What Epicurus Offers To The Modern World As Of April, 2024?

Quote

Why don't you ever discuss "meaningfulness" because I've been convinced that's what I should want out of life?

The phrase "meaning of life" first appears in the record of the English language in 1834. 18 years after the invention of the heliotype, 3 years earlier than the invention of the telegraph.

Quote

"Temptations in the Wilderness!" exclaims Teufelsdrockh, "Have we not all to be tried with such? Not so easily can the old Adam, lodged in us by birth, be dispossessed. Our Life is compassed round with Necessity; yet is the meaning of Life itself no other than Freedom, than Voluntary Force: thus have we a warfare; in the beginning, especially, a hard-fought battle. For the God-given mandate, Work thou in Well-doing, lies mysteriously written, in Promethean Prophetic Characters, in our hearts; and leaves us no rest, night or day, till it be deciphered and obeyed; till it burn forth, in our conduct, a visible, acted Gospel of Freedom. And as the clay-given mandate, Eat thou and be filled, at the same time persuasively proclaims itself through every nerve,—must not there be a confusion, a contest, before the better Influence can become the upper?

"To me nothing seems more natural than that the Son of Man, when such God-given mandate first prophetically stirs within him, and the Clay must now be vanquished or vanquish,—should be carried of the spirit into grim Solitudes, and there fronting the Tempter do grimmest battle with him; defiantly setting him at naught till he yield and fly. Name it as we choose: with or without visible Devil, whether in the natural Desert of rocks and sands, or in the populous moral Desert of selfishness and baseness,—to such Temptation are we all called. Unhappy if we are not! Unhappy if we are but Half-men, in whom that divine handwriting has never blazed forth, all-subduing, in true sun-splendor; but quivers dubiously amid meaner lights: or smoulders, in dull pain, in darkness, under earthly vapors!—Our Wilderness is the wide World in an Atheistic Century; our Forty Days are long years of suffering and fasting: nevertheless, to these also comes an end. Yes, to me also was given, if not Victory, yet the consciousness of Battle, and the resolve to persevere therein while life or faculty is left. To me also, entangled in the enchanted forests, demon-peopled, doleful of sight and of sound, it was given, after weariest wanderings, to work out my way into the higher sunlit slopes—of that Mountain which has no summit, or whose summit is in Heaven only!"

Quote

there is in man a HIGHER than Love of Happiness: he can do without Happiness, and instead thereof find Blessedness! Was it not to preach forth this same HIGHER that sages and martyrs, the Poet and the Priest, in all times, have spoken and suffered; bearing testimony, through life and through death, of the Godlike that is in Man, and how in the Godlike only has he Strength and Freedom? Which God-inspiredd Doctrine art thou also honored to be taught; O Heavens! and broken with manifold merciful Afflictions, even till thou become contrite and learn it! Oh, thank thy Destiny for these; thankfully bear what yet remain: thou hadst need of them; the Self in thee needed to be annihilated. By benignant fever-paroxysms is Life rooting out the deep-seated chronic Disease, and triumphs over Death. On the roaring billows of Time, thou art not engulfed, but borne aloft into the azure of Eternity. Love not Pleasure; love God. This is the EVERLASTING YEA, wherein all contradiction is solved: wherein whoso walks and works, it is well with him."

--Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus

The meaning of this 'meaning of life' is as elusive as the claims of the snake-oil salesman, because that's exactly what it is; an imaginary cure to what is not, in fact, a disease. The 'disease' is explicitly atheism and hedonism, and to sell the cure one must first sell the idea that the disease is real and shameful. When they tell you that your life without gods is without meaning, they are you telling you to feel ashamed.

Don't.

Quote from Cassius

What if your life isn't "together" and you don't have time to read philosophy? Why would someone like that spending any time discussing Epicurus?

Even a simple, bite-by-bite imbibing of Epicurean principles can (in my opinion) be helpful in getting one’s life together (just as in many therapies). A deep, time-consuming dive into scholarship or even popular sources (such as Emily Austin) is not necessary – and for many people may not be possible. This site is a very good resource for those people, who can tap in as they need and wish. It has been for me.

