Posts by Matt

Again, unnatural ideals...just for the sake of it. Totally contrary to nature.

Like a religion, Stoicism is paralyzing for its practitioners. This is akin to needing to perform daily prayers to hit the ideal performance level.

Here’s a perfect example of another stoic dilemma posted in a forum that made me shake my head today...

“Is it necessary for a Stoic to be constantly striving toward productive activity?

I have had a particularly busy week and this morning I chose to sleep in. My plan for the day is a few small household chores, a little cooking, reading a bit of trashy horror and video games. Hardly lofty activities designed for self improvement.

However I really don't feel that constant activity is productive without the occasional break to recharge.

Does this approach meet the Stoic ideal or am I falling short?”

My response:

“Take rest; a field that has rested gives a bountiful crop.” Ovid

“My Epicurean perspective would say that you need to listen to your body to the extent that you need rest. If you are burning the candle at both ends needlessly for no other purpose other than fulfilling a philosophical goal, I’d say you are not aligning yourself with nature at all.“

Meditating on reverence and awe...

Very recently I was laying in bed with the virus, with fever and pneumonia, With certain senses completely robbed from me. I could not bring myself to meditate on any “divine” principles or on any virtues. I felt too sick for that, too concerned my senses would never return. I was concerned not about any idealistic things or concepts, just whether I would return to my normal self and experience pleasure again.

I thought of:

“Continuous bodily pain does not last long; instead, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which slightly exceeds bodily pleasure does not last for many days at once. Diseases of long duration allow an excess of bodily pleasure over pain” PD: IV

Nature was reminding me of a lesson I know well. She taught me that she can be cruel and random.

My point is this: in that state of illness, my concern was for my continued pleasure in life. The primary philosophy of Epicurus became evident to me. I was not building up some stoic “resolve” toward sagehood, contemplating on platonic forms, or meditating on religious ideas. I was concerned with: Pleasure, bodily health and mental health.

I was not concerned about whether the Stoic Pantheistic logos is within all things, not concerned which Abrahamic religion is correct, which Indian transcendentalists words have the most profound meaning in life. Not of that mattered. Just pleasure and a restored heathy body and mind.

So when it comes to this topic I do take a very agnostic and apophatic approach straight from Menoeceus. That’s where I leave it now.

I’m onboard to start projects. Lending my voice and whatever else to help with projects!

Happy New Year! Hope to see more of you Elli. 😀

Happy New Year!

Truly a poem and song about friendship, both now and times past. Happy New Year’s Eve tomorrow wherever you may be!

“Should old acquaintance be forgot,

and never brought to mind?

Should old acquaintance be forgot,

and auld lang syne?

Chorus:

For auld lang syne, my dear,

for auld lang syne,

we'll take a cup of kindness yet,

for auld lang syne.

And surely you'll buy your pint cup!

and surely I'll buy mine!

And we'll take a cup o' kindness yet,

for auld lang syne.

We two have run about the hills,

and picked the daisies fine;

But we've wandered many a weary foot,

since auld lang syne.

We two have paddled in the stream,

from morning sun till dine;

But seas between us broad have roared

since auld lang syne.

And there's a hand my trusty friend!

And give me a hand o' thine!

And we'll take a right good-will draught,

for auld lang syne.”

It’s just interesting that that the argument that most Stoics make is that their philosophy is a “natural” philosophy in accord with the “mind” or “will” of the universe. Yet...their philosophy drives them to deny their emotions and feelings, embracing rationality and pursuing self-validated virtue. Especially in the case of the modern stoic who denies the idea of the providential logos (of which there is no evidence), their idea of virtue is entirely a human construct.

But seeing that the universe is not “rational” in the sense that it’s perfected for the comfort and perpetuation of human life nor does the universe seem to be concerned in any way about human ideas of virtue. It would seem that the very basis of the philosophy is not in accord with reality and nature. It would seem that Stoicism is unnatural to me.

It’s been sometime since I’ve been exploring the philosophical cornucopia that is online...but recently I had a chance to visit some pages and groups of other philosophical schools.

One thing that becomes immediately noticeable is the line of questions that come from people looking for advice about living a certain type of life. The Stoics for example who advocate for living in accord with nature seem to be almost paralyzed by their philosophy. Paralyzed without constantly reviewing what the sages have to say about every possible situation in life.

Questions about “what’s the proper virtuous way to react to something?” “Should I not date someone who isn’t a stoic even though I’m in love?” “Should I drink coffee for the sake of pleasure?” Etc.

It seems to me that a philosophy that continually causes a person to second guess their behavior at every turn and choice that they make would seem to be the opposite of living in accord with nature. In fact, in my humble opinion, sounds more like bondage than freedom.

