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

One of the tricks of "modern thought/education" is to make the student think they are coming up with the ideas themselves individually (and therefore hold those ideas more deeply) when in reality they really end up only believing and repeating what they have been told.

I believe that having new thoughts is very rare -- people are considered smart when they can repeat what they hear -- and most people have to struggle for years to even be able to repeat what they hear!

Widely accepted, promoted, and permitted modern ideas are mostly just re-packaged judeo-christianty -- everybody is the same, non-physical forces exist, the universe has a beginning, etc, etc... Given this, I like admit to myself that I am only a follower. But I am proud that I choose to follow someone who is an honest leader and not someone cynically manipulating the thought of the public in the same old and absurd ways.

Quote from TauPhi

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.

I think you raise some interesting and valid points, TauPhi . I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts and to give anyone interested a chance to add to the discussion.

My first thought as I read your post was: Although we can see "scientific" precursors in ancient Greek philosophy, they weren't *really* doing science. To me, science as a discipline has specific techniques and ways of experimenting and collecting data. The University of California Berkeley hosts a website, Understanding Science 101, which says: "all science relies on testing ideas by figuring out what expectations are generated by an idea and making observations to find out whether those expectations hold true. Accepted scientific ideas are reliable because they have been subjected to rigorous testing. But, as new evidence is acquired and new perspectives emerge, these ideas can be revised." They also have a nice diagram that shows the nonlinear "process of science"

Neither Democritus nor Epicurus nor Aristotle nor any other ancient Greek or Roman really followed a scientific process. I think they contributed to the lineage that would eventually lead to science as a discipline, but they didn't "do science." They tried their best to make sense of the natural world around them (Exploration and Discovery in the diagram?). However, they didn't try to get feedback or analysis. They maybe tested their ideas in a rudimentary way but certainly didn't run experiments. They gathered the facts as best they could and, through introspection, "thought experiments," and elimination of possible causes (in their limited understanding) came up with the best explanation. Now, that said, i think Epicurus came up with some of the best explanations for his time. His intuition and personal introspective analysis was closer to right than wrong more often than not... that's why we're here discussing Epicurean philosophy 2,300+ years later. We feel it still has value millennia later. But he still got a number of things wildly incorrect when measured against modern scientific understanding.

Do I think Epicurus would change his mind about some of his ideas given a chance to learn modern explanations? Sure. He can be applauded for getting it right, but that "getting it right" is relative to all the other explanations out there at the time. He was a novel thinker, and maybe he was closer to right more often than not because everyone else had come up with bad ideas (to which he was responding) and with which Epicurus didn't agree. He wanted a better solution, and it just so happens that his alternative solutions were closer (certainly not exact) to how we understand the world now... by virtue of being opposed to the common knowledge of his day. That doesn't take anything away from the value of his writings nor does it make light of his contribution to helping others - well past his lifetime - live a more productive and happy life.

Okay, so that's Epicurus getting his study of nature right even though he wasn't doing science as we think of it... his approach was at least science-adjacent or pre-scientific.

Did Epicurus structure the Garden as a cult to himself? Well... He did institute the celebration of his birthday during his lifetime. He did institute the 20th celebration each month as a celebration of himself and Metrodorus... like the other monthly celebrations of the gods like Apollo, Aphrodite, etc. The question would have to be asked if he instituted those celebrations at the request of his students or did his student request to celebrate him and he provided a structure for them. From the texts, especially the fragments (and larger sections) of On Nature, Epicurus was definitely THE LEADER of his school and the one who wrote a 37-volume lecture course with HIM as the lecturer. There's also "Honoring a wise one is itself a great good to the one who honors." (ὁ τοῦ σοφοῦ σεβασμὸς ἀγαθὸν μέγα τῷ σεβομένῳ ἐστί.) The word used there means "to be moved by awe, fear, or respect for others or for their opinions;" and can also be used in a religious sense as honoring a god; to revere; to worship. Epicurus didn't seem to discourage this kind of respect, awe, etc.; however, he also reciprocated from time to time (IF I remember correctly). He also practiced this reverencing/honoring in relation to the gods himself in his participation in the rites and festivals, both in the Garden and in the city. It was a natural result of this "honoring the wise one" that he was basically deified after his death... he wasn't around to stop his students from doing it ("Do all things as if Epicurus were watching.") But I think Cassius made a good observation in an earlier post that the Epicurean gods didn't interfere in human affairs. It's metaphor at least. And "true piety" is showing respect/awe for the correct reasons as opposed to showing respect/awe out of fear for divine punishment or desire for divine gifts.