[This question could merit a whole thread of its own – as could some of the others no doubt.]

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

VS 27 (Bailey version): "In all other occupations the fruit comes painfully after completion, but, in philosophy, pleasure goes hand in hand with knowledge; for enjoyment does not follow comprehension, but comprehension and enjoyment are simultaneous." Effective therapy (in my experience) does the same: once, when I was going through a really rough time, I went into my first meeting with a therapist (who later became a friend) scared, anxious and depressed – I left laughing. Was that the end of it? No. But that was the process that kept me coming back for some time.

Same for here.

Quote from Joshua

The meaning of this 'meaning of life' is as elusive as the claims of the snake-oil salesman, because that's exactly what it is; an imaginary cure to what is not, in fact, a disease. The 'disease' is explicitly atheism and hedonism, and to sell the cure one must first sell the idea that the disease is real and shameful. When they tell you that your life without gods is without meaning, they are you telling you to feel ashamed.

Don't.

Boom!

To this question of "meaning" I would add:

The search for "the greatest good" in ancient times is also a question of meaning.

That "the greatest good" is pleasure leads to the question of what pleasure is, which leads to the understanding that it is an organic faculty, that humans are animals, that the mind cannot be separated from the body.

This, along with the understanding that the universe is material, leads to the understanding that th search for meaning is individual, as is the responsibility of achieving our most pleasant life.

• Don't you have to be rich to be an Epicurean?

  Not at all. The Notorious B.I.G. said, Mo Money, Mo Problems, and Epicurus would have agreed. As Lennon-McCartney wrote, "I don't care too much for money, 'cause money can't buy me love." And as Epicurus, himself wrote, "Poverty, when measured by the natural purpose of life, is great wealth, but unlimited wealth is great poverty" (VS 25).

• Epicureanism doesn't offer anything "positive" like Stoicism or Buddhism offers. What do you offer to compete with those?

  Epicurean Philosophy offers freedom. It champions choice and rejects fate. It liberates us from turmoil by rejecting superstition. It offers a worldview that recognizes friendship as the greatest pleasure in life, and also, our surest source of security.

• What if your life isn't "together" and you don't have time to read philosophy? Why would someone like that spending any time discussing Epicurus?

  There is no better time than now to prioritize the pursuit of happiness, "for no man can ever find the time unsuitable or too late to study the health of his soul." (Ep. Men. 122).

  Life can be excruciating sometimes, but to enjoy true happiness, "We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy." (VS 41).

• Why don't you ever discuss "meaningfulness" because I've been convinced that's what I should want out of life?

  The "purpose" or "goal" of life was of prime importance to Epicurus. As Lucretius recognized, "Mankind therefore ever toils vainly and to no purpose and wastes life in groundless cares because sure enough they have not learnt what is the true end of getting and up to what point genuine pleasure goes on increasing" (DRN V:1430).

  Your purpose is to live your best life (through the pursuit of pleasure).

• How do you expect me to understand Epicurus when he approaches so many things so differently than what I am familiar with at church or in the workplaces?

  You already understand Epicurus.

  When you wonder if it will rain, do you ask a Priest? Or a meteorologist?

  You already understand Epicurus.

  You believe in extra-terrestrial life?

  You definitely understand Epicurus.

  Do you like Science Fiction?

  It came from an Epicurean.

  You were required by society to embrace at least twelve years of a scientific education. If you remember any of Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics or Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there's a good chance your outlook is fundamentally Epicurean.

  If you believe in the pursuit of happiness and the importance of friendship, you already appreciate Epicurean Ethics. If you acknowledge that Swiss scientists are smashing atoms together, and that nuclear weapons exist, you already accept Epicurean Physics. If you listen to your belly when you're hungry, grab a blanket when you're cold, and take a nap when you're tired, you already practice Epicurean Epistemology.

