I wasn't sure where to post this figured Cassius would place it appropriately later. 
Since we're on the topic of music, I've thought the Indigo Girls "Closer I Am To Fine" echoes some Epicurean themes, especially "And the less I seek my source for some definitive / Closer I am to fine." Just heard it on my way to work, bringing pleasurable memories.
We're definitely in the right forum for that Don, but maybe up one level in a thread by itself or with other types of music....(?) I will probably move it after I look.
Possibly we need a new genre subforum for that but I am not sure what to call it -- what would you suggest?
Possibly we need a new genre subforum for that but I am not sure what to call it -- what would you suggest?
Modern music with Epicurean themes?
Thread for this genre.
“Be an Epicurean” by Nathan Dufour Oglesby,[1] released in 2022.
[1] His PhD thesis in philosophy is called "Footnotes to Footnotes: Whitehead's Plato” (CUNY, 2018), and is available here.
Never heard that Nathan Dufour Oglesby material. Thank you! The words are surprisingly detailed and cover a lot of material. Toward the end it sounds like he might back off a little but it's definitely very creative!
Toward the end it sounds like he might back off a little
How so? The song's arc of suspense comes to an end, so the energy calms down a little, but as per the lyrics, as per the content, I cannot find where he might be backing off? 
In my view, the last verse is actually a condensed attack on rival philosophies – specifically, their appeals to imagined higher purposes, such as an afterlife or absolute virtue, and their appeals to overdo it with unnatural and unnecessary desires, like leading an overly public or politically involved life – in order to bring it home once more in the final line of verse:
“It's time for you to live: Be an Epicurean!”
Which implies that so far, the listener was biologically alive, but didn't actually live, possibly because they were confused by the mistaken philosophical views or had their values, priorities and perspectives wrong for another reason 
At about 3:06 I think i heard him say something to the effect that there might be a "soul in here" because that might be the thing that makes the atoms cohere....
He also said shortly thereafter that he wasn't clear how the gods fit in, and something to the effect that god is good and at the end of every pleasure..... but I couldn't understand the rest.
But in general I agree this is a very good effort and it at least brings up many of the key issues.
What do we know about Nathan Dufour --- someone just interested in philosophy generally?
For reference, here is a transcription (which isn't very well formatted, in my opinion, but regardless it'll probably help in keeping up with the fast-paced lyrics).
At about 3:06 I think i heard him say something to the effect that there might be a "soul in here" because that might be the thing that makes the atoms cohere....
The lyrics of that section:
“And I’m not here to say: ‘There’s no soul in here!’
For that indeed may be the thing that makes the atoms cohere”
To be fair, we need to keep in mind song lyrics are a type of poetry, so are textually dense, made to fit the rhythm, and we should take into account the context. From context, “the atoms” which are made to cohere by “the soul” should be understood as “the atoms [of your body]”. Now, let's look at Lucretius' book 3, not too far following like 358 (quoted from Browne 1743):
“But the mind it is that keeps up the defences of life, and has a more sovereign power to preserve our beings, than all the faculties of the soul; for, without the mind, the least part of the soul cannot secure its residence in the body for a moment, but follows it readily as a close companion, and vanishes into air along with it, and leaves the cold limbs in the frozen arms of death. But the man whose mind is whole and entire, remains alive, though he be mangled and all his limbs lopped-off; yet his trunk, though his soul be so far gone, and his members separated from him, still lives and breathes the vital air; the trunk, if not spoiled of the whole, yet of a great part of the soul, still continues alive and holds fast its being.”
As such, the soul (in today's terms, vaguely: the peripheral nervous system) is what prevents the body from dying and consequently decaying (by utilising the support of the mind (vaguely: the central nervous system)); hence, figuratively: “the [mind and] soul make[s] the atoms [of the body] cohere”.
He also said shortly thereafter that he wasn't clear how the gods fit in, and something to the effect that god is good and at the end of every pleasure..... but I couldn't understand the rest.
The first half of that verse
“And while I don’t know clear how God might fit in
– Epicurus said the gods exist but not as our friends –“
alludes to that we don't know very much about how Epicureans conceptualised the gods, other than that “they exist but not as our friends”. The second half of that verse
“I guess god is good In the sense that the end
of every pleasure lets another kind divinely begin”
is his guess – meaning it isn't in the extant canon – that while the gods aren't our friends, at least (double meaning)
From that interpretation you gather once more: I don't take the individual words too literally, because I am considering it as a poem, to be viewed as a whole, always considering things in context.
What do we know about Nathan Dufour --- someone just interested in philosophy generally?
I only know he made that song, he made a similar song about the Stoics (so which side he's on is quite the mystery!), he has a PhD in philosophy, appears to offer philosophy courses, and has a Youtube channel (which I didn't consume). Here are his various online presences.
