“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart.

At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus told us indeed that ‘God is a spirit,’ but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the ancient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter.” – Thomas Jefferson, in his Letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820

While most modern materialists consider themselves atheists, there has been a long tradition of Deist materialism.  It’s appropriate to address the subject of the physicality of the soul during October, when our culture is cheerfully preparing to celebrate the Night of All Souls / Halloween.  What is a soul, after all?  What are we celebrating?

Epicurus taught that the mortal soul is material and atomic.  When I first approached other Epicureans about the physicality of the soul, it was explained to me that the soul, like the body, was atomic and that the atoms that make up our neural network (brain, nerves) constitute our physical soul, which dies along with the body when we expire.

There is no immortal soul: that is a myth, but the soul does exist and it is a natural (and, most importantly, observable) phenomenon.  There exists, therefore, a science or knowledge of the soul, and we cannot hope to effectively dismantle the fraud and the false doctrines of immaterialism unless and until the scientific, naturalist study of the soul becomes commonplace.

There are foods that are particularly good for the brain (chocolate being one of them, also any food that contains Omega 3 oils) and, as with the body, we are to take care of the health of the soul: it must be kept healthy, and philosophy is the main tool for keeping our souls healthy.

The word used by Jesus, Ruach, refers to Breath which is shared by all living entities and is a symptom of interbeing: animals exhale the carbon that trees inhale, and trees exhale the oxygen that animals inhale in a symbiotic cycle.  All life evolved as increasingly complex symbiotic relationships.

Our bodies contain billions of bacteria and cells that, together, compose our being.  We need bacteria to help us digest our food.  We do not exist in isolation: nothing does.  The Buddhists have a doctrine of co-dependent origination which is mirrored, in a way, in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), which explains that all things are composed of progressively complex combinations of particles.

Spirit (Ruach, Breath) is, therefore, an animating, organic, observable phenomenon within nature that can be studied.  The breath is the ability to consume energy, and it usually takes the form of a dynamic exchange between organic entities that need each other to survive (we inhale the oxygen that the trees exhale).

While all material things are accurately said to exist and are real insofar as they are made of atoms, breathing and animated material beings exist and organize reality in a peculiar way.  It is the breath that distinguishes the living from the dead.  This is why it is said that God is Spirit (Breath) and that God is the God of the Living.  Nature can be inert or living (characterized by Spirit, breath, consumption), but it is only the living entities that are able to experience and seek pleasure.

The goal of pleasure and the goal of life are non-different.  Life seeks its perpetuity through pleasure: by it we eat, by it we mate, by it we thrive.  This is why Epicurus taught that Nature guides us via pleasure: the tendency to seek pleasure is non-different from the tendency to seek Life.  The mode of nature in which pleasure is not sought is inertia, non-Life … but we are not inert, we are breathing, living spirits.  Therefore, we seek pleasure, which is a sign of a healthy body and soul.

Because the study of the breath is available to the senses and because the breath is a natural phenomenon, a radical redefinition and demythification of the true, impersonal Go(o)d is needed.  While the breath is not a person, it does endow living entities with agency, animation and with the ability to utilize the senses and other faculties, and with the accompanying dignity and enhanced tendency of self-preservation that comes with personhood or animation.

Notice that, in the meditative traditions of yoga and Zen, the entire science of the soul is founded on the contemplation, control, or attentive study of the breath.  We may go days without eating, but we may only go minutes without breathing: it is our main source of animating life-force.  Zen teaches that the ultimate katastemic pleasure (a hedonism of being, not of doing or thinking) is the most simple pleasure derived from wholesome breathing which, because it is the most necessary of natural desires, should enjoy a place of primacy within our hedonic regimen.  Contemplative breathing practices constitute the quintessential abiding pleasure.

The original expression of Christianity contained a strong shamanic component that included natural healing practices such as fasting.  We lose apetite when we are sick so that the body may stop investing the vast amounts of energy it invests in digestion and dedicate itself to healing.  Many in the live-foods lifestyle periodically fast in order to reset the body’s natural healing abilities, with the understanding that the body has the wisdom to heal itself.

Wisdom derived from the study of nature, which we often find in religious traditions, is clearly distinct from superstition.  While there are many false views tied to Biblical belief, there is an ecological component to the God of Jesus, who is imagined as feeding the birds daily.

Look at the birds of the air: they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.  Are you not much more valuable than they? – Matthew 6:26

In the midst of (and in spite of) the death cult, there is another Christian tradition: one that is life-affirming, that derives insight from the study of nature and that recognizes the numenic in nature: Nature’s God is an euphemism for impersonal Mother Nature.  It is nature, not a supernatural agent or God, that feeds the birds daily: via natural selection, they have all the needed faculties to survive in their environment.  The impersonality of nature is no less numenic or inspiring.  We Epicureans know that nature is indeed a benevolent teacher who inspires gratitude.

Indeed, the very belief in the incarnation in Christ, and his mystery of the eucharist, is an affirmation of the need for the physicality of God.  Like the Hindus, who consume consecrated food known as prasadam (mercy) that is believed to contain the essence of Go(o)d/Vishnu the Preserver, the Christians recognize a fraction of the numenic, of Nature’s sustaining Go(o)d, in the holy meal, and in Go(o)d made flesh.  How can the Go(o)d of the Living be separated from the act of consumption, which feeds life?