There have been some great responses to your original list of questions, Cassius . Here's my take fwiw:

Don't you have to be rich to be an Epicurean?
No, but... It seems to me you have to have your basic needs met. You don't need to be "rich" (however one defines that), but you can't be starving, homeless, in fear for your life or for when your next meal might be to be living with eudaimonia. If we look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs or the revision of Maslow by Diener and Tay, we find there are some basic needs that need to be met, but (as Diener and Tay show in their research) you can also be working on fulfilling different needs at the same time and still experience well-being (or subjective well-being - SWB - as they term it).

I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"? There are several people on this forum who have expressed that they were living an "Epicurean" life before they knew about Epicurus. Epicurus posited that an "Epicurean" life was a natural life, informed by one's natural state of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. There are details and more, of course and no doubt, that constitute an Epicurean life (e.g., material universe, indifferent gods (if one wants to say they exist physically), no afterlife, etc.) but you can be living "like an Epicurean" without maybe even realizing it.

Epicureanism doesn't offer anything "positive" like Stoicism or Buddhism offers. What do you offer to compete with those?
I think Eikadistes said it well: "Epicurean Philosophy offers freedom. It champions choice and rejects fate. It liberates us from turmoil by rejecting superstition. It offers a worldview that recognizes friendship as the greatest pleasure in life, and also, our surest source of security." That all sounds pretty positive to me!

What if your life isn't "together" and you don't have time to read philosophy? Why would someone like that spending any time discussing Epicurus?
Again, I would stress that Epicurus calls one to a "natural life." You don't need to immerse yourself in the philosophy to understand the basics and to reap benefits. It is natural to seek pleasure and avoid pain. It is natural to want an untroubled mind in a healthy body. Question your choices: Will what I'm doing lead to more pain or more pleasure? Realize that you have control over your life, you are responsible for your life. You are the captain of your own little boat... and seek out friends who can help, assist, support, and guide you.

That said, if you're life isn't "together" to the extent that you need professional counseling or medical assistance, seek out the counseling or medical attention!

Epicurus's advice to Menoikeus says it well: One is never too young or too old to love and practice wisdom. It is never out of season or untimely to seek well-being. The time for you to seek happiness is now, here.

Why don't you ever discuss "meaningfulness" because I've been convinced that's what I should want out of life?
What convinced you of that, and what do you mean by "meaningfulness" or "purpose". There is no meaning to life other than to pursue pleasure in all its multiplicity. Monty Python said the "meaning of life" was "try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations." Not bad, as far as it goes for a comedic film. The Universe does NOT provide a "meaning" for each individual life or for itself. There is no Great Meaning behind it all. To me, that is freeing! We make our own "meaning" when we decide what impact we will have, what we will focus on, how we treat others and in turn how we want others to treat us, and so on. Pursuing well-being by pursuing pleasure and avoiding unnecessary pain is a purpose.

How do you expect me to understand Epicurus when he approaches so many things so differently than what I am familiar with at church or in the workplaces?

Maybe a fresh perspective is necessary. What do you believe you get of value from the approaches at church or the workplace? It sounds like you may be finding those things unsatisfactory if you're still seeking answers. The Christian church is built on a foundation of Greek philosophy anyway - mostly Stoic and Platonic principles. It pays lip service to Jesus's apocalyptic message, but the ancient Greek influence is strong. So, you're already following a philosophy if you're taking your cues from church.

I would again point to Eikadistes 's list of things you already understand from an Epicurean perspective. By and large, we live in an Epicurean world now. Epicurus was a prelude and precursor to science, an acceptance of a material world, a curiosity about extraterrestrial life, and more.

Epicurus also taught the importance - the vital importance - of friendship. Friendship is like dancing in a chorus, clasped hands, twirling round and round. Each dancer supports the other. Epicureanism is a philosophy of friendship linked with personal responsibility for one's life, a life lived in a material world free from the fear of gods and free from anxiety about death. That sounds life a pretty good alternative to the "common knowledge" found in church and in the workplace.

Quote from Don

I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"?

