Pros and Cons Of Considering Epicurean Philosophy To Be A "Religion"

    Let's get out in front of some questions that people might ask about Nate's Hedonicon video. For example:

    Quote from Nate

    Second, I did it to consecrate (what I call) my religion.

    What is an appropriate answer to someone who would criticize the idea of seeing Epicurean philosophy as a "religion?"

    The answer would probably involve first dealing with the old problem of definitions and talk about what it means to be a "religion."

    1. What is a fair definition of a "religion?"
    2. Does the definition of religion itself require that all religions be "bad," or is it possible to have a "good" religion?
    3. Did the ancient Epicureans see their own views of the gods as "true religion," or something else?
    4. They clearly contended that having correct views about the gods is important.
    5. Did they have "practices" that were a necessary part of those views?
    6. Did those views and/or practices constitute a "religion?"
    7. What relation should ancient Epicurean practices have on Epicureans today?

    Another question would be:

    1. If Epicurean philosophy were viewed as analogous to a religion, would there be "denominations" within the "religion?
    2. To what extent would the religion be "uniform" across all Epicureans?

    That's a good start to the conversation. I too consider Epicurean philosophy to at the very least "stand in the place of" what passes for religion today, and I've even argued in the past that if censorship issues get worse we might want to consider claiming "freedom of religion" as protection for the Epicurean viewpoint.

    But I am also aware that any discussion of "religion" strikes some people extremely poorly as they come from a very different paradigm. So I think its good to flesh out the details and the terminology publicly because there's no doubt there will be people who will object to it. I suspect in the end there are good ways to explain the issue that advance the ball, and I agree with your point number 7 - it's a core aspect of Epicurean philosophy to have a clear position on the nature of divinity.

    People feel good kneeling. Not to look too silly, they invented gods so the can kneel purposefully. Here came Epicurus and told them it was still quite silly to kneel purposefully. They got up to cheer him and went back on their knees to cheer him some more. People do love kneeling.

    This is the path where philosophy and religion get mixed. Please consider if this is the path worth taking. Please also do not take it as a personal attack of any sort. I have no intention of attacking anyone. I'm writing it only for people to think about it. That is all.

    TauPhi I think I understand at least one aspect of where you are going and I bet that this Vatican Saying is not your favorite either:

    Quote from Cassius

    VS32. The veneration of the wise man is a great blessing to those who venerate him.


    You're definitely right in my view that people can go overboard with "kneeling." But does that mean that there is never an appropriate time in life when kneeling is the right course? I'd generally agree that it's a bad idea in most every situation, and yet I don't know anymore that I am willing to condemn (for example) every example of "kingship" as improper. The ancient Romans who I often look to as models had "dictators" temporarily, and though they were better off (in my view) in the republic when they didn't have kings, I don't know that I can say that kneeling would "always" be inappropriate, as long as it was understood as a limited gesture.

    Similarly with "gods" and "reverence," the emotions that go along with holding something or someone in very high esteem don't seem to me as something to *always* consider as prohibited. My main view at the moment would be that the limits and circumstances for such emotions and activities need to be tightly defined, rather than outright prohibited.

    Actually we should probably clarify "kneeling" before we go too much further. I think Nate is largely speaking figuratively in that last post on kneeling. We can speculate what participation in public rituals meant, but I am not aware of any specific evidence that Epicurus ever kneeled to anybody. The issue is figuratively and that's part of the whole issue of reverencing.

    Quote from Cassius

    You're definitely right in my view that people can go overboard with "kneeling." But does that mean that there is never an appropriate time in life when kneeling is the right course?

    If an act of kneeling is the act of an ultimate personal defeat and acceptance that someone else is better equipped to govern our lives then I say yes, never should be an appropriate time for such an act. I'm talking about that kind of kneeling. The transfer of responsibility for our lives; the hope that there's something bigger that will hug us and keep us safe; the inability to face indifference of the Universe.

    Quote from Cassius

    Similarly with "gods" and "reverence," the emotions that go along with holding something or someone in very high esteem don't seem to me as something to *always* consider as prohibited. My main view at the moment would be that the limits and circumstances for such emotions and activities need to be tightly defined, rather than outright prohibited.

