As was the case with my previous commentaries on Philodemus’ works, I have taken the liberty to distill the basic teachings of the scroll, as well as add my own commentary, in a manner that modern audiences can understand in order to advance a new and fresh Epicurean discourse in the 21st Century.

Contemporary Epicureanism is mostly made up of atheists and agnostics and must therefore take up the task of articulating an atheology founded on the ancient doctrine, but many militant and intellectual atheists who have appropriated Epicurus and who propagate atheist cultural memes with his quotes will be surprised to learn of the hostility that Epicurus exhibited against some of the atheists that he knew and of the great value that was placed on true piety, as defined by naturalist philosophy.

Even a non-religious Epicurean should find ways to cultivate the virtue of piety, as the quintessential katastemic practice is gratitude (usually towards nature, or life), which is an expression of piety. All of these matters will be attended in my reasonings on Philodemus’ scroll titled On Piety.

Epicurus and Metrodorus Versus the Accusers

There were two main types of accusation that were raised by opponents of the early Epicurean school. First, there was the accusation of impiety or insincerity in their belief in Gods, which is what inspired Philodemus’ work On Piety.  In the work, he sets on a journey to establish a clearer understanding of true piety, and opposes this true virtue to the vulgar beliefs of the many. He also persistently reiterates how the founders of the school both produced arguments for the existence of the Gods and encouraged their followers to participate in worship and to be truly pious, in reply to the accusers’ argument that it is foolish to celebrate festivals if Gods could care less.

The second type of accusation, once these arguments were presented, constitutes an attack on the imperfections or features of the Epicurean arguments for the existence of natural Gods. For in materialism, things can only exist insofar as they are composed of atoms. According to the traditional, realist interpretation of the Gods, if they do not have atomic bodies, Gods can not be said to exist in any form.

The accusers said that Gods can not have bodies, for bodies are compounds of atoms and all things that are composed of atoms are impermanent. They are subject to change, decay and death. Therefore, because compounds are destructible, these atomic Gods can not be immortal.

Philodemus then cites an argument made by Metrodorus, where he explained that if a compound is made of things that aren’t numerically distinct, these things may be imperishable and indestructible or divine.  In his work On Holiness, Epicurus is quoted as elaborating a doctrine about the physical Gods being eternal and indestructible, and saying that one who exists in this manner “in perfection as one and the same entity, is termed unified entity“.

The original founders, says Philodemus, supposed that Epicurus never had reason to question the existence of Gods. It is universally accepted that Epicurus believed that the Gods were “clearly” conceived originally (by ancient people) as eternal and blessed, and that this was a preconception or anticipation (one of the elements in the Canon). However, Epicurus believed that people in later generations developed defiled ideas about the Gods and warned his followers to only hold “the purest and holiest beliefs about the Gods” and to avoid defiled views.

The accusations of inconsistency went back and forth between the Epicureans and the non-Epicureans.  Philodemus argues against the accusers who claim that Gods can’t be physical, saying that this is inconsistent with his opponents’ view of Gods as having perception and experiencing pleasure.

Before we move on, we must make the observation that Epicurus believed that there was good, pure and wholesome religion as well as defiled and unwholesome religion, and that not all religion was the same. This is an important distinction, if we are to discern between true piety and false piety.

The Ontology of the Gods: In What Way Do They Exist?

For the sake of clarity, the original belief in the Gods within Epicureanism involved their physicality. They had bodies made of atoms. This was a necessity of Epicurean theology because nature and reality are one and the same in materialism and in atomism: Gods can only exist in nature. No-thing exists outside of nature.

Beyond this, other debates occur about what the Gods are in themselves, in what way they exist. One theory was that they lived in the space between the worlds. When we discuss virtue as it relates to piety, we’ll see that the Gods are assumed to exist in a way somewhat similar to what we may think of today as radio waves or sound waves, or at least exude some similar quality … an intriguing insight.

On Piety includes a frank admission by Philodemus, which opens the door for an Epicurean atheology and for the contemporary idealist interpretation of the Gods in Epicurean discourse, where they are merely viewed as concepts. This view is opposed to the traditional realist view, where they are conceived as natural beings with atomic bodies. The passage is as follows:

It would be fitting to describe all men as impious, inasmuch as no one has been prolific in finding convincing demonstrations for the existence of the gods; nevertheless all men, with the exception of some madmen, worship them, as do we.