Calling Epicurus a "savior" or "god" as Lucretius does, honestly, doesn't really bother me... as long as I interpret it metaphorically. Epicurus "literally" "saved" people from ignorance and fear. That makes him, by definition, a savior.

As for the gods... I'm still not convinced that Epicurus believed there were giant humanoids living between world-systems, replenishing their atoms continuously.

All that is another reason I don't think we'll ever recreate the Garden as the Garden was during Epicurus's time or during it's existence into the Roman era. We do NOT know nor can we know (without some wondrous trove of semi-complete papyri coming out of the new Herculaneum scroll-reading technology!) how the life of the Garden functioned and how students were recruited, taught, housed, etc. We have NO real idea what ceremonies were involved in the 20th celebrations. We have no idea how demanding Epicurus was in showing him (and Metrodorus and Hermarchus and Polyaenus) "reverence and awe." We really don't know how the practice of parrhesia (frank criticism) was carried out, although Philodemus (writing a century-and-a-half after Epicurus) does provide an invaluable text on that. There is too much we don't know.

What we do know - and what we have - is a systematic way of looking at the world and of living one's life to the fullest in pursuit of eudaimonia. I still think the substance of Epicurus's philosophy has something to say in the modern world. In some ways, I see our attempt at applying a 2-1/2 millennia old philosophy to our own lives as akin to the efforts by some "secular Buddhists" to rid that philosophy of its supernatural and religious accretions and apply it to their lives. With all respect to Cassius (and I know why he says it! and kudos for that), we're all in some ways "neo-Epicureans." There's no way we can really be "classical Epicureans" in every sense of that phrase. For me, we're trying to stay true to the "spirit" of Epicurean philosophy without being beholden to the "letter" of Epicurean philosophy.

Quote from TauPhi

I am an eclectic (and an Epicurean friend at the same time) and it works for me.

And if it works, that's what's important. You're getting pleasure from your search and your path. Who knows? I may end up walking the path of the eclectic in the future again. It's certainly been a long and winding road to get to the Garden Path: Christian Mystic, "Druid," Buddhist, etc... I've had various descriptions of the path I was on before I got here. So far... I like the view from the Garden and plan to put my feet up and enjoy a cold beverage for awhile.

I'll end by saying I enjoy your company here and appreciate your willingness to engage in friendly discussion and to challenge from time to time. That opportunity to think through some issues is very helpful.

PS. Oh my! That ended up way longer than I intended. Mea culpa.

A quick thought prompted by Don 's post: did Epicurus create a cult around himself?

Did Plato? Aristotle? Epictetus? (&c) They were all the commanding personalities of their schools. Was Epicurus perhaps making his school friendlier, less intimidating? One way of doing that may have been the practice of monthly celebrations. In other words, practices that may seem cultish today may have served functions of which we are completely unaware.

Quote

Did Epicurus structure the Garden as a cult to himself? Well... He did institute the celebration of his birthday during his lifetime. He did institute the 20th celebration each month as a celebration of himself and Metrodorus... like the other monthly celebrations of the gods like Apollo, Aphrodite, etc. The question would have to be asked if he instituted those celebrations at the request of his students or did his student request to celebrate him and he provided a structure for them.

Quote

A quick thought prompted by Don's post: did Epicurus create a cult around himself?

