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

Quote from Cassius

It's a real challenge to think about where this goes in terms of how to convey the difference in meaning of words.

In a general sense, this was also a struggle at the time. Epicurus says, talking to Metrodorus (David Sedley translation, On Nature Part 28):

(Fragment 6, Column 1) "For it was so necessary to point out that we, by observing that those who speak the same language as us, in contrast to our own use of words, were assigning some unsuspected false connotation in addition to those meanings…

(fr. 13, col. 2) ...and you also used in those days to assign [names] without adapting certain conventional usages, in order that you should not make plain the principle that by assigning any name one expresses a particular opinion, and see and reflect upon the indiscriminate treatment of words and objects. (fr. 13, col. 3) And I too used to notice that you did not establish a difference between two sets of words and then say that you chose one set because it was better than choosing the other...

(fr. 13, col. 5 sup.) Perhaps , though, you might say that it is inappropriate to lengthen the discussion by citing these cases. Quite so, Metrodorus. For I do not doubt that you could cite many cases, from your own past observations, of certain people taking words in various ridiculous senses, and indeed in every sense in preference to their actual linguistic meanings, whereas our own usage does not flout linguistic convention, nor do we alter names with regard to the objects of perception.

(fr. 13, col. 5 inf.) ... not because] others transfer words from the class of that which is knowable to denote that which is unknowable, but because of their own errors, which we point out in our work On Ambiguity."

We also have Philodemus On Home Economics (column 20, Tsouna translation):

"we must refer to the preconception that we possess about 'a good moneymaker,' ask in whom the content of that preconception is substantiated and in what manner that person makes money, and ascribe the predicate 'good moneymaker' [to whoever it may be in whom] those features are attested"

There is a concept called the “Ladder of Abstraction” created by American linguist S. I. Hayakawa in his 1939 book Language in Action. It describes the way that humans think and communicate in varying degrees of abstraction.

From concrete at the bottom to abstract at the top:

Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction – Choosing the appropriate abstraction level – jtoy

We should think in those terms: 'what can we do so that Epicureanism will survive our own demise and the demise of our descendants and the demise of the descendants of our descendants and so on and so on ad infinitum?' I think that calling Epicureanism a religion is a good strategy to get us there so I see Nate's attitude in a positive light. He is right to suggest that Epicurus took piety (and a certain sensual restraint I would add) seriously. In this respect he was as far removed from being a LaVeyan figure as he was from being a protestant preacher.

Plutarch tells us that Epicurus (against the counsel of most sages) saw nothing wrong with seeking sexual relations while being an old man and we can infer that he encouraged it. For all his ill-will I see no good reason not to accept this testimony by Plutarch as authentic. This alone tells us that Epicurus was not a traditional moralist which is an important point because traditional ideas of virtue propagated by most sages were closely linked with respect for popular religion.

That being said, I think Epicurus would have endorsed plenty of the Delphic Maxims. The problem with counterculture-type hedonism and individualism is that it attracts people who are not willing to work seriously and make sacrifices. If we allow Epicureanism to attract those types in large numbers we will perish in the long run. Epicurus, who had organizational talent, must have understood that personal moral quality matters. I would also suggest that we avoid people attracted to mysticism.

Calling Epicureanism a religion is not enough. It has to become an actual organization with rights and responsibilities; with a division of labor, duties and rewards. In other words a formal structure like the Garden is needed, headed by a 'gardener-in-chief' and his close associates. Once again, every precaution must be taken to deter anarchist types who just want to drink and have sex. Absent that, Epicureanism will not survive long. I suspect that a huge reason why ancient Epicureanism didn't survive to Late Antiquity is because it attracted more pleasure-consumers than pleasure-workers. Epicurus would have sacrificed his life for his friends. We need people that are capable of doing the same in a crisis.

That is still not enough. In my view it is important to become completely intolerant towards other religions and traditions. It is important to fight them and to mock them mercilessly and to never desist in doing so. History shows that political and religious traditions that allow or worse put a premium on tolerance do not survive long. Now this is my own personal view. The majority here probably disagree with me and that's fine.

So, Peter, in this “Epicurean ‘church’” you seem to espouse –

Would those who disagree with any of its tenets/creeds/commandments be told to simply “get in line, or get out?” Would that be a free choice, or come with threats – à la the Catholic Inquisition?

How authoritarian (totalitarian) would the kind of leadership hierarchy you seem to propose be?

Would there be some kind of incentivized informant network to identify heretics?

My eldest son identifies as a (neo-) Stoic: Would I need to shun him? Denounce him?

I have dear friends who identify as (liberal) Christians – do I need to mock/shun/denounce them?

