Social Media - Facebook

I had two linked FB pages: one to share with a small circle of friends, the other to promote a book of poems. Finally, I shut it all down and permanently deleted my FB account. In the end, I could not control the crazies: access or content. But I am a rank techno-peasant (note the quiz snafu).

You’re right: there is likely no bigger worldwide tool for reaching people. But –

If you’re using it for outreach (my promotional page), you have to have some effective means to eliminate the racists, haters and other crazies; and if it’s just an extension of this site (my page of close friends), what does it offer that isn’t already here on the forum?

So, really, it’s outreach. How, then, (I realize I’m being crassly repetitive) do you protect the Garden members from the crazies (not just the Stoics, etc.)?

Sorry for the rambling thoughts. I’d be lying if I did not say that I’ve been tempted back to FB – but I will not go through what I did before (likely far less than you go through in a day as it is).

I’m a bit frustrated because I think both you and Kalosyni have strong, valid points about outreach (evangelism) – and all I seem to do is pour cold water.

And FB seems the logical choice.

When I was on FB, my personal page was restricted to a relatively few friends (unfortunately, some of them, and their friends, became the problem – and not so much friends anymore; likely there is some solution that didn’t require me to permanently delete my account, but that’s what I did). The poetry promotional page was more wide open, and had a different title (I don’t even recall what it was) aimed at attracting folks to that specifically. There wasn’t really any crossover between the two – but I don’t know if that was just accidental.

So my thought is that you could create a linked FB page to the one you have now (wish I remembered how to do that, but someone here likely does). And use that 2nd FB page as an advertising (marketing) site whose content is simple, honest, optimistic and attractive – and that links to this forum, where you can control access. Your original FB page would then operate mainly as a kind of message board for members here to see what’s going on, etc. (and to go check out the 2nd page from there).

The tag line for the evangelism page might be that of the Garden: “Dear Guest, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure.”

Just some rambling thoughts …

Just for curiosity, Cassius, how many members are here and how many seems to check in to the FB page at least a bit?

Quote from waterholic

I like the idea, but to do so I feel I miss a simple and modern body of knowledge/message

By "modern" do you mean contemporary, modern science communicators or modern figures that present "Epicurean" ideas whether or not they identify specifically as Epicurean?

Quote from waterholic

Vatican collection is the closest, but even then it's archaic and requires a predisposition to reading old texts. There is little point in attempting to convey valid, strong and sensible ideas driven by facts in a language that is not accessible for most people.

I think it all depends on the translation. I could certainly advocate for "updated" translations and certainly wouldn't advocate for anything with thee's, thou's, or behold's that give off a "Biblical" vibe.

That said, I also think there's something very valuable in reading "old texts" if for no other reason than to clearly see that human nature hasn't changed all that much in say several millennia. Even Ancient Babylonians were worried about dying, losing friends, and the exercise of power. We still do that and, no doubt, will continue to do that as a species. That thread is worth investigating, from Gilgamesh, Euripides, Shakespeare, even through even Ecclesiastes and religious and literary texts we don't necessarily agree with. Recognizing and struggling with texts makes us better able to decide what we ourselves believe and why and why not. Seeing what we believe - or sharpening what we believe - by using the classical Epicurean texts to me is a way to make a human connection to a well-worn path instead of cutting a way down the jungle path again and again.

I think there's also something to be said for being part of - dare I say - that tradition, lineage, or a worldview informed by a cohesive "body of knowledge." For me, I take pleasure in attempting to apply a school of thought that has stood the test of time. Being able to see reflections of Epicurus's Garden in contemporary thought and science amazes me and was something that attracted me enough to say " What is up with this 2,500 year old philosophy that sounds so modern??"

I don't think we can abandon the "old texts," but I also don't think we should intentionally imbue them with archaic language or fetishize them. Updating time-tested ideas is how the modern "Stoics" have managed to corner the market on "look at this ancient wisdom we're selling." But they've thrown out or repackaged a LOT of inconvenient ancient Stoic principles to speak (i.e., to make sense) to a modern audience to the extent that I feel Marcus Aurelius or Seneca would say "Well, those are interesting ideas but... Stoicism? I don't quite recognize that as my school." I think Epicurus can survive MUCH more intact and still appeal to a modern audience. That's my argument for keeping the original texts and encouraging people to study them.

Quote from waterholic

Epicurean philosophy does not need any of that since the message is very simple and applicable

I agree Epicurus's message is very simple and applicable, but it can be deceptively simple. That's a LOT behind it, serving as a foundation, that, if one doesn't grasp that, it can be a thin veneer. That's one reason why I now agree with Cassius and others on this forum about getting a grasp of how and why Epicurus's physics is so important and how it underpins the philosophy and why one shouldn't jump right to the ethics. I disregarded a lot of the physics for awhile, but without building from the ground up, the understanding of the whole system isn't as steady. Listening to them go through the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles specifically were very instructive.

In the end, I think the old texts ground us, show us we're not alone in our ages-old struggle to come to grips with our mortal lives, and allow us to avoid reinventing the wheel over and over again.

All that said, if I've addresses something you didn't intend or completely misinterpreted what you were saying, mea culpa!

Quote from waterholic

No worries at all, heated arguments are more than welcome.

Thanks! And I hope my post came across as more "light" than "heat"

Quote from waterholic

I imagine myself in front of my 20 something son, who lives in the world of all the social media, gaming, basketball, memes (you can add to the list). Should I expect him to have the same patience and curiousity?

I hear you!! I agree that avenue could be about marketing (what Diogenes might call "evangelism"). Social media is, for better or worse, THE giant stone wall with inscriptions in the marketplace now. That's also where heartfelt conversations come in between father and son, between friends, etc. Not lectures but "what do you think?"

Quote from waterholic

I believe this is not (only) due to the effective communication. Stoicism has been merged with most despotic states since Rome. It has always been an extremely convenient philosophy for the central state alongside any superstition.

Amen! Come to think of it, there's a reason the Christians kept transmitting Stoic (and Platonic) texts and burned Epicurean ones. Hmmm. Why could that be?

Thanks for the thoughtful response!!

Stephen Greenblatt starts us off, and not too badly, in the Preface of The Swerve.

Quote

“The stuff of the universe, Lucretius proposed, is an infinite number of atoms moving randomly through space, like dust motes in a sunbeam, colliding, hooking together, forming complex structures, breaking apart again, in a ceaseless process of creation and destruction… There is no master plan, no divine architect, no intelligent design. All things, including the species to which you belong, have evolved over vast stretches of time… In a universe so constituted, Lucretius argued, there is no reason to think that the earth or its inhabitants occupy a central place, no reason to set humans apart from all other animals, no hope of bribing or appeasing the gods, no place for religious fanaticism, no call for ascetic self-denial, no justification for dreams of limitless power or perfect security, no rationale for wars of conquest or self-aggrandizement, no possibility of triumphing over nature, no escape from the constant making and unmaking of [physical] forms… What human beings can and should do, he wrote, is to conquer their fears, accept the fact that they themselves and all the things they encounter are transitory, and embrace the beauty and the pleasure of the world.”