Philodemus concedes that there is no convincing proof for their existence, yet he worships the Gods. Epicureans who embrace the idealist view (whom I imagine to be in the majority today) think that the Gods may be useful objects of contemplation, but that they are not real in the objective sense as natural beings.

Throughout the text, it is evident that worship serves, in part, to conform to societal expectations and laws. People were killed in the days of Epicurus for atheism. These pressures are no longer relevant, even if being a law-abiding citizens does contribute to our greater tranquility. However, this entire scroll is testament of the fact that we must not be quick to accept the accusers’ claim that Epicureans were insincere in their piety, for their piety was true as we will see in future installations.

(continues …) Reasonings about Philodemus’ On Piety (Part II)

Buy Philodemus On Piety: Critical Text with Commentary Part 1 (Philodemus Translation Series) (Pt.1) – Clarendon Press

Buy Philodemus On Piety: Critical Text with Commentary Part 1 (Philodemus Translation Series) (Pt.1) by Philodemus (1997-02-13) – Oxford University Press

Tweet This

It’s difficult to do a fair and complete review of a book that will likely take a lifetime to read and is not meant to be read in one sitting or within one week or one month even. But the Good Book deserves some attention, as it constitutes a modern attempt to produce a scripture that fits within naturalist philosophy and, in some ways, continues the work of Epicurus, Lucretius and other Masters of our tradition.

The basic idea of the Good Book is that it celebrates the format of scripture as a means to transmit wisdom and tradition. It imitates the editorial style of the Judeo-Christian Bible and of the Qur’an, but is entirely secular and makes no mention of God. It is, in essence, a philosopher’s Bible.  It reads like scripture and contains the philosophical books of Genesis, Wisdom, Parables, Concord, Lamentations, Consolations, Sages, Songs, Histories, Proverbs, The Lawgiver, Acts, Epistles, and The Good.

In it is gathered the wisdom of countless sages of humanity’s history. Like with the Bible, no mention is made of the sources and authors that inspire each verse and chapter and the content is mixed together in such a way that it’s better to simply read the Good Book as scripture without worrying too much about sources and other academic concerns. Similarly, it lends itself for use as liturgy to mark rites of passage, weddings, funerals and so on, as with other scriptures.

The Good Book begins, as it should, with a natural account of the beginnings. This one is not as long as Lucretius, of course, and is shorter than the Biblical book of Genesis. It reiterates important Epicurean adages like “nothing comes from nothing” (Gen. 4:10), in chapter five explains how atoms recombine to form many things in a manner very reminiscent of Lucretius, and even includes praise for atomism:

“The first inquirers named nature’s elements atoms, matter, seeds, primal bodies, and understood that they are coeval with the world; They saw that nothing comes from nothing, so that discovering the elements reveals how the things of nature exist and evolve. Fear holds dominion over people when they understand little, and need simple stories and legends to comfort and explain; But legends and the ignorance that give them birth are a house of limitation and darkness. Knowledge is freedom, freedom from ignorance and its offspring fear; knowledge is light and liberation.” – Genesis 2:7-11

Later, we find mention of the need for a Canon (an “aid” to reason) and a warning against false philosophy :

“It follows that the entire fabric of human reason employed in the inquisition of nature, is badly built up, like a great structure lacking foundations. For while people are occupied in admiring and applauding the false powers of the mind, they pass by and throw away its true powers which, if supplied with proper aids, and if content to wait upon nature instead of vainly affecting to overrule her, are within its reach. Such is the way to truth and the advancement of understanding“- Genesis 14:9-12

Other instances where Epicurean teachings resonate with the Good Book are the mention in Consolations 1:19 that friends are irreplaceable; Cons. 2:2 later advises the grateful rememberance of those who have passed. Cons. 1:5 also praises autarchy and mocks Fortuna, saying “Your wisdom consists in this, that you look upon yourself as self-sufficing, and regard the accidents of life as powerless to affect your virtue“.  And there’s this advise against bad association:

Who lies down with dogs will rise with fleas. – Proverbs 34:8

There are many more passages that resonate with Epicurean teaching so that, even if it’s not a specifically Epicurean scripture, it can still be useful in the study and promotion Epicurean cultural memes and doctrines.