Conversely, we come to Epicurus who provides knowledge of the Canon for us. He leaves us with our senses and our own prudence to do what we know our natural desires are. He tells us there are unnatural desires, but let’s us choose whether those desires are worth the pain or trouble to attain them. Our human nature, which already is in accord with nature by being firmly fixed on pleasurable experiences drives us.

So when we look at philosophies which claim to be living in accord with nature and those that seem to be extremely unnatural, it becomes very apparent when we see how the philosophy is applied to daily life.

I wonder what their Yelp reviews are like for the food? Probably fairly out of date. The “Pompeiian Calzone is to die for” says one happy customer.

Don thanks for posting that! Yes, this goes back to what interpret as the very subjective nature of the Epicurean understanding of divinity. Whatever an individual does with it beyond what the texts say is entirely up to them. Whether you believe in any number of deities or none at all. We are still Epicurean.

Everything that I write here is simply my own interpretation or me just throwing down ideas. I could be entirely wrong about what Epicurus meant, I’m just talking things out...this type of discussion is often helpful for me to solidify certain concepts.

Honestly whether there are many thousands of Epicurean deities, 5 of them, or just one, the number ultimately does not change whether such a being/beings can or should be described in extremely deep philosophical detail. Simply because whether there are 5000 or just 1 we have the same amount of verifiable information about any number in that range.

Hi Godfrey, I think that either is acceptable, singular or plural. Since we are generically referring to divinity or multiple divinities, either one or many.

Specifically Epicurus in his letter to Menoeceus he uses the singular “theon”:

“πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη, μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας”

Yeah I don’t want to continue beating this subject to death unless folks are very interested in reviving it. I personally have a fixation on it because it gave me such trouble early on and I feel it’s helpful for me to sort of “talk it out.”

I haven’t battled it out with Stoics in quite some time over the nature of the divine. So I’m rusty, but definitely if I spend a day looking at some Stoic forums I’ll be sure have all sorts of material. 😎

So a thought passed through my mind last night...

As a person who made theology a very large part of my initial philosophical studies especially with Hindu Vedanta and Neoplatonism, I started to meditate how (or rather what) it was that allowed me to transition to an Epicurean understanding of divinity. And later what caused my distress with a more “advanced” view Epicurean theology.

In the Letter of Menoeceus, my first real introduction to Epicurean writings, I was struck by what was said right out of the gates about the gods/God. This I think was what allowed me to transition initially.

What I realized is that the statement about God in Menoeceus is in fact “apophatic theology” and I think that’s what really appealed to me initially.

Essentially Epicurus affirms that there is a God, this God is “immortal and happy” and whatever agrees with this notion is sufficient knowledge for us to the degree that anything beyond this runs into the realm metaphysical speculation.

This apophatic theological view of a particularly unknowable and ineffable entity is in my opinion what Epicurus was trying to convey to us. Beautiful poetic language that affirms the cataphatic or positive qualities of immortality and happiness are good for the Epicurean because it upholds this notion outlined in Menoeceus. But if a person starts diving into the metakosmos trying to examine this divinity in their mind’s eye...They are in the realm Neoplatonic style speculation. They are no longer affirming simple concepts but they may be attempting to “create” or generate ideas about divinity. These ideas are entirely the mental property of the speculator and they are in the realm of idealism since the Gods are not available to be studied.

For the Neoplatonists who stretched the technical minutiae about God/The One, Mind/Nous etc. to the point of logical madness, they still do not arrive with any empirical or sensory evidence of the truth of their speculations. Just extremely complex mental formulas that arrive at “divine simplicity.”

To say the aggregate of all things is “One” is really cool to say, but it does absolutely nothing for us. This axiomatic One has has no administration, does nothing itself (except emanate the chain of being). It’s divinely simple. It took an incredible amount of mental energy from Plotinus to Proclus arrive at quite literally the most irrelevant and useless conclusion that all things are the ONE.

Just as the Stoics attribute the Divine Fire/Logos to everything in a pantheistic manner is fun to say, but it’s just an abstract mind exercise. Without really powerful evidence that there is a transcendent or immanent Nous in all things that is responsible for the Forms in the platonic sense, the “forms” that we eventually apprehend and comprehend with our own material mind through the senses. Or in a more stoic sense the Logos is responsible for the rational aggregated cosmos (which makes little sense when we see just how much “randomness” there is in nature). You still just have a very abstract idealist concept with no evidence other than what you “think” or deduce to be true.

Moving away from this back to the the Epicurean view, Epicurus avoids the intense speculative habits of the Platonists and Stoics by simply saying (just like they do) God exists...he’s immortal and happy (full stop), as far as our common understanding of what a God must be, but beyond that anything “added” to this extremely simplistic formula will run into speculation. Speculation about an unknowable is what leads to distress.