I did find this essay on Epicureanism (or neo-Epicureanism) by Dufour:
I did find this essay on Epicureanism (or neo-Epicureanism) by Dufour:
That essay does not conform to what the extant canon tells us – his conclusions are based on the mischaracterisation that the atomic swerve constitutes a “will” of the principle particles to “collaborate”, which is irreconcilable with Lucretius:
Thus his conclusion that
“[…] ‘natural forces’ and ‘spiritual will’ are two only apparently opposite ways of describing the same thing. […]”
is nothing but a showman's trick, a sleight of hand. At least he admits to this, by later stating
“I have now departed considerably from the orthodox understanding of Epicureanism, both ancient and modern – but […]”
Therefore, until someone proves I'm wrong by citing the extant canon, which I'm confident will never happen, I shall consider this essay to be grossly and willfully misleading – willful, because he does know better that that, as he himself admits. (Speculation in regards to his underlying motives for that cannot serve a purpose here, and as such I'll keep those thoughts to myself.)
PS: He also states that (underlined by me)
“[…] there may be no more reason to describe matter as random, or mechanical in its behavior, than collaborative.”
which is backwards, because it needlessly attributes a complex behaviour and function without having any observations to justify this attribution. His statements are thus in contradiction to what we may learn from Russell's teapot and Occam's razor – two of the basic principles which Epicureans abide by, all of which allow them to have “true reason”, as opposed to the “false reasoning” seen in rival philosophies, both modern and ancient.
Wow - thanks to both Pacatus and Julia for carrying this forward so quickly. Not that he's especially significant, but I try to keep up with Epicurean discussion on the internet and I had never heard of Dufour. So we go straight from discovering him to Pacatus finding that essay and Julia pointing out the serious flaws in it --- this is the power of collaboration on the internet and so thanks to you both!
So yes it appears that Dufour is going off on his own in ignoring some key Epicurean insights, so he'll be of limited use, and in fact possibily he'll bring more confusion than clarity to the subject.
But he's clearly talented and creative and it's great to have such people show an interest in Epicurus. We don't know whether Dufour himself will eventually dig deeper and change some of his views, but this kind of thing motivates similar creativity so I'm glad Julia posted about it.
Genre: Arena Rock
Artist: Bon Jovi
Title: It's My Life
Year: 2000
Label: Island / Mercury
Lyrics: Click here
"Yeah, this is for ones who stood their ground
For Tommy and Gina who never backed down"
Tommy and Gina are a Bon Jovi archetype for a financially struggling couple; it says here they "never backed down", but we know from previous songs they are working minimum-wage jobs, at times pawn their valuables, but they have each other's love and that's what gets them through. This is why I understand "never back down" as synonymous to not giving up the fight for a good life. Due to this background and the context of the song, I do not understand it as "get in hopeless physical altercations". Part of that context would be the "ones who stood their ground", which I understand similarly, as being able to say "I did it my way" as in the Sinatra reference a few lines earlier: I "stood my ground" if I did not let other's corrupt my soul and spirit, if I managed to stay true to myself. To "stand my ground" also means to "[not] be harmed" as in PD31 (Saint-Andre translation).
"Tomorrow's gettin' harder, make no mistake
Luck ain't even lucky, gotta make your own breaks"
The first of these two lines in isolation might not sound very Epicurean but it forms the pre-chorus together with the next line, which refutes fate, and stresses agency. Indeed, even if next day is harder, that doesn't imply it's worse; and also, to "make no mistake" means to not lie to myself in my best-effort predictions of the future, which is a trap many fall into at times, eg when procrastinating because "there's time".
"Better stand tall when they're callin' you out
Don't bend, don't break, baby, don't back down"
Again, due to the context of the rest of the song, not as a recommendation to "not back down" in physical altercations, but as a call to "not break" in the face of life's hardship, but to "stand tall" and be proud, because you alone can judge your worth, your effort, and know what it took to get where you are, even if those who just watched from the sidelines are "callin' you out". In my view, it would be in conflict with the rest of the song to interpret this as a call to give one's life to lost causes and hopeless battles. Instead, I understand this to be in the spirit of the Man In The Arena section of Theodore Roosevelt's Citizenship In A Republic speech.
So when inspecting these lines, I'd say it's important to keep the spirit of the chorus in mind:
"It's my life, its now or never
I ain't gonna live forever
I just wanna live while I'm alive
My heart is like an open highway
Like Frankie said, I did it my way
I just wanna live while I'm alive
It's my life"
Furthermore, the two opening lines clarify that this song is neither for those who place their trust in faith, nor those who let their heart be needlessly broken by unhealthy relationships, by distancing itself from the behaviours of the protagonists of two previous Bon Jovi songs: You Give Love A Bad Name and Livin On A Prayer.
Being of a certain age, this immediately reminds me of a similarly titled song by the Animals. Having just given it a listen I consider the Animals song not to be Epicurean as it's lyrics point to getting what you want, with limited focus on morality. Great song though!
Of course this song must be considered in the context of social injustice, which adds a wrinkle to the equation.
If we’re going back in time, this was released when I was two years out of high school. The lyrics are hardly straightforward (not necessarily a deficit in poetry) – but I still cannot listen to this without clapping / dancing / drumming …
the Indigo Girls "Closer I Am To Fine"
Oh, Don I missed this till just now. Years ago, toward the end of a particularly hard time in my life, my daughter gave me an album of the Indigo Girls, including this song. It still brings a lump to my throat.
Years ago, toward the end of a particularly hard time in my life, my daughter gave me an album of the Indigo Girls, including this song. It still brings a lump to my throat.
When my daughter was little, we'd listen to that album in the car, especially on our way to the Unitarian Universalist Church we attended for awhile. Fond memories!