“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” – Jesus, in Mark 12:27

Even Jesus, who appears to not have known his human father, projected his own hunger for a father figure against the personality of Godhead, making Nature’s God into a Heavenly Father, and not the impersonal God of Nature.  But this is an innocent expression of the error of attaching agency, personality and volition to Nature.  Sadly, many vulgar myths that incorporate even awful things such as genocide and child sacrifice have woven themselves into theistic beliefs and obscured the possibility of a naturalist experience of the numenic.

The heresy of immaterialism is non-different from any of the death cults: the ones that promise virgins upon completion of holy warfare, the ones that propose the zombie apocalypse, these are all variations of the heresy of immaterialism.  They are not about life.  They do not derive insights from the study of nature, but deny nature.  They attribute life to non-being, to non-existence, to things that are not there.  They are Platonic, unnatural.  The true doctrine is a philosophy of Life that is rooted in reality.

It’s probably inappropriate to refer to Nature as a God.  In our tradition, Nature is impersonal, it is not an agent and has no volition.  But if anything is numenic, it is Nature.  If anything is real, it is Nature.  And if anything has spirit, or breath, is it natural, living entities.

Notice how, during the fall, the leaves die and fall and are reabsorbed into nature and feed the life of other beings: plants, worms, fungi.  There is nothing to fear in non-being.  There are no monsters under the bed, or in the closet, no ghosts visiting us from the world beyond this All Hollows’ Eve.  There are no immaterial beings.  Immaterial things, by definition, do not exist.  Non-being, death, is not and does not exist.  We are the spirits, the ghosts.  We are the ones who possess our bodies.  We are the ones who are breathing and consuming and who are woven into Nature’s quilt of interbeing.  The Night of All Souls is our night!  Have a joyous Halloween!

Tweet This

In my recent visit to the federal capital, I was taken in by the majesty, the beauty and the history of the buildings of our government (and corporations, these days there’s no clear boundary).  If I had not understood the alphabet and was to judge the buildings by their architecture, Bank of America’s building would have been a government building.

Without writing an edict or enacting a law, the government and the banking cartel had articulated messages through the architecture.  The banks are making themselves out to be indistinct from our government and government buildings frequently utilize architectural styles that mirror the glory of ancient Greece, claiming for themselves the humanist legacy of the land that saw the birth of the earliest form of democracy.

It’s interesting to note a land’s architecture and the narratives (and identities) that are woven into it.  There is much that is implicit in the red of Chinese architecture: a state-sponsored narrative of revolution from the top down.  Whether or not we buy into the narrative, the act of displaying it with pomp makes the narrative powerful, relevant, and pervasive in the culture that witnesses the architecture.

A society’s architecture shapes the people’s identity in many subtle ways: by being ever-present, by lurking high above the people, by serving the ruling classes as a symbol of their power and legitimacy, and by the layers of history that nourish a people’s attachment to the sites.  Accidents of abuse and rebellion can at times evolve, within the urban setting, into monuments to the people’s history.  I’m reminded of how the Stonewall Inn, where gays first fought back police brutality in 1969, has become a site of pilgrimage for many LGBT people comparable to the monuments to the founding fathers in DC.  Not all architectural narratives happen from the top down.

And then there are the hidden, and Freudian, narratives, the (perhaps?) unintended ones.  The phallic symbols that embody power, conquest and fertility.  In my visit to DC I noticed that our national obelisk (fashioned after the ancient Egyptian model) was being fixed, curiously during a time in which America’s global hegemony is increasingly being questioned, as if old Uncle Sam was in need of viagra.

We all, consciously or not, choose to identify with various types of architecture according to sets of values and aesthetic tendencies that reflect, I believe, much more about ourselves than we may even know.  In watching science fiction for many years, I’ve noticed the curvy and anarchic urban designs found in films like Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, and other futuristic films (whether utopian or dystopian).  I’ve always been intrigued by how so many science fiction storylines imagine (and intuit) the architecture of the future in this way.  Notice how, in the Star Wars planet of Tatooine, the inner architecture of homes is almost organically curvy and blends into the ground and the land effortlessly.  Like the people of our much-feared overpopulated future, the people of Tatooine live in deserted lands where water must be harvested.

Joseph Campbell, the famous mythographer who mentored George Lucas during his years of incubating the Star Wars narrative, believed that a circular or round form favors wholeness and is a symbol of the Self and of completion.

I say these shapes also promote egalitarian models of relating to each other, whereas a pyramid has obvious classist connotations, and was in fact the most famous symbol of one of the societies that was most loyal to class divisions in antiquity: ancient Egypt.  The recent stirrings of the Egyptian revolution could have only happened long after the ruins of its past glory had been overtaken by the sands.

Notice, for contrast, the openness and flatness of the sites of modern revolutions: plazas and squares like Tahrir and Zuccotti Park.  Notice also how the idea of Occupying a space, owning it, and giving it a new identity (Zuccotti became Liberty Square) becomes an act of writing history, of weaving new populist narratives, and how these narratives that emerge from horizontal spaces explicitly repudiate classism (the 99% versus the 1%).

The futuristic documentary The 11th Hour, in proposing solutions to the present environmental and spiritual crisis that humanity faces, presents ideas for redefining progress by building our architecture and our machines in the image of how nature makes things efficiently rather than with the mindset of taming or controlling nature, which is admittedly the failed spiritual longing of our predecessors.  By embedding our technology into the cycles of nature, we work with her rather than against her and we secure a sustainable future for our descendants in this so-called anthropocene age of our own creation that we are entering.

There is a deeper intuition behind this emerging mindset, which leads me back to my own spiritual and philosophical master, Epicurus, and to the architectural model that he called for.

