Epicureanism as the spiritual essence or 'religion' of an entire community

OK I may have to moderate some of these comments but I don't think any offense was meant on any side so for now I am not. You guys are on the same path so let's work together for the greater goal of what I think we're all seeing are the benefits of working through the reconstruction of these ideas! We all need to be slow to anger when we are dealing with friends. Rather than promoting artificial ideas of universal brotherly love, I think Epicurus would approve the "no better friend, no worse enemy" way of looking at things. Certainly in life there comes a time when some people actually are enemies, and we have to realize that, as clearly stated in the principal doctines and a number of other places about people being well-constituted/disposed toward us. The people in this forum who have been promoted to level three are all on the same team or they wouldn't be level three (or remain for very long!) And just like friends don't hold money in communist form as that is not the way friends work, friends need to cut each other a lot of slack and be slow to anger and to take offense.

Quote from Nate

Why are we so uncomfortable with words that Christians have appropriated?

I can only answer for myself, Nate. Sometimes, I can, fairly readily, re-translate; sometimes with a bit of labor that seems worthwhile. But, sometimes, it seems an arduous process (for me) that I just don’t need to engage in – effort better spent elsewhere.

An old example: When I was a Christian, I used to argue with other Christians about the meaning of the word “sin” – which, neither in the Hebrew nor the Greek, meant “evil” or “immoral.” It meant error, a missing of the mark – sometimes due to personal fault, sometimes just not. The notion that “sin” was something worthy of just retributive punishment (eternal condemnation in hell) – as opposed to some form of restorative/remedial justice – seemed just daft to me: an aberrational understanding grafted onto the word. But, at some point, it seemed that I was just pounding my head on a wall – and, since leaving the fold, I have no need to consider the word further. Kudos to those who are still fighting the good fight.

Kudos to those who are still fighting the good fight over such things outside that Christian context, with other words. Kudos to you on that score (and others, like Don). But sometimes, my own baggage is such that I don’t feel the need. Better for me to move on.

Quote from Pacatus

Kudos to those who are still fighting the good fight over such things outside that Christian context, with other words. Kudos to you on that score (and others, like Don). But sometimes, my own baggage is such that I don’t feel the need. Better for me to move on.

It seems to me it is perfectly legitimate to have a "division of labor" and to recognize that some people are more comfortable with some approaches than others. But just because "some people" are uncomfortable does not mean that everyone has to do things the same way. These differences have to be respected and no one forced into anything they re not ready to agree to, but on the other hand there is plenty of room for those who want to go their own way to do so.

It's a fact that the Epicurean "movement" of 2000 years ago did not survive, and some part of the responsibility for that lack of survival has to be laid at their feet for failing to find ways to adapt to less favorable situations. I am not blaming them and I am sure they did what they thought was best, but the bottom line is that they failed to maintain an unbroken organizational trail, so those who pick up after them have to adapt to current circumstances, and also consider what might have been done differently in the past that might have contributed to the problems that occurred.

The decline and fall of the ancient world took a very long time and was not inevitable, nor was it brought about by supernatural powers.

I'm glad were still having this conversation, as a suggestion to Nate and everyone here. These questions that are being asked are best asked now, here amongst friends, rather than by others that are less friendly to Epicurus. Whatever your views may be it is sound policy to be able to defend them. Even if you don't care to defend them to others you at least need to be able to defend them to yourself. Instead of taking anything said here to personally we should see this thread as a chance to learn, even if we all don't agree.

For me, reclaiming words such as "spiritual" is a valuable exercise. There is much to be gained, I think, from spiritual and religious practices. I certainly can do so on my own, with my own conceptions, but discussing these subjects in a community such as this has the potential to add a degree of richness to the ideas that I might not come up with on my own. There are also genuine differences, I'm quite sure, between what I've come up with for myself and what others have done. We may not all agree on our interpretations, yet we can all learn from the differences, one can hope.

So when I ask questions about the meaning of words, or post in general, I do so not to stir the pot but out of genuine curiosity. If I have nothing constructive to say, I don't post (well, at least not knowingly; I'm sure I have my share of useless posts ).

Happy Friday all!

Epicurus - Book 28 (David Sedley trans, fr. 13, col. 4 sup.) "...which instead of ignoring or doubting it, I now think I see vividly. For, as I have said, a person would be correct to make the same choices of vocabulary in the exposition of philosophy, provided that we could count on his seeing that these are classes resulting from the same distinguishing characteristic, in order that he should avoid the pitfalls of major qualitative changes."

