the gods.

"PD12. A man cannot dispel his fear about the most important matters if he does not know what is the nature of the universe, but suspects the truth of some mythical story. So that, without natural science, it is not possible to attain our pleasures unalloyed."

and here, when he talks about direct perception, I have read this as referring to the senses. We can't possibly refer opinion to unquestioned intuition when we know intuition is often counter to evidence. All would be "full of doubt and confusion" if we had to accept dreams on the same basis as physics.

"PD22. We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion."

Quote from Elayne

As to whether a pig could be a god-- IMO we can't say that isn't possible. We would have to establish a standard for rationality and virtue for another species whose minds we can only guess at. We do not propose any absolute virtues, so how would we know how to recognize them in another species?

Here I agree and would say that we still need to be more accurate as to our standard for what is a "god." Did Epicurus himself qualify? If so, how? I don't think we are sure whether that assertion was intended to be figurative or "literal" or what, so there's a lot of room for discussion of what we mean by these words. Where is the dividing line, if there is a dividing line?

Quote from Susan Hill

I suspect I have found myself alone here in these ambitions, which is awkward. So I really think it would be appropriate for me to wrap it up now and stop forcing my agenda.

I wouldn't say that you're alone. Epicurus obviously saw the gods as important as evidenced by the Principal Doctrines, the letter to Menoikeus, etc. I think it behooves us to understand why. He took part in the community religious practices of his day. Why, if they were all based on empty opinions? How does this influence our practice as Epicureans? I find the topic quite worthy of investigation. I'm not sure we will come to the same conclusion, Susan, but I'm curious to see where this path leads.

Don, one thing I always remember is that it was against the law upon pain of death to refuse to participate in worship and rituals. No doubt in those rituals, things were said which completely went against Epicurus' description of the gods, because the prevailing religions went against his framing. We don't have his explanations for his choice, but I would guess he didn't feel like being put to death over it. I'd happily chant with supernaturalists if someone said they'd kill me if I didn't.

I'm not going to go so far as to say his whole teaching about the gods was for self protection-- some have suggested it, but that doesn't seem as plausible.

I think all this is definitely worth discussing in detail.

From what I've read there's some complexity regarding the prolepses in that Epicurus had a very empirical view of them, but later Epicureans expanded them to be more in line with how we understand them. There were arguments as to the place of active mental focusing versus prolepses: were these prolepses or did they occur separately?

It could be of interest to study these and other developments within the school, keeping in mind the developments in the societies in which the various generation of Epicureans lived and worked. There are some articles in https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/filebase/ that might information beyond DeWitt in this regard.

Quote from Elayne

Don, one thing I always remember is that it was against the law upon pain of death to refuse to participate in worship and rituals. No doubt in those rituals, things were said which completely went against Epicurus' description of the gods, because the prevailing religions went against his framing. We don't have his explanations for his choice, but I would guess he didn't feel like being put to death over it. I'd happily chant with supernaturalists if someone said they'd kill me if I didn't.

I'm not going to go so far as to say his whole teaching about the gods was for self protection-- some have suggested it, but that doesn't seem as plausible.

I think all this is definitely worth discussing in detail.

I have source amnesia but I remember reading somewhere that while Epicurus and his followers took part in the rituals and public ceremonies (in part, I'm sure to not be executed), they used them as opportunities to contemplate the "true" nature of the gods as they understood them. So, yeah, sure, I'm pouring a libation to "Zeus" but I'm considering the libation a celebration of my ability to conceive of the gods correctly, to emulate their happiness, to... Etc. The gods don't care about my libation and are most likely unaware of it nor does it have any power... But I can gain benefit from using this as an opportunity to meditate upon - to think deeply about - the nature of the gods.

This is a trite example, but I remember when I was growing up and trying to learn to play tennis that people would constantly make the suggestion that i should get a much practice as possible playing with older and better players, because that's how you learn to improve yourself.

Many of the suggestions of Epicurus about contemplating eternality and infinity and the gods seem to me sort of the same kind of thing - that we make our lives better by regularly visualizing "better" examples of what we would like to be ourselves.

But remember, I am the one who holds open the door to the possibility of ancient astronauts and the whole "Star Trek" kind of universe as possibilities, and in fact probabilities in some form or fashion, but always only of speculative / aspirational value without some direct reason to consider them of personal relevance to me in a particular situation.