His schools were Gardens.

Ponder the semantics, the layers of meaning behind the architecture that he meant to favor, the type of covenant with nature that is implicit in the image of the Garden, which served pragmatically as a source of agricultural goods but was also his house and his school.

Gardens, in many of the worlds’ mythologies, serve as metaphors for the earliest and future paradise, the green world full of life that all the desert religions dream of, but to us this paradise is not other-worldly.  It is the space we are called to occupy.  Epicurus wanted his followers to be Gardeners, nature’s responsible, happy and awakened care-takers; and also scientists, the types of sages whose wisdom is derived from the study of nature.  The space he meant for them to occupy was one of serenity and beauty, of civilized pleasure always in the presence of nature.

The Garden is a metaphor for bringing nature back into the city, for being both natural and civilized, and for Epicurus’ dethronement of reason in favor of nature, not to deny or repress reason but to utilize it under the guidance of nature.  In Epicurean cosmology, man must engage in the study of nature (science) but is not destined to tame nature or called to govern nature by force.

Epicurus was very ahead of his day, and yet he is ancient and eternal.  The Earth will go on, with or without us.  She does not need us in the way that we need her.  In fact, viewed from space human civilization looks like a cancer, like a giant bacteria that is attacking and overcoming her.  We ‘tame’ nature to our own detriment.  In order to be spiritually relevant and useful, our narratives of progress must learn from and imitate nature instead of seeking to overcome and control her.

We can read into the architecture of the Garden how nature is built into the home, into civilization, into the polis, the city, into family and community life, how she is invited to be present there in the midst of it all.  She’s not exiled.  We don’t robe her in pavement or cement: we invite her in and she dwells among us.

Written by Hiram Crespo

Tweet This

From time to time I remember our philologist at high school who always insisted on the alliteration of letter “B”. Whenever a student was unprepared our good professor never stopped saying “You are blind in your ears, blind in your mind and blind in your eyes.”

It took me many years to listen to Thanasis Veggos in a Greek black-and-white movie saying: “My grandmother is a happy person. She neither sees, nor hears …” 

It took me even more years to come across the Delphic precept: “Aitio paronta” (to find the causes of what is happening now).

And more years should pass until I understood why modern Greeks, Graikoi and Romioi feel ashamed rather than sorry for the degradation of their country.

And after all these years of melancholy I met Epicurus, who took me by the hand and walked me in all those difficult paths that bypass the misery of alliteration of letter “B” and lead to “well-being”.

Then I realized what our good professor was trying to say. He briefly wanted to say: “It is good to philosophize about life but it is better to philosophize in life.”

More or less he wanted to say that in order to philosophize in life, to defend your dignity, to live happily every day of the rest of your life, help your neighbor in difficulties you must have your eyes and ears and your mind open and observe carefully what is happening around you and find multiple causes (“Aitio paronta”).

He wanted to say that in order to win your happiness in this unprecedented phenomenon called life you must learn to observe the world outside and inside you with open eyes and mind that knows how to think.

He also wanted to say that the Greek always relied on observation with eyes and mind wide open, which leads to discovery, and not with mind and eyes closed -which brings the intellectual laziness of the Apocalypse.

Epicurus, who was widely read in his era, certainly knew this alliteration of his Greek grandfather Sophocles and even if he did not, he definitely carried it inside him because he was Greek above all and as a Greek he was talking through Diogenes Laertes’s¹ lips: “However, someone cannot become wise regardless of his physical condition or national origins.”

Clement of Alexandria² says the same, making his comment about Epicurus: “Epicurus on the contrary considers that only the Greek can philosophize.”

But Epicurus himself in his speech will say³: “In your old age you are the person that I advised you to become. And you know how to discern what it means for someone to philosophize about oneself and what about Greece. I am pleased with you.”

We mentioned the above to emphasize the consciousness of Epicurus’s ethnic origin for the simple reason that the great humanists and enlighteners who rebirthed Europe and the world were Greeks.

This is not because we are some chosen nation but because the Greeks cultivated the field of logic while other nations cultivated the field of faith and illogical emotions.

In the years of Epicurus, the city–state is falling apart, the religion of the city is unable to provide answers and while the social recognition was measured only with gold, Epicurus himself, carrying the values of his Greek grandfather, measured the social prestige with the radishes of his garden, not because he was frugal but because he wanted -as he used to say- to be free.

So, Epicurus not only did not forget that he was Greek in those times of great subversion of the values of the city-state but he also kept what he could keep from his Greek grandfather’s legacy. Because he knew that what we have is not what they have given to us but what we have managed to preserve.

Perhaps Epicurus was a little lucky. As a starting point he used the Pericles’ Funeral Oration. Modern Greek people are confused between the Pericles’ Funeral Oration and the Psalm of the Byzantine Roman Emperor.

I mean that this irreconcilable contradiction between two value systems, the ancient Greek and the Byzantine Christian, where the first calls you to open your eyes and look up and the other one invites you to close your eyes and your mind and kneel low, makes modern Greek people what the film director Marangos calls “Black Baaa”, the “Black sheep”.

Why cannot somebody look at the Pericles’ Funeral Oration and at the Byzantine theocracy simultaneously? You squint! And when you squint things seem wrong and only knowledge, the result of open eyes, ears and mind can help you see the path of your life in accordance with the values that you keep.

The vulgar argument of Dostoyevsky “If God did not exist everything would be permitted”, means that all the punks would do anything they want, goes back to at least Plato.  Epicurus answers with his own views on justice, not copied from a previous philosopher but written by his own experience from his very own root taken from the function of the Greek city-state, which has been filtered through his open mind, through his open eyes and through his open ears.

