Posts by Matt

I think it would be an interesting artistic exercise to attempt to create an "Epicurean Deity" based solely on the philosophical description, devoid of the polytheistic accretions.

Nate would be the man for that for sure.

Yes Origen was anathema to the Church for his views on reincarnation and universal reconciliation.

I think Origen was a pretty inspired writer that fused his philosophical views with his scriptural interpretation. That caused his anti-philosophical rivals to dismiss him and ridicule him. Whether or not he actually castrated himself, no idea, but his writing is attended by a spiritual interpretation of things as opposed to a literal one. I would imagine someone who understood the meaning of the parable probably more likely did not perform that action.

The story of Origen castrating himself has been circulated since Tertullian and Eusebius's time. Both of them were adversaries of Origen. Scholars dispute it's authenticity since Origen's own writings show that he did not favor a literal view of castration.

https://people.well.com/user/aquarius/origen-matthew.htm

I can tell you (from my personal observations) that all modern adherents of Epicureanism have varying views of the gods.

Some don't believe. In fact they don't believe in any gods. Some say Epicurus was just mistaken and take the position of atheism.

Some people truly believe they exist and maintain metaphysical formulas and arguments to uphold these beliefs.

Others appear to take a rhetorical approach. This approach has less to do with actual knowledge or belief, but more to the effect of attempting persuasion to accept a doctrine without exploring the reason behind it.

Quote from elli

Sorry Matt, but you did not read carefully whatever I wrote above. Who told you that Ganymedes was not real ? And who told you that Homer wrote just fairy tales ? The Trojan war as described by Homer was real. Every greek myth can interpret very clearly in accordance with reality and Nature. Ganymedes maybe was a handsome young boy that died young and had been sung by the poetical tradition.

"Sorry Matt, but you did not read carefully whatever I wrote above."

Actually Elli, I read it very closely, and have been reading your responses to these questions in the past extremely closely (for some time now). I've been trying to understand what you and others actually believe in regard to this subject. Please do not think that I am confused by anything that you or others have said. I have a full and clear understanding of this subject.

Hi Elli,

Thank you for your detailed response.

However, I still maintain my objections to the ancient polytheistic religion on the grounds that they violate PD.1.

In your response you are equating Eros/Zeus with a mythological reasoning. Basically that Zeus is not a real deity that has any consequence on mortal lives, but rather he is an allegorical idealistic figure of human imagination. He is an imaginary being that is the product of the mind and desires of poets. In this scenario neither Zeus nor Ganymede are real and therefore they are not of any concern to us.

But...

Conversely, if you say that Zeus is as real as you and I are, and that he resides on top of Mt. Olympus, and his desire for Ganymede caused him to take the form of an eagle and abscond with him then we are dealing with something entirely different. So I ask how this corresponds to the Epicurean doctrine that the gods are remote, removed and unaffected by mortals, how do these two doctrines coexist?

We can see now that there are multiple levels to this discussion:

First, whether or not the Epicurean gods are even possible. Whether they are real or simply allegorical figures. (Which the debate continues ad infinitum without resolution.)

And second, pertaining to this specific post, if the Epicurean deities should be associated with the Greco-Roman polytheistic deities.

If the gods (Epicurean or polytheistic) are not real and figments of the mind only, there is no need to utilize any images whatsoever of any deity because what they represent strongly contradicts with what Epicurus spoke of. Which ultimately collapses back onto itself because there are no gods of any kind Epicurean or otherwise.

If the gods are real then we arrive at the usual debate over how they can be real given the specific requirements placed on them by Epicurus, and how we should even be able to imagine them. This of course opens up Epicureanism to strong, strong criticism.

Either way it is my opinion that attempting to hold on to Zeus and Hera, will overall not be beneficial when trying to explain away Allah or Vishnu.

As always the reason for this post is to keep everyone talking and thinking. I, as you know, am not a believer in the Epicurean deities as they are described. I believe they are purely idealistic.

But my point here was to refine this argument further to examine whether it is wise to use the images of the debauched Greco-Roman deities, since they certainly do not represent the Epicurean ideal.

It's like the expression "having (keeping) my cake and eat it too."

