Posts by Robert

Thank you, all! I have a clearer picture now of where things stand. Much respect to the scholars over the years who have put so much work into trying to piece this together!

Hello!


I'm interested in studying this text but so far haven't been able to find an English translation (or even a translation into another modern language). The 1916 scholarly edition by Diels (in German) is available, but while Diels provided extensive commentary, he didn't include an actual translation of the text on the columns, as fas I can tell. The author of the [wentiers blog has provided several translated extracts, from a paper by Essler, and I've read papers that cite this book by Philodemus--so it seems like a translation must exist somewhere.

It's odd that so little is available, as it seems like it could be one of our best sources available for understanding Epicurean theology, at least as interpreted by later Epicureans. It's interesting to pair it with Velleius's account in Cicero's "De Natura Deorum" as there are obvious points of alignment but also some interesting differences--vellius, for instance. asserts that the gods do not engage in any activity, whereas Philodomus denies that they are without occupation (assuming I've understood both authors correctly).

Quote from Kalosyni

Epicureanism helps one make sense of death and desires, and that leads toward liberation without the need for years and years of long meditation sessions. You drop your mental worries because you have arrived at a sense of true personal sufficiency - through a combination of putting effort into setting up your life and lifestyle to be conducive to personal well-being and developing specific attitudes/understandings toward pleasure & pain and life & death.

I have a similar take. I do feel that the engagement with Buddhism helped prepare me, though--not sure what would have happened if I'd encountered Epicureanism first!

Quote from Kalosyni

But I feel like the meditation process which is based on sitting still, is training a certain part of your brain that is different than the part of your brain that is active when you are moving around doing stuff or talking to people. And you are still left with solving all the real-life issues that require a thinking, rational mind that needs to make choices and take action. If you are lacking in certain basic needs of modern life (work, monetary resources, friends, etc), then no amount of meditation will solve those problems. In fact it could end up causing you to "let go" too much, such that you aren't properly doing what you need to do to solve those life issues.

This makes a lot of sense. It also helps explain a phenomenon that used to puzzle me; I'd experience these very nice states of tranquility during meditation, often with a feeling of bliss mixed in there as well, and it would feel like I'd accessed some reservoir of inner peace. But then as soon as the meditation ended and I had to get back to worldly stuff, dealing with normal tasks and interacting with people, it all dispersed quickly and I'd even start to feel irritated and grumpy. And I'd think, "well, that didn't accomplish much, did it, since it's not helping me at all right now." But since, as you point out, different parts of the brain were involved, this is all easily explained.

I wasn't one of those virtuoso meditators, either--when I had a regular, daily sitting practice, I usually did about 10-20 mins. Some occasional experiences with longer meditations in a group setting. These days, I'd worry about dozing off.

Kalosyni, I'm always interested to hear about the experiences/trajectories of others who have been involved with Buddhism at some point, so thank you for sharing yours--and for the links. Some of those communities look inviting.

I still feel gratitude towards Buddhism; I learned a lot from it and it was my entry into philosophy.

Since Soto is so meditation-centric ("sit down and shut up!" as one teacher puts it), you must have spent much time on the zafu. What are your thoughts on integrating a meditation practice into Epicureanism?

Kalosyni Glad to meet another Epicurean former Buddhist! Were you affiliated with a particular Buddhist school/tradition? I started off with Zen but gravitated towards Theravada, in part because I like reading those ancient texts.

Yes, the idea of rebirth seems to founder on various paradoxes. We could say that the causal factors ("dependent origination") will spawn a new being, after I die, that inherits my karma. But since that new being doesn't remember being me, where's the continuity? And if it does remember, then there must be some vehicle for transmitting that memory, and doesn't that end up becoming a sort of Self -in-disguise? Questions, questions ..

Quote from Kalosyni

An major issue that I have with Buddhism is that it has an extremely "skeptic" take on the ability of the mind to understand things (as well as using skepticism as a method for how to overcome suffering through mental thought regulation rather than by taking actions). Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism. (I just found this if you want to read about the comparison between the two). If a mentally unstable person practices this, it can have bad results (and likely bad results for a mostly mentally stable person also).