You seem to think that people should be willing to sacrifice their lives for the prescribed “Epicurean” principles. Is that not just another demand for absolute allegiance to an idealism?

And what price personal integrity?

++++++++++++++++

I personally doubt that what would survive under your program (as outlined here) would be “Epicurean” except in name only, since I think that this philosophy is – at core – anti-idealist. And anti-totalitarian.

Quote from Pacatus

So, Peter, in this “Epicurean ‘church’” you seem to espouse –

Would those who disagree with any of its tenets/creeds/commandments be told to simply “get in line, or get out?” Would that be a free choice, or come with threats – à la the Catholic Inquisition?

How authoritarian (totalitarian) would the kind of leadership hierarchy you seem to propose be?

Would there be some kind of incentivized informant network to identify heretics?

My eldest son identifies as a (neo-) Stoic: Would I need to shun him? Denounce him?

I have dear friends who identify as (liberal) Christians – do I need to mock/shun/denounce them?

You seem to think that people should be willing to sacrifice their lives for the prescribed “Epicurean” principles. Is that not just another demand for absolute allegiance to an idealism?

And what price personal integrity?

++++++++++++++++

I personally doubt that what would survive under your program (as outlined here) would be “Epicurean” except in name only, since I think that this philosophy is – at core – anti-idealist. And anti-totalitarian.

Display More

My vision is not about building a 'church'. It is about building a real flesh-and-blood community structured around a strong Epicurean Identity. This community just like any other real community would have 'leaders' i.e. persons that everbody else regards highly and which have certain responsibilities. There's nothing idealistic here.

Nobody would be prevented from joining the community as long as they swear to live and abide by our common values. And naturally this community would not include persons who insist on other creeds and views on life. We should stive to assimilate, not to be assimilated. Besides, we need to find compatible people to live with if we want to maximize our happiness. If a certain family member doesn't want to be a part, that's ok. Adults should be free to do whatever they wish with their lives. So nothing totalitarian here.

The requirement that people should be willing to sacrifice their lives to save their friends and maintain their honor and integrity would ensure that we attract serious people. The kind of people who will not cut and run after life punches them in the face. The early Christians for example were people of similar mettle. They survived the prosecutions under the emperors because they had managed to form a network of communities whose members had forged a common strong and proud identity and who needed each other. Let's imitate success.

Quote from Peter Konstans

The requirement that people should be willing to sacrifice their lives to save their friends and maintain their honor and integrity would ensure that we attract serious people.

That strikes me as quite different from being willing to sacrifice one's life for a set of dictated principles.

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Peter Konstans

The requirement that people should be willing to sacrifice their lives to save their friends and maintain their honor and integrity would ensure that we attract serious people.

That strikes me as quite different from being willing to sacrifice one's life for a set of dictated principles.

Can you give an example (whether hypothetical or historical or personal) of a principles-based sacrifice that you see as good and one that you see as bad? As I see it, making sacrifices on behalf of principles is simply part of the human condition. Human beings have the unique ability to subordinate aspects of their biology in pursuit of values. No other animal does that as far as I know. For example Catholic priests sacrifice (with various degrees of success) the strong biological urge of sexuality because that's part of the principles of being a catholic priest. Defeated warriors (like the extremely competent and energetic Walter Model) choose to die rather than surrender, overriding the supreme biological urge of self-preservation for no other reason than to preserve their honor and the dignity of the institutions they represent. Even the principle of Epicurean pleasure requires making sacrifices. Over time I have learned to resist the urge to consume cheap electronic entertainment and now reading a book feels like a supreme sensual delight. I have learned to resist the urge to consume calorie-rich food with abandon so that now a piece of cheddar feels like manna from heaven.

“Even the principle of Epicurean pleasure requires making sacrifices.” It requires choices and trade-offs. And not sacrifice to the “principle” – let alone to some “principle of Epicureanism.” And the trade-offs are simply for the practical goal of happiness defined as the most pleasant/pleasurable life (which includes others). You seem to be largely just substituting the word “principle” for “ideal.” Or perhaps deliberately confusing them. Are you trying to craft an “Epicureanism” that is really subsumed under Stoic values and ethics? It sounds like it.

I am sure you’ll be able to find plenty of people to take loyalty oaths and pledges of obedience, and to sacrifice themselves on the altar of your principles, Peter, at the beck of their leaders (under whatever “ism” you invoke). I will not be one of them – and that’s on principle. (Argumentum finale est.)

