Thanks for the link, Kalosyni , to the article on Jefferson's beliefs.

I have any number of problems with Thomas Jefferson and remain ambivalent with regards to him. He's never been one of my favorite Founders (I'm more a Franklin fan). I've also never been entirely comfortable with his image being in the header to this forum, but that is entirely Cassius 's call.

I don't believe Jefferson was entirely an Epicurean, but I'm sure he found facets of the philosophy with which he agreed. He was also enamored with Jesus as a philosopher since he created what came to be known as The Jefferson Bible. He also praises Epictetus in a number of places including:

Quote

In morality read Epictetus, Xenophontis memorabilia, Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Cicero’s philosophies.

So, I think Jefferson's "I am an Epicurean" should best be understood as only a part of his philosophical outlook, which appears to me to be quite eclectic if syncretic (to use last week's Word of Week ). As any "gentleman" of the 18th century, he was widely read in ancient Greek and Latin authors. He peppers excerpts from Horace, Cicero, and others throughout his diaries and letters. Later in his life (1803), he wrote:

Quote

I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkeable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate: say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. (emphasis added)

Granted, his letter to Short was in 1819, so *maybe* his affinity toward Epicurus grew since 1803. BUT, as Kalosyni 's link shows, he was saying things like this in 1823:

Quote

"[T]he truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words."

He as still defending Jesus against his "greatest enemies" and was not fully committed in any way to an Epicurean path.

For reference, here is a link to the National Archives collection of Jefferson's papers where the term epicur* occurs (i.e., Epicure, Epicurean, Epicurus, etc.):

Founders Online: Search

founders.archives.gov

and simply epicurean

https://founders.archives.gov/index.xqy?q=Pr…=1511211111&r=1 (includes Short letter)

and here are Short's letters to Jefferson:

Founders Online: Search

founders.archives.gov

I would not at all defend Jefferson as an Orthodox Epicurean, but I also take articles like that less seriously than I do Jeffersons own letters which I collect at http://www.newepicurean.com/Jefferson

He was primarily a politician and was not very straightforward in reconciling his public and private statements.

In my view he serves mainly as a rather transparent way of "legitimizing" those of us who hold Epicurean views yet still want to move somewhat in traditional society. For someone who has no need to do that there's no need to spend much time with Jefferson.

Running a forum on ideas as revolutionary Epicurus while also keeping the lights on can be a tricky business!

As I said in a private exchange recently, I think we are probably more in a 'John the Baptist' stage of preparing the way for the real Epicurean world revolution, than we are the front line revolutionaries ourselves.

So when the time comes for the next Epicurus to arise I won't be at all surprised no matter how much or how little time he or she spends with Jefferson.

Quote from Don

I have any number of problems with Thomas Jefferson and remain ambivalent with regards to him. He's never been one of my favorite Founders (I'm more a Franklin fan). I've also never been entirely comfortable with his image being in the header to this forum, but that is entirely Cassius 's call.

For some reason I woke up thinking about this today and this comment comes to mind:

Although I am not interested in seeing us "play to the crowd," most of us live and work among people who are almost exclusively non-Epicurean, and know little about Epicurus.

At some point it becomes a logical and reasonable question for them to ask:

"I've never really heard of Epicurus, or anyone who said that they were Epicurean. Those views you are talking about sound pretty underground to me and actually bordering on evil. Of course I know you and I like you, but can you name me one reputable person over the last three hundred years who has labelled themselves an Epicurean? Hopefully you can name more than one obscure name, but if you can't, maybe we better talk about getting you some medical help. I know this great counselor who specializes in Dialectical Behavior Therapy!"

My comment to that:

I've heard people suggest names like Christopher Hitchens and all sorts of people who have said one or two good things about Epicurus, but there are very few who come anywhere close to embracing his entire philosophy, much less actually committed to writing "I too am an Epicurean."

I think this is a legitimate conversation topic with the outside world, so I think we need to work on our response. I know Nate has produced a very good list of historical Epicureans, and I think Don has done something similar in terms of a time frame or time line analysis.