That was a concern for me also. Not only the skepticism that knowledge is possible, but the denial that it has actual value--things are only worthwhile if they aid in the escape from samsara. Knowledge negation is bound up with life negation.

Quote from Kalosyni

The idea of "samsara" is a very negative view of life, but yet certain people do have a lot of suffering depending on their circumstances (war, poverty, low wage-slavery, lack of sanitary infrastructure in third-world countries).

An interesting question here about how philosophy and/or religion address this kind of suffering. Buddhism sometimes seems close to Stoicism in that it teaches us to overcome suffering by devaluing it. You don't need to grieve for your lost friend or loved one--he or she was just another transient being. Poverty, ill health, slavery (wage or otherwise) are the fruits of bad karma. The hope offered is that by taking refuge in Buddha you'll have less of this next time around.

How should an Epicurean address it? We have the tetrapharmakon. But is it sufficient in some of the extreme cases you mention?

Eikadistes

This thread is of great interest to me. I was involved in Buddhism, fairly seriously at one point, for more than a decade. It's what finally led me to Epicureanism: in a nutshell, I saw that Epicureanism contains many of the things I like about Buddhism (you've touched on some of these in your comparison of the respective wisdom models), without some of the things I dislike.

I see the incompatibilities as stemming from the fundamentally different premises of the two systems. Buddhism is predicated on the idea that conscious life doesn't end with the breakup of the body; rather, we (viewed in Buddhism as compounds that lack an intrinsic Self) get regenerated again and again in various planes of existence, most of them painful. The life-negating aspects follow from this premise. I've noticed that more modern, "secular" approaches to Buddhism that downplay samsaric rebirth are also less negative in their appraisal of life, and closer to Epicureanism.

Regarding the austerity of Buddhist ethics, the traditions I'm most familiar (Indian and Chinese) do hold up monasticism as the ideal. A monastic is seen as a kind of spiritual hero who has resolved to escape samsara once and for all. Laypeople aren't expected to abide by the monastic code, as you noted--the Buddha set out a more relaxed ethical regimen for "householders," consisting of five precepts. But there's a clear implication that someone practicing at that level is settling for a lower-level aspiration--i.e., to gain a favorable rebirth and hopefully to complete the path in some later incarnation.

The idea is that such a person lacks insight into the nature of samsara--if they were to gain that insight, they would abandon worldly pursuits and ordain. Indeed, in the traditionally Buddhist countries it's not uncommon for layfolk to ordain later in life. The model works and has sustained Buddhism for millenia, yet I'm not intellectually comfortable with it--I don't feel inspired by a system that demands such an extreme degree of renunciation as the pre-req for deeper insights and sagely bliss. Maybe I'm being too demanding.

Anyway, I look forward to more additions to the repository!

Thank you for these resources, and for the topic! The question has been on my mind as well, as I've been seeking to learn more about the vectors o influence that connect Epicurus with later empiricists, e.g. Locke. I know very little about Locke, hut when I read summaries of his thought I see lots of stuff that seems like it could have been lifted from Epicurus more or less wholesale.

Who do you think had greater influence on development of science--Epicurus, or Aristotle?

Thanks very much! This was a really nice surprise! And I love the e-card, with the depiction of Epicurus looking out over the Saronic Gulf (at least that's how I interpret it...but correct me if I got this wrong!).

Hope everyone is having a pleasurable week. I've been enjoying the great company each Sunday.

Quote from Don

Quote from Sam_Qwerty

Sometimes there is guilt at feeling pleasure or happiness after a loved one passed away. I told myself, "how can I feel happy after losing my father?" But he wouldn't have wanted me to stop living just because he is no longer alive.

Agreed. I've actually found over the last few funerals I've been to, that sharing stories about the one who died, especially when coupled with photos or a slide show of photos, is helpful and bittersweet, and pleasurable. Giving people a conversation starter with the photos is good. The first time I remember this is putting together the photos for my grandmother's funeral. Family joined in. But after the funeral, it can be hard. Epicurus' philosophy drives home though the preciousness of life, both remembering the life of the one who died and the life we go on living. We should not feel guilty for going on living. The dead live through our memories of them. That's the only afterlife we get. Famous people may leave books and writing and now video and audio, but they're still only memories.