Quote from Pacatus

“Even the principle of Epicurean pleasure requires making sacrifices.” It requires choices and trade-offs. And not sacrifice to the “principle” – let alone to some “principle of Epicureanism.” And the trade-offs are simply for the practical goal of happiness defined as the most pleasant/pleasurable life (which includes others). You seem to be largely just substituting the word “principle” for “ideal.” Or perhaps deliberately confusing them. Are you trying to craft an “Epicureanism” that is really subsumed under Stoic values and ethics? It sounds like it.

I am sure you’ll be able to find plenty of people to take loyalty oaths and pledges of obedience, and to sacrifice themselves on the altar of your principles, Peter, at the beck of their leaders (under whatever “ism” you invoke). I will not be one of them – and that’s on principle. (Argumentum finale est.)

I will just make one brief comment: the idea that a world is possible where individual and collective sacrifices are pointless and unnecessary is the very definition of Utopia.

Quote from Bryan

We also have Philodemus On Home Economics (column 20, Tsouna translation):

"we must refer to the preconception that we possess about 'a good moneymaker,' ask in whom the content of that preconception is substantiated and in what manner that person makes money, and ascribe the predicate 'good moneymaker' [to whoever it may be in whom] those feature are attested"

In Diogenes Laertus Book X, it says of Epicurus:

"The terms he used for things were the ordinary terms, and Aristophanes the grammarian credits him with a very characteristic style. He was so lucid a writer that in the work On Rhetoric he makes clearness the sole requisite."

Now if we look at what Philodemus wrote in the example here, as refering to the preconception, then we have this formula:

1. word or phrase

2. a very specific person (or possibly also a very specific event or specific object)

3. specific actions (exact unfolding details)

So then rather than using words (or phrases) abstractly, we tie them down to clear, specific, and exact instances.

Now...if we were to go back to the beginning of this entire thread and every person goes back and explains each and every abstract word with this much clearer way of speaking...then we might have something much more beneficial. In my opinion we would all be much better off if when posting with more clarity and exactness (less abstraction...myself included).

And I am very grateful to Bryan an for finding that helpful quote by Philodemus.

So this goes for words such as "religion", "philosophy", and in a recent post the word "sacrifice"...and any other vague words here.

Let me try with the word "philosophy" (with the formula based on Philodemus)

1. philosophy

2. David Sedley

--- and the story of the Garden within "A Few Days in Athens"

3. interpretation of the writings of Epicurus (what David Sedley does)

---- a group of people who come together to study what Epicurus had to say (in "A Few Days in Athens" ...how they gathered in a school)

So this hopefully illustrates more clearly what I mean by philosophy. And the formula is based on past things (not future things).

If those who used words such as "religion" or any other words that may need clarifying, may like to try this out, to bring more clarity. (Possibly every person would have a slightly different way of rendering clarity for a particular word?)

****

Edit: I see I wasn't as clear and exact as Philodemus recommends, since I wasn't specific enough about what David Sedley does (which clarifies the word philosophy) and also didn't include enough details from "A Few Days in Athens).

Quote from Kalosyni

I wasn't specific enough

I doubt that perfect precision in language is ever possible. Maybe the most we can strive for is to understand one another (in whatever Wittgensteinian “language game” sets the context).

But you’ve laid out some good guidelines here – so I wouldn’t lament that you weren’t “specific enough”: I think we all get it (within the “language game” where we are aware of Sedley and Frances Wright) – so I think you did a good job.

+++++++++++++++++++

EDIT: I also think this goes to Philodemus’ understanding of poetry (as opposed to philosophical prose) – and its purpose. Didactic poetry is possible, but even there (à la Lucretius) we have metaphor and such, that need to be interpreted.

A simplistic example of what Wittgenstein meant by confusing the context of different “language games” –

Behind a closed door, I am heard to say: “The goal is to topple the king.”

Outside the door, royal guards hear my utterance and rush to warn the king of a pending coup.

But I am really hunched over a chess board, talking about the ultimate goal of chess: checkmate.

Quote from Peter Konstans

We should think in those terms: 'what can we do so that Epicureanism will survive our own demise and the demise of our descendants and the demise of the descendants of our descendants and so on and so on ad infinitum?' I think that calling Epicureanism a religion is a good strategy to get us there so I see Nate's attitude in a positive light. He is right to suggest that Epicurus took piety (and a certain sensual restraint I would add) seriously. In this respect he was as far removed from being a LaVeyan figure as he was from being a protestant preacher.

Plutarch tells us that Epicurus (against the counsel of most sages) saw nothing wrong with seeking sexual relations while being an old man and we can infer that he encouraged it. For all his ill-will I see no good reason not to accept this testimony by Plutarch as authentic. This alone tells us that Epicurus was not a traditional moralist which is an important point because traditional ideas of virtue propagated by most sages were closely linked with respect for popular religion.

