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

Has anybody ever experimented with the idea of Epicureanism as a formal spiritual identity capable of defining entire communities? What would Epicureanism look like if it wasn't merely a brotherhood of friends discussing philosophy but was also a sort of quasi religious worldview with its own intricate rituals, symbols and ceremonies covering every aspect of life? Could Epicureanism ever assume a form where it would be able to successfully compete with well-established religious traditions for the hearts and minds of huge numbers of people? I'm aware that Epicureanism did in fact manage to attract a significant following in antiquity but it failed to compete successfully with other traditions and had largely disappeared even before Christianity found its way in the Roman imperial courts. Of course Epicureanism could not possibly be a religion in the traditional sense since it rightly rejects the notion of divine beings or forces playing any role in human affairs. Still, it would be possible to imagine Epicureanism as a sort of atheistic 'religion' in the same sense that for example Confucianism or the Church of Satan founded by Anton LaVey may be branded as such. What would a 'holy book' of Epicureanism look like and what would it contain other than the letters of Epicurus and the poem of Lucretius? To what extent can the views and advice of brilliant therapists or educators like John Gottman, Gigi Engle or Dan Buettner be thought of as Epicurean and admitted in some form in the 'scriptures' and literature of Epicureanism? How would an Epicurean society raise and educate its kids? Since school is so horrendously boring, tedious and unpleasant to children (school is also the only place other than prison where people are quite likely to be bullied and tortured) how would an Epicurean society deal with the problem of educating the new generation? Given that modern Western hyper-liberalism presents society and individuals with many obvious problems that are impossible to deny today what laws, customs and istitutions would hypothetical Epicurean lawmakers create to avoid them?

Hey Nate. I am aware of Hiram Crispo but the reason I am here and not on his page is that I feel he's identifying Epicureanism too closely with mainstream left-wing politics and consequently with what Catherine Liu calls PMC virtue. I don't feel comfortable with this. Although I'm not formally involved in any political movement - and never will - my preferred politics personally is Marxist-Leninism-Trotskyism (I am a WSWS reader) which is firmly opposed to what we identify as the modern pseudo-left who we regard as only serving the class interests of the professional managerial class. In any case I don't mix up my political preferences with my Epicureanism. I think a more orthodox and authentic stance from the point of view of Epicureanism would be to maintain absolute political neutrality as well as a rather cynical view on the nature of politics akin to that of the ancient Sophists or Hobbes and which was still preserved in old-style Marxism. The notion of a clean and civilized politics that animates most supporters of modern pseudo-leftist movements is in my view incompatible with the spirit of ancient Epicureanism. It is rather an idealistic and platonic notion and one that got Seneca killed. I gotta go hit the sack. I'll adress more issues tomorrow.

I think it's fair to think of ancient Epicureans as de facto atheists the way Plutarch thought of them. The acceptance of the existence of the gods whether honestly or pretentiously was useful in a social context where atheism were discriminated against and associated with a significant degree of social exclusion. Today we often use the term 'social exclusion' lightly and synonymously with 'unfairness' and everybody feels brave enough to 'fight' social discrimination in all its forms but in a pre-modern agrarian society social exclusion meant your very survival was at stake. Why would someone not want to participate in the sacrifices and share in the meat? In the early modern era the Catholic Church tended to regard the beliefs of deists as little more than a damage control cover for atheism and they were basically right. Today deism has essentially disappeared because no damage control is necessary.

I do believe that Epicurus was serious about the existence of perfect gods. I suspect that he embraced this form of philosophical polytheism in order to seperate his own position from that of other hedonists who embraced anti-social attitudes and transgressionism (there is a definitely a link between Theodorus the Atheist for example and the philosophical positions of Marquis de Sade) or other schools like the Sophists. The Sophists who were the main villains in the Platonic corpus taught that the Gods were exclusively human creations. Epicurus' strategy was to disarm the gods completely but preserve their existence as blissful cosmic deities in order to show that a pleasurable life is possible all while respecting and preserving the social norms which were firmly associated with popular religion. Epicurus was definitely not very sympathetic to youthful counter-culture-style hedonism (recall that letter where he in a non-judgemental manner advises a youth to check his urges) and believed that social norms (like chastity in this case) do provide some useful and beneficial services to society. But he also observed that they easily acquired an oppressive and harmful character so he wanted to disarm the gods since they were habitually used to justify oppression and exploitation. Magicians and oracles for example fleeced poor uneducated people out of their money while sexual slavery was dressed up as sacred slavery and brothels as temples to Venus. In Greek 'sacred slavery' (hierodouleia) still means prostitution. In later centuries some Epicureans disagreed with Epicurus' position on the gods and simply saw them as immaterial fictions. This is in the modern context a far more defendable position. In any case Epicurus can be called a functional atheist since the gods were denied any agency in human affairs. In antiquity people sacrificed in the expectation that they receive a reward. If you affirmed that this practice is useless you were essentially an atheist as far as people in antiquity were concerned.

Hi Cassius! I have not had any opportunity to associate with them because as far as I know these are based in Athens and Salonica which are the first and second most populous cities respectively and I live in a sparsely populated rural community. They are small obscure groups, I wouldn't call them successful at this stage but they are better than nothing. For the average Greek the name 'Epicurus' means only an academic rank (assistant professor) since epikouros literally means 'the one who rushes to help'. Most have never heard of the ancient sage.

Concerning the issue of parenting I support natural hygiene (see Ingrid Bauer) and John Holt's unschooling approach.