Even saying that, I don't discount that what we are discussing can have a very important role in life. I am with Nietzsche in thinking that nihilism and similar kinds of radical "nothing makes any difference" attitudes requires a strong antidote. I don't follow his view that "eternal return" is particularly helpful with that, but if the cultivation of feelings of reverence and awe toward "life" or whatever we conclude makes the most sense, then that would be an important tool to keep in the quiver.

Seems to me that there are several references (for example better to believe in the myths of religion than in hard determinism) that would support the probability that everybody doesn't have the constitution of a Socrates or a Plato to want to go around sparring with words every day, and that type of personality is going to be attracted to different parts of the Epicurean philosophy than are others. I don't think it would ever be permissible to stoop to out and out "noble myths" that are patently false, but there is enough logical foundation (isonomia, eternality, infinity) plus enough raw direct "sensation" (the feelings we are talking about) to provide an important part of an Epicurean culture.

And I do think they were headed toward an Epicurean "culture," or at least that would have been a natural evolution of the school. Honor the founders on the 20th and regular occasions, look upon Epicurus as a father figure who we can almost think of as "godlike," and surround yourself with a community of friends who regularly talk about unanswerable questions about an infinite and eternal universe with no life after death, and you've got a formula for a day-to-day culture in which contemplation of "divinity" would be a natural part.

Edit: I don't want to stop on that note. I never want to underestimate the intelligence of the ancient Epicureans. I really have no clue where the "limit" is of what is possible in terms of what goes on in the universe, so I don't want to sound like every aspect of what I am saying amounts to a pragmatic argument that "it's useful even if it isn't true." I really don't know what "it" is in this context, and I think a close reading of the texts will lead in some very interesting directions.

Ha - even after I finished that last post I have one more thing to add.

It is not lost on me at all that in my opinion the force that destroyed Epicurean philosophy and the rest of the ancient world was "organized religion." Organized religion is clearly a potent and destructive force in the world, and it can't be just ignored, because apparently it does address a deep-seated aspect of human psychology that raises questions in this area in which most people will not accept "I don't know" as an answer. I don't think "agnosticism" can ever be self-sustaining for that reason. I suspect Epicurus thought that probably the majority of people will always require some kind of position to be taken in this department, and no matter how much we might wish otherwise that is likely always to be the case. As a result some kind of organized response is probably required lest Epicurean communities get steamrolled by the opposition. That may sound like another "pragmatic" argument, but if it seems that there's some kind of innate programming that disposes us to address these questions, then it would be irresponsible or foolhardy to fail to address that if you're working toward setting up a cultural reform movement like the Epicureans were in many ways doing.

Cassius, one of the most frustrating things about constructed meaning for me was always that it was so flimsy... I could never make existentialism work if I _knew_ I was "making my own meaning", because having to make it meant it wasn't real in some way.

Theologies about supernatural gods do the same thing to people. They get dumped unprepared into a world suddenly devoid of meaning. People who study neuroscience are among the highest percentage atheist groups, because they learn how we fool ourselves. Physicists are similar.

The sturdiest protection against disillusionment and fear of meaninglessness is always, IMO, reality. If meaning had to be found in something objective or had to be constructed, we would be hopeless-- nihilism would be the only choice.

But we have _feeling_. Which we don't construct-- it's aside from reason, irrational, impossible to invalidate. For me, feelings are what make nihilism fail-- nihilism has nothing to argue against the pleasurable feeling of life mattering, of people we love mattering to us, because we aren't appealing to reason anyway. Nihilism can do nothing but slink off to the corner and pout, lol.

If we try to base meaning in something without evidence, a sort of "god of the gaps"-- gaps which are steadily shrinking-- we put ourselves at risk.

The goal and guide of pleasure stands with or without gods, even material gods. Because of that, I am not bothered by whether or not they exist and am ok with leaving unknown things open... but I am a poet and have a high degree of what Keats called negative capability.

I think the material gods idea is interesting, and for some people it may be useful to think of them as examples. About the sensation of contact, I would say that if it doesn't cause an individual more harm than good, that's a personal decision whether to question it or not-- but I see a significant risk for many, upon exposure to neuroscience research.

Coming down on the side that they are definitely out there floating images to prepared minds, exactly as Epicurus thought, given how much more we know now, will send all the scientists running away. This image floating thing is now implausible, as much as dreams giving factual information. But straight up denial of the possibility that there are blissful extraterrestrials somewhere in the universe and that eventually we might communicate is also unscientific.

I know Epicurus didn't like leaving things open... but he wasn't faced with the knowledge we are faced with. I think honoring him and the philosophy has to include accepting that we can't always reconcile his desire for dogma with the data.

