Thoughts and Discussion on Organizing Epicurean Community

An official 501(c)3 organization would be an interesting (but serious) avenue to take:

Charities and Nonprofits | Internal Revenue Service

www.irs.gov

Strict by-law, filing, board, and reporting requirements. If there was a philosophical Epicurean 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, I wonder if we'd be able to provide certification for people to perform weddings. That'd be interesting.

Out of curiosity, I did a quick search of non-profit organizations at the IRS website looking for 'epicur' and found:

National Epicureans Incorporated

National Epicureans Inc

Eat, Drink, and Be Merry!

nationalepicureansinc.org

North Galveston Epicurean Education Center Inc. https://northgalveston.org/

Epicurean Charitable Foundation (ECF)

About ECF - Epicurean Charitable Foundation

The Epicurean Club of Boston

Baton Rouge Epicurean Society

Baton Rouge Epicurean Society - Restaurant in Baton Rouge, LA

Baton Rouge Epicurean Society in Baton Rouge, LA. Call us at (225) 572-0802. Check out our location and hours, and latest menu with photos and reviews.

www.bresbr.org

Quite the eclectic group of organizations!!

First thanks to Don for those research links.

And thanks to Kalosyni for starting the topic.

Also:

Quote from Kalosyni

Thank you Don for sharing those links, which brings up an important point: the word "Epicurean" is associated with food, and culinary arts/culinary professionals.

So what do you think that means for us moving forward? Does it seem that the word "Epicurean" in some sense is already taken to mean something different. Even if we say "Epicurean Philosophy" the common person will think "Food Philosophy"?

I think that word issues are part of life for any Epicurean in the modern world. From gods to pleasure to tranquility to absence of pain and many more examples, the modern world thinks in different ways than they did 2000 years ago and we have to deal with that. While simply using new words is one alternative (and we already do that to some extent by speaking English rather than Greek and Latin) I don't think that at least for me personally giving up the words that are most closely equivalent to the ancient versions is the right path. The whole issue of explaining the philosophy involves education as to subtleties and meaning of concepts, so I think we just have to get used to explaining the differences in viewpoints from the very beginning, and try to be as clear about them as we can. And a large part of that involves explaining philosophic issues that aren't current or widely known anymore. But the MAIN/BIG issues are not really that complex.

Quote from Kalosyni

It's not that we are trying to convert the whole world, but rather just add a few new friends that most likely already think the way that we do.

You're definitely right that we (even me) are not trying to convert the whole world. That's an unreasonable expectation and probably a good example for discussion of "vain" and "empty" desires.

But I definitely don't think we can or should limit ourselves to people who already think the way that we do. I suspect each and every one of us here (I know that applies to me) used to think very differently than we do today. I think the main thrust isn't really that different from the situation 2000 years ago. We're surrounded by people who don't even know what Epicurus taught, much less understand the subtleties, so like Lucretius we need to come up with new and persuasive ways to reach out to other people. Yes they need to be "well constituted" or "well disposed" toward the ideas as Diogenes of Oinoanda and Diogenes Laertius reference, but we can't let the work involved in "educating" people constitute a "pain" that we decide is enough to stop us from making the effort.

To add to the last post, one lesson that seems to me to be obvious is this:

There will always be subtleties and difficult issues that we don't have enough texts to be sure about. But I firmly believe that those issues aren't central to the "big picture." Once you're clear that there is no life after death and no supernatural gods and no absolute basis for ethics - that everything ultimately rests on the feelings of pleasure and pain -- that is a very clearly-denominated world view in itself that is more than sufficient to be a basis for "organization" in a world that is very hostile to those ideas.

Quote from Kalosyni

So what do you think that means for us moving forward? Does it seem that the word "Epicurean" in some sense is already taken to mean something different. Even if we say "Epicurean Philosophy" the common person will think "Food Philosophy"?

One option that comes to mind is to use "Lucretian" rather than "Epicurean". As far as I know, that hasn't been co-opted yet. But I agree with Cassius that a new term shouldn't be introduced. Probably best is to use "Epicurus" rather than "Epicurean" as in the previous post.

I do agree that "Lucretian" is useful and that is one reason I did not rush to change the name of the podcast even when we finished the poem and went on to other texts. Lucretius personally is the prime example of what probably needs to be the next phase of the "movement" - people who adapt and restate Epicurean philosophy to their own contexts to bring the story to new people and explain it in new ways. The name also has that sort of "Luciferian" or "light-bringing" ring to it that spurs the imagination.

And it is interesting how Lucretius himself in his poem kept the focus on the philosophy without even naming Epicurus very often. So no need to run from Epicurus' name, but Lucetius' name does have its own benefits.

I re-read what is here, and I’m not sure what the point is. Why is some further organization/organizing needed? Or wanted? How organized is the Garden supposed to be (e.g., to meet modern needs)?

Some random first thoughts, and perhaps hard questions that might influence, in part, what kind of further organizing/outreach you want to do – and for what purpose (recognizing my admitted ignorance):

~ ~ ~

Do you just want to attract more people? How “catholic” are you willing to be to attract people who might not find their way here now? Versus keeping (and insisting on) a more pure understanding of Epicureanism?