I mean that in the city-state, where citizens realized very early that the laws do not come from outside, from some higher authority figure, whether it is called God, or Moody’s Credit Rating Agency, the citizens themselves were interested in making laws and respect them in order not to harm and not to be harmed.

In those times, the Hellenistic period, Epicurus very early realized that there is no hope that life will come here since the laws came from there, from very far away.

However, not to have hope does not mean that you are desperate, and when you realise that you are not hemmed in a framework but in a context of readiness, you feel liberated so you can redirect your energy in creation and not in the system, which of course is at fault, but we keep feeding it.

The creativity of Epicurus that we are talking about is initially expressed with the creation of the Garden. He wants to make a society inside the society of the Hellenistic period. Laws that came from far away concerned the society of people living in and with the present. The participants themselves will make the rules and “laws” within the Garden and the rules would apply forever and not only in the present. It was a sense of justice which surrounded him.

You see, the thoughts of Epicurus were not about the present but about a different context. He drew a huge amount of information from the tradition and the past and transformed this information into judgments and reasoning about the future. And this means that the thoughts of Epicurus were not about the individual but about the kind called “Human” which means that his thoughts were in humanity. In other words, Epicurus resided in the Garden but he lived all around Greece and he embraced it, not to mention the rest of the world. His letters confirm this.

Epicurus was not for only himself.  Epicurus is dealing with humanity. His loneliness was the womb of production of his work.  Otherwise, one works and does not produce anything with a universal character.  In other words, Epicurus in his garden read the dead and wrote for the unborn.

Living all over Greece he kept realizing that “exist” means “coexist”.

The founding of the Garden was an expression of another value which comes from the values of the city–state.  In the Garden he could accomplish the splicing of two concepts, the concept of the foreign and the concept of friendship, to create the highest value of hospitality that characterizes the world of the Greek city-state.

Outside the Garden the stranger may have been a slave or a free citizen, man or woman, housewife or courtesan, rich or poor or whatever.  Inside the Garden he was his friend.

In the Garden Epicurus in reality was treating a being, the human being. His project was not “humanitarian”. A humanitarian project treats a lack, not a being. A “humanitarian project” is political, charitable and about usury. Epicurus’ project was about enlightenment and humanism.  He treated the human existence.

With open eyes and ears and mind (to quote again the alliteration of “B”) he did not just see. He was looking. He was looking not at what acted but at what existed. He was looking at the human.

In the Garden, not everyone could find a setting for the supernatural type of “salvation,” but an environment capable of neutralizing the alliteration of “B”. An environment where everyone would not do what had to be done but what was right to do. And the right thing to do has no relation with principles but with values.

So the humanism of Epicurus is not only expressed through his interest in human existence, nor in the value of co-existence. It is neither expressed through the value of hospitality, nor the value of friendship and the sense of equity, that is to say all that were mentioned above.

The Humanism of Epicurus is expressed by what is deeply ingrained in our Greek national consciousness, which is associated with the context of values and not with the context of principles. Because as you know, these systems of principles are always related with the current moral systems, which are transforming from place to place and from time to time. Therefore the system of principles come and waive.

The system of morality, which was prevailing in Greece during the Hellenistic period, left Epicurus coldly indifferent. That is why he decided to do the deviation from his social duty, which claimed the freeborn to be with the freeborn, the slaves with the slave sand the women in a strictly male-dominated society to be mistresses and wives, but confined to the home. He deviates from a social duty because he knows that the task derives from a social morality that may not apply tomorrow. Epicurus looked way ahead of tomorrow.

That’s why the Garden, which was working with values, was open to everyone: for freeborn, for slaves and for men and women, rich and poor, in stark contrast with the existing system of social ethics. For that reason he was accused of being immoral.

Carrying the heavy load of Hellenism inside him, he is moving within a framework of values, such as those of freedom, friendship, sacrifice, debt, patriotism and historical memory. Because the values in contrast to the principles have to do with utility, time does not touch them.

The principles have to do with the individual. I have a principle not to lie or not to usurp the things of others. I have a principle not to lend and not to borrow, etc.

There is something more. Values are related not only to reaction but to resistance as well. Epicurus resists a mass society and founds the Garden a society of people who think with open eyes, open ears and open mind. That is how Epicurus, the great Teacher and Humanist who was aware of his enlightening mission, envisioned human society.

In other words, Epicurus is a man different from what every person of authority would want but as the nature wishes a human to be, that is to say a person with intelligence and altruism. That is why Epicurus differentiates himself from the people who make up the society of his era, the mass society and by making himself a human he now belongs to society.

That is why he puts aside his social duty, in other words the prevalent social principles.  Because he knows that the societies of people live according to principles. Humanity lives according to values.

With the diversion from his social duty, which is led by a temporary social morality and with the expressed parameter of the Epicurean virtue of self-sufficiency, Epicurus declares himself free and remains stable to his values, one of them being the value of freedom. He wishes to offer this freedom to the people. That is why his students and Lucretius, Torquatus and Velleius and also the sceptic Lucian call him “liberator”. He is a liberator. He sees the people of his era who have become slaves, not only financially but politically, socially, and particularly mentally. Epicurus tries to liberate the enslaved mind of the Humans of his era.

