Category Archives: epicurus

Report from the 2022 Epicurean Philosophy Symposium in Athens

My Epicurean friends

I hope you are well, despite the Ukrainian crisis and related humanitarian misery that Putin’s sociopathy has caused. As we Epicureans know well, it is Putin’s great fear of death that has created all that lust for power, money and cynical display of force against his adversaries. I hope we are not witnessing what our forefathers witnessed 83 years ago when Hitler’s sociopathy was in action.

Anyway, I am sending you the report on the 12th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy, as promised. You may use it as you wish.

With Epicurean friendship
Christos

Report

12th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy
19-20 February 2022
Co-organization: Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden of Athens” and “Garden of Thessaloniki” – Municipality of Pallini

Internet Broadcast on YouTube and Facebook

Information: www.epicuros.gr

The philosophical psychotherapy of Epicurus in our time

In today’s Greece of the pandemic of the coronavirus and the ongoing psychological pressure, the 12th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy was held online. The Panhellenic Symposium on Epicurean Philosophy is the largest annual philosophical conference held in Greece and at the same time the only conference on Epicurean Philosophy held annually in the world.

The Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy has been organized for twelve consecutive years. During the decade 2011-2020, it was attended every year by 300-500 delegates at the Cultural Center of Gerakas, in ancient deme of Gargittos (Gargettus), the place of origin of the philosopher Epicurus’ family. Last year and this year, due to the pandemic, the Panhellenic Symposium was watched online by more than 1000 people via broadcast on Facebook and Youtube.

The Mayor of Pallini Athanasios Zoutsos launched the beginning of the Symposium, which was greeted by friends of Epicurean philosophy from Greece, Cyprus, Italy, USA and Australia. On the first day, professors of the National Kapodistrian University of Athens George Chrousos and Christos Yapijakis (School of Medicine) and Vangelis Protopapadakis (Department of Philosophy) discussed topics related to the Epicurean philosophical medicines for mental health and stress management. Furthermore, some of the most interesting presentations regarding the Epicurean approach to modern era issues included the original study of an ancient papyrus of the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus by the philologist Dr. Eleni Avdoulou, the description of the senses by Epicurus which has a great correspondence with that of modern neurobiology by the phycisist Giannis Alexakis, the similarities of the Aristotelian and the Epicurean approach on friendship by the philologist Dr. Elsa Nikolaidou, the Epicurean way of thinking as a means to tackle problems in the modern rapidly changing world by the informaticist Takis Panagiotopoulos, as well as the proposed Epicurean simple sufficiency coupled with a reduction of the economy by the economist Nikos Graikousis.

On the second day, there was an emphasis on wide spreading of Epicurean philosophy in Roman era, which has much in common with modern multicultural Western societies. Some of the some of the most interesting presented topics included the Epicurean poet Lucretius by the Academician and Professor of Latin Philology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Theodore Papanghelis, the philosopher Philodemus by the pharmacist Litsa Pitsikalis, the Epicurean writer Lucian from the Thyrathen publicer Giannis Avramidis, as well as Cicero’s works as source of Epicurean philosophy by the civil engineer Leonidas Alexandridis.

Furthermore, the Epicurean methodology of Canon as a tool for solving everyday problems was presented by the legal-private employee Dimitris Liarmakopoulos and the Epicurean approach in recognizing fake news on the internet was discussed by the economist and founding member of ellinikahoaxes.gr George Giotis and the lawyer Antonis Bilisis.

In addition, this year for the first time in the Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy there was an International Section in English with renown friends of Epicurus from Europe (Greece and Italy), USA and Australia. Christos Yapijakis, professor of Genetics at the School of Medicine of the National Kapodistrian University of Athens and founding member of the “Garden of Athens” (Greece) referred to the “Scientific Humanism of Epicurus” as the best way of thinking and acting for humanity in our difficult current times and then led the discussion with the International and Greek delegates. Hiram Crespo, author-blogger and founder of the Society of Friends of Epicurus (Chicago, USA) with the assistance of his collaborators/friends presented “Society of Friends of Epicurus: a Philosophical Community”. Geoff Petersson, lawyer-blogger and founder of the “Garden of Sydney” (Australia) presented “Comments on the Four-Part Cure from Downunder”. Cassius Amicus, lawyer- author-blogger and founder of Newepicurean.com (Atlanta, USA) discussed “An Epicurean Response to Plato’s Attack on Pleasure”. Last but not least, Michele Pinto, journalist-blogger, president of World of Epicurus/Mondo di Epicuro (Senigallia, Italy) in his presentation “Epicurus, philosophy and optimism” suggested that it is advisable to follow Epicurus’ advice and make each day better than the previous one. In the discussion that followed experiences in individual countries were shared as well as the best Epicurean publications in different languages.

The artistic program of the Panhellenic Symposium featured the dramatic reading of the poem “Triumph” by Kostis Palamas by the actor Gerasimos Gennatas. The poem refers to the cultural triumph achieved by the Roman Epicurean Lucretius with his majestic and timeless poem “On the nature of things” and the huge difference it had with the triumphs of his contemporary plundering generals of Rome.

For the twelfth consecutive year, the opportunity was openly given to the public to experience the scientific humanism of Epicurus’ philosophy, which offers a timeless mental shield against the universal psychological, social and cultural gridlocks, facilitating the pursue of a happy life in the simplest and most natural way, with wisdom, friendship and solidarity, even in difficult times.

You can watch the videotaped Symposium at: www.epicuros.gr

Dr. Christos Yapijakis, DMD, MS, PhD

Some Thoughts on the High Holidays

Happy Twentieth and Happy Day of the Hegemon! This month, I published a book review of Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy in Indian Traditional Thought, and an essay On the Harm and Benefit of the Gods based on our sources, and also citing the essay Epicure, dieu et image de dieu: une autarcie extatique. My essay An Epicurean Perspective of Holiness was featured on the Spiritual Naturalist Society.

I facilitated last month’s Eikas meeting (the facilitator is chosen by rotation) where I focused on Epicurus’ book On moral development, and the many commentaries that Philodemus gave us on this subject. These insights are best studied through Tsouna’s book The Ethics of Philodemus, which teaches us many things about economics, visualization techniques, maximalism, and about the Epicurean theories about and methods of studying the virtues.

One of the insights I derived from a focused study of Epicurus’ theories on moral development is that the Epicurean Guides used SWEETNESS as an incentive for moral develop in the absence of supernatural claims about punishing gods, karma, reincarnation, or other such claims. Since there are no supernatural punishments, we use the natural faculty of pleasure, and we use sweetness, to encourage ourselves and our friends to engage in correct behavior and to become morally better.