It also, I think, drives home the importance of cultivating good relationships with people while they are alive. The more joyful the relationship, the more consoling are the memories. And when you lose someone with whom you're estranged to some degree, the sting is that much more painful.

Thanks, everyone!

Hello everyone:

In my readings to this point, I've noticed that Epicurean therapy concerning death mostly relates to fear of our own death. The Epicurean argument is that we should not be afraid of it because we will lack sensation and perception after we have died. I find this argument convincing.

However, we will not lack sensation and perception when those around us die--e.g. friends, family, or pets. How does Epicureanism approach this problem? What are some relevant passages?

Nature shows us that people are resilient in the face of loss, but we usually go through a grieving process. Grief could be considered a kind of disturbance and thus a hindrance to attaining or sustaining ataraxia. How is this apparent dilemma addressed?

I have a hunch this is discussed in a thread somewhere on the site, so please feel free to direct me accordingly.

I

Bryan thanks very much for this! I was interested primarily in the text, though I'm sure the commentary is valuable as well.

Thanks also to you, Don, for the WorldCat link. Possibly some options there.

Hello! Here I am, four years later, with the same question. Any leads?

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Don

how prominent supernatural or pseudoscience is ingrained into pop culture...

...And so on and so on ...

And Don your list didn't even include Dune, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.

Dating myself now, but can't resist mentioning "Escape to Witch Mountain"--much loved at age 7.

Also: Close Encounters of the Third Kind...fun mix of science and pseudo.

Quote from sanantoniogarden

Quote from Robert

"scientific determinism differs from the theistic determinism of Stoicism or Calvinism"

Right, it's the implications of this scientific determinism that has my attention. I expect most of us generally accept that the epicurean gods are material and do not interfere, intervene, inhibit or punish. And most will accept that modern science has continued the Epicurean mission to stamp out superstition. Now that we've done away with with the "supernatural" (a phrase I've always had issues with) we can focus on dispelling the new fears.

It's in these new found fears and anxieties. Genetic predispositions to painful or deadly diseases can make some feel trapped by some biological destiny. Psychology or neuroscience can also make some feel trapped by brain chemistry or childhood experiences (even compound the anxiety of biological destiny). Climate change can be the source of much existential dread. The interesting question is how does the Epicurean respond to these new problems?

Are these fears actually newfound, though? Or are they just modern variations on age-old themes: illness, disadvantage, mortality, the long-term fate of the universe?

Epicurus acknowledges the causal nexus, aka "necessity." Lucretius startles his readers in DRN 5 with the news that the world will end, though hopefully not just yet. Things like genetic predispostions and brain chemistry--seem to fall into the bucket of "necessity;" that is, they are causally determined, though we may make various choices in response to them.

That might suggest that the Epicurean prescription for dealing with them would be more or less the same as in his time, at least in terms of general principle.

Quote from Patrikios

Robert

Modern science now has tools to better examine and correlate mental states with our feelings, using enhanced bio-feedback tools.

There is an interesting organization that is conducting rigorous research into the sphere of noetics. The Institute of Noetic Science (IONS) conducts scientific research into understanding the power of the human mind. They are also testing theories of how the human mind can gain extraordinary knowledge thorough ‘natural’ means (e.g. clairvoyance, esp), using scientific methods.

The term “Noetic” comes from the Greek word noēsis/noētikos that means inner wisdom, direct knowing, intuition, or implicit understanding.


“At the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), we are inspired by the power of science to explain phenomena not previously understood, harnessing the best of the rational mind to make advances that further our knowledge and enhance our human experience.

The mission of the Institute of Noetic Sciences is to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through scientific exploration and personal discovery.”

I found some of their research articles helped understand what Epicurus taught to have mental focus (ebole).

Display More

Hi, Patrikios,

Your post raises for me the question of whether we might find in Epicureanism something analogous to samadhi in the Indian traditions, perhaps with ἐπιβολή playing a role. Mental focus is central part of vipassana, for instance. And those traditions report all manner of unusual states--whole catalogues of them. I notice that the Wikipedia article on the Institute of Noetic Sciences explicitly references samadhi.