    Holding someone in very high esteem doesn't entitle them to become gods. Why not keeping things plain and simple? Why the need for facade and flowery, religious language that can be easily misleading? And to be clear, I'm not in favour of prohibition. It's everyone's personal choice how they perceive their reality. But when we're talking about widespread ideas like Epicureanism, I'm getting worried when I see 'holy', 'religion' etc. next to it. Epicurus was not a god, not a prophet and most definitely was not holy. He was a guy who had an extraordinary gift of perceiving how things seem to work and he was kind enough to translate his powerful gift of observation for others' benefit. And not everything he observed, described or advocated for stood the test of time. He was not an oracle and when people try to paint him as such, his legacy suffers. Epicurus was a philosopher. Let's treat him as such.

    I am not talking to anyone in this thread but I can imagine certain lurkers hyperventilating right now. Everyone needs to understand that the "gods" that Epicurus was talking about, and that as I understand it Nate is talking about, are not literally Zeus and Venus and the rest. If we go down the road of "piety toward the gods" too far without reminding everyone forcefully what Epicurean gods ARE, and ARE NOT, then we get into the same misunderstandings that we have about pleasure, virtue, and other terms.

    I don't think the texts support the view that Epicurus was talking about reverence toward Zeus, Yahweh, or any other conventional gods, as those names are commonly understood. We have to start back at the beginning of the sequence, on what is the nature of divinity, before we can make sense of he downstream discussions of piety.

    Divinity is not "Nature itself" either, but it's a capacity that exists within nature that makes possible beings who while not supernatural are still worthy of "reverence" because of the benefit that such reverence brings to us in bringing us further into consistency with Nature itself and the pleasure that nature gives as guidance.

    Part of the clarity that needs to be brought to the discussion is "What is it that Epicurus is saying to reverence?" All the letter to Menoeceus says is "immortal and blessed." Immortal is relatively clear (deathless) but the meaning of "blessedness" is what has to be explained and visualized. Only then can you make progress in understanding what it is you are having reverence toward.

    Quote from Cassius

    First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his immortality or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and immortality.


    And as to the blessed existence one of the most detailed statements is from Torquatus:

    Quote

    [40] XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because death is apart from sensation, and pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance.

    [41] When in addition we suppose that such a man is in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?

    So to me you end up with piety toward the "idea" of this kind of existence in general, more so than to Zeus or any other specific alleged example of it. The question of whether an individual entity qualifies as divine is always going to be a question of fact that depends on circumstances, but the "preconception" of divinity is something that comes before its application to any particular individual.

    There appears to be two camps within the current resurgance of Epicurean philosophy:

    - One camp who may wish to see a special kind of reverence and a special way of interacting and disseminating the historical ideas of Epicurus, by labeling it "a religion", and there-by appealing to those who are looking for something "bigger-than-themselves", and perscribing certain behaviors in line with "religious feelings", as well as creating a "priestly/teacher class" and a "student/disciple class" within a tight-knit community that shares the same urge for how to view Epicureanism.

    I feel fairly certain that most of us here on this EpicureanFriends forum do not fall into this first camp. However if there are some who do, then you may enjoy the company of others who have that same belief by checking out what is offered by the Society of Friends of Epicurus. From their FAQ page there is a link to a page explaining more about how they view things regarding Epicureanism as a Religious Identity.

    Now for the other camp, as I see it myself regarding my personal view of Epicurean philosophy, and which many others here on this forum may also hold as a beneficial view: Epicureanism is (and should be seen as) a philosophy and not a religion.

    Here are a few benefits of seeing Epicureanism as a philosophy rather than a religion:

    1. Your personal understanding comes first rather than having to depend on interpretations outside of yourself - you interprete the extant texts as it pleases you, because you apply them to modern life and your own unique situation.

    2. If you are dealing with very troubling issues, you visit a therapist rather than rely upon Epicurean teachings (and rather then relying on religious rituals or potentially relying on "teachers" who are not therapists).

    3. You are free to test Epicurean philosophy and reject the parts that do not work for you.

    4. You are not expected to do any rituals or attend any meetings, and you will still be respected if you don't participate, and your respect will be based on your understanding rather than adherence to "religious goals" - and there are no religious goals or rituals, rather only personal goals which you freely choose for yourself.

    5. It feels safe, free, and open for those who are atheists to participate in studying the philosophy of Epicurus - because there is no group requirement regarding the "gods/god" and this is something to be considered for each person privately.

    To avoid unnecessary talking past each other I suggest people be clear about the use of the word religion, especially making clear what they think that the word religion means and whether it can ever be used beneficially. Nate has stated that he wants to "take back the word" and it seems to be that is a large part of this discussion. Part of that discussion is: Do we have evidence of "religio" in Latin or equivalent in Greek being used positively by the ancient Epicureans?

    Whichever etymology we go with: (1) relego (“choose, gather”) or (2) religō ("bind, moor") we have nothing inherently objectionable. Having chosen Epicurean philosophy, I have gathered my focus toward it and moored myself in the philosophy. It this sense it is no trouble for me to say that my "my religion is Epicureanism." But as you know, that wording is more poetic than exact (I re-read your "On '-Isms' and Pleasure Wisdom" article last night, very good!)

    I do agree that it does not benefit us to throw away terms because they are misused by others. If we throw out 'god' because others have used the term incorrectly, we have let them win the argument. I think Epicurus would agree that we should not throw out the word 'religion' -- but clearly it comes with its own baggage.

    We do have Religio as a bad word in Lucretius, his "oppréssa grávī sub rêligiône" (pressed down underneath heavy religion), "sǽpius ílla Rēlígiō péperit scelerôsá atque ímpia fácta" (more often Religion produces wicked and ungodly acts), etc.

    Nevertheless, we understand, as Lucretius often stated, that the supernatural claims are the problem of 'religion,' not our human desire to gather a tradition and stick to it.

    Edited once, last by Bryan (January 23, 2024 at 2:07 PM).

    I find that I have thumbed-up several posts here that are somewhat in disagreement with one another. :/8) But the above by Kalosyni (from post b#16) particularly resonates with me. In fact, I have copied it into my own files for reference – as I couldn’t state it any better. :thumbup:(I have been part of religious communities that would largely affirm her points – but my experience is that they are rare indeed.)

    "We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content." (Vatican Saying 48)

    Edited once, last by Pacatus (January 23, 2024 at 4:55 PM).

    Quote from Nate

    In Vatican Saying 29, he literally compares himself to an oracle.

    What is your argument here Eikadistes ? That Epicurus was an oracle because he literally compared himself to an oracle? It may seem that you are trying to put some prophet clothes on Epicurus but by putting forward arguments like that you strip him of his wisdom and present him to public eye as a naked nutcase for people to laugh at. And why wouldn't they laugh at a dude claiming to be an oracle?
    Or maybe you're trying to say we should treat everything Epicurus said as gospel? In that case where's the space for philosophy? Where's the room for trying to live wisely by thinking about, discussing and putting to test Epicurus' ideas and see which of these enhance our lives and which are useless? If we take anything as infallible gospel, we are not lovers of wisdom but lovers of being led to slaughterhouse as blind sheep.

    Quote from Nate

    I mean to take back those words and return them to their original meanings. "Holy" originally shared a meaning with "Wholesome" or "Healthy", which are excellent descriptions of a key aspect of the Good Life in the Epicurean tradition.

    Why would you even attempt to return any words to their original meaning? It's like trying to revert a river with a stick. It's perfectly normal and desirable for languages and their vocabulary to evolve together with people that use them. Languages are meant to change to allow humans for efficient communication. Active languages are not meant to be preserved in their original form and put on display in a museum. And I agree that 'wholesome' and 'healthy' are excellent descriptions. 'Holy' might have meant all that centuries ago but now it means completely different thing. And in 21st century we have words like 'wholesome' and 'healthy' and I don't see any reason why not to use them when talking about something that is wholesome and healthy. You can't expect that people telepathically know that you personally change meanings of words because you like their past meanings. You could have titled your book: 'The Hedonicon: The Wholesome Book of Epicurus' but...