My review of the Book of Acts is here. Some of the other highlights of the Good Book are Parables, which reads like a philosopher’s 1001 Nights and ends with a legend that calls for the education of girls (contrast that to Taliban bombings of girl schools and with the recent Boko Haram affair) and Lawgiver, which contains within it a complete wisdom tradition around the idea of leadership.

The Good Book is, as you may well imagine, not for everyone. It’s likely to appeal to people who love reading, who enjoy philosophy and who hold wisdom traditions in very high regard. It also would be of use to Humanist chaplains. Henceforward, whenever you see mention of quotes from the Good Book or to the Humanist Bible within the Society of Epicurus webpages, it’s

A.C. Grayling’s Bible that’s being referred to. Below are some reviews of specific books or portions from the Humanist Bible:

Book of Acts

Book of Epistles

Concord: a Book on Friendship

Closing Chapter of the Book of Histories

Lawgiver: the Philosophy of Leadership

Sheeple Meme

Parables: the Joys of Being Carried

The Good

For more Good Book quotes, please visit thgdbk.net

The Good Book: A Humanist Bible

Tweet This

In recent weeks, I held a private conversation (and there was a public conversation also in our forums) with an Epicurean who was turned off by what he perceived as the “dogmatism” of some of the more “orthodox” voices in our tradition (if there can be such a thing in a heterodoxic philosophy), things like their unwillingness to accept the theory of the Big Bang because it contradicted our doctrine about the universe having existed forever.  The important thing to accept as an Epicurean is that, whatever shape the Universe takes in terms of time and size, the proper explanation is always naturalist and never supernatural.  On this we must coincide to remain within the bounds of our tradition.

Two other perceived instances where Epicureans might be unorthodox deal with accepting some degree of determinism and with accepting some form of a mathematical (neo-Pythagorean) cosmology, including insights from the field of quantum physics.

While it is true that Pythagoras was as much a mystic as he was a mathematician and philosopher, we should at least concede that nature does exhibit mathematical “skills” in a manner of speaking.  Isaac Newton demonstrated that there are definite equations that apply to gravity and to mass; that nature’s laws can be translated into precise, discoverable mathematical equations.

Recent research on plants that time their consumption of starch in expectation of the next sunrise also shows that plants have an anticipation that is tied to the circadian rhythms of day and night.  Many reptiles are also attuned to the circadian rhythms, as this is vital for organisms that are cold-blooded and cannot regulate their body temperature at night, when it’s colder.  Many organisms (including humans) also tie their fertility seasons with the lunar cycles.  Corals, for instance, release their eggs at a very precise moment in the lunar calendar.

These types of adaptations require the bio-mechanical equivalent of a clock, and require mathematics.  Nature had to observe these cycles through the faculties of living entities, and then compute the ideal timing for the behaviors crucial to their survival.  Nature does math.

Pythagorean ideas related to musical harmony and math might also help to explain research on how chanting and sound meditation affects the brain.  Many religious traditions employ mantra technology, if I’m allowed that word, to produce blissful and serene states of meditative trance, but these practices have always been enveloped in mysticism.  Recent developments in the field of neuroplasticity prove that contemplative practices have a much stronger scientific base than they’ve ever been given credit for.  Chanting is not only soothing and pleasant (and should therefore should be a subject of research for those of us who wish to understand the science of hedonism), it also creates long-term changes in the brain and actually has medicinal and analgesic effects.

While we are grateful to the Pythagoreans and the mathematicians for their useful insights into the nature of things, ultimately when we deconstruct reality, there are atoms and void, not numbers. Reality is still, fundamentally, material. Atoms and elements and the things that they compose can be oftentimes discerned and studied mathematically, and that is as far as Pythagoreanism takes us. Math, like reason, only works when it has legitimate raw data discerned through the senses and empirical methods.