One more thought-- a philosophy that puts so much emphasis on observation of nature could never be expected to keep the exact details of how things work the same. Change in those details is embedded in the origin of the project.

This is not neo-Epicurean, because that would mean things like deciding virtue is absolute, without evidence, or that Epicurus wasn't really talking about pleasure, etc. Nothing about re-examining the prolepses is neo, because we are probing nature, as Epicurus did. It reminds me of Lucretius talking about him fearlessly penetrating what nature hides. If we think that need for fearless probing of nature, including our own brains, was a one and done deal, we'd be wrong.

In returning to the original texts concerning the gods:

First, I found Dewitt's quote of the gods being friends of sages:

Philodemus, On the Life of the Gods, Vol. Herc. 1, VI col. 1: ... to the gods, and he admires their nature and their condition and tries to approach them and, so to speak, yearns to touch them and to be together with them; and he calls Sages "friends of the gods" and the gods "friends of Sages."

But also, here are some Fragments and their sources from Attalus's website:

[ U385 ]

Atticus, by way of Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, XV 5 p. 800A: {And as to our deriving any benefit from them while they remain in heaven,} ... in this way, even according to Epicurus, men get help from the gods, "They say, for instance, that the better emanations from them become the causes of great blessings to those who partake of them..."

[ U386 ]

Philodemus, On Piety, Vol. Herc. 2, II.76.1 [p. 106 Gomperz] {Obbink I.27.754}: … he says that as being both the greatest thing, and that which as it were excels in sovereignty, it possesses everything: for every wise man holds pure and holy beliefs about the divine and has understood that this nature is great and august. And it is particularly at festivals that he, progressing to an understand of it, through having its name the whole time on his lips, embraces with conviction more seriously ……

Philodemus, On Music, Vol. Herc. 1, I c.4,6: Now, these very important things may still be said at the present: that the divine does not need any honor; for us, nevertheless, it’s natural to honor it, above all, with pious convictions, even through the rites of national tradition, each according to his proper part.

Philodemus, On the Life of the Gods, Vol. Herc. 1, VI col. 1: ... to the gods, and he admires their nature and their condition and tries to approach them and, so to speak, yearns to touch them and to be together with them; and he calls Sages "friends of the gods" and the gods "friends of Sages."

[ U387 ]

Philodemus, On Piety, Vol. Herc. 2, II.108.9 [p. 126 Gomperz] {Obbink I.31.880}: Again, he says, "let us sacrifice to the gods piously and well, as is appropriate, and let us do everything well according to the laws. But let us do so not disturbing them at all with our opinions on the topic of those who are best and most majestic; again, we say that it is even right to do this on the basis of the opinion which I was discussing. For in this way, by Zeus, it is possible for a mortal nature to live like Zeus, as it appears."

****

Here are some other quotes on the gods from Epicurus:

VS 33. The body cries out to not be hungry, not be thirsty, not be cold. Anyone who has these things, and who is confident of continuing to have them, can rival the gods for happiness. [note] σαρκὸς φωνὴ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγοῦν· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν [hope or expect to have] κἂν <διὶ [dative of Zeus]> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο. [contend/compete]

*****

Principle Doctrine 1. Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει, ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται: ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον. [ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς, οὓς μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ καθ᾽ ὁμοείδειαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιρρύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένωι ἀνθρωποειδῶς.]

Perseus Project translation: 1. A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being ; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness [Elsewhere he says that the gods are discernible by reason alone, some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form.]

The word translated as "discernible by reason" is θεωρητούς which carries the connotation of "(of the mind) I contemplate, consider; (abstract) I speculate, theorize."

*****

VS 65. It is foolish to ask of the gods that which we can supply for ourselves. μάταιόν ἐστι παρὰ θεῶν αἰτεῖσθαι ἅ τις ἑαυτῷ χορηγῆσθαι ἱκανός ἐστι.

*****

VS 79. He who is as peace within himself also causes no trouble for others. ὁ ἀτάραχος ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἑτέρῳ ἀόχλητος.

(NOTE - Just like a god from PD 1)

*****

Letter to Menoikeus:

First, believe that god is a blissful, immortal being, as is commonly held. Do not ascribe to god anything that is inconsistent with immortality and blissfulness; instead, believe about god everything that can support immortality and blissfulness.

.πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη, μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε· πᾶν δὲ τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον τὴν μετὰ ἀφθαρσίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτὸν δόξαζε.