    Disclaimer:  Eikadistes. We don't know each other personally and we only passively exchange ideas here on the forum so I want to make sure that you don't imagine me as a vicious troll trying persistently to undermine your work. I am not that person. On the contrary, I think your book is a great collection of valuable texts and all credit to you for compiling it. All my arguments are strictly related to dangers of mixing religion with philosophy.

    ...but you chose to use 'Holy'. If I knew nothing about Epicurus and Epicureanism and I came across your book, I'd probably assume it's a book about another nutcase claiming the usual holy nonsense and I'd classify the book as yet another mental diarrhea. And I absolutely don't want this to happen! Your book is a collection of priceless achievement of human thought and people can benefit greatly reading Epicurean texts.

    Kalosyni (from post #16 above, which I already quoted): “2. If you are dealing with very troubling issues, you visit a therapist rather than rely upon Epicurean teachings (and rather than relying on religious rituals or potentially relying on "teachers" who are not therapists).”

    I just wanted to add a few comments to this particular point:

    Many therapists (if not most) are also teachers; mine (who also later became a friend) was – even as he disclaimed the usage that Kalosyni seems allude to here: he said, “I am not, and will not be, your ‘guru’.” There are, of course, many theories and styles of therapy. My guy was pretty eclectic, rather than dogmatic (in the modern, generally pejorative, sense).

    Also, from my experience in 12-Step rooms (which I will not detail): a few were quite religious in nature; the one in which I was most comfortable was not. Many of the people were religious (in a “higher power = god” sense) – but a number were not; and there was no pressure at all. Also, the steps were generally seen (in that room) as suggestions, not rules – and a number of “old-timers” freely said that they drew on them to make their own, personal “program,” taking what was useful and leaving the rest. I still draw upon a 12-Step daily meditation source that is geared toward agnostics and atheists (but without rejection of the more religious).

    Finally, I see Epicurean philosophy as a therapeutic source to draw upon for my own ongoing “recovery” (from whatever – in the 12-Step usage of that term).

    With that said, I repeat that I found Kalosyini’s points in the above-referenced post to resonate the most to me – in words that I cannot improve upon.

    "We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content." (Vatican Saying 48)

    Quote from Nate

    Ultimately, this is meant to be the reference guide I wish I had when I began studying this 10 years ago. It took me two dozen books before I really felt like I understood the framework of history and literature which is unavailable in a single text. This is the book I would have wanted.

    I think this is a key point. I am seeing things much differently than I saw them even several years ago. The more you concentrate on what the Epicureans actually wrote, rather than the filtering and commentary that comes through the modern commentators, the more I think you can internalize how serious they likely were in how they took their views.

    Quote

    So, within that context, while I (personally) identify significantly more with Lucretius' anti-religious attitude, I think that Epicurus' personal expression of pious devotion might have been (in general) closer to the Roman idea of "religio".

    I credit the book Long Live Latin for helping me to understand this, and I think it's worth considering; Lucretius had a separate word which he used in Book 5 for his understanding of pious devotion. The Latin word is pietas, which he contrasts with religio. Around line 1200 (Bailey translation);

    Quote

    Nor is it piety at all to be seen often with veiled head turning towards a stone, and to draw near to every altar, no, nor to lie prostrate on the ground with outstretched palms before the shrines of the gods, nor to sprinkle the altars with the streaming blood of beasts, nor to link vow to vow, but rather to be able to contemplate all things with a mind at rest.

    I'll quote my own words from an old thread;

    "Pietas, then, is not a synonym of religio but its true opposite. Religio is a kind of madness born of superstition; it is attended by fear, traffics in well-worn lies, and delights in obscurantism and servility. Pietas is the spirit of understanding born of inquiry; it brings peace, "reveals darkly hidden things", and delights in clarity and the health of the unburdened soul."

    My building has a problem with porch pirates, which is the only reason I haven't gotten your book yet, but I'll find a way to get it soon! Several neighbors have doorbell cameras now so I hope the problem will resolve itself.

    Great point about Pietas, Joshua!