To apply a word to a thing we are looking for the inseparable qualities / fundamental distinguishing characteristics (συμβεβηκότα, coniuncta) not the separable qualities / circumstantial characteristics (συμπτώματα, eventa). A title for a nonphenomenal object (such as religion) is only incorrectly applied if its use (1) involves something that can proved to be untrue, or (2) is unhealthy.

(David Sedley trans, fr. 13, col. 8 inf.) "As for those opinions which do not concern actions (by which I mean those which are not included among empirical opinions, but belong to the theoretical side), these will be confuted, if they are false and whether the cause of their error is irrational or rational, either (1) because some other than theoretical opinion expressed on the basis of them is untrue, or, (2) if they become indirectly linked up with action, wherever they lead to disadvantageous action. If none of these consequences ensues, it will be correct to conclude that opinions are not false.

Quote from Godfrey

For me, reclaiming words such as "spiritual" is a valuable exercise.

Quote from Bryan

"which instead of ignoring or doubting it, I now think I see vividly.

Let me too try to engage on the precise issue, which I see as something like "describing the valid uses and meanings of the word 'spirituality'"

I see "spirituality" as validly describing a the experience of a very strong and clear feeling of respect and reverence and affection for something. I see it as validly describing an experience that at times is a strong feeling of respect and reverence is directed at other life forms, or at the stars or other "majestic" appearances of nature or other aspects of reality.

I see "spirituality" as invalidly used to describe an attitude of considering something as supernatural, or un-real, or wishfui thinking about things that do not exist.

A smell, for instance can trigger legitimate connections of memory with past good experiences or with particular people or places. Smells can also be used to induce reactions that are close to be psychotic.

A lot of this turns on the issue of whether the feeling being experienced heightens the senses and the thought processes in a realistic way toward greater effectiveness, or whether it deadens the senses and induces feelings of mechanical obedience and suppression of one's own mental activity in favor of some wished-for but not real un-real or un-worldly state of existence.

Experience of a deep and effective mental clarity and appreciation for the immensity of existence and the workings of nature, and of one's connectedness and appreciation for other living beings which enhances one's ability to participate in this universe is a very good thing, Experience of deadening and suspension of mental clarity and appreciation for reality for the purposes of inducing obedience and submission is a very bad thing.

I base all of this on the starting point that it is a core Epicurean perspective to see life as desirable and pleasure as "good," combined with the realization that life is short and for an eternity before our birth we did not exist, and for an eternity after death we exist no more. Further, there is no wishful thinking 'supernatural" justification for our existence - our existence needs no justification more than the sun or the moon need. If one keeps those kinds of perspective in mind then you don't fall into nihilism and you develop close and emotionally strong ties to the things that are most important in sustaining your existence and happiness.

And among the most important things that help you in sustaining that happy life are those who have taught you and supported you in sustaining that experience, among whom it is legitimate to consider both historic leaders such as Epicurus, such real people as you yourself have come into contact, and such mental expectations of reality that you experience in at least mental form in your ability to visualize a beings who are able to sustain this kind of existence in perpetuity while overcoming any obstacles it may encounter.

(In that last case I wrote plural "beings" because there is good evidence to believe that it was a core observation that "nature never makes only a single thing of a kind," and thus it would not be expected that there is a single "god" but instead numberless "gods" throughout the eternal and infinite universe.)

If a person does not take steps to develop habits and regular activities to exercise the mind in these directions, it is too easy to fall prey to discouragement and nihilism, just like it is too easy to start imagining that there are supernatural gods if one looks up at the night sky but dues not apply wisdom to start with "nothing comes from nothing" and to process in one's own mind the issues of beginnings and eternality and infinity. This is not dry "science" but the emotional appreciation of what it means to you as a person to be a part of this.

I would then project based on the above that Epicurus would have seen a proper "religion" as a set of institutions and habits and activities which reinforce the practical ability to keep strong one's experience of these perspectives.

Here is something that I think is closely related to this topic:

Nothing irritates me more than reading academics accuse Epicurus of hypocrisy in writing a last will and testament when supposedly death should have been "nothing" to him.

No community which does not provide for continuity, reproduction, rearing, and education of children and the institutions that support that (such as marriage and families and similar long-term extension of 'friendship') can possibly be self-sustaining over any length of time. It is simply not true that "everyone" does or can ever love everyone indiscriminately such as the monotheistic religions preach everyone as children of the same god. People naturally associate with people of similar disposition to themselves, and there are many different types of dispositions, and those of similar disposition can sustain themselves only by working together to do so.