A difficulty would lie in connecting non-materialist/dualist religious-philosophical systems with Epicurean materialism, but "difficult" doesn't mean "impossible." If deities can be composed of atoms, then presumably paranormal states with material explanations are possible as well.

Just speculating, for the fun of it!

E

Also, an addendum regarding determinism: current science does breathe fresh life into the debate over free will; however, scientific determinism differs from the theistic determinism of Stoicism or Calvinism. There's no god, whether providential or wrathful, behind the machine. I think this distinction has implications for the emotion of fear. One has reason to tremble in a deterministic universe ruled by a capricious deity or deities. But if God is either non-existent or non-interventionist, one can instead focus on identifying causal conditions and taking appropriate action.

Agree, this is an interesting question! Here' my lunch-hour take:

Science has contributed by being able to explain more and more phenomena that, in the past, people might have been inclined to attribute to gods. The more explanatory power science has, the less room there is for supernatural explanations. There is simply less and less for the gods to do.

As an example, in diagnosing certain mental disorders, we can look at the functioning of the amygdala, or whether or not someone has sustained a frontal lobe injury, whereas 500 years ago folks might have claimed possession by spirts (good or evil).

In other words, modern science hasn't changed the basic principles underlying the Epicurean approach, but it has expanded the applicability--and, in so doing, made the competing supernaturalist approaches less plausible.

It might also help prevent relapses of the kind Lucretius mentions in Book 5 of DRM...at least, one can hope so!

Quote from Don

Quote from Robert

How well do you think modern-day Epicureans navigate the relationship with tradition--given that Epicureanism in classical times was said to value orthodoxy (to the point of not disagreeing with or criticizing the Hegemon), and yet there are obviously a few areas where rethinking is necessary, as in some parts of the physics.

As you may be able to tell from my last post, I think the modern-day Epicureans don't have nearly the level of problems the modern-day Stoics have in keeping closer to the ancient school. I've read the complaints about the Epicurean school having to do with their being dogmatic or not disagreeing with the teacher. I'd have to look up where those came from, so I won't discuss specifics. Part of this from modern commentators it seems to me has to do with being hung up on the word "dogmatic" itself. "Epicureans were dogmatic," as in Diogenes Laertius 10.120: "He will be a dogmatist but not a mere sceptic." I addressed this on my site: https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…remain-in-doubt Dogmatic doesn't mean keeping to strict orthodoxy, it means being willing to take a position as opposed to remaining skeptical of everything, or as the word used means, "to be at a loss, be in doubt, be puzzled."

When it comes to the physics, I'm not overly concerned about the specifics. The Lucretius Today podcast did a great job of working through the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles and mining those for some great practical insights! The specifics don't matter. What matters is that Epicurus taught that we live in a material universe, governed by understandable laws that can be known; where we lack sufficient evidence for a conclusion, we withhold judgement and accept that there's a material cause until sufficient evidence is available. We are not ruled by Providence as the Stoics would have us believe. If you read the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles or sections of Lucretius, Epicurus and Lucretius are constantly writing "it could be this way, or this way, or this way..." and accept that there's a physical cause for the phenomenon they're discussing. Lucian in "Alexander the Oracle-Monger" writes that an Epicurean could find the physical mechanism behind the Snake-Oracle even if wasn't readily apparent.

That unswerving commitment that we live in a physical world, not under the thumb of capricious gods, is what makes it possible to be a modern-day Epicurean.

Hi, Don,

The Stoic reliance of Providence was a turn-off for me as well--probably the main issue that drew me away from it, after some initial interest. More specifically, I don't think the Stoics handled theodicy very convincingly. They actually seem to me even less plausible than the Abrahamic religions in that regard. Plus, if one's going to accept a notion like Providence, why not go a step further and personalize it--make it a God you can talk to?

Since, as Emily Austin suggests, modern-day Stoics are closer to Epicureanism, I wonder why they self-describe as the former. Something to do with Marcus Aurelius? Or maybe--at least in the U.S.--the concept of "pleasure" conflicts too much with the Protestant work ethic?

Regarding Epicurean physics, I did hear this covered in the Lucretius Today episodes dealing with relevant sections of De Rerum Natura. I'm very interested in listening to the other episodes that you mention.