This is by pure coincidence, I’m sure, but I recently noticed that the high holidays of both the Jews and the Epicureans fall on the tenth day of the seventh month in their respective calendars. In Laertius’ Book Ten, Fragment 18, we read:

And from the revenues made over by me to Amynomachus and Timocrates let them to the best of their power in consultation with Hermarchus make separate provision for … the customary celebration of my birthday on the tenth day of Gamelion in each year.

This is from Epicurus’ Final Will, and Gamelion is the seventh month in the Attic calendar. The tenth day of the seventh month (in a different calendar) also marks Yom Kippur, which is the Day of Atonement for Jews. In Leviticus 16:29-31 it says:

This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work—whether native-born or a foreigner residing among you— because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins. It is a day of sabbath rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance.

Although the two High Holidays are of very different natures, they also share similarities other than their place in the calendar. Yom Kippur (“the Sabbath of Sabbaths”) is much more than a day of atonement, although rituals of atonement are prominent. Kippur means atonement, but also cleansing. It’s also a yearly renewal of a Jew’s commitment to his covenant, to his relation with his god, and to his identity. The entire community came together and people reconciled–the tribe or community became whole, healthy and happy again.

In modern times for Epicurus’ birthday, Epicureans in Athens hold their now-traditional annual symposium. Though not quite as intense as Yom Kippur (which was the only time the High Priest ever entered the Holy of Holies and uttered his god’s name, and these things were done quite dramatically), the symposium in Athens is, to date, the biggest gathering of kindred minds in the modern world. The symposia, like the Day of the Hegemon, are gatherings of the Epicurean communities that are marked in the calendar in memory of Epicurus and as a solemn observance of his birthday.

This year, the Greek symposium in Athens will be hosting an international portion where people from all other parts of the world (including the members of SoFE) will give short video presentations in English. The dream is to eventually have English-language international conferences beyond Greece in places like Australia and the U.S.

We thank our Friend Beryl, who submitted a poem for Hegemon Day titled “Celebrate A Life”:

Can you accept friendship
At the gate of life
As the soil and green shoot grow together?

As the rains of life pour down
Can you smile
Knowing it’s just the weather?

When in learning, head bowed down,
Can you accept direction
Without a frown?

Like the bowing heads of trees
Accept correction
From the breeze.

Are you able to hold you gently
Compassion at the things you say
Treating others the same way?

In politics as in life
Can you cut through deception
To reality like a sharpened knife

In our work as in the bedroom,
Can you rejoice and be free
As the song bird alighting on a tree?

And when winter calls you home
Can you recall your friends delight
Closing eyes to enter night?

Come celebrate with me
And as the apple falls from the tree
Reside in pleasure and be free.

Book Review: Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy in Indian Traditional Thought

India’s problem turns out to be the world’s problem. The problem’s name is God. – Salman Rushdie

Over the years, I have taken an interest in sister traditions to Epicureanism that have emerged elsewhere: the sumac kawsay philosophy of South America’s indigenous populations, the pleasure-ethics of the Taoist sage Yang Chu, and the Lokayata (aka Charvaka) School of India.

There isn’t much left on the Charvaka tradition–the most concise ancient introduction I found are fifteen statements that comprise the Lokayata chapter of the Sarva-Siddhanta-Sangraha. All that is left of their ancient writings are commentaries by enemies. The book Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy in Indian Traditional Thought by Bhupender Heera caught my attention because it promised to fill the information gap, so I have enjoyed reading it, and this is my review of it.

Of their character, although they were greatly maligned by the orthodox, I found this quote which reminded me of (biographer) Laertius’ defense of the character of Epicurus from the attacks of his enemies:

Under the heading “Nastika” Abul Fazl has referred to the good work, judicious administration and welfare schemes that were emphasised by the Charvaka law-makers.

While searching for evidence of a Charvaka movement in India–and trying to discern the extent to which it’s a living, evolving, modern tradition–I came across this Charvaka Manifesto, where we see the beginnings of a (much needed) neo-Charvaka revival in India which is inspired, in great part, in the New Atheism personalities like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. Salman Rushdie is, of course, also among the influences in modern Charvaka, as are the modern political and social realities of India, and (since India is so close to the Islamic world) there is some solidarity with the ex-Muslim movement.

The fervor towards a reform or evolution of the Charvaka Philosophy is inspired, in part, by accusations of being anti-social that go back to over 2,600 years ago, and which parallel the treatment Epicurean philosophy has also often received. Orthodox Hindus consider that there are four aims of life: pleasure (kama), wealth (artha), duty (dharma), and liberation (moksha). Charvakas originally only accepted the first two, and rejected dharma or virtue (which involved upholding the caste system) and moksha (liberation, salvation or redemption is typically interpreted in religious terms). Some modern Charvakas argue that if dharma is only understood as treating others fairly and kindly, then they can accept that; and that they understand death as liberation, or moksha.

The enjoyment of heaven lies in eating delicious food, keeping company of young women, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands, sandal paste … while moksha is death which is cessation of life-breath … the wise therefore ought not to take pains on account of moksha. A fool wears himself out by penances and fasts. Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings. — Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verses 9-12

The view that there is a soul separate from the body, which on reaching the other world enjoys rewards, is like the hope to get tasty fruits from the big flower of a tree in the sky. – Prabodhacandrodaya, Act II, Sloka 16

The Sub-Schools

There are two camps within Charvaka: The Dhurta Charvakas deny that the soul exists, while the Susikshita Carvakas say that the soul exists as long as the body lasts. This group is subdivided into the Dehatmavada (soul = body), Indriyatmavada (the soul is the senses), Mano-atmavada (the soul is the mind), and Pranatmavada (the soul is the vital breath). Aviddhakarṇa, Bhavivikta, Kambalasvatara, Purandara and Udbhatabhatta are the five commentators who developed the Charvaka system in various ways.

It would be interesting to evaluate (perhaps in the future with other content) the merits of each sub-school’s potential arguments. That so many different views coexisted among the Charvakas should be a testament to the robust, free-thinking intellectual life that they once had, and reminds us of the many schools that also existed under the umbrella of the Cyrenaics.

Some Terms

The author notes that “there is a huge aversion to the body in Indian thought“. Instead, Charvaka is a world-affirming (pravitti) philosophy, whereas from the Charvaka perspective, ascetic religious philosophies are nivrtti (world-denying). To Charvaka disciples, heaven is pleasure, hell is pain.