For gods there are: our knowledge of them is clear.

θεοὶ μὲν γὰρ εἰσίν· ἐναργὴς γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις·

[ Knowledge of them is ἐναργής 1. visible, palpable, in bodily shape, properly of gods appearing in their own forms; so of a dream or vision; 2. manifest to the mind's eye, distinct:— adv. -γῶς, manifestly. 3. of words, etc., distinct, manifest]

Yet they are not such as most people believe; indeed most people are not even consistent in what they believe. It is not impious to deny the gods that most people believe in, but to ascribe to the gods what most people believe. The things that most people say about the gods are based on false assumptions, not a firm grasp of the facts [note], because they say that the greatest goods and the greatest harms come from the gods. For since they are at home with what is best about themselves, they accept that which is similar and consider alien that which is different.

Thanks for assembling that Don!

So far we've primarily been referring to anticipations, but of course there is a great deal of text material on idols / images / spectres or whatever term you prefer. It is going to be several weeks before we reach this point in the podcasts, so we have no had occasion to review the details of this as a group, but of course this discussion can hardly even begin before we review the material on images in book four of Lucretius, starting here:

https://archive.org/details/lucretiusepicureanfriendsreferenceeditionversion01/page/n1026/mode/1up (That's page 1027 of the PDF if the link doesn't go to the right place.)

I don't myself rule out at all the possibility that some form of this theory has some validity, but I wouldn't even want to start speculating on what parts or how that validity could occur without going through the details of what was being asserted, how it relates to light and all the issues of waves and energy and particles and gravity and action-at-a-distance that science discusses today, how our sense organs work,, how the brain works, and all sorts of other things.

However, such a review is exactly what a thorough consideration of this part of Epicurean theory would require. I've rarely seen much of this treated in modern commentary at all - it's always dismissed out of hand, but I definitely do not think it should be.

Especially since the discussion of images leads right into the discussion of epistemology about dismissing those who say that no knowledge is possible, we must rely on the senses, etc.

Susan, no, no need to go to through the images material first. I posted that just as my latest thought to add to the pot. From the point of view of how I have observed the forum to function best, I think it is always best if someone who is interested in pursuing a topic "strikes while the iron is hot" and proceeds at whatever pace is comfortable to them. It is much much easier to edit or comment on a discussion after material is collected, rather than collect material after time or energy to post it has waned.

So this would be a valuable contribution: 'I would be willing to continue to admass and categorically organize the quotes we can collect from the literature so that individual topics could be examined (e.g. piety, spiritual practice, images from the gods, religious festivals, adoration, etc.), if that would be of value at some point."

I will mention that one problem that has occurred in the distant past, primarily on Facebook and other locations, is that some people have posted a lot of material from "other traditions" (primarily eastern) probably from the point of view presuming that they are parallel and therefore helpful to studying the Epicureans. At some point down the road that is probably acceptable here too, but I strongly thing it is a good idea for us to focus on the Epicurean material and analyze it first before going beyond occasional observations on other areas that don't mention or concern Epicurus.

I don't raise this because you have shown any tendency to do that yourself - you haven't - but it's come up in the past [not anyone participating in this thread] and caused complaints from some quarters when there's too much emphasis on details from other viewpoints. Now having said that, it occurs to me to say that there are probably details in Stoicism, Pythagoreanism, Platonism, and others that the Epicureans came into contact with themselves that are relevant to the discussion. But the basic point here is that it has always seemed to me that there is a lot of raw material from the specifically Epicurean texts that ought to be given priority here first.

After we get a body of content here in the forum about our own Epicurean texts there will be plenty of time and space to comment on other viewpoints. But it's just kind of weird to have next to nothing in the forum on the Epicurean texts on divinty, but tons of material on Tibetan Buddhism or the like

Susan - also - In order to help organization I have moved this thread out of "General Discussion" and into the forum which I renamed as The Nature of Epicurean Divinity

In turn I have that forum as a subsection of "Physics" as I gather that if we consider there to be three major branches of the philosophy, and physics is where the nature of the universe is discussed, and our topic is part of the nature of the universe, that's the place for it.

I see that there are some related threads there - it's possible that you might want to organize some of the topics as new threads there, or I can create "subforums" if appropriate. As we proceed we'll organize however makes sense, so if anyone wants to make suggestions on that, feel free.

In fact there are already enough threads there that we might want to pay attention fairly soon to breaking it down, or perhaps pinning a post that contains a discussion paragraph describing the issues and then linking within that discussion to where the subtopics can be found.