Now we can better understand the Epicurean beliefs about the Divine, another expression of his Humanism and his enlightened speech, as he extricates the humans from the fear of God and the agony of death. By observing the society of his era, Epicurus concludes that if Gods were interested in mankind or if they loved it, they would commit suicide. He expresses the opinion that Gods do not care for what is human, and at the same time by studying human nature, he understands how attractive rituals are for people and he does not hesitate to motivate his friends to take part in them. On the one hand, he dislodges every clergy by deducting any supernatural powers which are attributed to Divine and on the other hand he does not deny human nature and  human adrenaline.

The “Liberator” Epicurus renders an ideal type of behavior through the centuries and he does that with his humanism and his enlightened speech and work.

He is the only one who talks about happiness in this unprecedented phenomenon called life, and any kind of happiness is up to us.

Nobody talks about that, neither the stoic nor the sceptic or the cynic. Nevertheless, if and when they talk about happiness, they place it in a supernatural or utopic field far away from the everyday person.

The Epicurean type does not stick to nostalgia but proceeds to action as he considers that happiness depends on him. That is why Epicureanism is a philosophy of action. It is an action of enlightenment capable of opening the eyes, the ears and the mind of other people. It is an action related to human freedom as the highest value and not as a social morality or duty. 

Notes 

1. Diogenes Laertes X. 117 (226 Us, 1.117), from the book of George Zografidis: “Epicurus Ethics: The Therapy of the Soul”, pg 483, Zitros Publications

2. Clement of Alexandria: The Stromata 1.15.67 (226 Us 143), from the book of George Zografidis: “Epicurus Ethics: The Therapy if the Soul”, pg386, Zitros Publications

3. The Sayings of Epicurus 76, from the book of George Zografidis: “Epicurus Ethics: The Therapy of the Soul”, pg 322, Zitros Publications

4. The Sayings of Epicurus LXXVI.  In 1888 C. WOTKE discovered the collection “The Sayings of Epicurus” in the Vatican among the manuscripts of “Codex Vaticanus Graecus”. This collection contains some of the Principle Doctrines which are noted as K.D.

By Dimitris Dimitriadis, from the Epicurean Garden of Alexandroupolis

Tweet This

The theme of the 6th Panhellenic Meeting of Epicureans was “Epicurean self-sufficiency in Greece of contemporary crisis”.  On this occassion, Christos Yapijakis of the Athens Garden gave the following speech (English translation is his):

I am very happy to be here with you in yet another meeting of Epicurean friends. In contemporary Greece the crisis theme prevails, involving a financial crisis but also a crisis of values, while extreme sentiments of anxiety, despair, anger and depression spread like fire in psychologically weak people. Nevertheless, contrary to widespread belief, the crisis is not contemporary but perpetual. Our life experiences a continuous series of summer, winter and spring seasons. In the sense of uncertainty and risk of losing our calm and happiness, there always used to be a crisis and there always will be one. Of course, it is insane to wait for the Universe to be perfect until we become happy ourselves. In difficult times, the Epicurean sage is armored with the virtue of self-sufficiency, because he/she knows that real goods are easily obtained if one has wisdom and faces one’s fears.

Our wise Master Epicurus wrote in his letter to Menoeceus: “We think that self-sufficiency is a great good, not in order that we might be contained always with few things, but so that if we do not have a lot we can be contained with few, being genuinely convinced that those who least need extravagance enjoy it most; and that everything natural is easy to obtain and whatever is groundless is hard to obtain”.

Of course, complete self-sufficiency does not exist for humans. Like any other living organism, a human has certain physical needs in order to survive. Therefore, self-sufficiency is like happiness. According to Epicurus, absolute self-sufficiency characterizes the immortal and blissful material gods who live in the intermundia (metakosmia) and their lost atoms are continuously substituted by others. Nevertheless, the Master gracefully says that “if one has a little water, a little bread and a few friends one may antagonize Zeus in happiness”. Elsewhere, the Master says that “self-sufficiency is the greatest wealth of all” and “the greatest fruit of self-sufficiency is freedom”. And elsewhere: “when the wise man is brought face to face with the necessities of life, he knows how to give rather than receive; such a treasury of self-sufficiency has he found”.

These words were also transformed into deeds by the great Epicurus. His successor as head of the Garden Hermarchus testifies that “the life of Epicurus compared to the lives of other people could be considered a myth, due to his kindness and self-sufficiency”. In addition, Metrodorus, the other kathegetes of Garden and Epicurus’ most beloved friend, assures us that “a free life may not obtain great wealth, because this is not easy without servility to the crowd or the tyrants, but it gains everything in continuous abundance”.

For the Epicurean sage, self-sufficiency is a virtue produced by prudence and by understanding that “poor is not the one who possesses little but the one who desires more”, since “nothing is enough to someone for whom enough is little”. According to the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus, the virtue of self-sufficiency is the opposite of greed. Like all vices, greed too has cognitive and affective characteristics that derive from empty, false and harmful beliefs. The viewpoint that external goods are more valuable than prudence, tranquility and friendship lead foolish and greedy people to insecurity, distress, misanthropy and misery. Greed, like any other auto-catastrophic and hetero-catastrophic vice, is characterized by irrationality, lack of self-awareness and damaging influence on social structure. While self-sufficiency coexists with prudence, bravery, justice and friendship, greed coexists with foolishness, cowardice, injustice and solitude.