It seems to me that Epicurus' will clearly establishes that he was well aware of these issues, and those who respect his example ought to be doing similar things.

As I see it there is far too much "consumerism" in Epicurean philosophy as well, which results in treating it as a sort of happiness pill that can be taken once or periodically and then go about your normal modern-world business as if what you have learned has no practical applications.

Ideas go hand in hand with action and one is useless without the other. Most of what would come under an "Epicurean religion" in my mind is just the practical application of Epicurean viewpoints to real life. Not smoke and mirrors and incantations and white gowns and untranslated words and incense and bowing and asceticism and minimization and zeroed-out minds and transcendental meditation, but clear-sighted active use of the time one has to make one's life the most emotionally satisfying (which means pleasing) it can be.

Such people are strong and independent and self-sufficient, but still recognize that there are things that bind them together with their friends that they cannot live happily without cultivating and working to ensure their continuity. If "res-ligio" is taken as a reference to things that bind, then our lives and societies require habits and practices and institutions to bind them together just like our bodies require ligaments to bind our bones and muscles and keep the body functioning. "Ideas" can't do that without action.

Death being a multifaceted event I find it to be intellectually dishonest for anyone truly interested in philosophy to take the stance that Epicurus writing a will would be hypocritical. Epicurus writings tackles the fear of death from multiple angles, fear of the gods, of pain in the afterlife, and the loss of those close to us. So why would it be hypocritical to write a will, such an act would alleviate anxiety about those we care about after we're gone. In such a will would be entirely consistent with his teachings. If death and taxes are all that is certain in this world, should we not prepare for the one as we do the other?

Quote from DavidN

Death being a multifaceted event I find it to be intellectually dishonest for anyone truly interested in philosophy to take the stance that Epicurus writing a will would be hypocritical.

There's a big difference between the process of "dying" and the "state" of "being dead." Epicurus can take pleasure in planning for his legacy while at thesame time being fully aware that his plans may not be followed. He takes pleasure in doing what he is capable of doing.

12.15-13.00 E. EPICUREAN LIFESTYLE
Chair: Christos Yapijakis – Antonis Bilisis
The theological elements of Epicurean Philosophy

I'd be interested in a transcript of this.

I haven't re-read this thread (and there has been a lot discussed here already)...but this seems to be the right place to post...on my mind this morning: "What makes something a religion?" I put that question into Google and the AI came back with this:

Quote

AI Overview

Something becomes a religion when it involves a unified system of beliefs and practices relating to the sacred, often including rituals, moral codes, and a sense of community, as defined by sociologist Émile Durkheim.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Beliefs and Practices:

  Religions typically involve a set of beliefs about the nature of reality, the divine, and the afterlife, along with practices like prayer, rituals, and ceremonies.

• Sacred Things:

  Durkheim's definition emphasizes the concept of "sacred things," which are objects, places, or ideas that are set apart and treated with reverence and respect.

• Moral Codes:

  Many religions also include a system of ethics or moral guidelines that dictate how individuals should behave and interact with others.

• Community:

  Religion often fosters a sense of community among believers, who share common beliefs and practices.

• Worship:

  While not always a defining feature, many religions involve the worship of a deity or deities.

• Examples:

  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism are all examples of religions that share these characteristics.

Display More

As for my own definition of what I would consider a religion -- I would say that all religions are defined by people who come together in-person to do "worship" together, with multiple rituals and ceremonies that are considered holy/sacred/consecrated in that they are done because they "seek to transcend the earthly realm". Religion is always seeking to connect with something beyond physical matter and to connect with a world existing or transcending beyond death.

We do not have evidence of any of the above in ancient Epicureans, and the extant texts of Epicurus do not provide any guidance for this. Since Epicurean philosophy holds that the soul dies with the body, then there is no after-life. Also, physical things exist because of physical causes - there are no supernatural forces in the world. Given these concepts, I think it would be difficult to consider or turn Epicurean philosophy into a religion.

These are just my current thoughts, processing some ideas.

Quote from Kalosyni

We do not have evidence of any of the above in ancient Epicureans...

Except now thinking, the only evidence that I can think of is the opening of De Rerum Natura which has an invocation to Venus, in which one could consider that ancient Epicureans during the Roman times participated in a kind of prayer, to an existing religion of the ancient time - and a worship of Venus. I found this:

Quote

But the most important cause of the identification was the reception into Rome of the famous cult of Venus Erycina—i.e., of Aphrodite of Eryx (Erice) in Sicily—this cult itself resulting from the identification of an Oriental mother-goddess with the Greek deity. This reception took place during and shortly after the Second Punic War. A temple was dedicated to Venus Erycina on the Capitol in 215 bce and a second outside the Colline gate in 181 bce. The latter developed in a way reminiscent of the temple at Eryx with its harlots, becoming the place of worship of Roman courtesans, hence the title of dies meretricum (“prostitutes’ day”) attached to April 23, the day of its foundation.