Godfrey. Of course

Quote from Godfrey

Interesting. Are you saying that you would raise young members to entertain the possibility of idealistic myths such as an afterlife? I'm curious to hear your reasoning in this regard.

Of course not. But remember that ancient Epicureanism did resemble an ancient mystery religion or what we would today call a cult. There were Epicureans who carried images of Epicurus with them and referred to him as a god even though they didn't think of him as an immortal being. Calling a human you venerate a god is not possible today but in the world of antiquity it was something you could easily do. Today we are compelled to draw inspiration from our modern environment and modern religions. For example we can have people recite the tetrapharmakos in the original in the same way Muslims are required to recite the shahada in Arabic upon conversion and we could also require them to undergo foreskin restoration if they were circumcised at birth. This would symbolize our rejection of Abrahamism as well as our devotion to pleasure since the foreskin is actually an organ with important sexual functions. Remember that in Greek antiquity the body was considered literally holy and any deliberate mutilation of it was an abomination. There should also be rituals and feasts that an outsider would reconize as religious, not just mere celebrations. An Epicurean wedding for example should not just involve an exchange of vows and a party. It should have a character that resembles a religious ritual. This is intended to give Epicureanism a strong communal identity so that it can successfully compete with well-established religious traditions. Most common people crave a strong identity that gives their life meaning and structure. Maybe that's not true for you or me but for most people it is and any spiritual movement that wants to have any hope of escaping the fringes of society must provide that. This need is precisely why people are so prone to becoming 'polarized' and partisan fanatics. Political ideologies are at least partly religious movements. However the adherents of 'political religions' (see the current ideological struggles between woke and anti-woke people) have a high degree of neuroticism that admittedly tends to exceed that of most traditionally religious people. That suggests to me that political religions suck at being religious and giving people the comfort, security and meaning they require. They provide at best half-assed versions of those things. Traditional religions in contrast, particularly the Abrahamic - have shown themselves to be highly competent in providing this. So my vision for Epicureanism is to give it a form that allows us to tell people: 'this is your holy literature, these are your rituals, these are your norms and codes of conduct, these are your symbols, dress and accessoires, these are your mores and customs, you don't owe tolerance to anyone who opposes your views, have a nice life'. Remember that Christianity did copy something from Epicureanism. Spreading your creed in the form of epistles and the early Christian vision of an 'agapetic community' were definitely inspired by Epicureanism which in the earliest days of Christianity boasted a significant following in the areas of Judea where Greek had been widely adopted.

The term 'early Christianity' is just a convenient anachronism that maybe we should avoid altogether. It was a merely a sect of Second Temple Judaism for a long time (accoding to some scholars it still hadn't completed the process of transformation into a totally distinct religion as late as the 4th century) so the question is if Judaism in a broad sense had a fruitful interaction with Epicureanism. According to the virtual Jewish library this was in fact the case. I quote the following from its article on Epicureanism.

'Agreements, however, both in content and literary form, between rabbinism and Epicureanism are striking: study for its own sake (Vatican fragment 45 and Avot 6:1); removal of doubt (Life 121b, Doctr. 22 and Avot 1:16); mortality and urgency (Vat. fr. 10 and Avot 2:15); acquisition of a companion (To Menoeceus, end, and Avot 1:6); diet of bread and water (Bailey, fr. 37 and Avot 6:4); satisfaction with one's lot (Bailey, fr. 69–70 and Avot 4:1); and avoidance of public office (Bailey, fr. 85–87; Vat. fr. 58; Doctr. 7 and Avot 1:10–11; 2:3; etc.). Epicurus anticipated Judaism's denial of astral divinity and rule. With the general rise of the lower classes he accorded human dignity even to the prostitute, an evaluation continued in the Midrash (Sif. Num. 78; Gen. R. 85:8) and the Gospels (Matt. 1:3; 5, etc.). In Hellenism and Christianity, too, denunciation of Epicurus together with partial adoption of his ethics is frequent. The centrality of the sage in post-Socratic ethics and rhetoric facilitated such developments.'

Are we in agreement that Epicureanism was the first major cult that spread its message chiefly though the medium of epistolography and the first major school that envisioned a community of equals and friends without the mediations of poltical authority? Are we also in agreement that Epicureanism was highly successful in that period? If we agree on both then we must agree that it's at least quite likely that efforts were made on the part of Jewish movements to copy aspects of it. Successful movements never seem to fail getting imitated in some respects by their enemies for tactical reasons. The early medieval Byzantine heresies against the veneration of images (iconomachy) were likely a reaction to the massive success of the new Islamic religion and an attempt to imitate its strong emphasis on strict monotheism and opposition to idolatry. Such theological tendencies in the Byzantine east were of course not entirely novel but the vigorous appearance of Islam suddenly gave them a prominence they didn't have before. On the other hand, Islam copied the entire tradition of Orthodox chanting and phenomena such as the success of Byzantium against the Persians and the inroads of Christianity into the Arab pagan world must have promoted the growth of a new Abrahamic movement there.

Successful movements also have an uncanny ability to swiftly abandon elements that they were previously closely associated with if it suits them. Christianity became a religion entirely distinct from Judaism only when anti-Semitism established strong roots in it. The process that led there was started when the Jews became so hated in the eastern Mediterranean after their failed revolts which had left entire communities of Greco-Roman gentiles massacred that Christians had to adapt by distancing themselves from their Jewish origins and accelerating the process of assimilating pagan traditions into their faith.