If you argue against other deities and religious ideas as being superstitious or perverse yet wholesale accept obviously perverse deities as being acceptable. Then it is my opinion that it becomes an exceptionally hypocritical position to take.

If anything the abandonment of the polytheistic deities of the ancient religion actually helps the Epicurean concept of deity, but keeping them, in my opinion, opens you up to serious criticism.

Quote from Cassius

LD let me ask you that question I am discussing -- If you were trying to visualize the highest and best life you could live, what kind of imagery would you visualize?

Cassius, to answer your question in regard to how I would visualize the highest "deified" good in life from an Epicurean perspective, I would say that it would have to correspond entirely to the description of the Epicurean specific deities. Anything short of that might as well be nothing at all. This issue of visualizing the Epicurean gods becomes immensely difficult as they are described in a very specific way. This could be a subject of discussion for another thread entirely...building a physical image of an Epicurean god from what has been given to us from Epicurus. If that is even possible I do not know.

As for just imagery that corresponds to just the "highest and best life" in our non-divine realm it would have to be imagery of pleasure that is available to mortals on a daily basis food, sex, friends etc. These images are of common things that give us pleasure. Down to earth images etc.

And to respond to Elli...Hi Elli!

Once again in my opinion, to accept the Greco-Roman gods for the purposes iconography is in my opinion continuing to add attributes to the divine beings that Epicurus said was considered impious. Zeus is the Zeus of the Theogony, no matter how you try to swing it. There is no Epicurean Zeus, if it is argued that the pederastic and wrathful Zeus of the Theogony is some aberration of impious poets, then it can be argued that all deities could be models for Epicurean iconography regardless of culture. You would not be constrained to Greco-Roman deities but would be free to utilize the Hindu and Mesopotamian Pantheons as well. Logically it doesn't make any sense to argue in favor of them.

There has been an enormous amount of discussion in the past in regard to the theological aspects of Epicurean philosophy. There is, as of this moment, no consensus of opinion in regard to that subject and it continues to remain inconclusive.

However, this post is not focused on that generalized subject, but rather on the gods of Ancient Greece and Rome and the use of them specifically as "role models" either aesthetically or in a practical manner for an Epicurean.

The gods of Ancient Greece and Rome were derived from common Indo-European deities. These deities, such as Zeus, Aries, Athena, Poseidon etc., have their counterparts in the ancient Indian, Iranian, and Celtic/Germanic pantheons. Almost every deity has a foreign counterpart that fulfills the same role. So the only particular reason why an Epicurean might adopt the specific Greco-Roman versions of these polytheistic deities would be for culturally aesthetic purposes.

Much of what what we know of the myths and legends of the gods come from Hesiod and Ovid. It is clear that the known Greco-Roman myths derive much of their character from Mesopotamian, Levantine and Hittite archetypes. Some examples are: Cronus castrating Uranus, Zeus battling Typhon, the deluge of Deucalion etc. Like their foreign counterparts, the Roman and Olympian deities are far from an Epicurean ideal and do not represent the Epicurean archetypal deity.

These deities are described in the Theogony and Metamorphosis as having identical emotions as mortal beings. They interfere in human affairs constantly and are petty, wrathful, cowardly, amorous etc. The latter emotion of being amorous is particularly prevalent among some of the gods including Zeus, king of the gods, who is polyamorous. Zeus had multiple divine relationships, but worse Zeus was also a seducer of mortals and was described as taking the form of a Swan to seduce a human female and even worse he is described as the pederastic abductor of Ganymede. There is no other way to described the latter except as debauchery. This is only one example, there are many, many more throughout the myths implicating many of the gods.

So where does that leave the Epicureans? Hopefully far, far away from the traditional Greco-Roman deities. The deities are far from what is described in PD.1 as they interfere constantly in human affairs and are exceptionally emotional, often troubled by minor offenses committed by mortals.

Should modern Epicureans be partnering with neo-pagan reconstruction religious groups? Or promoting the aesthetic ideals of Greco-Roman religion?