Or who gets to declare if the proper and necessary criteria are met to be an Epicurean – and what those criteria are for anyone/everyone? It’s for questions like these that I am loath to call myself an Epicurean (or a/an anything along those lines). I prefer just “Epicurean” – as an adjective, and even that with some reservation.

In the end, I try to fit the philosophy to my life, so far as it seems reasonable, true and helpful (Epicurean philosophy just seems to provide that, generally, better than others). I do not try to bind my life (thoughts and behavior) to the demands or protocols of a philosophy in order to call myself a [ … ]. {Procrustes’ bed comes to mind. }

In the end, I may not be an Epicurean – let alone a “good Epicurean”. And that’s okay.

Quote from Don

I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"? There are several people on this forum who have expressed that they were living an "Epicurean" life before they knew about Epicurus.

The more I think about this, I think it could be possible to be an "accidental Epicurean." There are so many "common sense" beliefs today with science and all that one could maybe carry on a substantially Epicurean lifestyle and outlook without thinking of oneself as "being Epicurean."

That said, I think it highly unlikely that one could be an accidental Christian or accidental Jew or accidental Muslim. Maybe an accidental Buddhist - at least secular Buddhist maybe?

Or not? Thoughts?

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Don

I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"?

Or who gets to declare if the proper and necessary criteria are met to be an Epicurean – and what those criteria are for anyone/everyone?

In a fragment, Philodemus writes, "...we shall admonish others with great confidence, both now and when those {of us} who have become offshoots of our teachers have become eminent. And the encompassing and most important thing is, we shall obey Epicurus, according to whom we have chosen to live..." (On Frank Criticism, 45; translated by Konstan, Clay, Glad, Thom, and Ware).

There seem to have been at least a few criteria of formal membership to the Epicurean school:

1. As Don mentioned, a voluntary Declaration of Faith, similar to the Christian sacrament of confirmation, or the Shahada in Islam (one of its Five Pillars), which reads "I bear witness that there is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God".
2. A commitment to study the teachings of Epikouros of Samos in his own words, similar to Jewish children studying Hebrew, prior to, during, and after their Bar or Bat Mitzvah. This also corresponds with the Islamic recommendation to study the Qur'an in its original Arabic.
3. A promise to honor Epicurus by remaining loyal to his school, neither becoming a "dissident" nor being lost to the general confusion of the masses. So, too, to various degrees, do we see this with "heretics" in Christianity, "infidels" in Islam, and the "nāstika" of Dharmic traditions.
4. A pledge to learn about Epicurean Philosophy and share that education with other students. There is an analogue in the shared intentions of the "sangha" or "monastic community" in Buddhism (one of its Three Jewels) and various Monasteries in Christianity.
5. A guarantee to reject beliefs that contradict the teachings of Epicurus; thus, one would criticize those who misrepresent Epicurus (for example, believing him to have been a shameless glutton) or misinterpret the principles of Epicurean Philosophy.

That is not to say that that there cannot be epicurean spirits who sympathize with the Epicurean school, while simultaneously denying their identities as students, but there is a significance to one's formal recognition, like "how many years have you been sober ... from addiction to metaphysics?" or "how old were you when you 'came out' to your parents ... that you reject their traditional religion?" As I often reinforce, the modern world, itself, is generally epicurean in outlook, since it makes assumptions and takes for granted beliefs that are evident of the Epicurean school.

Quote from Pacatus

In the end, I may not be an Epicurean – let alone a “good Epicurean”. And that’s okay.

In the end, none of us are (i.e. none of us will exist).

Thanks, Eikadistes !

It makes sense that there was a demarcation point in ancient Greece and Rome when someone declared themselves a member of the Garden and declared themselves an Epicurean and follower of Epicurus's philosophical School. There are numerous examples in the texts - Cicero and elsewhere - of people deciding to join or leave the Epicurean School. So, there had to be something "official" to mark the point in time when one joined the school, "forsaking all others" as the traditional marriage vows say.

It also strikes me that, since the Garden was open to all to attend lecturs, there could have been any number of casual Epicurean-adjacent folks.

The schools did function as membership organizations and schools vied against each other for "converts" so to speak.