    Following Nate's post on Polystratus, I was reading this similar quote from him which seems to relate in a general way to this discussion today:

    "Certain remedies are beneficial to the one who suffers from one disease, others to the one who suffers from another illness; and such remedies benefit the patient in the throes of a violent fever, others to the one whose temperature is too low, and… It is the same for what concerns actions: there too, it is not profitable for all to perform the same acts; but some acts are beneficial for some and others for others. And it is not true that all opinions are false, but they depend on the differences that exist both in individual natures and in circumstances." (Polystratus, de irrationali contemptu)

    Also I'd just like to interject before I forget: One of the biggest problems that gives me personally the most caution with "religion" is better described - at least for me - as "ritualism." "Rituals" give me the creeps and are generally a big turn-off for me. I realize there's a fine line between "ceremonies" and "memorials" and "habits," but I think the idea of mandatory and elaborate "ritual" helps describe at least a part of the problem. To me, "ritualism" goes along with the "mind control" that is often associated with religions, and things that seem like "rituals" have to be approached with caution. Joshua's quote from Lucretius 5:1200 really helps put this in perspective.

    Here is the Daniel Brown edition version of that:

    Quote from Daniel Brown's Lucretius 5:1194

    Nor can there be any piety for a wretch with his head veiled, to be ever turning himself about towards a stone, to creep to every altar, to throw himself flat upon the ground, to spread his arms before the shrines of the gods, to sprinkle the altars abundantly with the blood of beasts, and to heap vows upon vows. To look upon things with an undisturbed mind, this is Piety. For when we behold the celestial canopy of the great world, and the heavens spread over with the shining stars; when we reflect upon the courses of the sun and moon, then doubts – that before lay quiet under a load of other evils – begin to awake, and grow strong within us. What! Are there gods endued with so great power that can direct the various motions of all the bright luminaries above? For the ignorance of causes gives great uneasiness to the doubting mind of man. And hence we doubt whether the world had a beginning, and shall ever have an end; how long the heavens (the walls of this world) shall be able to bear the fatigue of such mighty motions, or whether they are made eternal by the gods, and so shall forever roll on, and despise the strong power of devouring age.

    Quote from Nate

    Where does that leave the word "Superstitio" in relation to "Pietas" and "Religio"?

    And, as a further point, why did Lucretius not use "Superstitio"?

    This helps...

    Glossary of ancient Roman religion - Wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org

    superstitio
    Superstitio was excessive devotion and enthusiasm in religious observance, in the sense of "doing or believing more than was necessary", or "irregular" religious practice that conflicted with Roman custom. ...Before the Christian era, superstitio was seen as a vice of individuals.

    Lucretius' opposition to religio in favor of pietas conveys to me possibly the difference between outward "proper" performance of rituals expected of one versus the inward reason for performing those rites and rituals. Epicurus took part in the rites, festivals, and rituals of his city BUT with the proper inward piety.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. Epicureanism and Scientific Debates Epicurean Tradition and its Ancient Reception - New (2023) Collection of Commentaries 7

      • Matteng
      • December 17, 2024 at 2:19 PM
    3. Replies
      7
      Views
      959
      7

    4. Don

      December 17, 2024 at 2:19 PM

    2. what did epicurean actually mean by free will ? i think the article on the main page is confusing determinism with fatalism 7

      • UnPaid_Landlord
      • December 16, 2024 at 7:04 AM
    3. Replies
      7
      Views
      487
      7

    4. Cassius

      December 16, 2024 at 7:04 AM

    2. How Would Epicurus Analyze The Slogan "Live Free Or Die" As An Ethical Guide? 7

      • Cassius
      • December 9, 2024 at 2:57 PM
    3. Replies
      7
      Views
      796
      7

    4. Root304

      December 9, 2024 at 2:57 PM

    2. Video Games For Mental Focus and Relaxation 2

      • Cassius
      • December 9, 2024 at 12:11 AM
    3. Replies
      2
      Views
      962
      2

    4. Root304

      December 9, 2024 at 12:11 AM

    2. Discussion of New Substack Article: "A Gate To Be Burst: Absence of Pain" 29

      • Cassius
      • December 9, 2024 at 12:11 AM
    3. Replies
      29
      Views
      4.8k
      29

    4. Bryan

      December 9, 2024 at 12:11 AM