Is part of your aim to compete with Crespo’s group, or others? Or to help people who may not end up actually becoming “members” – or may just hang out to absorb whatever teaching they can and that feeds them? Are you looking to expand the Garden only to potential “true believers” (True Epicureans™). Or to broaden the appeal to those who might never go there? (I hasten to add that neither is, from my view, invalid.)

How will you reach busy people in a hyper-texting world, who may not want to delve further into the original texts or scholarly discussion? Do you want to? (I remind myself that doing philosophy in Epicurus’ sense was living a way of life based on certain therapeutic tenets, not necessarily continuing intellectual exploration.)

~ ~ ~

A possible analogy: When Arrian wanted to expand the reach of Epictetus’ Stoic teachings, he did not call upon everyone to read the extensive Discourses (even in chewable chunks); he compiled the Enchiridion as an epitome. The Enchiridion is a very popular book. I’m sure many people allow it to inform their lives, and read maybe a little more about Stoicism or neo-Stoicism – but not much else. Bite-size daily meditation books are also popular (there are even AA meditation books for agnostics and atheists to practice “one day at a time”).

Epicurus produced his epitome, and we have some good translations (and Cassius’ “Elemental Epicureanism”), but even that may not be sufficiently accessible to the busy modern reader. There are the PD and Vatican Sayings, bite-size enough for sure: but I note how much discussion takes place on here on questions of translation and interpretation. So anything like the Enchiridion (combining various sources) would need to be put into easy modern English that the reader can interpret (and re-interpret) as needed according to their own life needs. [A foundational assumption here is that Epicureanism is a sound – if not the soundest – way to meet such needs. I agree.]

At bottom, this is a good place that people find their way to now – and that may really be sufficient. Further outreach involves advertising. My suggestion would be to publish something like the Enchiridion or a daily meditation book that is a) non-argumentative (vis-à-vis other philosophies or religions), b) easy to absorb in small bites, c) is inviting but not insistent on any further study/participation, and d) presents the Garden as a safe place, not a strict creedal “church” (you guys already do a good job on that score here 😊 – or I wouldn’t be here at all).

___________________________________________________

I want to note that even allowing a broadly “catholic” membership does not mean, cannot mean, allowing disruptive argument from, say, neo-Epicureans who want to insist on their own way. Some disagreement is fine, but not disruption – that destroys the Garden itself.

Also, unlike Kalosyni, I notice that I have used the second-person plural here; in retrospect there are two reasons: 1) based on my personal history, I always avoid declaring “membership” and 2) I’m not convinced that what is here, as it is (and how people get here), is not good enough.

My bias is: I wish I had an Epicurean Enchiridion. I basically use the Vatican Sayings (selected randomly) and a Taoist daily meditation book. But it would take, I think, at least a year of diligent writing/editing to produce.

I may have misunderstood this whole thing. If so, sincere apologies …

As a tiny contribution to outreach, I published my poem "A Small Ode to Epicurus" on allpoetry.com -- with reference to this site. (A very small gesture.)

1. Can you post a link to where you posted it?

2. All of the points you raise are very valid questions and I do not believe there is a single right answer to any of them. Just like the goal here is relatively well defined, any "organization" also need well defined goals, and we are far from seeing such a set of goals come together.

3. I agree that more summaries are needed. I tend to think that rather than someone having the credibility to write new summaries, the starting part is probably more of an organization "table of contents" by topic to the existing sources, letting them speak for themselves. Whether that is good enough is debatable, but I do think efforts like that make the most sense as a starting point. Even at this point we don't really have a good reference outline like that.

Re # 3: That makes perfect sense. (Makes it harder, of course ! )

Social engagement and personal friendships in "real life" are the first and most desirable goals, because all of us need that in real life.

Secondarily, it is in my case something I get great enjoyment out of to hope to be making a small contribution to the continuance of Epicurean philosophy as a real world presence. And as part of that it is my firm conviction that Epicureanism's continuance as more than a shell of it's former self will never happen until and unless there is such real world engagement. As long as Epicureanism is perceived mainly as a self-help treatment for anxiety issues, no one will ever consider it worthy of being opposed or suppressed as it was in the past. But what that means in reality is "as long as it seems to apologize for pleasure and remain a shell of its former self...". The intensity of a Lucretius or a Diogenes of Oinoanda or even a Lucian will never be "allowed" to break through as a mainstream position on religion, life after death, or even epistemology, and will always be considered to be the ravings of cantankerous cranks, in polite society in our major nations of the world.

Most of us are old enough that we have lived in a time and in a country (the USA) where "free speech" has been considered the norm, but as I see it that period is fast drawing to a close. Even if we maintain our current ability to talk about Epicurus in terms of "happiness" for a while longer, the kind of rebelliousness send in Lucian and the others is likely going to get harder to secure. Hopefully we won't have another "fall of Rome" where religion (or it's humanist variants) makes it impossible to promote the core Epicurean worldview positions, but it doesn't make sense to take that chance. Because if something like that does begin to happen, technology will allow suppression of dissenting minority views in ways never thought possible. And it would be unrealistic to expect that Epicurean views will ever be more than a small minority in our lifetimes.