The author rejects the nastika (heterodox) classification for Charvaka within Indian philosophical systems, and instead prefers to classify Charvaka as “non-Vedic”. In order to be a heterodox/non-Vedic philosophy, it always and necessarily self-identifies in contrast to whatever is “orthodox” or Vedic. Therefore, I think both labels fail to appreciate the mortal blow on religiosity and the pre-scientific impulse that is Charvaka’s insistence on a canon of sense perception–even if this canon has not yet been perfected, in my view. Charvaka philosophy recognizes pleasure and the senses as guides, but rejects common-sensical methods of inference, and this is one of its main weaknesses–or a main target for potential reform by the Neo-Charvakas. For instance, in page 67 the author makes the argument that materialists can’t assert universal truths, but this is true only for materialists who adhere to the old Charvaka epistemology that rejects methods of inference. Modern scientific materialism is not of this kind, and neither is Epicurean materialism.

On the Need for inference: Consciousness and Matter

Charvaka teaches that “consciousness is born from elements just as seeds of kinva (fermenters) produce intoxicant“. This is a fascinating insight: 2,600 years ago, a group of materialist Indian philosophers compared awareness or consciousness to other biochemical processes (in this case, fermentation). They viewed consciousness as an organic, natural phenomenon, and used a metaphor that would have been at home in De Rerum Natura.

The author of “Uniqueness of Charvaka Philosophy” argues (correctly, in my view) that therefore the Charvakas DO infer by analogy in the case of the above-quoted proverb. He also argues (correctly) that the Charvaka MUST infer, and since inference is not part of their method, this renders their method inconsistent or impossible to practice. This is known as the problem of apraxia. Impracticality.

Conclusion

The author of Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy mixes praise with criticism in the book. He constantly acknowledges the “low position” or status of materialism, even as he acknowledges that it was initially the “only” system of philosophy worthy of its name. He apologizes for defending it, and uses terms like “gross” materialism or hedonism. At times, he seems to have acquired many of the biased attitudes he criticizes elsewhere: in page 33, he laments that “we are all Charvaka” today. In page 72, the author argues that the “body can’t cause consciousness”, and seems to endorse supernaturalism. In page 38, he accuses Charvakas of being extremists and entertaining “uncontrolled thoughts breaking loose from all restrictions”. Therefore, the reader of the book should know that the author is not entirely without bias.

Also, the reader should bear in mind that the author’s first language is not English. However, overall, considering the scarcity of material available in English, Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy is still a useful resource to get acquainted with the basics of the Charvaka system of philosophy.

Happy Twentieth! Philosophy as Self-care

Happy Twentieth to everyone and Happy 2022! The essay Victor Frankl and the Search for Meaning is a review of the best-selling book on logo-therapy and the therapeutic benefits of making meaning, written from an Epicurean perspective. Please enjoy our past Eikas essays, which have all been compiled here.

The essay Utility and Affection in Epicurean Friendship is in academia.edu.

“Practice these and similar things day and night, by yourself and with a like-minded Friend, and you will never be disturbed whether waking or sleeping, and you will live as a god among men: for a man who lives in the midst of immortal goods is unlike a mere mortal man.” – Epicurus, to Menoeceus

You may remember that the Letter to Menoeceus has a “meleta portion” with instructions on how to practice philosophy “by ourselves and with others of like mind“. Here, Epicurus uses the term “μελέτα πρὸς σεαυτὸν ” (meléta prós seautón) to speak of the practice of philosophy by oneself (se-auton).

We have touched on this, but not delved too much in depth into what it consists of, except to observe that it must involve a balance of both self-nurturing and self-discipline. Without self-nurturing, one risks engaging in ascetic self-abuse in the name of philosophy. Without self-discipline, one risks being too soft and fearful, and remaining unprepared for the occasional harshness of life.

According to the essay Ascetic self-cultivation, Foucault and the hermeneutics of the self, by Michael A. Peters:

“the word epimeleia is related to melete, which means both exercise and meditation”

Epicurus’ meléta prós seautón reminds us of epimeleia heautou–the Greek term for self care. In fact, the terms share semantic roots, and half of the meleta we are supposed to do (meleta by ourselves) could be characterized as self-care, or epimeleia heautou. If we search for epimeleia heautou or for self-care online, however, we will be taken in many unwanted directions. Many products are being sold in the name of self-care, and philosophers like Michelle Foucault and Pierre Hadot have influenced how people understand the term today. This can be useful, but within the Society of Epicurus we’re specifically interested in the Epicurean sense of self-care.

Let us unpack the twin notions of meléta prós seautón and epimeleia heautou into bits and pieces, so that it’s easier to appreciate why self-care is important.

It is impossible to take care of oneself if we do not have time for leisure, time to think and practice philosophy, time for introspection. So this practice of self-care must therefore be a feature of a certain civilized, self-cultivated quality of life that affords time for leisure.
A lifestyle of “self-care”–to whatever extent it is implemented–seems distant from the lifestyle that the polis / state requires of citizens, which involves preparing for warfare or for civil administration. It’s a private lifestyle that makes us look within and centers on intimate concerns. It therefore dignifies the individual.
Self-care requires that we assume, first, a degree of causal responsibility for our own happiness, dispositions, habits, and our choices and avoidances. It must therefore be a feature of moral maturity.
Again, in order to avoid the excesses of self-indulgence or self-abuse, it seems fair to say that self-care must include a balance of self-nurturing and self-discipline–which may at times require a willingness to rationally renegotiate and shift our emotional investment into greater degrees of self-love or self-reproach, as needed. This reminds us of Nietzsche’s declaration:

He who cannot command himself shall obey. And many a one can command himself, but still sorely lacketh self-obedience! – Nietzsche’s Zarathustra

Self-rule (autarchy) requires self-obedience: we do not truly rule ourselves if we do not obey ourselves also. Therefore, some of our ongoing projects of self-care must relate to autarchy (self-governance, or the art, science, and virtue of self-sufficiency).

In the second field of praxis (meleta “with others of like mind”), we rely on the efforts, wisdom, and example of others, who may also plant seeds in us and become the causes of our happiness, a benefit which we reciprocate. This field includes friendly conversation, the celebration of Eikas, the evaluation of case studies through the framework of philosophy, etc. But in the first field of praxis (meleta by ourselves), we rely on our own effort and we become the cause of our own happiness.
Self-care includes all the practices related to moral development (re-habituation, or turning away from vices and towards virtues), study (including the study of the self), memorization, repetition, carrying out our choices and avoidances with the help of the Doctrines, and any other practices of self-cultivation, contemplation, “placing before the eyes” (Epicurean visualization), or meditation that we find to be advantageous for our happiness.