That said, we don't have any authorities or hierarchies or apostolic succession now. It seems to me that one could make a personal commitment to "obey Epicurus, according to whom we/I have chosen to live..." And the Philodemus does use πειθαρχέω "obey one in authority." This doesn't mean "blind faith" to me. It seems to me that that gets at the ideas that "I believe Epicurus knew what he was talking about." As modern Epicureans would not accept without testing against reality, the best findings of science, but to also withhold judgement if multiple explanations were available... Like how the universe came into existence or if it's eternal or eternally cyclical or... And so on.

I realize I've strayed is far from the main topic! Feel free to branch this discussion off to another thread. But I find this thread very interesting.

Quote from Don

It seems to me that one could make a personal commitment to "obey Epicurus, according to whom we/I have chosen to live..." And the Philodemus does use πειθαρχέω "obey one in authority." This doesn't mean "blind faith" to me. It seems to me that that gets at the ideas that "I believe Epicurus knew what he was talking about."

I'm thinking about this sentence for few minutes now and I can't see how obeying someone in authority is not 'blind faith'. To me, that's exactly it. If I give someone authority over my own life and obey them, that means I acknowledge someone else is better at living my life. And I hit yet another religion head-on at 100 miles an hour. The whole Philodemus' quote has a striking resemblance to: 'My god is better than your god'.
"I believe Epicurus knew what he was talking about." seems to me something entirely different. It means to me: 'Hey, this dude came up with something interesting that has potential to be beneficial in my life. Let's test it out and see if that's the case'.

Another thought came to my mind while typing all this. Maybe I am completely wrong about ancient Epicureanism. During my study of it all this piousness seems to be coming back notoriously and sticking like a chewing gum to a shoe. Maybe Epicureanism was not intended as a guide for people trying to come up with their own recipes for their lives. Maybe Epicureanism was designed as yet another concealed ideology for people who are perfectly fine with buying a cookbook and never stray from its content.

Quote from TauPhi

I'm thinking about this sentence for few minutes now and I can't see how obeying someone in authority is not 'blind faith'.

Now if you think about it, the original authority was "God". In current modern times many people do not believe in God, or perhaps they believe in a God which is only remotely involved with humans (more like "new-age" spirituality). So there will be many who feel taken-aback by the idea of "obeying". We live in a very independent-minded society also.

Quote from TauPhi

During my study of it all this piousness seems to be coming back notoriously and sticking like a chewing gum to a shoe. Maybe Epicureanism was not intended as a guide for people trying to come up with their own recipes for their lives. Maybe Epicureanism was designed as yet another concealed ideology for people who are perfectly fine with buying a cookbook and never stray from its content.

I think that the main problem for us now is that half of the pages of the "cookbook" are missing.

We can see that people turned to Epicurus for answers about living a happy and good life. It seems unlikely that the "Epicureanism" during the life of Philodemus was exactly the same as the "Epicureanism" during the life of Epicurus. A whole group of people said: "yes "x,y, z" works but then it evolved and changed over time.

The word specifically used by Philodemus is πειθαρχησομεν and translator of "On Frank Criticism" translates it as "obey (one in authority)" which is in line with the LSJ definition. However, the word is related directly to:

πείθω
to convince, persuade
to succeed through entreaty
(mediopassive, πείθομαι, and Epic future, πῐθήσω, with dative)
to obey, yield
to believe, trust
(second perfect active, πέποιθᾰ, with passive sense) to trust, rely on (with dative of person or thing)
(perfect passive, πέπεισμαι, post-Epic) to believe, trust (with dative)

Which, I believe, adds necessary nuance to that "obey" and gets closer to being convinced there is a reason to trust, believe, rely on the person or school or "authority" (αρχή) by which one chooses to live one's life.

Quote from Cassius

At the very least one observation that goes along with the discussion is that Epicurus was long dead even when that was written, so he was not around to give orders, nor does there seem to have been a strict passing of "authority."

