Episode 249 - Cicero's OTNOTG 24 - Are The Epicurean Gods Totally Inactive, And Are We To Emulate Them Through Laziness?

Responding to TauPhi , in relation to gods' moral/ethical incorruptibility, I'd say it describes their ability to never make any choice that dilutes or decreases their pleasure. They don't have "temptations" for lack of a better word like us mortals.

But I'll lay my cards on the table:

I don't believe in any gods.

Whether Epicurus taught there were physical gods or he thought of them as metaphors is secondary, to me. The most important aspect of Epicurus' teaching on the gods is that even if there were gods, they have no impact on the blessings or misfortunes that befall me in my life. Any thoughts I have about the gods of a one-way interaction.

If I want to imagine a perfect state, I can do that. If I want to call that perfect state "godlike", fine. But that *is* metaphorical.

Putting ourselves in Epicurus' headspace and social context in this topic is nigh impossible given our current understanding of the universe. Those tenets of "1. gods don't bestow blessings or curses. 2. There's no evidence the universe is created or sustained or administered by gods" are enough for me.

I suspected you might have a response, Cassius . I'm happy to state explicitly: This is my opinion and in no way would I assume to make a "policy statement" for the EpicureanFriends forum as a whole.

That said... To expand on my personal perspective...

Epicurus' and the ancient Greek concept of eidolon (images, films, etc) was revolutionary in its time and was a move toward an understanding. It was less wrong than the alternative theory of rays from us interacting with the external works and reporting back to us. However, eidola are not how the senses work nor is it how the brain and memory work. For me, starting from Epicurus' desire to know how things work, we modern Epicureans should endeavor to know how things work to the best level (and reserve judgement on what needs confirmation) we should not try to shoehorn ancient understanding into modern molds. Epicurus didn't have access to information we have, and we can't unlearn general scientific principles we take for granted now.

Quote from Godfrey

- Might it be most constructive to be satisfied with multiple possible explanations of the gods? And perhaps useful to look at the subject for practical insights, through modern eyes?

Godfrey, thank you for this suggestion to look for practical insights.

As I understand Greece and surrounding Mediterranean countries in 4th century bce, many of the 'gods' were still being worshiped for their control over some facet of Nature (e.g. Zeus - lightening bolts; Posieden - seas), or they represented human emotions/actions (e.g. Eros - sexual desire; Morpheus - dreams & sleep). Which gods was Epicurus suggesting were worth considering as being blessed? Was Epicurus referring only to the gods that represented positive traits (e.g. Apollo - god of music, poetry, art, oracles, archery, plague, medicine, sun, light and knowledge), not gods of war & violence (e.g. Ares)?

Epicurus could be calling us to consider, for example, the blessedness of Apollo when getting in the mood to write a creative music or poem. It appears that the Epicurus was using the generally accepted practice to acknowledge the existence of gods, but focusing only on the gods who demonstrate an appearance of happiness and imperturbation.

Was Epicurus using people's positive views of the best possible unperturbed state of mind (as envisioned with peaceful gods) as a goal of our practice to prudently live pleasantly?

Quote from Patrikios

Was Epicurus using people's positive views of the best possible unperturbed state of mind (as envisioned with peaceful gods) as a goal of our practice to prudently live pleasantly?

That seems to be the case. It also seems to be the interpretation of the "idealist" theory of the gods, which is contrasted with the "realist" theory. There are several threads in the forum discussing these two interpretations.

I realize I stray from the title of this thread, but one Lucretian passage I return to when it comes to gods is in Book 2:

In many a way she brings the many forth
Into the light of sun. And here, whoso
Decides to call the ocean Neptune, or
The grain-crop Ceres, and prefers to abuse
The name of Bacchus rather than pronounce
The liquor's proper designation, him
Let us permit to go on calling earth
Mother of Gods, if only he will spare
To taint his soul with foul religion.

Here, we're given permission to personify physical things metaphorically as gods. Why not metaphorical ideal lives as gods?

Quote from TauPhi

column 34 seems to be a refutation of philosophers endorsing the four elements as building blocks of reality coming directly from Epicurus in his 'On Nature - Book 14'

Thank you for bringing this up! Here is one version of what remains from columns 33-35. This is very interpretive, the bracketed and rubricated version with comments is attached.

Epíkouros, Peri Phýseōs, Book 14, P.Herc. 1148, columns 33-35:

(about monism) ...for these situations are not generated from this one single underlying substance by its concentrating or by its dispersing ¬ but rather, what situation prevails is produced out of the differences in the variations of the shapes…

(about Platonic solids) ...such is the case for those who define one particular shape for fire, or earth, or water, or air: since they are more ridiculous than those who do not define one particular shape for each element – given that, in their comparative juxtapositions, those who define shape for elements should have agreed, either willingly or unwillingly, that certain multiple particular forms of shapes are produced which can affirmatively be said to be substantial [i.e., really existing] in accordance with each compound: but some miss the mark regarding these component elements, and there is something more consistent to be said that pertains to these elements – speaking in this way, those who define one particular shape for each element could also wholly refer to the difference in the mixtures – but those people who… for the…

…how could someone perceive water or air or fire as solid and indissoluble, when one cannot even perceive earth as solid and indissoluble? not to mention the fact that those people representing these ideas of indissoluble elements do in reality divide them: given that each of these elements is not conceived as solid, then one could provide many and varied images of shapes according to the divisions of elements – and there will not be just triangles, or pyramids, or cubes, or any other finite shape specific to each element – for those who define a particular shape for each element would have nothing persuasive to say to convince us that it is more fitting to think that these four visible forms are apprehended by us according to their divisions of a specific shape for each element rather than the elements being varied in their specific class of shapes…

Brilliant, Bryan . Thank you very much.