Did Plato? Aristotle? Epictetus? (&c) They were all the commanding personalities of their schools. Was Epicurus perhaps making his school friendlier, less intimidating? One way of doing that may have been the practice of monthly celebrations. In other words, practices that may seem cultish today may have served functions of which we are completely unaware.

I was somewhat interested to learn, after reading Cicero's condemnation on this point, that Plotinus--the founder of Neoplatonism in the 3rd century AD--was adamant that his birthday not be celebrated, and that his portrait not be carved or painted;

Quote

Plotinus, the philosopher our contemporary, seemed ashamed of being in the body.

So deeply rooted was this feeling that he could never be induced to tell of his ancestry, his parentage, or his birthplace.

He showed, too, an unconquerable reluctance to sit to a painter of a sculptor, and when Amelius persisted in urging him to allow of a portrait being made he asked him, 'Is it not enough to carry about this image in which nature has enclosed us? Do you really think I must also consent to leave, as a desired spectacle to posterity, an image of the image?'

In view of this determined refusal Amelius brought his friend Carterius, the best artist of the day, to the Conferences, which were open to every comer, and saw to it that by long observation of the philosopher he caught his most striking personal traits. From the impressions thus stored in mind the artist drew a first sketch; Amelius made various suggestions towards bringing our the resemblance, and in this way, without the knowledge of Plotinus, the genius of Carterius gave us a lifelike portrait. [...] Counting sixty-six years back from the second year of Claudius, we can fix Plotinus' birth at the thirteenth year of Severus (A.D. 204-5); but he never disclosed the month or day. This was because he did not desire any birthday sacrifice or feast; yet he himself sacrificed on the traditional birthdays of Plato and of Socrates, afterwards giving a banquet at which every member of the circle who was able was expected to deliver an address.

--Porphyry, De Vita Plotini

Jehovah's Witnesses also refrain from the celebration of birthdays, and this includes declining to celebrate Christmas.

Ya'll have been active while I was asleep Some great posts.

Quote from Godfrey

practices that may seem cultish today may have served functions of which we are completely unaware.

Completely agree. Without the everyday cultural context, it's almost impossible to put ourselves fully in the mindset of an ancient person. As one example, what did Epicurus feel and think when he was participating in the city festivals (other than gaining pleasure from it)? And the "funeral offerings to my father, mother, and brothers" are specifically called ἐνάγισμα (enagisma) which one source describes as "enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are particular to hero-cults and the cult of the dead." (Lots of interesting info in that source for sacrifice and ritual. I may have referenced it in the past.)

Quote from Joshua

I was somewhat interested to learn, after reading Cicero's condemnation on this point, that Plotinus--the founder of Neoplatonism in the 3rd century AD--was adamant that his birthday not be celebrated, and that his portrait not be carved or painted

Wow! THAT is a great find, Joshua ! That information is completely new to me and certainly does shed an interesting light on Epicurus's decision to celebrate his birthday, both during his life and in perpetuity after his death!

Quote from Cassius

I think it is important (for me at least) to be clear that the areas where he would change his mind involve relatively insignificant speculations on operations of nature which he knew were open to revision. On the "more philosophical" matters of ethics and epistemology I don't think he would have any reason to revise much at all.

Agreed. My point was "If Epicurus learned modern atomic theory and related findings..." Epicurus's atomic theory and the modern Standard Model BOTH posit a material, non-supernatural universe. To me, Epicurus's ethics and epistemology rest on his physics (AND I have you, Cassius , to thank for that understanding!) which set out the general view that we live in that kind of universe. Even if the details of the physics are different, both Epicurus and modern scientists would agree - from my perspective - that we do indeed live in a world uncreated by gods, governed by understandable principles, and composed of matter and/or energy (depending on what level you want to concentrate).

Quote from Joshua

This was because he did not desire any birthday sacrifice or feast; yet he himself sacrificed on the traditional birthdays of Plato and of Socrates, afterwards giving a banquet at which every member of the circle who was able was expected to deliver an address.