As a conscious choice, true self-sufficiency may characterize only the prudent Epicurean, neither the extremely ascetic Cynic, nor the inhumanly apathetic Stoic. Self-sufficiency is not itself the goal, but only a means for happiness, and “anyone who does not reason out that there is a limit to parsimony is just as badly off as the one who goes wrong by having limitless desires”. In my opinion, one may not possess self-sufficiency if one has not fully understood and embraced Epicurean philosophy, even if one declares oneself friend of Epicurus, even if one attends meetings of “Gardens” just for pastime purposes but has not studied carefully Epicurean texts and continues to have empty beliefs from previous experiences. I think that the only way for someone to assist oneself in Greece of contemporary crisis, and also to assist others to stand on their own feet by illuminating them, is by fully embracing Epicurean philosophy that liberates the mind and leads to conscious self-sufficiency.

The self-sufficiency of the Epicurean sage is psychological, in the sense that it possesses intellectual and emotional characteristics. It is based on prudence and mental balance that are derived from scientific knowledge of Nature’s limits. It is supported by Canon, Physics, and Ethics of Epicurean philosophy. Understanding Epicurean Physics (and modern Science) presupposes the knowledge that all existing bodies are composed by eternal material atoms which perpetually generate transitory material compounds. The atoms of Epicurean Physics obviously correspond to unbreakable particles and not to the so called “atoms”, the compounds named by 19th century scientists that bear a false name as illustrated by the physical and logical paradox of “atom splitting” in the 20th century.

Understanding Epicurean Ethics presupposes the knowledge that static pleasure (lack of pain and anxiety), or happiness as we simply call it, is the prudent person’s purpose of life. Anyone who asks “and when we are happy, what next?” has not comprehended Epicurean philosophy.

Enderstanding the Epicurean Canon presupposes the inference of concrete conclusions after observation with human senses or the senses of scientific instruments. Anyone who strongly believes in unsubstantiated theories religious, political, athletic or any other kind has not perceived the scientific basis of Epicurean philosophy and is not able to really reach prudence and mental balance.

Furthermore, as a product of Epicurean sage’s personal virtue of prudence, self-sufficiency leads him/her to friendship, benevolent relationship with like-minded people and others, as well as to sincerity of intentions, words and actions. Epicurean friendship is not characterized by insecurity, irresponsibility, deceitfulness, lack of trust and pronouncement for set rules of typical conduct among pals.

Self-sufficiency is a mental state opposite of exaggeration. A recent study of American psychologists has shown that people that are happy with their lives tend to save more money than unhappy ones, since they do not feel the urge to indulge in shopping therapy.

Self-sufficiency does not only assist one to endure difficult times but also to enjoy what one has. According to Epicurean Saying 35 “one should not spoil what is present by desiring what is absent, but rather reason out that these things that we have were among those that we wished for in the past”.

The Epicurean sage feels self-sufficient, prudent and mentally stable. Can every one of us that claim to be friends of Epicurean philosophy feel that way? Or does everyone at least have the intention and the disposition to try? Since, according to Diogenes of Oenoanda, “the most important ingredient of happiness is disposition, the masters of which are we”.

Tweet This

The following are educational resources, memes, and quotes. Please feel free to share them on social media and please link back to societyofepicurus.com!

How to Eikas

The official introductory pamphlet of the Society of Friends of Epicurus

D. S. Hutchinson’s Introduction to The Epicurus Reader (Hackett Classics, 1994)

 Philosophy for the Millions, an introductory article on Epicureanism, by Norman W. DeWitt

Have You Heard? – introduce an audience to the philosophy of Epicurus.

Four Cures Pamphlet – courtesy of Roberto Kingsley

Seasonal Memes

Lucretius and Lucian Meme Campaigns

Ateístas de Puerto Rico Spanish-language Memes

Fun Epicurean Willy Wonka Memes

Happy 20th Piglet Memes

Parallel Sayings Buddhist Memes

Dudeist Memes

#KnowYourCircle Memes

External link: 25 Sayings of The Messenger of Pleasure

Eikas Invitation:

Memes:

Submit your own!

 You may also subscribe to our tumblr feed for tons of memes!

Metta Sutta, or Buddha’s Discourse on Loving Kindness, is a mantra used to cultivate the virtue of loving kindness.  Rick Heller wrote a piece for thenewhumanism.org discussing recent neuroplasticity research that suggests that loving kindness meditation changes the brain and causes the release of oxytocin, a feel-good hormone of empathy and emotional connection.

I have chosen to share this mantra as a preamble to future work on developing Epicurean chanting and recitation practices, which were always part of applied philosophy’s therapeutic process.  Epicurus said that through repetition and memorization, the teaching ‘becomes powerful’ in the soul, that we gain conviction and fortitude and are able to live as Gods among mortals.  Many of his Principal Doctrines, because they’re short and easy to memorize, lend themselves to this practice.

There’s absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t incorporate loving-kindness meditation into our own approach to a science of contemplation and well-being.  Here’s the text of Buddha’s Discourse on Loving-Kindness in English:

This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born —
May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.

Tweet This

As the annals of history have it, in the sixth century Emperor Justinian had all the schools of philosophy that competed with Christianity finally closed. This was the last we heard of the Epicurean School, whose tradition had remained culturally vibrant for seven centuries. Epicurus had been among the first to propose the atom—2,300 years ago—the social contract as a foundation for the rule of law, and the possibility of an empirical process of pursuit of happiness: a science of happiness. These progressive schools were oases of tranquility, reason and pleasure known as Gardens, where the ideals of civilized friendship flourished and men, women and even slaves engaged in philosophical discourse as equals.

Epicureans, who celebrated the role that science played in liberating humans from superstition and unnecessary suffering, even had an early theory of natural selection, one that preceded Darwin by almost two millenia.

