• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Epicureanism

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
13,779
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
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]
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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......
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Epicurus is one of the first philosophers to give a well-developed contractarian theory of justice. Epicurus says that justice is an agreement "neither to harm nor be harmed," and that we have a preconception of justice as "what is useful in mutual associations." People enter into communities in order to gain protection from the dangers of the wild, and agreements concerning the behavior of the members of the community are needed in order for these communities to function, e.g., prohibitions of murder, regulations concerning the killing and eating of animals, and so on. Justice exists only where there are such agreements.

Like the virtues, justice is valued entirely on instrumental grounds, because of its utility for each of the members of society. Epicurus says that the main reason not to be unjust is that one will be punished if one gets caught, and that even if one does not get caught, the fear of being caught will still cause pain. However, he adds that the fear of punishment is needed mainly to keep fools in line, who otherwise would kill, steal, etc. The Epicurean wise man recognizes the usefulness of the laws, and since he does not desire great wealth, luxury goods, political power, or the like, he sees that he has no reason to engage in the conduct prohibited by the laws in any case.

Although justice only exists where there is an agreement about how to behave, that does not make justice entirely 'conventional,' if by 'conventional' we mean that any behavior dictated by the laws of a particular society is thereby just, and that the laws of a particular society are just for that society. Since the 'justice contract' is entered into for the purpose of securing what is useful for the members of the society, only laws that are actually useful are just. Thus, a prohibition of murder would be just, but antimiscegenation laws would not. Since what is useful can vary from place to place and time to time, what laws are just can likewise vary.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH5e
 
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.

There is nothing inherent to it.

You are just rationalizing.

These systems based on subjective "pleasure" all end up a can of worms.

That is if one examines them truthfully and does not make arbitrary assumptions in their favor.

One problem with humanity is the ability of some to get pleasure from seeing others suffer.
 
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.

There is nothing inherent to it.

You are just rationalizing.

These systems based on subjective "pleasure" all end up a can of worms.

That is if one examines them truthfully and does not make arbitrary assumptions in their favor.

One problem with humanity is the ability of some to get pleasure from seeing others suffer.

Do not know what it is, I sense unhappiness and suffering in your words. What is important and difficult is how you derive your sense of right and wrong, and how you express it in relations spoken and physical with your fellow human beings. When you walk down the street are you connected to humanity or are you angry and hostile?

It is not what others do and justify, uit is what you do and why. As to Epecitus you are banging your head against the wall. There is no one singular morality, unless you are of an Abrahamic faith. In what we call the west we trace our intellectual beginnings to the Greeks, and with good reason. They put to paper all the questions we deal with today. Plato and justice vs civil law.

Do you have an all encompassing moral philosophy you adhere to?
 
How you sense unhappiness and suffering in simple statements like that is a mystery.

When you make pleasure the center of your philosophical system you are stuck with all the ways humans derive pleasure, not just an arbitrary few that you may like.
 
How you sense unhappiness and suffering in simple statements like that is a mystery.

When you make pleasure the center of your philosophical system you are stuck with all the ways humans derive pleasure, not just an arbitrary few that you may like.

Lomg experoence. People who always jump to a negative and attack are usually expressing anger or discomfort. Word choice and sentece arrangement can express personality. Nothing mystical. In law enforcement and with con artists it is called cold reading. It is what psychics do. After I went through 2 years of physical rehab after letting myself go I can get a read on somebody by how they look, walk, and carry themselves. Mostly from my experience.

As stated in the link Epicurious was not meaning pursuit of physical gratification. He was talking about pursuuits that make you feel good spiritually . The pursuit of plaesure can be doing charity work. Philosophy is about how you see your place in humanity and how you feel interacting with the world around you. It is not academic study, at least to the Greeks.

Morality is not just about one set of rules vs anotyher, it is about how you feel. Epicurius was about what is the maximum good, meaning feelings and perceptions, without harming yourself or others. Confucious was about what it ment to be moraaly superior, in context of the world around you.
 
These are just horribly bad ideas.

They are nothing but a can of worms.

What pleasures are good? How much pleasure is good? Who exactly says which pleasures are desirable and which are not?

The only reason some worship these bad ideas is because there are so few ideas from the time to talk about.
 
HeeHeeeHee. Socrates said a life unexamined is not worth living, or soemthing like that.

Look at what drives your actions during the day.

Get up shower, put on clean clothes, makes you feel good.
Stop at a coffee shop for caffeine and a sugar pastry, makes you feel good.
Listen to favorite music in the car, makes you feel good.
Mid morning candy snack, makes you feel good.
And so on and so forth.\\Hang out with your girlfriend or buddies drinking after work, makes you feel good.

Pick up some Hagen Daz ice cream on the way home, definitely feels good.

Our modern consumer culture is based on selling you comfort and instant gratification 24/7. Despite being majority Christian we are a somewhat Hedonistic or more likely Epicurean society. Just look at us. Christianity used to be about moderation in wordy pleasures and delayed gratification.

Drugs are about pleasure.

We are driven by what feels good. Epicurus argued as other philosophers the greatest good or pleasure is spiritual.
 
Epicurus argued as other philosophers the greatest good or pleasure is spiritual.

Sure but all pleasures are essentially and properly spiritual, so this isn't saying anything very much.
EB
 
The western culture has become a glutinous self indulgent culture. Hard to say otherwise. Self restraint id no longer a cultural norm, eaten away by modern media.
 
The western culture has become a glutinous self indulgent culture. Hard to say otherwise. Self restraint id no longer a cultural norm, eaten away by modern media.

This is a problem with humanity.

In good times many become over indulgent and glutinous.

Bad times creates people with more discipline.

But nobody wants a constant state of bad times.
 
Back
Top Bottom