As for natural (as opposed to theological) theories of determinism, we must first contextualize Epicurus’ role as a moral reformer by understanding that he emerged from the early school of atomists that believed in a purely mechanical cosmos.  The atomists understood the universe as a machinery of eternal causation. Chance was impossible in this early scientific cosmology.

Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity. – Leucippus, Democritus’ associate and and co-proponent of the original atomist doctrine

Hence, Epicurus saw the need for a theory of chaos, some kind of break in the chain of causality that would account for the evident volition and innovation that we see around us, particularly among living entities who have the power to change their environment and to make moral and creative choices.  This he called the swerve.  The important thing about the swerve is it attempts to explain how there are sometimes things that happen without a cause, without mechanically depending on the laws of nature.

This does not mean that some things aren’t determined by nature.  In a strict sense, Epicureans are really compatibilists.  Strict determinism renders the cosmos a tyrant that rules over automatons, while strict non-determinism renders and the laws of nature impossible to discern.  None of these two views really works when we study the nature of things.  It would be impossible to study nature’s laws if there didn’t exist predictable patterns: two members of one species will invariably mate to produce a third, never a member of another species.  Gravity will pull us.  Stars will engage in nuclear fusion.  These things are determined.

What we rebel against is the belief that our destinies are determined by the movements of the stars or the whims of spirits and gods; that Krishna established the caste system in the Bhagavad Gita; that Jehovah established the perpetual slavery of women in Genesis to punish Eve’s transgression; that Allah established shari’a laws by which society must be governed; that our lives are and must be ruled by unnecessary restrictions and ancient taboos that are beyond reproach.  These things are not determined by the laws of nature.  They are forms of cultural corruption.

The swerve is more than the random movement of an atom, or the random mutation of molecules within a gene that happens naturally in every generation, or the sudden decision by a primate to begin fashioning a new tool.  Epicurus saw a cultural determinism that claimed to be natural, an inertia, a program that benefited certain groups, a series of unchallenged false premises that the mobs were governed by and that he wanted to emancipate men from.  He saw these false views lucidly for the superstitions that they were.  He saw that these premises had no legitimate scientific foundation.  So he named this spark of freedom without which we would be robots.

His swerve is why we must own our creation as ethical agents rather than give credit to nature for everything that we do, for good or ill.  It’s how natural beings can be civilized, and–more importantly–free.

Epicurus battled another moral evil: false prophets who instill fear and awe in credulous people.  Insofar as the world is deterministic, prophecy is possible.  We can safely utter the prophecy that tomorrow the Sun will rise.  We can predict how many minutes there will be in the day and in the night in different parts of our globe.  There is research on the nature of things that gives us this information.  But we can not know the time and circumstances of our death or other future events with absolute certainty.  We can not know the future choices that our children will make, much less predict a cataclysm at the end of the world from the vantage point of a Bronze Age worldview, or via psychic abilities.  Only through telescopes can we detect potential meteors and such things, and only in modern times.

If Thales was able to predict a lunar eclipse, it’s because generations of Babylonian astronomers had studied the movements of the stars and, after careful and diligent observations, developed calendars and mathematical models of such movements.  With a proper understanding of the nature of things we learn that prophecy can only emerge from scientific insight, and that it’s not supernatural.

While there is research that seems to indicate that some people have a pre-natal impulse that leads to alcoholism or even to depression, to violence, or to becoming a serial killer, we must again return to our comment on how naturalist prophecy relies on empirical observation of the nature of things.  Furthermore, there are limits to the ability to prophesize about choices made by free agents.  We must consider improbable any theory that certain choices are inevitable in view of our current inability to travel back in time and attempt to orchestrate different outcomes in a given story-line.  We can fairly conclude that John Doe is likely to have an addictive or violent personality because of his genes (at least until we develop the gene therapy to treat it), but not that he will abuse his wife, or kill his neighbor, or specifically become a heroin addict.

Epicurus championed the use of knowledge to spiritually and ideologically liberate humanity from a state of primal fear, inertia, and ignorance.  The swerve can be understood as the philosophical equivalent of Prometheus’ theft of the Gods’ fire.  Like all living entities, humans have the power to change their environment, and the more we learn about the nature of things and the more science we acquire, the more radically we are free to transform our environment.