There are many more techniques (like journaling) that could be incorporated into self-care, as well as circumstances (like the pandemic) that pose particular challenges. In the end, it’s up to each individual philosopher to adopt into her hedonic regimen whatever methods work for them. I hope that these initial deliberations help our readers to carefully consider and plan their own process of meléta prós seautón.

Happy Eikas: the Method of Multiple Explanations

Happy Twentieth to all! This month, news came out that a skeleton recovered at Herculaneum “reveals secrets of ancient Roman town obliterated by volcanic eruption“. This month, I also found the video 4 Ways To Practice Epicureanism.

The Cārvaka Darshana is a discussion by the Charvaka YouTube channel. The host identifies as Neo-Charvaka and claims that this lineage is as legitimately a part of Hinduism as any other philosophical school, and that if they go to the Indian government with the desire to get organized as a philosophical School, the state should acknowledge their existence as a sect. The Charvakas are a somewhat parallel tradition to Epicureanism which evolved in the context of India. Only fragments of their ancient scriptures survive, and only thanks to the reports of their enemies. Modern Charvaka discourse is greatly influenced by the new atheism, but distinct from it, as it is not an activist philosophy, but rather one of pleasure (kama).

The SNS essay On Immersive Storytelling contributes to the push to decouple myths, art, and ceremony from superstitious trappings and to channel them into ethically useful purposes. It cites Eikas, and also Lucretian passages as examples of how this can be done. Curiously, it seems like our second Scholarch Hermarchus may have initiated the tradition of telling the story of Epicurus as if it was a “legend”:

Epicurus’ life when compared to other men’s in respect of gentleness and self-sufficiency might be thought a mere legend. – Vatican Saying 36, attributed to Hermarchus

That storytelling was part of the education that took place in the Garden is demonstrated by the many anecdotes that Philodemus of Gadara told 200 years later about the lives of the founders. He must have spend many hours listening to these stories.

Multiple Explanations and Hedonic Calculus

For a number of things, it’s not enough to state one cause, but many, of which one would be true. – Lucretius, De rervm natvra, Liber Sextvs, 703-4

Our last Eikas zoom was facilitated by Alan and was titled “On the method of multiple explanations” (an ancestor to modern multi-valued logic). This method was used by Epicurus in his Epistle to Pythocles, where he explained astronomical phenomena.

The idea here is that, in a universe complex enough to have infinite particles and infinite space, it is possible that there are multiple explanations to phenomena and that, so long as these explanations do not contradict each other or the evidence of nature, they can all be true. For instance, weather systems are caused by pressure patterns in the atmosphere, but they’re also part of annual seasonal cycles, and are affected by patterns of rain condensation and by global temperatures. All these things are true and observable simultaneously. Here is how Diogenes of Oenoanda explains the method of multiple explanations in his Epicurean Wall Inscription:

Let us now discuss risings and settings and related matters after making this preliminary point: if one is investigating things that are not directly perceptible, and if one sees that several explanations are possible, it is reckless to make a dogmatic pronouncement concerning any single one; such a procedure is characteristic of a seer rather than a wise man. It is correct, however, to say that, while all explanations are possible, this one is more plausible (πιθανώτερον) than that. – Diogenes’ Wall

During our discussion of the method of multiple explanations, we agreed that this method was mainly a way of gathering and considering plausible hypotheses, without necessarily settling on only one of them as the only explanation. It would be interesting to consider the intersection between the preoccupations that led to the development of the method of multiple explanations and the post-modern rejection of any one single meta-narrative as inherently authoritarian.

One additional note on the method of multiple explanations: it allows for the existence of many fields of knowledge, each with their own rules, methods, interpretations, and ways of understanding nature.

I consider myself privileged in having wise Epicurean friends who contribute to help me gain depth in Epicurus’ teachings. One of those friends is Jason, who during our second dialogue on the Epicurean gods said this:

The Epicurean method of multiple explanations lands squarely on pleasure as the end and aim. It pleases me more to think that humanity is not alone in the universe. It pleases me more to say that the supernaturalists are hurting themselves in their confusion and the only creature worthy of adoration is that which is actually possible, material beings who have shucked off their vices and live like sages. A race of people whose choices and avoidances have led them to perpetual bliss.

This is because Pleasure is the Guide of Life in all our choices and avoidances, including our choice of what to do, what to say, and even what to think. Jason’s reading of the method of multiple explanations as requiring our choice, for which we must use the faculty of pleasure (and dwell on the most pleasant views), aligns with what we’ve discussed before in our meleta on PD 28 and has great potential benefits in the context of a belief system that is advantageous for our happiness. For me, Jason’s words also constituted the very definition of what Zen Buddhists call “satori”: instant enlightenment concerning a key philosophical concept. This is one of the great benefits of practicing “meleta with others of like mind” with our friends for a long time.

Basically, Jason was saying that if many explanations are equally plausible according to our method and based on how far empirical data can take us, then we must be content to make a choice concerning what theory is most plausible to us, which of the theories pleases us the most and adds the most to the removal of our fears and other hindrances to happiness, and this choice of a hypothesis is not without a component of FEELING. If there are several “worlds” we can imagine ourselves living in that are equally plausible, then let us choose the most pleasant one. Let us unhypocritically make the choice to assent to the truths that add the most to our happiness.

This, of course, does not mean that we suspend the importance of empirically based reasoning, as per our canon. Our views must also be based on the study of nature. But we have a limited time and attention span, and not all knowledge adds the same value to us, so we must choose. In a private message, I later told Jason what this brought up for me:

Our choice to follow scientific truth / study of nature, and our choice to follow pleasure, are not mutually contradictory … they’re mutually inclusive in true philosophy according to our Scholarchs. So your way of thinking about multiple plausible explanations, and our eventual choice of the most pleasant, deserves a deeper look.

They say ignorance is bliss. We disagree.

So the key take-away here is that there is blissful knowledge, or at least knowledge that is both correct and worth-choosing, and that the method of multiple explanations can be an efficient means to greater pleasure.

To say that multiple explanations for a phenomenon are all plausible, is perhaps also to say that, within the range of what is naturally possible, some explanations produce greater pleasure than others, or are more important for our happiness than others. So then, pleasure being the Guide of Life, we tend to take refuge in the most pleasant of the plausible explanations as a matter of choice. This is because the goal of our choices and rejections is the pleasures.

If we diverge from either pleasure or scientific truth, we are not practicing what our Scholarchs considered true philosophy. In this way, philosophy to us can be both true and advantageous for our happiness. The point at which the choices of truth and pleasure converge is where we must sculpt our hedonic regimen, our lifestyle, and our beliefs.