The importance of the worship of Venus-Aphrodite was increased by the political ambitions of the gens Iulia, the clan of Julius Caesar and, by adoption, of Augustus. They claimed descent from Iulus, the son of Aeneas; Aeneas was the alleged founder of the temple of Eryx and, in some legends, of the city of Rome also. From the time of Homer onward, he was made the son of Aphrodite, so that his descent gave the Iulii divine origin. Others than the Iulii sought to connect themselves with a deity grown so popular and important, notably Gnaeus Pompeius, the triumvir. He dedicated a temple to Venus as Victrix (“Bringer of Victory”) in 55 bce. Julius Caesar’s own temple (46 bce), however, was dedicated to Venus Genetrix, and as Genetrix (“Begetting Mother”) she was best known until the death of Nero in 68 ce. Despite the extinction of the Julio-Claudian line, she remained popular, even with the emperors; Hadrian completed a temple of Venus at Rome in 135 ce.

Source

There's also the sentiment expressed by things like "football is my religion"

Is football the universal religion?

The World Cup 2018 has had its share of iconic moments. Kelly Grovier picks out five striking photos from the tournament – finding their echoes in pious art.

www.bbc.com

Right Don. It depends on how you use the word.

As in the cite quoted by Kalosyni, the word used there is "sacred" and that too is ambiguous.

Epicurean philosophy is flatly natural and anti-supernatural.

But that does not at all mean that it isn't a highly focused system of thought that holds some things as "good" even to the point of "sacred" and other things "bad" to the point of evil. It's just that there's nothing supernatural at either end.

As far as what I gather is behind Kalosyni's attention her post, after we slice out the "supernatural" part of the discussion, which is admittedly a huge part, I do think that there are very important functions that Epicurean community could and should fill that parallel some of the functions assumed by the opposing religions. People live only a short number of years, and it's important to provide continuity. Older people have to preserve information and coordinate activities from which younger people can learn, and everyone at any age needs a support group for all sorts of reasons. Those functions are best filled by finding like-minded friends, and Epicurean philosophy provides a lot of the glue about what "like-minded" means in a social contest.

I haven't re-read the older parts of this thread either, but I seem to recall that that was the drift of the prior discussion. Kalosyni's bringing up the subject again, but not any conclusions from the past, shows how important the issue is and how things need to develop into the direction where some kind of social connection/unity is in place.

Quote from Kalosyni

We do not have evidence of any of the above in ancient Epicureans, and the extant texts of Epicurus do not provide any guidance for this.

I think we have a lot of material from the Epicureans, but, from our eyes (I'm speaking from mine, in particular), Epicurean spirituality doesn't look like "spirituality" because of the historical victory of anti-Epicureans in appropriating terminology. "Spirituality" in general, should mean something closer to "psychology", but, instead, has taken on the connotation of "metaphysics" and "mysticism". "Religion" should mean something more like "wisdom tradition", but is often weaponized to mean "Proper Observance of The God". Still, I think we qualify:

• Beliefs and Practices:

  Religions typically involve a set of beliefs about the nature of reality (countless particles in an infinite void), the divine (blessedness, defined as pure, uninterruptible pleasure), and the afterlife (a non-conscious re-arrangement of particles), along with practices like prayer (heavily encouraged by Epicurus and Philodemos in On Piety), rituals (civic festivals such as the City Dionysia and Anthesteria as well as personal cults to deceased family members and close friends), and ceremonies (Eikas and Hegemon Day).

• Sacred Things:

  Durkheim's definition emphasizes the concept of "sacred things," which are objects, places, or ideas that are set apart and treated with reverence and respect. (Greece in general and Athens in particular, for its historical significant based on the salvific mortals who lived there, as well as using pictures of our Leaders as decorations. We treat Herculaneum, itself, as a sort of necropolis, and privilege true knowledge over vain fantasies, as well as referring to bad habits as "sins" that must be extinguished to protect our happiness).

• Moral Codes:

  Many religions also include a system of ethics or moral guidelines that dictate how individuals should behave and interact with others. (The Epistle to Menoikeus covers the general guidelines en masse, and the fragments provide specific pieces of advice, such as a general warning against holding political office, rejecting betraying friends, approving of sacrifice for loved ones, and caution against careless attitudes toward casual sex).