In my case, that’s exactly what happened. I tried to add ideas to what a god was beyond “immortality and happiness”...others added the ideas of atomic beings, transhumanism or extra terrestrials etc. so my very “simple” idea of God, immortal and happy, took on a a whole host of other speculative attributes. Then the “whys?” begin...why is God immortal and happy? Why does he never get irritated? Why doesn’t he have any administration? Why doesn’t he interact with humankind?...then you read classical arguments against Epicurean theology from Cicero and others and the beat goes on until you no longer trust Epicurus. Who in all piety, simply affirms the existence of God, admonishes us not to think too deeply and speculate too much as others do.

For me had I just gone full stop after the statement in Menoeceus, I could’ve cultivated a blessed and happy vision of divinity, left it ALONE and continued pursuing my own happiness, I probably wouldn’t have been sucked back into metaphysical theological speculation for the last few years. I personally do not need anything from the metakosmic deities, unless what I get from them makes me exceptionally divinely happy.

This discussion is filling the void of this rather quiet and somber Christmas Eve day. I’m very happy that I came back when I did.

Glad to be here with you folks!

For sure Don, I think it is important that we get as much out of the original texts as we can. It sounds like you are doing detailed research on the subject, and I’d be interested to hear about what you find. I’m certain that there are volumes that are missing. So sadly we may not ever know what was originally intended as far as Epicurean theology goes in its entirety.

I agree 100% that the modern stoics who avoid the originally critical aspect of the Logos are doing themselves an enormous disservice. I personally cannot even envision what Stoicism is without a theological/pantheistic element. If God isn’t the arbiter of their virtue then who or what is? If the answer is man, then they are left in a swirling world of relativism. God/Zeus/Mind/Logos is as much tied to Stoicism as atoms and void are to EP.

My original technique to fill in the theological gaps with non-Epicurean concepts ended up disastrous. So I am mostly inclined to just avoid it and discuss differences between systems and schools as entirely separate entities rather than attempt to bolster one over another. So I’ll always be more than happy to discuss the One of Plotinus from a Neoplatonic perspective, the Logos from a Stoic perspective or the Trinity from the Christian perspective.

And yes! It’s a pleasure to meet you here! I’m glad to be able to find some time and engage with folks here. It’s a part of my life that has been missing for awhile.

Also, it’s not to say that the gods conversation isn’t “meaningful” to many people. It’s just that expectations should be set as to what type of conversation we would be having. Comparing the metaphysical and apophatic theology of Philo of Alexandria with that of Epicurus, where the majority of the Epicurean texts are lost on the subject will necessarily be fruitless. Philo has literally volumes to say while Epicurus has one or two vague things to say in Menoceus.

It’s just that the expectation of what will be discussed needs to be on display. I don’t think anyone will find anything mystical about EP. If you try to make it into a pantheistic situation you’ll find yourself in the heart of Stoic theology. If that’s where you want to be then perhaps you are an Epicurean that finds pantheistic Stoic theology interesting? Or perhaps you are a Stoic that finds Epicurean philosophy intriguing. Either way, the expectations simply should be that “theology” is not a hallmark of EP in its own right (or at least what we know of it) and wanting too much from it will only cause a person distress.

I tried for a time to combine my inherent interest of divinity and mysticism with Epicurean philosophy. Because Epicurus left it so open ended, I ended up trying to fill in the gaps between the atoms and void.

I found that for my own purposes, EP would never have a system that would compete with Christian theology or Neoplatonism etc. but the question becomes...do I want it to? Other more concrete systems give theological formulas about gods, Epicurus says for me not to worry about the gods.

I have to imagine that during the time of Epicurus, the local traditional religious cults filled the vacuum and provided all the holidays, feasts and observances for Epicureans, Stoics and the non-philosophical alike. Today the closest thing we have to that is our Abrahamic and Dharmic religions that are philosophically different from the Hellenistic traditional religion....so much so that some are religiously exclusive and EP has no place among them. It seems to me that Epicurean ideas appeared at a very specific time in history where poets were still telling heroic tales of Zeus and Poseidon, and the two worlds were not necessarily mutually exclusive. You could have an “Epicurean” or “Stoic” view or interpretation of these gods or tales.

Epicurus did not have Christian or Muslim apologists to compete with to the extent that we have today. That was a later evolution. And truly it becomes it’s own discussion per modern religion involved.

In my opinion, a person accepting Epicurus and his theology is someone who is no longer seeking mysticism and is entirely comfortable with not really discussing the gods in any meaningful way. This may not appeal to all, and I personally understand that. But each person must ask themselves...”do the gods of other systems give me pleasure?” “Give me peace?” Or do they place you on a journey back into the heart of speculative metaphysics?

Thank you so much Charles! I look forward to getting to be more active here and getting to know you.