Happy Eikas! On Language, Creativity, and Power

Happy Twentieth to Epicureans everywhere. We are grateful to our friend Alan, who devoted many hours of work to the script and video for Parable of the Hunter, which places before the eyes Epicurus’ Principal Doctrine 5. Please watch, like, comment and share the video. We also published Vegetarianism as a Life Choice for Epicureans, based on our discussions in the Garden of Epicurus group.

We also became aware of the We Are All Epicureans Now episode of “Young Heretics”. He’s not Epicurean, and fails to grasp the idea of pleasure as a faculty, but he does invite people to a deeper study of Epicurean ideas.

This Lucretius lecture by David Goodhew, titled ‘Life, love, death and atomic physics’ was quite enjoyable. It focuses on a few particularly brilliant passages by Lucretius, to show his genius and the many layers of art in his poetry.

I’d like to thank my Patreons Anthony Adams, Steve & Carmel, Roberto Kingsley, Tom Samuels, Ron Warrick, and my dear friend Jason, whose support has been a great morale booster and who has been a steady presence in SoFE for many years. If you’d like to support the work I do, please consider a one-time donation or a Patreon subscription.

On Language, Clarity, and Power

In recent weeks, I had the pleasure of reading The Book of Sh_zd_r, a work by a SoFE member (Nathan) who also authored the Dude’s Letter to Menoeceus, which was published back in May of 2020. He’s also an admin in the Epicurean memes for hedonistic beings Facebook group.

“The beauty of our poetries flows from sincerity” – Book of Sh_zd_r

The book is an artist’s manifesto on the use of language for creative self-expression, and a critical evaluation of the many ways in which language and power are intertwined. This, plus the Hermetic-like undercurrent that runs throughout the work (Hermetic as in the tradition of Hermes, the Divine Scribe), was my favorite part of the Book of Sh_zd_r.

The first half of the book is (appropriately) written in a beautiful conlang (constructed language)–an artlang (artistic language) from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series, and the second half is in English, but still uses multi-colored fonts and other artistic devices. The Book of Sh_zd_r is a work of art, first and foremost.

The latter part of the book includes some musings on grammar, and historical notes that accentuate the connection between power and language. The use of language as art, and the deconstruction of some of the trappings of language and power, makes the work disruptive and subversive. It reminded me of ideas I encountered while reading Black Orpheus and learning about the Négritude movement:

Sartre argues in Black Orpheus that liberating literature for Africans must be poetic, and that prose can’t be used because the French language evolved elsewhere, is too analytical, and can’t express the Black reality and psyche well. There are also the problems of inherent bias: we see examples of how whiteness is associated with innocence and virtue, while Blackness is associated with brokenness or with crime, with being soiled (so that Sartre says that “As soon as (the Black man) opens his mouth, he accuses himself“). Language is power, and Négritude calls for the wielding of power by these “Black Evangelists” to make the French language theirs and make it express the Black reality–so that Sartre says that “to build his truth, (the Black philosopher-artist) must first destroy others’ truth”.

Relabeling: a Technique of Empowerment

One of the therapeutic practices in Epicurean tradition is that of relabeling (renaming, or re-categorizing). In modern psychotherapy, this is sometimes known as cognitive restructuring, and is used together with other techniques to help people diminish their catastrophic or harmful thinking patterns.

Relabeling is an empowering practice whose power dynamics becomes most obvious when seen in action and placed before the eyes. For instance, Lucretius uses this technique to take back power when passionate love has power over him (or perhaps over some other patient of passionate love). We must imagine that, in the initial stage, the patient would have felt crushed and overpowered by his infatuation with the object of his desire or passion, but through re-labeling said object in many unflattering ways and re-imagining it as ugly, old, dirty, smelly, or with other undesirable attributes, the passion subsides and the patient slowly regains power over his mind, emotions, and states.

That (re-)naming is an act of power is an ancient idea that mystified many ancient peoples. Ancient Egyptians believed that hieroglyphs had magical power because they are “words that stay”, and they divinized the concept of magical words in the deity of magic, Heka (who represents words of power). Later, authors of the Bible attribute the power of naming all the animals and all of nature to Adam, the mythical first member of the human species, so as to say that this linguistic faculty of naming is one of our “superpowers”. But we do not need to be mystified by the power of language, simply to understand it and to employ it for our ethical purposes.

“Leaving the Chorus”: the Doctrine of Hesuchia

Principal Doctrine 14 gives us another layer of commentary on the relationship between language and what Foucault would have called pervasive, or dispersed, power:

Although some measure of safety from other people is based in the power to fight them off and in abundant wealth, the purest security comes from solitude and breaking away from the herd.

Here, Peter St. Andre translates hesuchías (ἡσυχίας) as “solitude” (I may have translated it as “retreat”, since this is the same word used in orthodox Christianity for the tradition of the desert fathers), and he translates exchoréseos (ἐκχωρήσεως) as “breaking away from the herd”. But let us look at the prolepsis of this last word: it implies exiting or leaving (ex-) the chorus.

What is a chorus? A chorus is a group of people who (in theater, or in some event) are all saying the same thing in unison. The implication is that all the members of the chorus think alike, so that “chorus” comes to imply convention and peer pressure, as well as the erasure of the individual and his private ideas. “Exiting the chorus”, in this context, means leaving the power dynamics of societal peer pressure, and not blindly repeating what others are saying–or taking it as truth–until we have chosen and applied the criteria for truth to those propositions. It means thinking for ourselves, rather than being circus seals trained to clap mindlessly as part of the show.

Doxa 14 is the first of three Doctrines that focus on autarchy (15 focuses on economic autarchy, and 16 on existential autarchy). It sets the stage for these other two Doxai by inviting us to separate ourselves from the crowd, and it cites safety as one reason for this. Now, we all have to give up some level of personal sovereignty in most of our relations and in the execution of our responsibilities, but by expressing their invitation to avoid giving up our autarchy in terms of exchoréseos in a Doctrine that introduces autarchy, the founders are inviting us to a more dignified life of self-sufficiency and self-rule by specifically evading the power dynamics that are expressed verbally and collectively, which are represented as “a chorus” (a group of drones that all think and say the same thing).

The “diffused power” in the chorus is expressed via language, and in concrete words. The chorus represents here the degrading loss of our safety and personal sovereignty, and so leaving it is a pre-requirement for our enjoyment of a dignified level of autarchy and for our ability to free our practice of philosophy from the demands of the polis and of mindless collectives. There is a different type of safety in being part of “the herd” (as we see in nature), but this safety is accused as false and degrading by this Doctrine.