--Porphyry, De Vita Plotini

So apparently feasting and sacrifices were part of birthday celebrations for Plato and Socrates. Does this make them cultish? If it makes the Epicureans cultish, they're not alone.

Great cite Joshua !

Quote from Godfrey

So apparently feasting and sacrifices were part of birthday celebrations for Plato and Socrates.

Evidently....

Quote from Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies - Dr. Nagy

Their custom was to celebrate the birthday of Socrates on the sixth day of the month Thargelion, which by their reckoning coincided with his death day. And they celebrated by engaging in Socratic dialogue, which for them was the logos that was resurrected every time people engage in Socratic dialogue.

Gregory Nagy is an authoritative source, too. The Center has some great resources.

PS. And I'm going to do a little horn-tooting and put a link to my paper on Epicurus's birthday:

File

Epicurus’s Birthday: The 7th, 10th, or 20th of Gamelion - Mystery Solved

This paper outlines the reasons to accept that Epicurus was born on the 20th day of the month of Gamelion.

Don

December 26, 2022 at 12:07 AM

My (I hope, at least) thoughts Bryan 's post #21.

Quote from Bryan

One of the tricks of "modern thought/education" is to make the student think they are coming up with the ideas themselves individually (and therefore hold those ideas more deeply) when in reality they really end up only believing and repeating what they have been told.

That's an interesting view. The first question that pops into my head is why would educators go to great lengths creating a system aimed at tricking people into becoming repeating mindless automatons? What is so beneficial in having sterile societies? And how any progress would be possible? When I was around 10 years old I was blown away when I discovered what my 1 Mhz Commodore 64 personal computer could do. Now I'm typing this text on a laptop with processing power 2000 times higher. That increase hasn't magically materialised by repetition and belief of the same old ideas.

Quote from Bryan

I believe that having new thoughts is very rare -- people are considered smart when they can repeat what they hear -- and most people have to struggle for years to even be able to repeat what they hear!

I guess new groundbreaking, world-shattering thoughts are very rare but we all have so many thoughts each day that even if only a fraction of them can be considered 'new' to us, I'd argue the rarity of personal new thoughts. Today my niece thought to dip a sausage in a strawberry yogurt. Probably not a 'new' idea worldwide but it was new to her. She quickly realised it was a bad one.
Also, if people are considered smart solely for their ability to repeat, I would question the smartness of the 'considerators'.

Quote from Bryan

Widely accepted, promoted, and permitted modern ideas are mostly just re-packaged judeo-christianty -- everybody is the same, non-physical forces exist, the universe has a beginning, etc, etc...

I don't think I know even one person who would claim that everybody is the same. I can clearly hear a ghost of my dead grandfather complaining that nobody pay any attention to him and I'm pretty sure the widely accepted view regarding the universe is: 'We don't know. We have some theories but we can't really tell.'

Quote from Bryan

Given this, I like admit to myself that I am only a follower. But I am proud that I choose to follow someone who is an honest leader and not someone cynically manipulating the thought of the public in the same old and absurd ways.

I had pleasure talking to you more than once, Bryan . You're not just a follower. You think, you wonder and you say interesting things your honest leader didn't even have a chance to come up with. My point is, please reconsider if you're not a bit too harsh with the assessment of the world around you. The world is obviously not perfect since strawberry yogurt doesn't go well with sausages but the public contains a lot of individuals willing to dip stuff in other stuff until some good stuff emerges.

Not so weird, really: "Washington’s Birthday was the first federal holiday to honor an individual's birth date. In 1885, Congress designated February 22 as a holiday for all federal workers. Nearly a century later, in 1971, the Uniform Monday Holiday Law changed the date to the third Monday in February. The position of the holiday between the birthdays of Washington and Abraham Lincoln gave rise to the popular name of Presidents Day." --National Archives

From a quick search at Perseus:

Diogenes Laertius, Lives 4.6.41
Arcesilaus
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK IV, Chapter 6. ARCESILAUS (c. 318-242 B.C.)
The most virulent attacks were made upon [Arcesilaus] in the circle of Hieronymus the Peripatetic, whenever he collected his friends to keep the birthday of Halcyoneus, son of Antigonus, an occasion for which Antigonus used to send large sums of money to be spent in merrymaking.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.8.101
Menippus
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK VI, Chapter 8. MENIPPUS
However, the writings of Menippus the Cynic are thirteen in number : [including]
A book about the birth of Epicurus ; and The School's reverence for the twentieth day.

Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales 8.1
Question I. CONCERNING THOSE DAYS IN WHICH SOME FAMOUS MEN WERE BORN
Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales, Book 8., chapter 1
ON the sixth day of May we celebrated Socrates's birthday, and on the seventh Plato's; and that first prompted us to such discourse as was suitable to the meeting...

(For what it's worth, Cassius I'd love to represent myself with that "I Too Am an Epicurean" badge as shown beneath your profile picture in these threads.)

Quote from Cassius

Thank you for asking Twentier and you now have that trophy.

Hey! Over here!

Quote from Don

Quote from Cassius

Thank you for asking Twentier and you now have that trophy.

Hey! Over here!

I am sort of on the fence...because some mornings I wake up an say to myself: "I too am a Hedonist"...

Not on point to the questions asked, but a plea for a revitalized Epicureanism for the modern day:

“’The wasteland grows,’ wrote Nietzsche over a century ago. 'Woe to him who hides wastelands within.' Since then, the wastelands have grown ever more indiscriminately, both within and without. Our social and spiritual lives wither on our cell phone screens. Our cities, habitats, and public arenas suffer from a blight whose causes remain obscure while the effects are all-too-evident. The “little garden” of the human spirit falls into disrepair.

“The term ‘little garden’ alludes to Ho Kepos, or the small privately owned garden where in 306 BC Epicurus started one of the most influential and long-lived schools of antiquity. He lived in darkening times similar to ours, when the public and political spheres of Athenian democracy had fallen into decay and degradation. Greek philosophers before him—starting with Aristotle—believed that human happiness was possible only within the polis and the activities of citizenship. Epicurus instead believed that happiness had to be sought far from the folly and factionalism of the public realm. That is one reason he founded his school just outside the walls of Athens.

“Our age is badly in need of a strong dose of creative, revitalized Epicureanism, for Epicurus offers us a philosophy of how people can, on their own initiative, create little wellsprings of happiness in the midst of the wasteland.”

Robert Pogue Harrison, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/epicurus-for-our-time/

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

It depends, being rich for an Epicurean could be defined as having pleasure and avoiding pain.

How many rich people, who allow their unnatural desires and unnecessary to seek the next thrill can't sit down with friends and talk?

Now I'm not a stoic, having more money is desirable but not at the cost it sometimes comes with.

You only have to be rich enough to have food and friends + a few good stories to tell

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

Epicurean philosophy firstly doesn't require to believe a strange metaphysic, that the cosmos is ordained towards the Good or that we are in an endless cycle of rebirth and death for aeons.

Instead it starts with brute facts and goes from there. It only requires you to trust your senses, to trust that you have within you everything you need to choose pleasure and avoid pain.

Epicurean philosophy takes a wholesome look at humans and doesn't think our natural tendencies are bad but rather quite good.

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?

Who's life is completely together? To read epicurus you don't need to sludge through centuries of metaphysical vomit but just a few hours, who can't afford to read Emily Austin or some other introduction?

As to why, well it's quite different then anything else, it doesn't require you to believe anything that can't be experienced, it doesn't require any negative theology apophatic theology etc...

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

I don't think there is a ultimate meaning to life, meaning comes from experiences namely pleasurable experiences. Pleasure isn't a dirty word, it's wholesome.

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?

Unfortunately we live in a time where Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas have won. Teleology seems to in people's minds at all times. However even from an Epicurean pov, these people at church are still seeking pleasure, the pleasure of community, working together and ultimately the pleasure of some after life. So it's not that different, we just say toss the fear of death, toss the fear of "am I one of the elect or not because I want to have sex?"