I doubt there can or should be a "centralized" Epicurean organization, but setting up ways for people "locally" to find and support each other would be highly desirable.

Kalosyni

Kalosyni, I think I understand.

My focus here has been to learn from others in a safe environment how to apply Epicurus to my daily life – not to become as fluent in Epicurean philosophy as others on here.

I have tried to keep my social views to myself, even as I once asked for help on here in how to deal with them – and the stress I often feel. I cannot escape from the social issues and conditions by running away to the Garden (here, elsewhere or in my mind – and no one here suggested that I should).

But there is no way to engage in more social engagement without being open about where one is coming from. And I see where that could require a place (format) different and separate from this one. I don’t know how Epicureanism fosters that kind of engagement/activism – or limits it (I just don’t know).

So, I will be open: I am somewhat left of center economically (which is my academic background long ago, and parlayed into work for years, before our big life-simplification experiment – driven, in part, by political repercussions that became untenable); I am way left of center on social issues; and I see the radical right-wing (MAGA) movement in this country as viciously evil and dangerous (and a real, not a philosophical, danger). I am not as active as I once was (no more protests/picket lines or across-the-table confrontations), but I still make small contributions, mostly quasi-anonymously. [What I find in my poetry (I have never been very good at political/social-engagement poetry, except once maybe) is respite from the tempestuous world.]

So, now I will take a break for awhile. I don’t know if I’ve violated anything here. But, in the meantime, be well all.

No concerns Pacatus so far. The real issue is no so much identifying oneself as it is advocacy over time on contemporary issues. The ultimate questions of whether we have eternal souls or whether there are supernatural gods and whether there are ideal forms of right and wrong are where Epicurus spent his time. So far as I can tell, his allegiance to political parties was minimal, and any that was there was likely as much a matter of instrumentalism as his views on virtue or any other day to day issue.

The relevance here to our discussion of organization is that (at least in my view of setting up the forum) it is counterproductive to allow day to day issues to disrupt the larger goal of allowing people interested in the ultimate issues to talk to each other. That gets complicated sometimes here, and it would be complicated on real life local organizations too. But it just makes sense to put first things first and insist that lesser concerns be dealt with outside and after and not at the expense of the core concerns. I think that is doable here and in real life meetings too, but it means vigorous focus on a limited number of issues and a devotion to not getting distracted.

And that devotion to not getting distracted has a deep history for "the Epicurean movement" because "distraction" was the tool that Cicero and 2000 years of subsequent attackers have used to pin Epicurean philosophy into irrelevance. "Distraction" causes us to ignore the major accomplishments that Epicurus made in freeing the world from false philosophy and false religion and keeps us focused on debating nuances in types of pleasure. "Politics" would do the same if we allowed it. Remember how Cicero alleged that Epicurus was not suitable for discussion "in the Senate or the camp" - that's just another version of allowing politics to get in the way of ultimate truths, and distraction that keeps Epicurus marginalized.

Quote from Kalosyni

Now we can go a step further and apply a kind of heuristic which is that we will more quickly guess (or sense) whether or not we are causing pain to someone, and then be sure to avoid any behavior that might cause pain.

Quote from Kalosyni

I just think that this ethical understanding needs to be clear. Any thoughts Cassius?

Yes I do have a thought. In general I think your formulation goes in the right direction, but "be sure to avoid any behavior which might cause pain" can probably be more accurately worded. That's because:

Quote from Letter to Menoeceus

and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided.

It's a constant temptation to reduce the theory down to "pursue pleasure and avoid pain" but that's too simplistic. Yes it is true but mainly in the "ultimate outcome" rather than the immediate moment, and sometimes we will choose pain (for ourselves or for others) if prudence tells us that is the course most likely to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in the end.

And as a second point, I think we have to remember that we aren't just talking about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain in the abstract, like there is some kind of flow of pleasure units and pain units in the universe as a whole. The pain and pleasure we are talking about is what we feel ourselves, which includes what we feel through our friends or anyone else we choose to empathize with, not the whole universe of living beings at large.

Quote from Torquatus from Cicero's On Ends Book One

Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation.

Of course when we do inflict pain on someone to restrain them, we can expect them to react back against us, so we have to always consider whether we are prepared for that before we act.

So I think the larger point is that just like we have to be on guard and not pursue every choice that we think will lead to pleasure, we have to be on guard and not avoid every choice that we think will lead to pain. It's the ultimate outcomes that we are looking to steer by, and even when we say it like that, it is still a very subjective thing - there's no absolute way to measure feelings that applies to all situations.

That's the way it seems to me.

When it comes to this topic of discussion of "ethical" behavior, it's more about justice than pleasure/pain. Of course, that pleasure/pain guides choices and rejections, but I'd also point to PD31:

Natural justice is an agreement for mutual benefit, to not harm one another or to be harmed.