Philosophy requires withdrawal from “the crowd” so that we may be able to think for ourselves rather than blindly repeat what people in our social circles are saying (and blindly believing the underlying and expressed premises of whatever they are saying). By virtue of PD 14 being an authorized Doxa, the founders were saying that this act of autarchy, of personal sovereignty, of “exiting the chorus”, is necessary for the practice of philosophy.

But if we are robbed of our power by the collective voice of “the chorus”, this also seems to imply that we retain, regain, and express our power by the willful and skillful use of our individual voices. So I believe this Doctrine means (among other things) to restore our voice (which is to say, our authority) as individuals who enjoy autarchy / personal sovereignty.

Meleta on Definitions

At the Society of Epicurus, we’ve been delving into in-depth meleta (study and deliberation) of the forty Principal Doctrines of Epicurus for months, and deriving great pleasure from the new insights we have gained.

I noticed that when one reads the 40 Principal Doctrines systematically, the very first thing one finds in the very first words of the very first Doctrine is distrust of words. The editors of the Doctrines chose the definition of “gods” (immortal and blissful animals) for the sake of clarity, rather than the word “gods” to convey their meaning.

This is because we sometimes do not trust words as much as their clear definitions.

This issue of mistrusting words is one of the first problems addressed in Epicurus’ Epistle to Herodotus (beginning from Fragment 35 of Book X of Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers), where he instructs his disciples to always clearly define words prior to any philosophical investigation in order to avoid being carried into error by the use of empty words.

The founders sometimes found words that were simply inadequate, and felt the need to reform their expression for the sake of clarity in their study of nature. They had a practice of re-defining words according to the evidence of nature, so that their expression would always be aligned with nature. We know, for instance, that the Epicurean Guide Polyaenus wrote a treatise “On Definitions” which is not extant, and one of the 37 books On Nature by Epicurus is titled “Against the use of empty words“. Here, it is revealed that Metrodorus and Epicurus had been discussing the best rules by which it is possible and advantageous to re-define words, with Epicurus insisting that using common words as they are commonly used is the best policy, although they had gone back and forth over the years on this, and Epicurus in this book admits that his thinking has evolved on the matter. The ancient Guides’ preoccupation with the adequacy of language, and insistence on clarity, was not unique. Two millenia later Wittgenstein (who championed and insisted on clear speech) said:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

The second and third phases in the evolution of language, according to Epicurean anthropology, is where philosophers, inventors, cultural creatives and others coin new words and lead the ongoing process of rationally perfecting the shared language. Wittgenstein says that each language, dialect or jargon is a “game” into which are embedded rules and notions that act as a social contract for the users of the language. We could say much more about this, but we risk going on a tangent, and this deserves a separate discussion.

And here is the intersection between the worries of the Kathegemones (Epicurean Guides) and these considerations concerning the entanglement of language and power: was clarity the only criterion in language reform? Can we identify clear patterns in whatever confusing tendencies were they fighting in their native Greek language? Were they fighting Platonic, or political, webs of power that had gotten entangled in common (koine) Greek language?

To what extent might it be advantageous and practical for modern speakers of English, Spanish, and other languages who practice Epicurean philosophy together to go through a similar process of purging or perfecting our own languages, for the sake of clarity–the only rhetorical requirement we have–and in order to embed and will our own social contract into our jargon?

From the third stage in our doctrine on the evolution of language, we know that the founders believed that philosophers have to be actively engaged in the natural and inevitable process of language evolution, otherwise the vehicle of expression will always be mediocre and the utility of language will be limited. The fact that they established this Doctrine, we imagine, served to justify their linguistic projects, which meant to purge their language game of unwanted traits and steer it in an ethically correct and choice-worthy direction. I imagine they did this, concretely, through a slow and organic editorial process that involved all communication and content, since they were always known to be careful in their expression.

But, did the founders create a basic naming language, a type of conlang (as some modern Epicureans have speculated) made up of a small number of concepts that were unavailable in the culture? Or did the Guides simply coin a few expressions and words? Since language is inherently communitarian and collective, I wonder to what extent they saw these projects as a natural extension of their self-concept as a sect, as an ethically and culturally autonomous philosophical tribe with its own mores.

Did clarity become the only requirement in our rhetorics after failed experiments to communicate efficiently, or was it so from the onset? How did this preoccupation with clear speech evolve? We know that Epicureans were known for their suavity, or sweet speech, as well as their clarity and conciseness, and that this served their ethical purposes. Are there any additional criteria for perfecting our communication?

From reading Epicurus’ insistence (in “Against the use of empty words“) that people should use common words as they are commonly used, we may infer that he believed that some of the other Kathegemones may have previously gone too far in their language-reform experiments. However, it is difficult for us today to gauge exactly the extent to which Epicureans reformed koine Greek.

In our circle, we have for many years discussed the need for taking back words that have been monopolized by Christianity and other Platonized religions and ways of thinking (words like gods, soul, salvation, virtue), and we’ve discussed the inadequacy of some words, and whether we should use Greek terms that are obscure, or words from our own language. When I wrote Tending the Epicurean Garden, my editor insisted that I coin an English translation for katastematic (I ended up coining the term “abiding pleasure” for the book), and to avoid obscure Greek terms in general. Curiously, Epicurus himself might have agreed, since he established clarity as his only rhetorical criterion.

In recent years, there have been efforts from some feminists, and some in the LGBT community and allies, to reform English to make it more gender-neutral and to move away from patriarchal language conventions. Many Churches and synagogues are moving towards gender-neutral language for God. English is a great language for this, since–unlike Semitic and Romance languages–it does not use gendered nouns. These efforts are, to some extent, praise-worthy (and also natural, because language naturally evolves) … but they also reach what some of us may consider ludicrous excesses, and make it seem prudent to be pragmatic and generally conservative in our efforts to perfect our native languages.

Further Reading:
Wittgenstein: A Wonderful Life (1989)
PHILOSOPHY – Ludwig Wittgenstein
The Book of Sh_zd_ar

Happy Eikas: Prometheus Unbound

Unbinding Prometheus

“It is unworthy of the truthfulness of a philosopher to use fables in his teaching.” – Colotes, a first-generation disciple of Epicurus

I am writing this in refutation of Colotes and in the tradition of Lucretius, who would strongly disagree with Colotes. In the past, I’ve written about the myth of Venus as an ethical guide. This Twentieth, it was my turn to facilitate the Eikas zoom discussion, and I chose to discuss the myth of Prometheus, re-interpreted from an Epicurean perspective. Here are some highlights:

The Fire-Giver

Fire is associated with civilization, creativity, and enlightenment, as opposed to uncivilized wilderness. In fact, fire scares wild beasts. It also helps us to cook, gives us warmth during the winter, and serves as a ritual technology.