• Community:

  Religion often fosters a sense of community among believers, who share common beliefs and practices. (This is something the Epicurean tradition does better than other traditions, and may be seen as one of the founding traditions that emphasized a unique, community of initiates who lived together. Though, they were not judgmentally exclusive. The primary rituals of our tradition are communal. We are encouraged to study with others along with ourselves. Our holidays are meant to be shared).

• Worship:

  While not always a defining feature, many religions involve the worship of a deity or deities. (Epicurean worship looks different than most other forms of worship. I think that's fair. Our expressions of deity-worship look a bit more like Jain and Buddhist expressions, minus the intensive, psycho-psychical, meditative practices), but, again, the culture in which we live sometimes even rejects Jains and Buddhists as proper examples of religious worshippers, so ... this is being gate-kept by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. That's my biggest comment on this section. Science is its own form of spirituality. Deities don't have to be magical, and worship doesn't have to be wish-fulfillment.)

I think we check all of the boxes.

Quote from Eikadistes

practices like prayer (heavily encouraged by Epicurus and Philodemos

Eikadistes If you happen to have the specific text that refers to prayer practices, for both Epicurus and for Philodemus, can you post here? ...would love to read those

Quote from Eikadistes

rituals (civic festivals such as the City Dionysia and Anthesteria as well as personal cults to deceased family members and close friends)

And also this too, would love to have the texts that refer to this.

On Piety will be the big resource here:

"Furthermore, | it will appear that Epíkouros loyally observed all the forms of worship and enjoined upon his friends to observe them, not only on account of the laws but for physical reasons¹⁰⁵ as well. For in On Lifecourses he says that to pray is natural¹⁰⁶ | for us, not because the gods would be hostile if we did not pray, but in order that, according to the understanding of beings surpassing in power and excellence, we may realize our¹⁰⁷ fulfilments | and social conformity with the laws. And besides writing this as well, in On Gods he¹⁰⁸ 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 nature¹⁰⁹ is great and august. And it is particularly at festivals that he, progressing to an understanding of it,¹¹⁰ through having its name the whole time | on his lips, embraces¹¹¹ with conviction more seriously […] not from things¹¹² (several words missing) of some things better by effectively preserving one’s conception of the gods during certain | times.¹¹³ And not only did he¹¹⁴ teach these things but also by his very deeds he is found to have taken part in all the traditional festivals and sacrifices. In the archonship of Aristonymus,¹¹⁵ for instance, writing to Phyrson about a countryman of | his¹¹⁶, Theodotus, he¹¹⁷ says that he shared in all the festivals (several words missing), and that while he¹¹⁸ was joining in celebrating the festival of the Choes¹¹⁹ and the urban mysteries¹²⁰ | and the other festivals at a meagre dinner, and that it was necessary for him¹²¹ to celebrate this feast of the twentieth¹²² for distinguished revellers, while those in the house decorated it most piously, and after making invitations¹²³ to host a feast for all of them. | Now it would be absurd to relate in addition that they¹²⁴ thought it right to make use of oaths and epithets of the gods, since their philosophical writing is filled with them. But it is proper to say that he¹²⁵ advised | them to retain asseverations made by means of these and similar expressions, and above all to preserve those made by Zeús himself in this open manner,¹²⁶ and not writing ‘by the twin shoots!’¹²⁷ or merely ‘it must be so’. Moreover to Kolotes he took pains with regard to all forms of oaths and | speaking about the gods. And in the archonship of Charinus¹²⁸ and that of Diotimus¹²⁹ he warns against violating the covenant of the sacred festival table. | […] But also writing to Polýainos that the Anthḗsteria too must be celebrated and that it is necessary to make mention of the gods (one word missing) | of many […] to conceive of their¹³⁰ nature as accurately constituting the notion of benefit according to the epistemological standard. And, lest I extend my discussion, again: ‘Let us sacrifice | to the gods‘, he¹³¹ says, ‘devoutly and fittingly on the proper days, and let us fittingly perform all the acts of worship in accordance with the laws, in no way disturbing ourselves with opinions in matters concerning the most excellent and august of being. Moreover, | let us sacrifice justly, on the view that I was giving. For in this way it is possible for mortal nature, by Zeús, to live like Zeús, as it seems.’ [...] And in his Symposium concerning the rites²⁴⁵ (he says): ‘Let us celebrate the festivals‘, | and ‘Make fine sacrifices to a god‘, […] from the holy rites in prayers against these cities..." (Philodemos, On Piety, translated by Obbink)