Well said, Cassius ! I see the αρχη "authority" as expressed in πειθαρχησομεν as more like "authoritative" in this case, like an "authoritative" research source. Even in Sic Fac Omnia Tamquam Spectet Epicurus "Do all things as if Epicurus were watching" the important word is tamquam "as if." Epicurus is NOT watching you. Epicurus has ceased to exist. You can read his texts (or at least some of them) and consider his advice as transmitted through his surviving texts. But we can't submit our choices TO Epicurus and have him pass judgement from some seat of authority.

Quote from Cassius

I would also see an analogy to seeing Epicurus as "a god" or even a "father figure" as Lucretius discusses -- gods don't intervene to tell us what to do, they serve as examples that we emulate as best we can.

I also really like this observation. Even if Epicurus is seen as a "god" by Lucretius or the subsequent generations studying in the ancient Garden, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Epicurean gods don't interfere, interact, judge, etc. any aspect of human behavior. Another reason I like the "idealist" over the "realist" idea of the Epicurean gods. But I won't digress down that rabbit hole here.

Quote from Cassius

At the same time, there is no doubt in my mind that some kind of uniformity of message is necessary if one is to be logically thought of as an Epicurean.

Yes. And to the rest of that paragraph

Quote from Cassius

But if being considered an Epicurean means anything, it means some kind of agreement with core doctrines. And if one is running a school or any kind of organization, then it's inherent in the organization that there is going to be some kind of line between what is and what is not acceptable.

And so it's a matter of what the "core doctrines" are. We do a good job of hashing those out on this forum.

I want to add my opinion of one aspect of this discussion...

There is no way to have the Garden be reborn in the modern era. There is no way that any group that calls itself "Epicurean" in the 21st Century CE can be considered THE Epicurean Garden Reborn. Not this forum, not other fora, not any Facebook group, not any Discord group, nor any other group of people has any legitimate imprimatur to assign the label of The REAL Epicureans to themselves to the exclusion of others. It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, just philosophically applied: "Well, no TRUE Epicurean would do/say XYZ." Other than the ancient, fragmentary texts, there was no Epicurean "apostolic" succession of authoritative scholarchs throughout history from the death of Epicurus through to our time to which questions of legitimacy can be addressed. And "apostolic succession" doesn't guarantee adherence to the original practices and beliefs of the founder. Look at the multitude of sects calling themselves "Christian"! The best we can do is come together with τὸν ὅμοιον σεαυτῷ "those like ourselves" and discuss how to apply Epicurean philosophy as we have come to understand it to the conduct of our lives.

All that said, I think we can come to an understanding generally how those Epicurean principles are to be applied in a modern context, but we will NEVER EVER EVER have something that is exactly like the ancient Garden. Nor would we want to, from my perspective. For one, I hope no one would condone the institution of slavery that was ubiquitous in the ancient world and taken for granted inside and outside the Garden. Yes, Epicurus welcomed enslaved people into the Garden and freed several of his enslaved people in his will: "Of my slaves I manumit Mys, Nicias, Lycon, and I also give Phaedrium her liberty." But note he said "of my slaves" - plural - So there were more than those four. More than likely educated enslaved people were involved in the copying and dissemination of his writings throughout the ancient world. There's a fascinating recent book on the role of enslaved scribes in the development of Christianity. We live in a different culture and society from that in which Epicurus lived and died and what was there cannot be replicated here without some - maybe even a lot - of negotiation with the cultural context in which the texts were written. I don't advocate proof-texting using the ancient writings, i.e., knowing what we want the texts to say and picking and choosing excerpts that support that position; but we have to let the texts say what they say.

And, I'll end with...