I will start a new thread and link to those two sets of materials and let's see what we can do to expand this.

Let's continue this part of this thread in the new location: Historical References on the School of Epicurean Philosophy - Ancient World To Today

Epicureans have been unpacking this for 2000+ years

Lucretius Book One:

Brown:

[80] But in these things, I fear, you will suspect you are learning impious rudiments of reason, and entering in a road of wickedness. So, far from this, reflect what sad flagitious deeds Religion has produced. By her inspired, the Grecian chiefs, the first of men, at Aulis, Diana’s altar shamefully defiled with Iphigenia’s blood; her virgin hair a fillet bound, which hung in equal length on either side of her face. She saw her father, covered with sorrow, stand before the altar; for pity to his grief the butchering priests concealed the knife. The city, at the sight, overflowed with tears; the virgin, dumb with fear; fell low upon her knees on the hard Earth; in vain the wretched princess in distress pleaded that she first gave the honored name of Father to the King; but hurried off, and dragged by wicked hands, she, trembling, stood before the altar. Alas! not as a virgin, the solemn forms being duly done, drawn with pleasing force to Hymen’s noble rites, but a chaste maid, just ripe for nuptial joy, falls a sad victim, by a father’s hand, only to beg a kind propitious gale for Grecian ships. Such Scenes of villainy Religion could inspire!

Humphries:

I fear that, in these matters, you may think

You're entering upon a path of crime,

The A B C's of godlessness. Not so.

The opposite is true. Too many times

Religion mothers crime and wickedness.

Recall how once at Aulis, when the Greeks,

Those chosen peers, the very first of men,

Defiled, with a girl's blood, the altar-stone

Sacred to Artemis. The princess stood

Wearing the sacred fillets or a veil,

And sensed but could not see the king her father,

Agamemnon, standing sorrowful

Beside the altar, and the priests near-by

Hiding the knife-blade, and the folk in tears

At what they saw. She knelt, she spoke no word,

She was afraid, poor thing. Much good it did her

At such a time to have been the very first

To give the king that other title, Father!

Raised by men's hands and trembling she was led

Toward the altar, not to join in song

After the ritual of sacrifice

To the bright god of marriage. No; she fell

A victim by the sacrificing stroke

Her father gave, to shed her virgin blood-

Not the way virgins shed it - but in death,

To bring the fleet a happy exodus!

A mighty counselor, Religion stood

With all that power for wickedness.

The Christianity Comparison thread, but I don't think we have a chart:

Epicurean Philosophy vs. Christianity

There's a lot to talk about in that post, probably starting with the basic issue of whether "good" and "evil" have an absolute existence in themselves, or are entirely relative.

There's also the issue of the relationship of pleasure to good and pain as evil.

We've talked about some of these before and we can do this here or in the older threads. It's possible we'll split this out after we talk a while too.

But here are the two older categories where we explored these issues:

The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And The "Highest Good"

The Relationship of Pain To "Evil"

(The latter link is new)

Ok that categorization isn't going to work. I will re-split them:

The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And Pain To "Evil"

Pleasure as The Highest Good (And Is Pleasure the "Only Good"??

Ah yes Good vs. Evil and whether they exist as absolutes…the great debate.

I feel these threads will be very active.

Ok massive reordering of Ethics forums to put these near the top: 

The Relationship of Pleasure and The Highest Good (And Is Pleasure the "Only Good"?)

The Relationship of Pleasure To Absence of Pain And Disturbance

The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And Pain To "Evil"

Types of Pleasures - Discussion of Specific Pleasures of All Kinds

The Relationship of Pleasure To Virtue

Emotions In Epicurean Philosophy

Kalosyni one of the closest threads is this one started by Joshua: Is Pleasure the Only Good?

Quote from Matt

Ah yes Good vs. Evil and whether they exist as absolutes…the great debate.

It seems to me that despite the emotion involved, the largest part of this question is "definitional" and even "logical" so probably every time it's discussed with newer people, it needs to be hit home that there can be a lot of emotion and personal attachment involved in discussing this. Right Don?