In my opinion, I say emphatically NO. Such a relationship would be an endorsement of superstition and it contradicts the core principles of Epicurean theology. In my opinion there is no room for Zeus or Jupiter in modern Epicurean iconography or thought as it would be the same as glorifying Indra or Ba'al of foreign pantheons. It would simply be hypocritical and a denial of PD.1.

So the question becomes, what can modern Epicureans use for an aesthetic image for their specific philosophic deities in lieu of the debauched Olympians?

There can be no concession on this point. There is no benefit to self-imposed celibacy for consenting sexually mature adults. There are all sorts of disorders and aberrations of the mind that are clinically unnatural, but they are not a majority. The majority of healthy mature adults with sexual desire should ALWAYS accept what it is.

Anything that is unnatural and unnecessary will lead to pain. Prudent attention to the Hedonic calculus and the cultural morays of society are sufficient guidance for how a person should act in this arena.

Celibacy is a peculiar thing for a human. There are rare cases (and I would just guess pretty rare) where there are people who are just not as "sexualized" as others. But the majority of the human population carries a desire for sex and reproduction. If anything self-imposed celibacy is abnormal if the desire for sex exists.

Indulging our natural desires (as long as it is both legal and culturally acceptable) is perfectly normal in all cases. We require food and drink ...so we eat, do we need to only moderately subsist on meager food? No way! If it is prudent and good for your health to indulge every so often (maybe more often then not) then SO BE IT! As long as you aren’t going to cause health problems for yourself then indulge as long as it is in your means.

As for sex, it’s the same. If the sex drive is there (and for most it is) then it is unhealthy to deny that natural urge. In fact, it could cause physical and mental issues if suppressed unnecessarily. Do everything within your means. Find consenting partners who share your desires and go for it! We live once, that’s it. It’s a shame to suppress one of life’s most pleasurable and natural gifts.

I only say unfortunate because the Romans were fairly rigorous in their destruction of the city. There's very little left in archeological terms. I liken it to the destruction of any ancient thing that leaves almost no trace behind, like the Library of Alexandria for example.

From what I understand the Punics (Carthaginians) were directly descended from the Phoenicians. Carthage was a colony of Tyre in Phoenicia. The culture and language was a sister to the Hebrew culture as both cultures grew out of Canaan.

(We have them to thank for the Latin and Greek alphabet.)

The Phoenicians were maritime merchants that created an empire of trading ports all through the mediterranean . As time passed, Carthage became more separated from Tyre, and the culture evolved it's own distinct aspects. Eventually coming into contact and conflict with the fledgling Roman society. Unfortunately that conflict left Carthage entirely destroyed by Rome.

I've been revisiting a time in history that I find interesting, the relationship and conflicts between North Africa and Rome, specifically Carthage.

I wonder how much influence Greek philosophy had on the rather religiously pious Carthaginians and Berber tribes? It's clear that the Punics borrowed some military tactics from the Greeks, but maintained their Phoenician identity, religion and customs.

The only native philosopher I can come up with was Apuleius, from Berber Numidia. He was a Platonist. I was just wondering if there were any known Epicureans hailing from those areas.

I think I posed this question before in my Facebook days, but I was wondering what evidence (if any) is there of Epicurean philosophy being practiced in large areas during the Roman Period (outside of the greater Greco-Roman area?

I know in the Confessions of St. Augustine, he speaks of having acquaintances that were Epicurean. In fact I believe he said that if it were not for his belief in the survival of the soul, he would've become one. But I believe this discourse was in Milan, not in his native North Africa.

Any known Roman era North African Epicureans or Epicurean communities in North Africa, Iberia, Gaul or Britain?

Absolutely true.

Live in nature. Be fond of the country.

It doesn’t have to mean selling all your possessions and living in a cave by a stream but it does mean being in the moment and taking in your surroundings. Getting the sun on your face!

Our bodies and minds are so tuned to the world, the cycles of nature, that I believe that this mind paralysis of tech is killing us.

This technology certainly does have benefits. It connects people and opens up lines of communication that was impossible at one time. It’s like “fast food”, conceptually it’s a great idea. It can be good and be a quick fix, but if it becomes a habit, you’ll have health problems.

It comes down to making prudent decisions for your life.