• I think there are many applicable teachings of Epicurus that CAN inform the conduct of our lives for the better...otherwise I wouldn't be here after 4+ years!
• I think there are numerous instances of Epicurus's teachings becoming common among modern, scientifically-minded, materialist people.
• I think making a commitment to "act as if Epicurus were watching" and to judge one's actions in light in Epicurus's philosophy can be admirable and helpful to one's practice. (And Epicurean philosophy is a practice... If you're trying to apply it, refine your behavior, choose wisely, etc., etc., you're practicing Epicurean philosophy.)
• I think gathering together with people that have a similar appreciation for and admiration of Epicurean philosophy can be a good thing for one's life.
• I think there is nothing wrong with frank speech and with discussing whether certain behaviors are in-line with Epicurean philosophy... while at the same time avoiding slipping into a simple "No True Epicurean" fallacy. The frank speech - per Philodemus - must always, however, be given in a way respectful of the receiver of that speech and mindful of their position, demeanor, level of understanding, etc.
• I think having discussions on the original meaning and intent of the ancient texts is an important way to understand how to apply those principles. Epicurus doesn't exist. We can't beseech him with prayer as if he's going to give the "final word" on a contentious point. We have to work it out for ourselves.

So that's my position, as of 11:57 AM on April 26, 2024... As Cassius always say, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

Quote from TauPhi

Maybe Epicureanism was not intended as a guide for people trying to come up with their own recipes for their lives. Maybe Epicureanism was designed as yet another concealed ideology for people who are perfectly fine with buying a cookbook and never stray from its content.

Epicurus started teaching philosophy because he thought he had a system superior to all the others that were teaching during his time. He no doubt felt he had 'figured it out." I get the impression that one didn't join a school - did not seek out a school - to then "come up with their own recipes for their lives." To continue the metaphor, you liked the menu of the school. That's why you joined the school. You ate the food, learned the recipes, you tried to recreate the food at home, you got feedback from the chefs, repeat.

I don't think the "ideology" was concealed. I think the ideology - I'd say the teaching and tenets of the school - was completely on display, like a menu posted at the door of a restaurant. That's why people joined.

I want to state explicitly that there's nothing wrong with charting one's own course, taking a cafeteria approach to a life philosophy (to stay with the metaphor). Choosing dishes that work for the person. I took that approach myself in the past. However, I feel that starting with an established philosophy or religion or lifestyle gets you further down the road. It's not necessarily nefarious to want to use the cookbook from someone who appears to know how to cook.

Don and Cassius. Thank you for comments. Posts like that make me smile. Thanks. I won't be commenting on most of the points you brought up because I simply have nothing to add as I find them really good. I'll focus on few things I want to add to, instead.

Quote from Don

I don't think the "ideology" was concealed. I think the ideology - I'd say the teaching and tenets of the school - was completely on display, like a menu posted at the door of a restaurant. That's why people joined.

I would think the same but something doesn't add up when I look closely. Despite the school encouraged the study of nature, which is as 'scientific' approach as it possibly could be at the time, the same school attracted people with unscientific, pious, almost cult like behaviour towards Epicurus and his teachings putting him in a weird position of some kind of a saviour, god or something like that. I called it a concealed ideology as I suspect something I don't know, or understand, was going on behind the scenes. On top of that, what was completely on display, also leaves me scratching my head sometimes. (yes, I'm thinking 'the real gods' in intermundia, for example). Materialistic school with pious students? Eternal gods made of matter? I guess you can cook a duck and duck a cook at the same time but it's kinda weird

I'm not trying to belittle Epicureanism in any way, I simply try to understand what ancient Epicureanism was really like. And I post my doubts here in hopes of getting stuff clarified. That's why I'm grateful for anyone willing to spend time discussing things like that with me.

Quote from Don

I want to state explicitly that there's nothing wrong with charting one's own course, taking a cafeteria approach to a life philosophy (to stay with the metaphor). Choosing dishes that work for the person. I took that approach myself in the past. However, I feel that starting with an established philosophy or religion or lifestyle gets you further down the road. It's not necessarily nefarious to want to use the cookbook from someone who appears to know how to cook.

Absolutely agree. I am an eclectic (and an Epicurean friend at the same time) and it works for me. If someone chooses different approach, I can be only happy if their choice works for them. I'm not trying to prove my approach to be better. I don't think it to be better. What matters to me is that it's good for me and I share it with good intentions. Ultimately, it's none of my business if people use cookbooks on the nose or choose to spice their meals to their liking. It's their food, not mine.