I could go very deep into this subject.

I wonder if “logic” could ever play into this at all? Since the subject matter is entirely subjective and cultural. Without absolutes or or metaphysical evil, this would make for a very good discussion.

But probably “user” beware, because this line of discussion could get intense quick.

Logic in the sense of parsing definitions and categories. It's largely a word game until you connect back to emotions / pain / pleasure.

But that too begs the question between whether there is any "natural" connection between words and perceptions, and for that we might have to call in Godfrey and Don on visualization issues

Quote

Kalosyni one of the closest threads is this one started by Joshua: Is Pleasure the Only Good?

I can't even make sense of that post, and I wrote it...

Right, and honestly I suspect we will determine that broadly “evil” will ultimately be reduced to a subjective thing that is more in line with something that is culturally “unlawful” or “taboo” as opposed to giving any concrete absolutes that could universally be considered “wrong” in every place and every time.

I thought I remembered a line in "A Few Days In Athens" where Epicurus said that there was no good but pleasure, and no evil but pain, but so far the nearest I can find is this in chapter three in regard to virtue. This is related, but not quite as direct. Of course Frances Wright is not really to be accepted as an authority on Epicurus' position, but her views are always interesting:

Quote

“Yes, in a great measure, yet not all together: we are all the wooers of virtue, but we are wooers of a different character.”

“And may she not then favor one more than another?”

“That is a question,” replied the Gargettian, playfully, ” that each will answer in his own favor. If you ask me, he continued, – with one of his sweetest tones and smiles, “I shall say, that I feel myself virtuous, because my soul is at rest.”

“If this be your criterion, you should with the stoics deny that pain is an evil.”

“By no means: so much the contrary, I hold it the greatest of all evils, and the whole aim of my life, and of my philosophy, is to escape from it. To deny that pain is an evil is such another quibble as the Elean’s denial of motion: that must exist to man which exists to his senses; and as to existence or non existence abstracted from them, though it may afford an idle argument for an idle hour, it can never enter as a truth, from which to draw conclusions, in the practical lessons of a master. To deny that pain is an evil seems more absurd than to deny its existence, which has also been done, for its existence is only apparent from its effect upon our senses; how then shall we admit the existence, and deny the effect, which alone forces that admittance? But we will leave these matters to the dialecticians of the Portico. I feel myself virtuous because my soul is at rest. With evil passions I should be disturbed and uneasy; with uncontrolled appetites I should be disordered in body as well as mind — for this reason, and for this reason only, I avoid both.”

“Only!”

“Only: virtue is pleasure; were it not so, I should not follow it.”

Theon was about to break forth in indignant astonishment: the sage softly laid a hand upon his arm, and, with a smile and bend of the head demanding attention, proceeded; “The masters who would have us to follow virtue for her own sake, independent of any pleasure or advantage that we may find in the pursuit, are sublime visionaries, who build a theory without examining the ground on which they build it, who advance doctrines without examining principles. Why do I gaze on the Cupid of Praxiteles? because it is beautiful; because it gives me pleasurable sensations. If it gave me no pleasurable sensations, should I find it beautiful? should I gaze upon it? or would you call me wise if then I gave a drachma for its possession? What other means have we of judging of things than by the effect they produce upon our senses? Our senses then being the judges of all things, the aim of all men is to gratify their senses; in other words, their aim is pleasure or happiness: and if virtue were not found to conduce to this, men would do well to shun her, as they now do well to shun vice.”

“You own then no pleasure but virtue, and no misery but vice?”

“Not at all: I think virtue only the highest pleasure, and vice, or ungoverned passions and appetites, the worst misery. Other pleasures are requisite to form a state of perfect ease, which is happiness; and other miseries are capable of troubling, perhaps destroying, the peace of the most virtuous and the wisest man.”

“I begin to see more reason in your doctrine,” said the youth, looking up with a timid blush in the face of the philosopher.

Display More