But if we Humanists are to have our own narrative and voice, we must not accept this as the final chapter in the great and glorious history of the school founded by Epicurus, who was considered by his followers to be no less than the salvation of humankind from barbarism and misery.

His influence would be evident in the person of Pierre Gassendi, who sought to reconcile Epicurus’ materialism and atomism with Christianity, and then from him it would trickle down to Isaac Newton and eventually to other Enlightenment thinkers.

“As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurean!”—Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Short

Thomas Jefferson would eventually refer to Epicurus as his Master, a fact which explains his belief –enshrined in our Declaration of Independence– that the pursuit of happiness was inherent to human nature and human dignity. We must therefore not underestimate the considerable influence that this ancient Humanist Cultural Hero had even in our national narrative, the American Dream.

If such was the influence of Epicurus in history and in the progression of scientific thought while being almost invisible, we can only begin to imagine the influence he would have had, had Justinian allowed the philosophical schools to remain open. For years, I told myself: “Wouldn’t it be great if the Epicurean Gardens had remained open, if they were as mainstream today as the churches that we see in every corner?” … and finally this year I decided to become the change I want to see and to found the Society of Friends of Epicurus in order to reinstate the teaching mission of the Gardens and to ensure the cultural continuity of Epicureanism.

As I embarked on this process, I’ve enjoyed the solidarity of a small army of bloggers (I like to think of them as our modern scribes) and of philosophers aflame with passion for Epicureanism –people like Dr. Dara Fogel, who authored An Epicurean Manifesto, an article which mirrors exactly how I feel about the need for applied philosophy today and even delves a bit into Epicurean therapy.

I was also happily surprised to learn that a blossoming of Epicurean Gardens was already taking place on a global scale. For the last four years there has been a revival in Greece where there are two Gardens with four Epicurean Guides each, and in Australia where there is a Garden in Sydney.

The Four Remedies

Most of the atheists who claim Epicurus are familiar with his trilemma.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

General consensus is that Epicurus was not an atheist and seems to have believed in the Gods, he simply did not think they were relevant to human happiness and he thought that people’s beliefs about the Gods were all too human and vulgar. Some have argued that he may have feared for his life, aware that Socrates was executed for impiety, and that he was a closeted atheist.

We Epicureans generally think that the essence of the teaching has to do with the highest, most progressive humanist ideals and that discussions of Gods are pointless in humanism. The focus on the trilemma does not do Epicurus any justice. The same could be said of the insistence on labeling Epicureanism a hedonistic philosophy without distinguishing between the calculated hedonism of philosophy and the unthinking consumerism of our day, which is the very opposite of Epicurean prudence and frugality. The cultural treasure of Epicureanism can not be encapsulated in the trilemma, or in the pleasures of gourmet food (that other great modern misconception).

If any set of doctrines can be considered the foundation of our philosophy, it would be the Tetrapharmakon: the Four Remedies. For didactic purposes, the teachings were imparted in the form of short, easy to memorize adages. There are, to be fair, many more than four remedies in Epicureanism. However, these are known to be the core of the teaching out of which the rest of the philosophy flows:

Do not fear the gods
Do not fear death
What is pleasant is easy to attain
What is painful is easy to endure

In his Principal Doctrines 11-12, Epicurus argued for the study of science as a way to emancipate ourselves from irrational fears. For naturalists who don’t believe in gods or spirits, the first two negative statements may be translated as “Do not fear chance or blind luck, for it is pointless to battle that which we have no control over. It generates unnecessary suffering”.

Roman Epicurean poet Lucretius, in his De Rerum Natura, dedicates long portions of the philosophical poem to explaining how natural phenomena such as lightning and the movements of heavenly bodies are not the work of the Gods and that fear of the Gods is inconsistent with civilized life. Since he was unable in those days to produce a fully scientific theory to explain all these phenomena, he provided several possible theories for many of them without officially endorsing one, and humbly acknowledged that future thinkers would prove the main points of his naturalist and scientific cosmology, which they eventually did. And so we can say that his basic attitude was a sound one, and also that he respected our intelligence enough to not exhibit arrogance and certainty where he did not have conclusive theories. He allowed time to prove him right … and sincere.

That the prohibition against fearing the Gods, and against fear-based religion in general, is the first and main taboo in Epicurean philosophy, remains refreshing to this day.

The second remedy is elaborated in a series of teachings and aphorisms which serve as a form of cognitive therapy to deal with the trauma of death. Among them, the most memorable is the purely hedonistic one. It is summed up thusly:

“Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not”

There is also the symmetry argument, which compares the time after our death to the time before our birth of which we have no memory. Since there is nothing there, why fear it? It is as unintelligent to be needlessly tormented about the afterlife as it is to be tormented about the state prior to birth. I frequently argue that it wasn’t just the teachings, but the manner in which they were imparted –within the context of a loving community of philosopher friends– that served as a consolation and that it is impossible to replicate the peace and conviction that Epicurus gave humanity without this sense of community.

The latter two positive statements in the Tetrapharmakon lead to Epicurean teachings on how we should evaluate our desires and discern which ones are unnecessary versus which ones are necessary, which ones carry pain when satisfied or ignored versus which ones don’t. By this analytic process, one learns to be content with the simple pleasures in life, those easiest to attain and which carry little to no pain. It is here that the real fruits of Epicurean insight begin to be reaped. The best things in life are free.