Epimetheus and Prometheus

Prometheus’ name means Forethought or Foresight, whereas his brother’s name (Epimetheus) means Afterthought, or Hindsight. It seems like Prometheus is meant to represent progressive, future-looking Prudence, while Epimetheus represents the regressive mentality that looks to the past.

All creatures sense their powers and how to use them. – Lucretius, in Liber Qvintvs

Epimetheus gave animals their faculties, but forgot to include humans, therefore Prometheus endowed humans with civilizing gifts. In this story, we are reminded of Lucretius’ arguments (against creationism) that faculties arise blindly (in hindsight, or as non-guided legacy from the past through evolution by natural selection), and are only later utilized and refined by culture.

A Promethean View of History

Prometheus (as the instinct for progress) helped the Olympians against his own people, the Titans. He hated tyranny and helped to castrate and depose Uranus. He also participated in the rebellion against Chronus, and held inside him knowledge of who would eventually replace Zeus (the Orphics believed Bacchus would eventually sit on the right side of the throne of Zeus as co-ruler, but we know that Christians eventually appropriated this theme).

When given the opportunity to release the name of who would replace Zeus in exchange for his liberty, Prometheus refuses. It seems like his knowledge that the current regime would be replaced was enough to give him mental resilience through his trials.

The Bull Sacrifice Scene

Prometheus tricks Zeus out of the better part of his sacrifice, but this is also the foundation myth for how all sacrifices were made in ancient Hellenistic religion, and established a new ritual order. The Olympian cult was Promethean in origin.

“Yet who but I assigned clear rights and privileges to these new deities?” – Prometheus

What does this mean? It indicates a strong tension, from the outset, in Hellenistic culture between humanist tendencies and fear of the gods (or of the political and social powers that wielded these gods).

This reminds me of the Lucretian image (in Liber Primvs) where religion is trampled underfoot by mortals thanks to philosophy. The moral of the story is that religion should serve the people who utilize it, their communities, and their shared projects. It must serve humans, never the other way around. In the case of the bull sacrifice, the meat went to the people, and the bones and fat went to Zeus.

The Betrayal and Passion of Prometheus

Hephaistos (The God of Technology) had been closely related to both Prometheus and Athena, and in fact they were all three worshiped together (they are all tied to progress, civilization and science). However, in Prometheus Bound, Hephaistos betrays his friend and–even while expressing sadness for his friend–he’s the one who built the chains and bound Prometheus, against his own will, out of obedience (and/or fear?) of Zeus.

Throughout Prometheus Bound we see Zeus impiously referred to as a tyrant. The ethical problem of blind obedience to tyranny (the problem of the “good German” during the Nazi era), and the remorseless cruelty it produces, is seen in the Prometheus myth.

Hephaistos’ role also raises questions about the ethical utility of science and technology. In Principal Doctrines 10-13, Epicurus establishes an ethical purpose for science, however Prometheus Bound raises questions about what can happen when Technology serves the interests of power rather than ethical values.

A Herculanean Task

Hercules is the only one who is able to save and liberate Prometheus. This may indicate that liberating our Promethean instincts and potentials is a Herculanean task. It may also be indicative of the legacy of future generations, since Hercules is a son of Zeus: frequently the following generation inherits the sins or mistakes of the previous generations, and must atone for them.

Additional Notes

When Zeus tried to destroy the entire human race–as happens in the Bible–it is Prometheus who saves humankind from total annihilation.

“Power” is personified in Prometheus Bound as a character (or a choir) that is ever-present and/or on the sidelines, or in the background. This is a theatrical device to help us imagine that the structures of power are ever-present, and that this is part of the psychological background for the Prometheus myth. Perhaps these structures of power are embodied in royal servants, or in the mobs or groups of people who enforce conformity.

There are many other ethical and philosophical points that can be made about Prometheus (he has particular moral flaws and undergoes psychotheraphy while bound; he must tame his eagerness and zeal; and provides insights into Principal Doctrine 4 and on mental endurance while suffering in the flesh). The myth is an interesting exploration of many issues concerning power, the importance of choosing our battles wisely, the different types of ethical challenges that come with looking to the past versus looking to the future, and other philosophically interesting questions.

Please leave your comments below, or join us at the Garden of Epicurus FB group for further discussion. Also, please consider supporting me on Patreon if you like the content that we’re creating at SoFE. It’s good for my morale, and it keeps the Promethean fire of Epicurean philosophy burning!

Philosophy as Medicine for the Soul, Part III – English Transcript

Philosophy as Medicine for the Soul, Part II – English Transcript

Happy Twentieth: On “Love Your Neighbor”

Happy Twentieth to all the disciples of Epicurus! Psyche Magazine published an essay titled Sprinkle a little ancient philosophy into your daily routines, and the Ad Navseam podcast published an episode titled The Whole Enchilada: Epicureanism and Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Unfortunately, midway through the episode the authors cast doubt on whether Epicureans can be good citizens–never mind the historian Diogenes Laertius’ testimony about the character of Epicurus. To balance this, I would invite the student to read John Thrasher’s essay on Epicurean contractarianism.

This month, the latest episode of the Newstalk podcast “Talking History” is titled “Epicurus: a Life”. Several scholars were interviewed.

Love Your Neighbor

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. ’The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

– Jesus the Nazarene, in The Gospel according to Mark 12:28-31

Having been raised in a Christian household has made me aware of both the utility and the futility of Christian ethos–whether we delve into the details, or stick to the basics. Christianity provides a formative ethical framework for almost all of my family members and a large portion of the society I live in. Even after people leave Christianity behind, or stop taking most of its claims seriously, many still consider themselves Christian Humanists and frequently still unquestioningly accept the wisdom of “Love your neighbor“. Not wanting to embrace it or dismiss it without careful consideration, I decided to take a second look at the second of the two Christian commandments through the lens of my Epicurean ethical framework to see if “Love your neighbor” still works.

I believe that Epicurus would argue that a commandment to love God is a bit strange: if one is commanded to love someone, is it love or is it fear? Can sentient beings be ORDERED to feel an emotion? Furthermore, the Principal Doctrines on justice recognize the personal sovereignty of the individual, and so we do not have “commandments”, only doctrines and adages.

