Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Epicureanism

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,752
    Rep Power
    11

    Epicureanism

    There really is a lot more to philosophy than logic, debate, conundrums of time and infinity and meaning of words. If you are struggling with meaning of life and seek unerstanding there is plenty in philosopy. Christianity seems thin and unsatisfying in comparison.

    No substance, believe in god and end up in unspecified heaven, a religion of childlike followers who can not think for themselves.

    Epicureanism is pleasure with moderation. Sounds similar to Buddha which predated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

    Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that what he called "pleasure" (ἡδονή) was the greatest good, but that the way to attain such pleasure was to live modestly, to gain knowledge of the workings of the world, and to limit one's desires. This would lead one to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear as well as an absence of bodily pain (aponia). The combination of these two states constitutes happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism insofar as it declares pleasure to be its sole intrinsic goal, the concept that the absence of pain and fear constitutes the greatest pleasure, and its advocacy of a simple life, make it very different from "hedonism" as colloquially understood.

    Epicureanism was originally a challenge to Platonism, though later it became the main opponent of Stoicism. Epicurus and his followers shunned politics. After the death of Epicurus, his school was headed by Hermarchus; later many Epicurean societies flourished in the Late Hellenistic era and during the Roman era (such as those in Antiochia, Alexandria, Rhodes, and Ercolano). Its best-known Roman proponent was the poet Lucretius. By the end of the Roman Empire, being opposed by philosophies (mainly Neo-Platonism) that were now in the ascendant, Epicureanism had all but died out, and would be resurrected in the Age of Enlightenment.

    Some writings by Epicurus have survived. Some scholars consider the epic poem On the Nature of Things by Lucretius to present in one unified work the core arguments and theories of Epicureanism. Many of the scrolls unearthed at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum are Epicurean texts. At least some are thought to have belonged to the Epicurean Philodemus. Today, there are large Epicurean communities in Greece, a Society of Friends of Epicurus in the West, and the School has a growing online presence. In the French-speaking world, Michel Onfray is considered Neo-Epicurean....

    Epicureanism argued that pleasure was the chief good in life.[18] Hence, Epicurus advocated living in such a way as to derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one's lifetime, yet doing so moderately in order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence in such pleasure.[18] Emphasis was placed on pleasures of the mind rather than on physical pleasures.....

    Epicureanism does not deny the existence of the gods, rather it denies their involvement in the world. According to Epicureanism, the gods do not interfere with human lives or the rest of the universe in any way.[7] The manner in which the Epicurean gods exist is still disputed. Some scholars say that Epicureanism believes that the gods exist outside the mind as material objects (the realist position), while others assert that the gods only exist in our minds as ideals (the idealist position).[7][8][9] The realist position holds that Epicureans understand the gods as existing as physical and immortal beings made of atoms that reside somewhere in reality.[7][9] However, the gods are completely separate from the rest of reality; they are uninterested in it, play no role in it, and remain completely undisturbed by it.[10] Instead, the gods live in what is called the metakosmia, or the space between worlds.[11] Contrarily, the idealist position holds that Epicurus did not actually conceive of the gods as existing in reality. Rather, Epicurus is said to have viewed the gods as just idealized forms of the best human life,[8][12] and it is thought that the gods were emblematic of the life one should aspire towards.[13] The debate between these two positions was revived by A. A. Long and David Sedley in their 1987 book, The Hellenistic Philosophers, in which the two argued in favor of the idealist position.[8][9] While a scholarly consensus has yet to be reached, the realist position remains the prevailing viewpoint at this time.[8][9]

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    4,545
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,429
    Rep Power
    56
    Not all of Epicurus' writings have survived. One of his most famous comments on the problem of evil, as usually seen on the net was actually David Hume's paraphrase of it.

    The less well known version came from an ancient Christian writer Lactantius. His book, "On The Anger Of God" refers to the ideas and philosophy of Epicurus. Lactantius did not like Epicurus.
    Cheerful Charlie

  3. Top | #3
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,777
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,990
    Rep Power
    53
    ...... for tomorrow we shall die ......

  4. Top | #4
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    9,111
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    18,625
    Rep Power
    45
    I don't know if there's a word for underestimating people who lived in the distant past, but a lot of these philosophies from the axial age really hit the nail on the head, even though you'd think this type of thought would be more recent.

    Makes one think that for the person who's committed to figuring things out, the answers are just out there waiting to be found.

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    I don't know if there's a word for underestimating people who lived in the distant past, but a lot of these philosophies from the axial age really hit the nail on the head, even though you'd think this type of thought would be more recent.

    Makes one think that for the person who's committed to figuring things out, the answers are just out there waiting to be found.
    What nail was hit?