That being said, I think Epicurus would have endorsed plenty of the Delphic Maxims. The problem with counterculture-type hedonism and individualism is that it attracts people who are not willing to work seriously and make sacrifices. If we allow Epicureanism to attract those types in large numbers we will perish in the long run. Epicurus, who had organizational talent, must have understood that personal moral quality matters. I would also suggest that we avoid people attracted to mysticism.

Calling Epicureanism a religion is not enough. It has to become an actual organization with rights and responsibilities; with a division of labor, duties and rewards. In other words a formal structure like the Garden is needed, headed by a 'gardener-in-chief' and his close associates. Once again, every precaution must be taken to deter anarchist types who just want to drink and have sex. Absent that, Epicureanism will not survive long. I suspect that a huge reason why ancient Epicureanism didn't survive to Late Antiquity is because it attracted more pleasure-consumers than pleasure-workers. Epicurus would have sacrificed his life for his friends. We need people that are capable of doing the same in a crisis.

That is still not enough. In my view it is important to become completely intolerant towards other religions and traditions. It is important to fight them and to mock them mercilessly and to never desist in doing so. History shows that political and religious traditions that allow or worse put a premium on tolerance do not survive long. Now this is my own personal view. The majority here probably disagree with me and that's fine.

I don't think centralized hierarchical structures are compatible with Epicureanism. Self-suficiency, being an epicurean virtue, is increasingly stifled the more centralized and top heavy power structures becomes. I also don't agree with your analysis of the decline of epicureanism in late antiquity, from what I've read most scholars think that in the face of environmental and societal changes the appeal of Epicureanism to the general populis declined.

Epicureanism deserves to be called a religion because it systematically answers the most profound questions of life. Aristotle managed to create an all-encompassing philosophical system too and we know that the Christian church establishment made good use of the services of Aristotle's 'philosophy' for least one full millennium.

Indeed, Christianity would not have evolved to something beyond a cult for society's lost and confused if it hadn't assimilated various aspects of ancient philosophy. So if Christianity could manage to profit from philosophy and remain a religion so too could Epicurean philosophy assimilate various religious tropes to benefit from their appeal to the human soul and at the same time remain true to itself.

Let's consider what alternative Epicureanism can offer to the prevailing theistic and nihilistic theories about the origin of the universe.

Daniel Everett (an ex-missionary turned atheist and linguist known for his theories about the origin of language) explains why it would make better sense to think of the universe as the collective output of a divine culture of gods, rather than the output of a single creator.

'One frequent theistic answer to the question of how DNA and subsequent forms of life evolved is the ‘watchmaker’ theory. Watches were, at the time of this metaphor, the highest technology known. For many reasons, discussions of philosophers and theists often revolve around the most advanced technology of the day. In this case, watches are intricate, complicated, hierarchical in structure and obviously designed. So if someone found a watch on a distant planet, the presence of that watch would indicate that somewhere there was a designer who had a purpose in mind for it, designed it and fabricated it.

There are modern theologians and theistic scientists who consider this argument sound, substituting a complex organ such as the eye in place of the watch. But philosopher David Hume pointed out three serious problems with the watch analogy. First, the materials of the watch are not found naturally – the watch is built from human-made materials. This makes the analogy artificial. As Hume said, it would make much more sense to use something composed exclusively of organic materials, such as a squash, instead of a watch because one can observe that squashes come forth on their own.
Hume’s second objection is that one may not use experiential knowledge to infer a conclusion about non-experiential knowledge. If you understand what a watch is, you also know that the watch was created. One could even observe a watch being made. Yet no one could have any direct experience with the creation of the world. Thus the conclusion that because a watch has a designer the universe also does is not only empirically unjustified but also illogical.

Finally, Hume remarked that even if a watch did show that every complicated thing, the universe in particular, has a designer, this lesson would still have nothing to say about the nature of that designer. Such reasoning thus, even if it had not been shown to be invalid, supports no known religion or idea of a deity above any other.

Perhaps the most effective argument against the watchmaker analogy, however, comes from culture. No person can make a watch or its component materials by themselves. A watch is the output of a culture, not a designer. If the universe was designed, this design would have required a society, not a god, unless that god were far different than it is described in the major religions.'

We could thus theorize that the part
of observable reality we call the universe is an artefact created by the divine activities and interactions of the Epicurean gods residing in the intermundia. As a divine artefact, the universe has a divine purpose or meaning (hence refuting cosmological nihilism) but this purpose is relevant only to the gods, and completely irrelevant and infathomable to us.