“The wealth required by nature is limited and easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity; Do not spoil that which you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.”—Epicurus

One of the first psychological tasks of every Epicurean is to become mindful of his/her desires and whatever pain or anxiety they may be generating. Another task is to learn to relish and appreciate the simple things when they’re in front of us. The good friends, the good foods and the refreshing beverages, the family, the good music, our proximity to nature, even our view of the sky which (as Carl Sagan advised us) should always humble us.

The good news, according to Epicurus, is that happiness is easily attained if we cultivate philosophy. He cites the need for thankfulness and for robust friendships as fundamental ingredients for the good life, and not only categorizes desires but also discerns between kinetic (active) pleasures that happen when we satisfy a desire, and katastemic (inert) pleasures that happen when we have no desires to satisfy, which he labeled as superior.

Harvard psychologist and happiness researcher Dan Gilbert confirms Epicurus’ insights, including how meaningful relations significantly increase the amount of pleasure and of memorable experiences that we gather throughout our lifetime. He uses different verbiage: natural happiness is that attained when we satisfy a desire (kinetic pleasure, in Epicurean parlance) whereas synthetic happiness is that which we enjoy regardless of attaining desires (katastemic pleasure).

Because synthetic happiness requires no externals, it is therefore superior, it is a sign of a liberated being. He argues the case for synthetic happiness by citing the example of the lottery winner and the paraplegic who exhibit similar levels of happiness one year after winning the lottery and losing the lower limbs, respectively. These cases had been studied by happiness researchers Brickman et al.

This, in positive psychology, is being called the hedonic treadmill or hedonic adaptation: the habitual happy state that we always return to. Methods are being researched to increase the heights that are normal for each individual.

Gilbert’s theories, as far as I’m concerned, are Epicureanism by another name. One of the elements of Epicurean teaching that philosophers have struggled with the most throughout history is the idea of katastemic pleasure. It is often argued that lack of pain is not a definition of pleasure, but this is the art of happiness that Epicurus taught: that we must learn to be happy regardless of external factors and that it’s possible and desirable to cultivate katastemic pleasures via the philosophical disciplines. In fact, Epicurus argues that the very purpose of philosophy is to ensure an end to suffering and to create a beautiful, happy, pleasant life.

Gilbert’s research upholds katastemic pleasure as a necessary ingredient in human happiness and is beginning to reinvigorate the discourse on the philosophy of happiness that Epicurus had begun, and which was interrupted by Justinian 1,500 years ago. He also adds new concepts to our science of happiness and even proposes that we have a psychological immune system that fights unhappy moods.

Gilbert’s findings, along with research dealing with wellbeing in fields such as neuroscience and diet, point modern Epicureans in the direction of an interdisciplinary, practical reinvention of philosophy, which is just what we need if philosophy is to become once again the revolutionary, emancipatory cultural engine that it once was.

As to the Fourth Remedy, Epicurus reminded us of the temporal nature of bodily pain. We may get a fever, or a stomach ache, but within days our immune system fights it. In the case of more chronic pains, one gets used to them after some time. In nature, no condition lasts forever. The impermanence of all conditions is a consolation when we consider whatever pain they generate. A dismissive attitude towards pain takes discipline but it can be cultivated if we are mindful, disciplined, and develop a resolve to protect our minds.

Then there are mental pains and anxiety. These are systematically worked through via cognitive therapy. The resolution to follow Epicurus is a resolution to protect one’s mind. It’s impossible to be happy if we can’t control our anger and other strong emotions: we will go from one perturbed state to the next and never taste the stability of ataraxia, which translates as imperturbability and is the ultimate maturity that a philosopher can reach.

We live in a dysfunctional consumerist society filled with anxiety and neuroses, where few people analyse their life, most have a short attention span and are usually uninterested in disciplining their minds and curbing mindless desires. If philosophy is understood as the Epicureans understand it, then it becomes evident that people desperately need philosophy today.

We must take philosophy back from academia and bring it into our daily lives. We must again transform the dry, abstract field that has become Love of Wisdom back into a pragmatic cultural pursuit so fundamental to our species, that without it we would not be human. For what is the homo sapiens without the sapiens? We’re just another brute hominid without philosophy.

Many more things could be said about the consolations of Epicurean philosophy. I leave my readers with an invitation to study Epicurus and engage themselves and others in philosophical discourse. I promise that your life will be enriched.

Tending the Epicurean Garden
Foundational Text for the Work of Society of Epicurus

Tweet This

 

 

ISFE is accepting submissions for content written by Epicurean philosophers as part of their commitment to the Gardens’ teaching mission.  We are always looking for testimonials on the tangible benefits of philosophy, and are generally more interested in the modern practice and therapeutic process of philosophy than its history.

For both the webpage and the newsletter, we are currently interested in:

• food blogs having to do with mood-boosting foods or superfoods
• articles that help to clarify aspects of the philosophy of Epicurus: autarchy, material from the canon, Epicurean ethics or physics, etc.
• science of happiness: neurology, diet, exercise, yoga, zen, happiness research, or other disciplines that resonate with a scientific, empirical process of cultivating wellbeing
• pieces on gardening tips or techniques
• original artwork or book reviews related to Epicureanism
• reports on your Epicurean community-building efforts

You may pitch / submit the above, or other relevant content, to editor@societyofepicurus.com.  Please include your name and a short bio, and include your submission in the body of your email or in the form of a link to a previously published page or blog.

By submitting content, you assume responsibility for the ownership of copyright.  There are no length restrictions and no restrictions regarding content previously published elsewhere, as long as credit is given to the original publisher.  ISFE does not generate revenue and can not pay for content submitted.

Tweet This