So the first Christian commandment is irrelevant to us, but I believe the second commandment is not only sound, but also that Epicurus and most of the Epicurean Guides might argue that it’s generally advantageous to love our neighbors–maybe not as much as we love ourselves, but we can still argue that it’s advantageous to let our brain brew its oxytocin and endorphin rush for them. I believe that they would argue this from the perspective of the safety and the advantages it brings, rather than merely virtue-signal around the teaching, as a sign of respect for the intelligence of their pupils. In fact, Lucretius, in De Rerum Natura 5:1015-27 includes compassion for the weak among the foundational cultural traits of human societies listed in Liber Qvintvs:

Then, too, did neighbours ‘gin to league as friends,
Eager to wrong no more or suffer wrong,
And urged for children and the womankind
Mercy, of fathers, whilst with cries and gestures
They stammered hints how meet it was that all
Should have compassion on the weak.

But first, let us clarify what the second Christian commandment says and what it doesn’t say. “Love your neighbor”, on its face, does not mean that we should love everyone everywhere and always. No one has the attention span or time to love everyone. It’s naturally impossible to love everyone. Love, if it’s true, if the word has any real meaning, is a time-consuming pleasure. Two individuals must have wholesome exchanges and get to know each other with some level of depth, which takes some time. They must take time to communicate, and to demonstrate care with concrete tokens of friendship.

Notice that the word chosen in English to translate the Gospel teaching is “neighbor”–which in its prolepsis implies physical proximity. In Spanish, the word chosen is “prójimo”, which is related to words like proximity and also implies nearness. Our friend Nathan adds:

Within the ancient Hebrew context of Leviticus, ‘neighbor’ does not refer to ‘humanity’, it only refers to ‘other members of our tribe’. The full quotation from Leviticus is important for context: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” (19:18 NRSV)

PD’s 27 and 39-40 argue for the benefits of loving our neighbors and keeping them near. The Doctrines seem to argue that it’s advantageous to love those who are in our proximity, for the sake of our safety and happiness. Although PD 39 is often used to justify the exclusion from our circles of people who bring trouble or conflict, it starts by spelling out the following ideal scenario:

The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can. – Principal Doctrine 39

Other issues we must discuss are the feasibility argument and the argument for a complete ethical education. We don’t know to what extent it’s possible to TRULY love all of our neighbors. It’s impractical for a community to set up a rule in its social contract that is impossible to follow, however, it’s not irrational to expect an agreement of harmlessness (rather than love) from relative strangers. While the Christian commandment is noble, it potentially imposes and breeds hypocrisy, whereas the Epicurean conception of justice founded on an agreement to neither harm nor be harmed is much more realistic and practical.

That is the feasibility argument. The argument for a complete ethical education, on the other hand, says: while a commandment by a god to love him makes that god sound narcissistic, and while his commanding us to love others sounds authoritarian, Epicurus’ approach of expounding arguments for the advantages and benefits of befriending and loving our neighbors constitutes a more complete ethical education, and appeals to both our self-interest and our prudence. Most importantly, it does not produce false reasons to love our neighbors, and respects the intelligence and autarchy of the practitioner of philosophy.

Some enemies of Epicurean philosophy have argued that Epicureans would not make good citizens, or have concern for others outside of their immediate circle, however:

Epicurus took care of orphans: he adopted and provided for the daughter of his best friend Metrodorus when she was orphaned. She must have been very young when Metro died, as he died eight years prior to Epicurus’ death and, as of the writing of his final will, Epicurus had not yet made arrangements for her to get married. Therefore, Epicurus had assumed responsibility for her and helped to raise her into adulthood
Epicurus taught his friends how to live properly and pleasantly: he had a concrete and useful curriculum that provided an ethical and philosophical education for both young and old in his community which specifically contributed to their happiness and to living correctly
The practice of friendship (philía) was a central aspect of the teaching mission. Each friend furnishes a concrete instance of loving our neighbor
Epicurus fed the people every month in a feast: his Kepos functioned like what we would think of today as a communal non-profit organization. The welcome sign at the gate in the garden said “_STRANGER_, here you do well to tarry”. Since strangers were welcome in the garden, this means that Epicurus fed strangers, which sounds like near-universal charity

Epicurus, I would argue, was an exemplary citizen by any measure who sought to make into one tribe all the creatures that he was able to befriend. When asking about this subject in our FB group, one of the group members Shahab had this to say:

I think showing affection toward a neighbor makes you feel more safe beside them. Nothing is guaranteed, as men wish more harm upon each other. In any case, your neighbor may be a religious, a superstitious family, or they may be from people working for the government (as in authoritarian regimes). In these cases you wouldn’t feel safe if you don’t show them friendly feelings, or once upon a time, inviting them for a party where they can find, at least, Epicurean friendly attitude, reassuring for a healthy happy life. Malevolent neighbors can sabotage your reputation, making you feel unsafe in the neighborhood. So, as long as it benefits an Epicurean, showing a well-calculated love and friendliness toward one’s neighbor is, to me, a wise thing to do.

Not everyone considers “Love your neighbor” as being useful. Jason says:

PD 39 sums it up for me. Enroll everyone possible into the social contract. Benevolence meets benevolence. If they cannot or will not keep the contract, avoid them and their disturbance. If they cannot be avoided, expel them. The English word love is too much of a catch-all term for all of the varieties of positive feeling I experience to apply it universally to all sentients.

The biochemistry of my brain responds differently to different people and circumstances. Putting all those feelings under one word makes for vague speech, something Christianity, out of all the Abrahamic faiths, excels in. It is precisely that vagueness that makes it incompatible with Epicurean philosophy.

Nathan also says:

“He who best knew how to meet fear of external foes made into one family all the creatures he could; and those he could not, he at any rate did not treat as aliens; and where he found even this impossible, he avoided all association, and, so far as was useful, kept them at a distance” (Principal Doctrine 39).

I invite everyone to heed scientific research, get vaccinated, and wear a mask. To those who are unable to get vaccinated, I understand and encourage safe practices. To those who take unnecessary risks, I’ll avoid like the plague.

To answer your original question: no, Epicurus would not have endorsed (Love thy neighbor), because that proposition is justified by devotional worship of a Creator and does not consider any negative consequences of unconditional love.

From PD 39, and from the above discussion, we conclude that he wisdom of setting boundaries must be balanced with making into one tribe everyone we can … and it’s up to each one of us to determine the extent of each.

Therefore, I believe Epicurus loved his neighbors just as well or better than any good Christian, because he demonstrated life-long love for those who were near him (and taught them by example how to love each other) not with naive, religious idealisms but with concrete tokens of benefits, and for the right reasons.