Epicureanism runs on friendship (philos). – Norman Dewitt

In the extant fragments left by our founders we see Epicurus and Polyaenus, who was himself a mathematician, arguing about whether there was heat in wine, proposing various theories, and exchanging differences of opinion.

Very few doctrines characterize Epicurean “orthodoxy”, if understood only on dogmatic terms. But our tradition is not mere doctrine: its most important consolations derive from solidarity and affiliation (philos). Our tradition is an ancient and ever-evolving series of conversations between friends that began with our founders, and that is nurtured by continued wholesome association. Seen in this light, the Epicurean who understands the spirit of true philosophy simply enjoys the pleasure of the discourse, and the mellows of friendship, unperturbed by our differences of opinion.

Tweet This

The following piece, contributed by Robert Hanrott (and reflective of his own altruistic views), deals with a frequent accusation against Epicureans by ill-informed critics.  Pleasure is neither selfish nor selfless: that is a false point of reference.  It can be the lubricant that binds lovers, friends, or a mother and child.  It can also be private and subjective. 

The idea of Epicureanism being selfish is an idea put about by the early Christian church. At the time Epicureanism had more followers than any other philosophy or religion. It was part of the Christian strategy to trash Epicurus and all he stood for. Thus, he was pictured as a self-indulgent glutton, whose only interest was having orgies and a riotous life. The Christians won the PR battle because they tailored their message to suit the purposes of the Emperor, and their political triumph meant that a huge proportion of the writings of Epicurus himself were destroyed, leaving us with fragments.

During his lifetime there was great violence in the Greek world following the death of Alexander and the fight over his legacy. Epicurus reacted by retreating into his Garden, refusing to get involved in the politics, which were unpleasant and downright dangerous. He was therefore branded selfish and unsocial and an enemy of the polis and the community . Latterly, the followers of Ayn Rand latched onto this interpretation of Epicurus, and today Libertarians invoke Epicurus as a model. Libertarians believe only in their individual interests, reject government, won’t pay taxes or give to charity, and want to freeload on everyone else. Unfortunately, they are numerous and vocal.

Libertarians (like many others) completely misinterpret Epicurus. Look at what Epicurus actually said:

1. Happiness and enjoyment of life is the greatest good. We only have one life and we shouldn’t waste it. This does not mean riotous living – on the contrary, Epicurus and his followers ate and drank very moderately. What it does mean is that you pick the activities you like and enjoy and avoid unpleasant people and stupid, aggressive confrontations and arguments. You are polite, respectful and considerate of others, because, if you are, you encourage others to treat you in the same way. You are generous because you are naturally so, but also because you get psychic pleasure from doing so. As Jesus said, very correctly, “it is more blessed to give than to receive”.

2. Friendship is vital to a happy life. You cannot make and keep friends if you are selfish and focused only on yourself!

3. Inclusiveness is Epicurean. Epicurus was the first recorded person, or philosopher, to welcome into his Garden both women and slaves (unheard of before). These were women and slaves who presumably were fun to be with and had the intellect to discuss matters of life and being. Epicurus believed in equality of effort – that is, in a relationship the partners should shoulder equal responsibilities (this message still hasn’t gotten through to a lot of men). He believed such things because they cause pleasure and a happier life

4. Epicurus subscribed to the idea put forward by Democritus that we are all made of atoms, and that these atoms collide to form mass. This was his explanation of the universe, and it turned out that actually he was basically right! But because he was an atomist doesn’t mean that he regarded all human beings as bunches of separate atoms selfishly looking after their own interests. The issue of atoms has nothing to do with his outlook on moderate living, friendship, kindness, empathy and generosity – these are what he stood for philosophically.

5. With regard to giving back: how can anyone with a conscience and a modicum of the human kindness not be moved by the dire poverty of India or the tragic happenings in Syria? How can you have a happy life unless you GIVE. This doesn’t just mean donate to the local food bank.

6. One way of explaining Epicureanism is encapsulated in the phrase “getting along together”. This implies compromise and give-and-take, together with an open mind and–importantly–a sense of humor. A funny comment turneth away wrath. Unfortunately, there a subset of people who will not compromise and have absolutely no sense of humor.

7. Friendship means giving, as I said above. There are many ways to give, from setting a good example of consideration, kindness and empathy to devoting yourself to the poor. You can be an entrepreneur and still be a good and generous human being. I have run my own company and had to do some things I regret, but I hope on balance that I gave more than I took. Social entrepreneurship is an excellent idea, very Epicurean (it makes one happy!) and not really new.

There are many cases of it going back to the 19th Century. One example is Rowntree in England. Rowntree was a chocolate manufacturer who gave his workers excellent wages, very nice housing that is still there, healthcare and pensions. He was very successful. But I digress!

There is an inconsistency between what Epicurus said and my own Epicureanism. I part company with Epicurus over non-involvement in politics and the community. His attitude was understandable given the conditions at the time. But we live in a totally different world, where at least we do not have warfare on our own doorstep in the United States. If we give up on politics and hide away in a Garden, our freedom and our future is doomed, because the really selfish and ambitious people out there (and you know who I mean) will destroy what liberty we have, to the detriment of the poor and the shrinking middle class.

Epicureanism is a gentle, kindly philosophy; Christianity without the virgin births, saints, the outdated ideas on marriage and procreation, or a hierarchy of people who tell us what and what not to believe. It is a set of humanist beliefs that places friendship, happiness and peace of mind before all else. And you cannot have peace of mind, for instance, with mentally disabled people begging on the street, while some banker gets ten million a year. Yes, we have an obligation to give back.

Robert Hanrott

You may read Robert’s Epicurean blog here

Tweet This

When you want to smile then visit me: sleek, and fat I’m a hog, well cared-for, one of Epicurus’ herd.

– Horace, Epistles I.4.16

The Abrahamic religious traditions have generally been hostile to Epicurus.  Apikoros was, in fact, a generic Jewish term for goy or gentile, comparable to the Islamic kafir, which translates as infidel.

The differences between the religions of the desert and the philosophy of the Garden are so deep and so many that they can not be reconciled.  This irreconcilability is symbolized by the strict ban on ham in both Islam (where pig meat is considered haram, or unlawful) and Judaism (where it’s trefah, or not kosher).  The dangerous pig, being considered the dirtiest animal, carries so many taboos against it that it can not be eaten or touched, and even pig characters in cartoons must be demeaned and never presented in a friendly manner.

Now, I’m not saying that the pig isn’t dirty, that it doesn’t carry parasites and doesn’t require special care when cooking … but so do beef and chicken.  Furthermore, for a creature so vilified in one culture, the pig does seem innocent to us and to the millions who either raise it, love it as a pet or eat its flesh with frequency.  Pigs are valued so highly that they’re considered a currency in many cultures (particularly in Papua and the rest of Oceania), and the PETA webpage argues that their intelligence is comparable to that of dogs and cats.

There are several hypocrisies related to cultural corruption and perceptions that have gone unanalyzed for very long surrounding the pig.  The first one is that, while its much larger cousin the elephant loves to bathe in mud (a practice which is good for the skin and even humans give themselves mud facials) and no one considers the elephant to be particularly dirtier than other beasts, there’s nothing more abhorrent and nasty to some people than a muddy pig.  It’s almost the epitome of filth.

And then we reach the Epicurean layer of meaning attached to the pig, and we see that, like Epicureans, the pig is an endearing and jolly natural being that’s happy to eat the simplest foods.  Decorations of pigs were found in the ruins of the city of Herculaneum, where Philodemus taught philosophy.  When we read Horace’s poem it becomes clear that he’s using the term pig as a synonym for a happy, free, natural being who loves life.  The person to whom he writes is invited to think of Horace as a well-cared-for Epicurean pig whenever he wants to cheer up, to laugh.

The Muslim world fasts during the month of Ramadan.  There are some positive aspects to this practice.  It’s believed that periodic fasting is good for the body, that it’s good to give the stomach a break from time to time, and that when the body does not have to spend vast amounts of energy in the process of digestion, it can then turn its energy to the process of detoxing, of removing germs and other debris that may cause cancer and other diseases – which explains why people have a natural tendency to lose their appetite when they’re sick.  Many in the live foods movement fast from time to time.

Putting aside legitimate questions about the Muslim practice of fasting, about how much fasting is healthy and at what point can it become unhealthy and dangerous (at least for some people), the ethical question lies in the imposition of what we see as unnatural and unnecessary restrictions by the culture, dietary or otherwise.  Eating during sunlight hours is forbidden in Muslim countries during Ramadan and anyone seen doing it is thought of as having broken an important part of the social contract, a contract that most Muslims did not willingly sign.  Most Muslims are so by birth, not choice.  Fasting during Ramadan is not optional in Islam.

How can anyone know the sincerity of someone’s faith when practicing it is not optional?  This type of obligatory behavior in religious societies breeds a culture of hypocrisy and of punitive attitudes that replaces authentic piety with blind obedience.

But the point where cultural attitudes reach the apex of hypocrisy has to be sex.  Islam proposes that men may have as many wives as they can afford and, in countries where Islam is the base for the law, polygamy is often still practiced as in the times of Muhammad, who had a lively harem of wives and concubines.  One of his wives was “taken” from a conquered Jewish tribe after all the men were slaughtered (the women were forced into sex with men who had killed their husbands and fathers); another one of Muhammad’s wife had been married to his adoptive son, who graciously gave her up after noticing the prophet’s lascivious stears.

Let’s switch the tables, for the sake of an intellectual exercise.  One wonders how society, in particular religious society, would react to an Epicurean community that lives a lifestyle comparable to that of Muhammad or the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, who had over 30 wives, two of whom were 14, and some of whom were already married to his followers prior to his taking them as wives.  Abraham, the great patriarch of the Biblical tradition, had at least two wives, and in Genesis 30, Jacob has sex with four women: two sister-wives and two slaves-concubines.

What would pious Christians or Muslims say of an Epicurean philosopher living in a harem with 30 wives?  What if some of those wives had been “taken” from others through warfare and murder?

One of Muhammad’s wives, Aisha, was six when married, nine when she had sex with him.  He was 60.  What would the pious Christian or Muslim say if Epicurus had kept a child as a wife in this manner?

To illustrate the double standard, what would they say if he lived with 30 young men, instead of a harem of women like Muhammad and Joseph Smith did?

We’ll never know if it would have bothered the Jew, Christian, Muslim or Mormon if their prophets had admitted they chose multiple sexual partners because they sought pleasure, because such things were never admitted publicly.  No: GOD told them to do it.  And so, it’s beyond reproach and the question of pleasure is not an issue, and that’s that.

How is it that virtuous Epicureans–who have never been known for having harems or treating women like property–merely by admitting that they considered pleasure valuable, scandalized communities that emerged from such scandalous beginnings?  Should this audacity be allowed to persist unquestioned?

What we have before us is Euthyphro’s dilemma, which says: Is something right or wrong because God says it is, or does God love something because it’s inherently good and hate it because it’s inherently bad?  When Plato penned the dilemma, it didn’t occur to him that it might be irrelevant and based on false premises.

Naturalist philosophy, by doing away with the belief that God is pleased or displeased at moral or immoral acts, places ethics on a plane that avoids false opinion of the kind that legitimizes random iniquities like sexual abuse of minors, the treatment of women as cattle, homophobic double-standards, and the vilification of a creature as innocent as the pig.

It’s curious that our society, as hostile as it is to traditions of polyamory, claims to have roots in the Abrahamic traditions, all of which were cradled in polyamory lifestyles that modeled quite questionable family values.  Abraham, for instance, cast his second wife Hagar and his first son Ismael into the desert under the whispers of Sara, his first wife … and we’ve all heard of how much suffering was caused to Isaac’s son Joseph by his half-brothers’ jealousy.  He was sold into slavery.  Are the roots of Western civilization really Abrahamic?  And if we concede that they aren’t, would it really be desirable that they were?

The next time you eat bacon or ham with your friends, remember these reasonings.  Of all the foods available to humans, the flesh of the pig carries with it a set of religious taboos and controversies, along with philosophical questions and traditions that underline and make obvious the sharp distinction between true ethics and questionable, superstitious morals.

Tweet This