    Epicureanism argued that pleasure was the chief good in life.
    The sadist takes pleasure in the pain of others.

    Do we also blindly say their pleasure is the "chief good in life"?

    These ancient heroes have nothing to say to the modern world. They only have significance because there is so little serious writing from the time. Our world was not shaped by their ideas.

    They offer no respite or relief. They do not entertain or explain.

    But hero worship and dreams of magic wisdom from the past is comforting to some.

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,752
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    I don't know if there's a word for underestimating people who lived in the distant past, but a lot of these philosophies from the axial age really hit the nail on the head, even though you'd think this type of thought would be more recent.

    Makes one think that for the person who's committed to figuring things out, the answers are just out there waiting to be found.
    It shows that the questions have not changed, and they are still debated today. Politics, religion, and morality.

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,752
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    I don't know if there's a word for underestimating people who lived in the distant past, but a lot of these philosophies from the axial age really hit the nail on the head, even though you'd think this type of thought would be more recent.

    Makes one think that for the person who's committed to figuring things out, the answers are just out there waiting to be found.
    What nail was hit?

    Epicureanism argued that pleasure was the chief good in life.
    The sadist takes pleasure in the pain of others.

    Do we also blindly say their pleasure is the "chief good in life"?

    These ancient heroes have nothing to say to the modern world. They only have significance because there is so little serious writing from the time. Our world was not shaped by their ideas.

    They offer no respite or relief. They do not entertain or explain.

    But hero worship and dreams of magic wisdom from the past is comforting to some.
    Take the time to read the entire OP and the link. Sadism would not be Epicurianism.

    ' Epicureanism argued that pleasure was the chief good in life.[18] Hence, Epicurus advocated living in such a way as to derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one's lifetime, yet doing so moderately in order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence in such pleasure.[18] Emphasis was placed on pleasures of the mind rather than on physical pleasures......

  8. Top | #8
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    What nail was hit?



    The sadist takes pleasure in the pain of others.

    Do we also blindly say their pleasure is the "chief good in life"?

    These ancient heroes have nothing to say to the modern world. They only have significance because there is so little serious writing from the time. Our world was not shaped by their ideas.

    They offer no respite or relief. They do not entertain or explain.

    But hero worship and dreams of magic wisdom from the past is comforting to some.
    Take the time to read the entire OP and the link. Sadism would not be Epicurianism.

    ' Epicureanism argued that pleasure was the chief good in life.[18] Hence, Epicurus advocated living in such a way as to derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one's lifetime, yet doing so moderately in order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence in such pleasure.[18] Emphasis was placed on pleasures of the mind rather than on physical pleasures......
    There is nothing there that condemns sadism.

    It is a system focused purely on individual subjective pleasure and how to maximize it.

    The pleasure of the sadist is just as valid as the pleasure of the saint in this system.

    All this system does is say the sadist should periodically hold back for a while to make the pleasure greater.

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    4,545
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,429
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    I don't know if there's a word for underestimating people who lived in the distant past, but a lot of these philosophies from the axial age really hit the nail on the head, even though you'd think this type of thought would be more recent.

    Makes one think that for the person who's committed to figuring things out, the answers are just out there waiting to be found.
    And sometimes not. Socrates, as presented to us in Plato's dialogues, seems to have had a knack for asking questions that didn't have good answers to them.
    Cheerful Charlie

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,752
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    What nail was hit?



    The sadist takes pleasure in the pain of others.

    Do we also blindly say their pleasure is the "chief good in life"?

    These ancient heroes have nothing to say to the modern world. They only have significance because there is so little serious writing from the time. Our world was not shaped by their ideas.

    They offer no respite or relief. They do not entertain or explain.

    But hero worship and dreams of magic wisdom from the past is comforting to some.
    Take the time to read the entire OP and the link. Sadism would not be Epicurianism.

    ' Epicureanism argued that pleasure was the chief good in life.[18] Hence, Epicurus advocated living in such a way as to derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one's lifetime, yet doing so moderately in order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence in such pleasure.[18] Emphasis was placed on pleasures of the mind rather than on physical pleasures......
    There is nothing there that condemns sadism.

    It is a system focused purely on individual subjective pleasure and how to maximize it.

    The pleasure of the sadist is just as valid as the pleasure of the saint in this system.

    All this system does is say the sadist should periodically hold back for a while to make the pleasure greater.
    Atheism, Buddhist scripture, the bible and the rest do not specifically ban sadism. It is inherent in the philosophy. All philosophy is in a sense is ill defined with many variations through history. If you want you can trust any philosophy to your ends.

    Epicureanism appears to moderate hedonism in that living for pleasure is moderated by consequences.

    If that is not clear to you, not much I can do to connect the dots.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •