Category Archives: Ethics

Five contemplations on the gods: A path to community and friendship (part 5)

Continued from:

FIRST CONTEMPLATION: THE GODS

SECOND CONTEMPLATION: UTOPIA

THIRD CONTEMPLATION: THE SAGE

FOURTH CONTEMPLATION: THE FRIEND

FIFTH CONTEMPLATION: THE DEPARTED

Quote: Fragment from On the Gods by Philodemus[1]

Even if the gods’ community as a species is aloof from the supplying of things of practical help in order to motivate their companionship, their friendship communicates their feelings. For it is not possible for them to maintain their community as a species without any social intercourse. And indeed even amongst us, weak as we are, and needing from our friendship in addition things of practical help, no longer does our friendship to our friends we have lost provide practical help; and nonetheless our admiring reverence for characters which are peers of our own itself binds us together in affection, even in the highest degree. However, the gods also accept from each other what supplies their own needs, even though they are able to provide these things for themselves, just as we human beings sometimes do from those who have the same things as ourselves.

Commentary: divine friendship

In this passage, Philodemus is describing the lifestyle of the gods and how they interact with each other. Just like humans, they live in communities and have friends. What makes them different from us is that they do not share in our weakness, and do not need friendship to offer a sense of security by taking care of each other if they are sick, help them in case of financial difficulties, etc. And yet, the gods still choose to have friends. In fact they will even go as far accepting “from each other what supplies their own needs”, which seems to mean that they provide each other with gifts of some sort, perhaps a kind of nutrition that maintains their immortality, much like the ambrosia from the gods of myth, even though they can obtain it by themselves. The friendly gesture of gift exchange seems to serve a more psychological purpose, contributing to their blissfulness.

In order to make this clear, we can think of Epicurean friendship as having three levels (according to David Armstrong): (1) Friendships based on virtue, trust and mutual utility. (2) Friendships based on our strong natural desire for affection and open self-expression. This is only achievable after accomplishing the first kind of friendship. (3) God-like friendship, satisfying a desire for affection and open self-expression, apart from all consideration of utility.

This third type of friendship is mainly accessible to the gods, but only accessible to humans after the death of a friend once the mourning for our loss of them is over and we come to enjoy their memory. This is because once a loved one is dead, they no longer contribute to our basic needs beyond the psychological wellbeing acquired from the good memories. This helps us answer a question about why it is that Epicureans worship gods that do not intervene in human affairs, bestow favors, etc. The same could be said about our dead friends: why honor them when they are no longer there to serve our needs. This is because they fulfill a psychological need, even though they are no longer with us and in fact they don’t exist as their souls have been annihilated with their bodies.

However, they still exist in our memories, and this is why Epicurus referred to friendship as an immortal good, because even in death, they continue to impact us and they contributed in making us who we are. Remembering our friends is not a passive activity. This is why Epicurus set up rituals and festivities to commemorate his dead friends, Metrodorus and Polyaenus, as well as his parents and brothers.

Practice: friendship beyond death

First lesson: grieve for the loss of your friends. For Epicureans, friends can include family members as well, as is demonstrated by his devotion to his parents and brothers. He advises us not to suppress our emotions when faced with the loss of loved ones. The ancient writer Plutarch writes the following about the Epicureans: “They disagree with those who would do away with grief and tears and lamentation at the death of friends, and say that an absence of grief that renders us totally insensible stems from another great evil: hardness or a passion for notoriety so excessive as to be insane.”[2]

Second lesson: cultivate the good memories of your dead friends. After the grieving period which will vary from person to person, keep the flame of your friendship alive. They are a part of your life and nothing can take that away. This does not mean that you have to think about them all the time but every now and then, take a moment to bring up the pleasant times spent with that person in your mind and be thankful for the happiness they brought and continue to bring.

Third lesson: develop rituals to honor your friends. You might have kept photos, presents, letters from your lost friends. These are now sacred objects. It might be a good idea to develop some symbolic gestures and rituals to honor your friend. Perhaps there is a favorite song you shared. Perhaps you can listen to that music on your friend’s birthday. Or maybe you can just close your eyes and bring back a specific memory to your mind’s eye. There are countless ways to commemorate your loved ones.

Forth lesson: remember that the divine nature of friendship transcends life and death. This is how you become eternal. This is not just the final lesson of this Fifth Contemplation but of all five contemplations combined.

This is how you become a god. Atheists and other nonbelievers in supernatural religions are often asked this question: if there is no supernatural god ordering the universe and giving us purpose, if all that exists are atoms, molecules, forces, “stuff”, then all is without meaning. With no higher purpose, everything is empty, we are all alone. Many atheists bite the bullet and fall into nihilism. An Epicurean rejects this mode of reasoning entirely. We are not alone and without purpose. Life has meaning. Once we have a friend who acknowledges our existence and our value and we recognize them in return, and are committed to continue doing so for the long term, we become godlike. As Epicurus said to his friend and disciple Colotes, “go about as one immortal in my eyes, and think of me as immortal too.”

CONCLUSION

And now we see the connection between the two ideas mentioned in the beginning of our introduction: philosophizing with a like-minded friend and living as a god among men. It is through friendship that we realize the highest ideal of the philosophical life.

Through the five contemplations, we have progressively descended from the domain of the gods outside our world, to a hypothetical utopian society, to the Epicurean communities of sages from the past, to the gesture of reverence between to philosopher friends, to culminate with the memories of lost friends conjured up in our minds.

An atheist could argue that we could very much have come up with much of the same philosophy without any reference to gods that probably do not exist in the first place.[3] This may be the case. But in response to that, we could say that by invoking the divine as a concept, we are invoking something that has the highest value to us, beyond just atoms and void.

When describing Epicurean philosophy, people often refer to it as a materialist philosophy that rejects the supernatural and divine providence, or a hedonistic philosophy defending a life of pleasure, albeit a modest reasonable pleasure defined as an absence of suffering of the body and tranquility of the mind. But these descriptions are incomplete and give us a very limited scope of what the philosophy is really about. By putting the gods front and center in their function as role models and comparing the immortality of the gods to that of the relationship between friends, it might be most accurate for us to conclude that Epicureanism is first and foremost a religion of friendship.

Notes:

[1] Quote from article Utility and Affection in Epicurean Friendship by David Armstrong.
[2] From Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible. Quote from http://www.attalus.org/translate/epicurus.html
[3] Many modern Epicureans consider themselves atheists and think that modern Epicureanism no longer has any use for any conception of the divine. This article was intended to give an alternative to this perspective by rethinking what we understand as being divine. For more on this debate, read The Third Way to Think about the Epicurean Gods.

Five contemplations on the gods: A path to community and friendship (part 4)

Continued from:

FIRST CONTEMPLATION: THE GODS

SECOND CONTEMPLATION: UTOPIA

THIRD CONTEMPLATION: THE SAGE

FOURTH CONTEMPLATION: THE FRIEND

Quote: Fragment of a letter by Epicurus to Colotes [1]

You, as one revering my remarks on that occasion, were seized with a desire, not accounted for by my lecture, to embrace me by clasping my knees and lay hold of me to the whole extent of the contact that is customarily established in revering and supplicating certain personages. You therefore caused me to consecrate you in return and demonstrate my reverence… Go about as one immortal in my eyes, and think of me as immortal too.

Commentary: friendship, the key that unlocks godhood

We now reach the core of Epicurean godhood, the ultimate manifestation of what it truly means to be divine. In this scene depicted in one of Epicurus’ letters meant to be read by his community, he portrays one of his closest disciples, Colotes, showing reverence for him and he in turn returns the favor. This gesture goes beyond a simple sign of appreciation; it has religious value. This scene would become immensely popular with later Epicureans when recounting the hagiographies of their tradition. Enemies of Epicureans would mock the over the top gestures of affection that existed within these communities.

At first, what we see is an overzealous disciple overcome with a fanatical need to worship his guru. After all, Epicurus could be seen as something of a spiritual master akin to Jesus or the Buddha. However, this gesture seems to have caught Epicurus off guard at first, as it refers to Colotes’ “desire, not accounted for by my lecture”. But then, Epicurus mirrors the action directed to him by his disciple by returning that gesture back at him. He turned what could have been an awkward moment into a philosophical lesson, but also into a symbolic scene that would be remembered by future practitioners of his philosophy.

Epicurus has often been criticized putting himself too much at the center of his philosophy. He has often been viewed as greedy for attention and fame. After all, why would he institute in his will an annual day to celebrate him (and Metrodorus) after his death, as well as a monthly celebration of himself and his best friend every twentieth of the month during his lifetime in his honor, the famous Eikas gatherings? All of this is only partly true. It would be more accurate to see Epicurus as a sort of “first among equals”. Epicurus did not found his philosophy alone, but with the aid of Metrodorus, Poyenus, Hermarchus and others. His annual celebration from his will is supposed to be in conjunction with funerary rites honoring his parents and brothers, showing his devotion to his family. And the monthly Eikas celebrations honor both him and his closest friend Metrodorus as a pair. Other friends such as Polyaenus and Pythocles were also honored after their deaths. By associating the honoring of his friends with religious rituals normally meant to celebrate gods and important individuals that are elevated to a status of godhood, he is placing friendship at the center of his philosophy of happiness.

This association of friendship with godhood is made obvious by the final part of the quoted fragment: “Go about as one immortal in my eyes, and think of me as immortal too”. How does this work? After all, unlike gods, our loved ones are notoriously mortal and losing them is a source of suffering. In what way can our friendships make us immortal? This will be the subject of the Fifth Contemplation.

Practice: building friendships

First lesson: take measures to make friends. In his Treatise On Choices and Avoidances, Philodemus says: “Since he does not cut short the long extent of his life, he always begins new activities and friendly attachments”. He adds: “He will treat with much care as many people as he can, and be thankful to those who have treated him kindly, in particular because he hopes that he will share in some goods with them or that he will receive some benefits by these same people in the future…”[2]. Here it seems we are beyond the restricted circle of close friends, engaging with society at large. This is what Epicureans might mean by practicing philanthropy. There is something here resembling enlightened self interest. We benefit others and we benefit in return. There is something transactional about this kind of relationship. But this is just a first step. What starts as something based on utility can become something more intimate. “Every friendship is an excellence in itself, even though it begins in mutual advantage.”[3] Being socially active will lead to developing more affectionate ties over time.

Second lesson: show your gratitude and generosity to the friends you have. Gratitude is one of the core values of Epicurean philosophy, especially with one’s friends. An Epicurean will be generous with his friends, willing to sacrifice his own comfort in order to make his friend’s feel good. Even when financially struggling, he will prefer to increase his own frugality than lack generosity for his friends. He will care for them when they are sick, give aid when they are struggling financially, protect them when they are in danger and under extreme circumstances, even sacrifice his life. He will also give them counsel and advice, with honesty, even if that means telling hard truths. Epicurus says: “When the sage contends with necessity, he is skilled at giving rather than taking — such a treasury of self-reliance has he found.”[4]

Third lesson: contemplate the divine nature of your friendships. While it is necessary and even useful to interact with society at large, it is among our closer friends that we find refuge, where we feel secure, where we come the closest to experiencing the imperishability of the gods. It is somewhat ironic that it is the possibility of being vulnerable with our friends that contributes to making us invulnerable. Epicurus, while addressing Metrodorus said: “I write this not for the many, but for you; each of us is enough of an audience for the other.”[5] Our friends bring us a feeling of confidence: “The same judgment produces confidence that dreadful things are not everlasting, and that security amidst the limited number of dreadful things is most easily achieved through friendship.”[6] Friends play a role similar to what a god would for many religious people. Just as they turn to a divine being in times of crisis, an Epicurean will turn to a friend.

Forth lesson: develop rituals with your friends. One way in which we can show our appreciation for a friend and celebrate a friendship is to come up with traditions you share exclusively with the person(s). As you get to know someone and spend time with them, you may find yourself repeating a very specific and semi-regular activity with that person. Perhaps you go to the same music festival every year, or go camping once a month, or some other special occasion. Perhaps you enjoy a certain drink socially, like yerba maté. Birthdays and anniversaries would be excuses for such rituals. Epicurus placed these celebrations of friendship as the center of his philosophical practice, as is made clear with the importance of Eikas, the monthly gathering every 20th of the month in honor of his relationship with Metrodorus, his closest friend.[7] This friendship, modeled on the gods, has strong symbolic value that has been celebrated for generations of Epicureans, and is a template of what a divine friendship should look like.

Notes:

[1] From Plutarch’s Against Colotes. Quote from http://www.attalus.org/translate/epicurus.html
[2] Philodemus, On Choices and Avoidances, published by Bibliopolis. See Hiram Crespo’s article https://societyofepicurus.com/reasonings-about-philodemus-on-choices-and-avoidances-part-i/
[3] Vatican Saying 23. Quote from https://monadnock.net/epicurus/vatican-sayings.html
[4] Vatican Saying 44. Quote from https://monadnock.net/epicurus/vatican-sayings.html
[5] Seneca, Letters to Lucilius. Quote from http://www.attalus.org/translate/epicurus.html
[6] Principle Doctrine 29. Quote from https://monadnock.net/epicurus/principal-doctrines.html
[7] See article from Hiram Crespo: https://societyofepicurus.com/eikas-and-ancestral-reverence/

Five contemplations on the gods: A path to community and friendship (part 3)

Continued from:

FIRST CONTEMPLATION: THE GODS

SECOND CONTEMPLATION: UTOPIA

THIRD CONTEMPLATION: THE SAGE

Quote: Wall inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda, fragment 125 – 126 [1]

For when images of persons who are far away from our sight invade our mind, they cause the greatest disturbance. But if you examine the whole matter carefully, you will learn that the images of persons who are not present are of precisely the same kind as those of persons who are present. For although the images are perceived not by the senses, but by the mind, they have the same power, as far as in them lies, for persons who are present as when they existed with those other persons present also. Therefore, with regard to these matters, mother, be of good heart: do not reckon the visions of us to be bad; rather, when you see them, think of us daily acquiring something good and advancing further in happiness. For not small or ineffectual are these gains for us which make our disposition godlike and show that not even our mortality makes us inferior to the imperishable and blessed nature; for when we are alive, we are as joyful as the gods, knowing that death is nothing to us; and when we dead, we are without sensation… Think of us then, mother, as always joyful in the midst of such good things and show enthusiasm for what we are doing.

Commentary: the sage is equal to a god

These fragments of a letter to a mother, quoted in Diogenes’ wall inscription, are attributed to Epicurus[2]. In it he reassures his mother who fears for his safety because of visions of her son, probably in a dream, which she took to be a bad omen. As is implied in the letter, Epicurus reminds his mother Chaerestrate (who was a priestess) that interpreting dreams or visions of any kind as having any kind of prophetic value is superstition and that there is nothing to fear.

After reassuring his mother of the nature of these images, he recommends she turn these manifestations to her advantage and visualize positive things regarding her son. Here we see a common exercise in Epicureanism: “placing before the eyes”, a kind of visualization technique meant to help us achieve virtue and overcome vice[3] for the sake of living pleasantly.

In this case, Epicurus is making the claim that thanks to philosophy, his mother has nothing to worry about, for he has already achieved the best of all possible lives. Thanks to his wisdom, he has learned to be content with little, and does not need much to live a satisfying life. Thanks to his friends’ support, he feels safe in case he is lacking in basic needs.

Even if something bad was to happen and he was to die, he does not fear death. Death is the absence of sensation. There is no suffering in being dead. There is no punishment in the afterlife. Thanks to his gratitude for the good memories of his past, he is secure in having lived a good life. He says: “Misfortune must be cured through gratitude for what has been lost and the knowledge that it is impossible to change what has happened”[4]. One could retort that even if Epicurus’ mother could be reassured about the happiness of her son, she may still fear losing him and never seeing him again. We will address this later.

Practice: envision the life you want to live and try to make it reality

First lesson: envision the life of a sage. After the dwellings of the gods and utopia on Earth, we reach the third phase in our quest for godhood: the community of sages. We are now beyond mere thought experiments and are much closer to history with the existence of Epicurean communities that existed around the Mediterranean for over five centuries.

What is a sage? For all intents and purposes, sages are equal to gods, though to be fair, they are not quite at that level as they are somewhat more vulnerable, subject to misfortune and obviously, mortal. However, they are better prepared than most for misfortune, as Diogenes points out: “Chance can befall us and do harm, but rarely; for it does not have fuel, like fire, which it may lay hold of. So Epicurus, having regard to these matters, refused to remove chance from things entirely–for it would have been rash and incompatible with philosophical respectability to give a false account of a matter so clear and patently obvious to all–, but not a few occurrences he called only small. As then the disposition of the wise man can represent the accidental happening in this way, so, it seems, it seldom operates dominantly, as the son of Neocles (Epicurus) says: «It is seldom that chance impedes the wise man: it is reason which controls and controlled the greatest and most important matters »”[5]. Wisdom is the highest achievement possible for a human and being wise is our way to mirror the life of the blessed and immortal beings.

Second lesson: make yourself worthy in the eyes of a sage. The Stoic philosopher Seneca, in a letter to his friends Lucilius, quotes Epicurus: “We need to set our affections on some good man and keep him constantly before our eyes, so that we may live as if he were watching us and do everything as if he saw what we were doing”[6]. Aside from having some wise person to look up to, be it an Epicurean philosopher or some friend of family member we know and admire, we must try to become better ourselves, and improve our lives.

Third lesson: rethinking what it is you really desire. If what you desire is fame, wealth, power and the like, you will fail in your pursuits. Even if you succeed, you will still fail. Rethink what is important in your life. There are very few things we really need: food, shelter, health and a few moderate luxuries to give life some flavor. Some extravagant pleasures, if they are fortunate to come across our path, such as vacations to foreign countries or refined food for example, can be appreciated and add good memories we can appreciate in the future, though they are not necessary. Most importantly, whatever the experiences are, whether modest or extravagant, make sure you share them with loved ones.

Forth lesson: aim to live a complete life. In his treatise On Death, Philodemus expresses this best: “But the sensible man, having received that which can secure the whole of what is sufficient for a happy life, immediately then for the rest of his life goes about laid out for burial, and he profits by one day as he would by eternity, and when the day is being taken away, he neither considers the things happening to him surprising nor goes along with them as one falling somewhat short of the best life, but going forward and receiving in a remarkable manner the addition provided by time, as one who has met with a paradoxical piece of good luck, he is grateful to circumstances even for this”[7]. From a psychological perspective, Philodemus unveils to us how a human, mortal as he is, can match the immortality of the gods: “he profits by one day as he would by eternity”. However, this is no reason to neglect our finances, health, diet, etc. While ready to die at any moment, the sage expects to live a long life. A healthy life is another way to imitate the gods.

Notes:

[1] Quote from M. F. Smith’s work, The Epicurean Inscription. See https://www.english.enoanda.cat/the_inscription.html
[2] There is some disagreement amongst scholars on whether this quote is from Epicurus but we will tentatively accept this hypothesis in order to move forward. What matters here is this is an Epicurean quote.
[3] https://societyofepicurus.com/ethics-of-philodemus-moral-portraiture-and-seeing-before-the-eyes/
[4] Vatican Saying 55. From https://monadnock.net/epicurus/vatican-sayings.html
[5] https://www.english.enoanda.cat/the_inscription.html
[6] From Seneca, Letters to Lucilius. Quote from http://www.attalus.org/translate/epicurus.html
[7] Philodemus, On Death, published by Society of Biblical Literature. See Hiram Crespo’s article https://societyofepicurus.com/reasonings-about-philodemus-on-death/

Five contemplations on the gods: A path to community and friendship (part 2)

Continued from:
FIRST CONTEMPLATION: THE GODS

SECOND CONTEMPLATION: UTOPIA

Quote: Wall inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda, fragment 56[1]

So we shall not achieve wisdom universally, since not all are capable of it. But if we assume it to be possible, then truly the life of the gods will pass to men. For everything will be full of justice and mutual love, and there will come to be no need of fortifications or laws and all the things which we contrive on account of one another. As for the necessities derived from agriculture, since we shall have no slaves at that time for indeed we ourselves shall plough and dig and tend the plants and divert rivers and watch over the crops…, and such activities, in accordance with what is needful, will interrupt the continuity of the shared study of philosophy; for the farming operations will provide what our nature wants.

Commentary: Human Society

This passage is from the wall inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda, a 2nd century CE Epicurean philanthropist and philosopher from Anatolia (today called Turkey). It imagines a utopian society where humankind as a whole achieves Epicurean wisdom. Before we continue, keep in mind that this is yet another thought experiment, not a political project. While what we see here resembles a kind of libertarian socialist utopia, in reality Epicureans were very much in favor of institutions like the state with its laws, police, regulations, etc. This utopian vision of a society with “no need of fortifications or laws” could only exist if everyone became wise, but Diogenes of Oinoanda starts by specifying that “we shall not achieve wisdom universally”. So why imagine such a society at all? What is the point of this thought experiment?

Yet again, we see the reference to divinity when he says that such a utopian society would be the reflection on earth of the society of the gods that live outside of our world. This is what would happen if humanity imitated the peaceful dispositions of the gods. We would seek to achieve wisdom and happiness instead of constantly engaging in conflict and war for such vain desires such as greed, wealth, lust, fame and all the other vices. Instead we would be “full of justice and mutual love”. Since we lack the invulnerability of the gods, we would work together to achieve universal wellbeing with activities such as farming and irrigation. Also of notice is that this society has no slaves and a kind of work/life balance exists, alternating labor and philosophy.

Expressions such as “what is needful” and “what our nature wants” indicate that people would be focused on what is important in life, not what is superfluous. Gone are the expensive yachts, five star hotels and ostentatious mansions of billionaires. Humanity would live comfortably, but modestly. In short, we would be mostly self-sufficient, needing very little. This is another way to imitate the gods, who are entirely self-sufficient.

All of this seems like wishful thinking doesn’t it? And historically, attempts to create utopian societies such as these have led to disaster. And yet, when we think about what has been achieved, such as the existence of weekends, paid vacation, minimum wage, universal education, we realize that we are in a much better place than ever thought imaginable to an ancient philosopher. If you had mentioned a concept such as the abolition of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome, you would have been laughed out of the room. Many horrors still exist in today’s world and many more are to come. However, by imagining utopia, we imagine what our lives could be like, and we take steps to make them better.

Practice: Live Justly

First lesson: be harmless. Remember the function of the gods as role models. Philodemus, a 1st century BCE Epicurean philosopher says: “Those who believe our oracles about the gods will first wish to imitate their blessedness in so far as mortals can, so that, since it was seen to come from doing no harm to anyone, they will endeavor most of all to make themselves harmless to everyone as far as is within their power”[2]. Epicureans do not live isolated from society and adhere to the social contract. But also, we do not behave like tyrants, imposing our ways on other people who are different from us. This inevitably leads to the politics of tolerance, a policy of “live and let live”. Another associated principle would be: “my freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins”. While this all may seem like common sense, there are many influential and powerful political movements that oppose these very basic principles.

Second lesson: favor peace over war. Epicureans believed that war is only justified in self-defense. Keep in mind that more often than not, wars of aggression come with propaganda claiming that the act of aggression was in fact provoked and political leaders will not hesitate to lie to claim that an offensive war is in fact an act of defense. Epicureans are well aware of the dirty and corrupt nature of politics. We must always be skeptical and on our guard.

Third lesson: consider the wellbeing of your community. Epicureans are not selfish and believe in collective wellbeing. While part of this is based on enlightened self interest, Diogenes also uses the term “mutual love”. Other Epicurean sources insist on philanthropy. In fact, if we are to follow Diogenes, we must show concern not just for our tribe or nation, but to all humankind: “For, while the various segments of the earth give different people a different country, the whole compass of this world gives all people a single country, the entire earth, and a single home, the world”[3].

Forth lesson: decide how involved you want to be in political affairs. The expression lathe biosas (often translated as “live unnoticed”) is often attributed to Epicurus, who is reputed to have avoided getting involved in the political disputes of his time. The reality, as is often the case in Epicurean philosophy, is much more complex. There are many recorded Epicureans in history who were politically engaged in some form or another. Long story short, not getting involved in politics is what is preferred, but circumstances might lead one to act differently. It is important to keep in mind that there are different degrees of political participation. Some of us may be content to vote in elections, which involves minimal effort and trouble, to more active forms of participation, such as activism, running for office or occupying positions of power. In the face of tyranny, other forms of action can be considered, such as civil disobedience, or in extreme cases, armed struggle.

Notes:

[1] https://www.english.enoanda.cat/the_inscription.html
[2] Quote from The Polytheism of the Epicureans by Dr Paul Terence Matthias Jackson. To learn more about Epicureans theology: https://www.academia.edu/36564126/The_Polytheism_of_the_Epicureans
[3] https://www.english.enoanda.cat/the_inscription.html

Five contemplations on the gods: A path to community and friendship (part 1)

The following is as five-essay collection of contemplations on the gods by SoFE member Marcus. Although we have made many efforts to clarify aspects of Epicurean cosmology, the ancient Epicurean conception of gods as cosmic beings who have physical bodies remains difficult for many students to understand. Epicurean theology falls more within the realm of astrobiology speculation and sci-fi, than within the realm of theology which (today) has become almost entirely Platonized. Marcus wrote these five contemplations to help us place the gods before our eyes, and to derive their intended ethical utility even if we are non-theistic. – Hiram Crespo

Educational Video: On the Epicurean Gods

Epicurus concludes his Letter to Menoeceus, the summary of his teachings on the happy life, as follows: “So 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 merely mortal being.”[1]

This is not the only passage in Epicurean literature where the idea of living wisely is compared to living as a god. Also notice that this passage places importance in practicing philosophy “with a like-minded friend”. As we shall see, these two ideas, living as a god among men and philosophizing with a like-minded friend, are not only very closely related but they represent the very core and highest realization of the entire Epicurean philosophical endeavor.

It shall be made clear that the recurring theme of becoming like a god is not hyperbolic or poetic, it is quite literal. To understand this, it will be necessary to think outside the box, outside the contours of monotheistic religions like Christianity or Islam. Epicurus defined a god as a “blissful and immortal being”[2]. This is nothing new or innovative on Epicurus’ part. These are very much the gods of Homer and Hesiod. For example, in his Theogony, Hesiod refers to “the blessed gods that are eternally”. Many of the other philosophical schools of this time, those of Plato, Aristotle or the Stoics for example, would have agreed with this definition. Where the Epicureans and the other philosophical schools disagreed with Homer and Hesiod is their characterization of the gods as being subject to petty human weaknesses such as jealousy, adultery, anger, cruelty, and so on. The god of a philosopher must represent reason, virtue and wisdom. As a result, these different philosophers agree that to become wise is to become like the gods.[3]

But getting back to the Epicureans… Unlike most other philosophical schools of their day, they believed that the gods do not intervene in human affairs or the workings of the universe. They do not punish or reward humans. So, rivals to Epicurus could – and did – ask: why care about these gods at all if they do not interfere with our lives? Why did Epicurus venerate these gods who are not concerned with us? Why did he encourage his followers to pray, worship statues of the gods, take part in religious festivals and mystery initiations? Long story short, the Epicurean gods serve as role models for the philosopher. What does this mean practically? This is what we will investigate.

Before we start exploring this conception of divinity and how it leads to the Epicurean ideal of friendship, we should clarify a few things: the object of this article is not to defend the existence of the Epicurean gods, for which there is obviously no evidence, nor point out any potential inconsistencies in their arguments concerning the gods.[4] In order to move forward, we can simply think of these gods as part of an ethical thought experiment that will lead to practical results on how we think about and experience our lives and our relationships.[5]

We will do this by examining five “contemplations” on divinity taken directly from Epicurean literature. Each quote will be followed by a commentary based on the evidence left to us by the Epicurean writings and suggested philosophical exercises on how to put these theories into practice in our daily lives.

This essay will be divided into 5 parts, each part dedicated to one of the contemplations:

FIRST CONTEMPLATION: THE GODS

SECOND CONTEMPLATION: UTOPIA

THIRD CONTEMPLATION: THE SAGE

FORTH CONTEMPLATION: THE FRIEND

FIFTH CONTEMPLATION: THE DEPARTED

Today we begin with the gods.

 

FIRST CONTEMPLATION: THE GODS

Quote: From On the Nature of Things, book 3, by Lucretius[6]

I see what is going on in all the void,
the majesty and calm habitations
of the gods reveal themselves in places
where no winds disturb, no clouds bring showers,
no white snow falls, congealed with bitter frost,
to harm them, the always cloudless aether
vaults above, and they smile, as far and wide
the light spreads out. Then, too, nature provides
plentiful supplies of all things—their peace
is not disturbed by anything at any time.

Commentary: the society of the gods

This passage from the 1st century BCE Roman philosopher-poet Lucretius is part of a eulogy to Epicurus included in his epic poem, De Rerum Natura, a presentation of Epicurean philosophy in verse. We can see that much emphasis is placed on the habitat in which these peacefully minded gods live, a calm pleasant environment not subject to the destructive forces of the universe.[7]

The Epicureans give us a number of arguments defending the existence of these gods that may seem debatable to a modern audience, but let’s indulge these ancient philosophers from two millennia ago for a bit (also, let’s not get lost in the complex details of ancient theories in physics).[8] To keep a very long and complicated story short, using contemporary terminology, we can think of the Epicurean gods as a kind of privileged extraterrestrial species living far outside of our world, somewhere within an infinite multiverse[9]. In other words, humans are not at the summit of creation. This is an important point, because the Epicureans are trying to imagine the best, most pleasant life possible in all of what exists, and what we can learn from it.[10]

According to this philosophy, divinity is thought of in biological, not supernatural, categories[11]. Philodemus makes this clear in On the Gods: “These demonstrate that every nature has a different location suitable to it. To some it is water, to others air and earth. In one case for animals in another for plants and the like. But especially for the gods there has to be a suitable location, due to the fact that, while all the others have their permanence for a certain time only, the gods have it for eternity.”[12]

But how should we imagine these beings? What are they like? In his Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus gives us the foundational principles needed to conceptualize the gods: “First, believe that god is a blissful, immortal being, as is commonly held. Do not ascribe to god anything that is inconsistent with immortality and blissfulness; instead, believe about god everything that can support immortality and blissfulness.”[13]

Beyond these two basic principles, blissfulness and immortality, Epicurus seems to be giving his followers license to fill in the gaps with all sorts of speculations. Epicurus wants us to represent the gods before our eyes, be it the mind’s eye, using our imagination, or our actual eyes, through statues, paintings, religious rituals and so on.

This is important for two reasons: first we must free ourselves from any fear that the gods might be a source of harm to humans. These gods will not punish us in our lives or the afterlife. Such petty actions would contradict their blissfulness and immortality. They are too far outside our world and too peaceful for that. The gods are to be admired, not feared. The second reason is that the gods are ethical ideals, role models to be imitated. How do we become more like the gods here on Earth? What can we do to try to match their supreme happiness? This is one reason the gods are represented as human looking: we are supposed to identify with them. They are just like us, only better. Let’s contemplate how we can become better…

Practice: deconstruct false conceptions of the gods

First lesson: change how we think of the divine. Do away with what has been taught to us by monotheistic religions, the notion of a single god that is all knowing, all powerful, being responsible for creating the universe and benevolent towards humans. Instead, think of the god as a supremely happy biological entity existing within our universe, not above it. Do not be afraid to represent them as humanoid. We are supposed to identify with them. Remember, this is a thought experiment. Forget about the fanatical impulse taught to us by monotheists to “smash the idols!” Do the opposite instead: build idols!

Second lesson: let’s imagine ourselves as living amongst the gods. Let’s make this fun! Imagine, for whatever reason, due to some amazing, ridiculously improbable coincidence, that these gods happen to look a lot like the characters from Greek mythology. They have the same names too! Imagine that you no longer have back pain, don’t have to wake up early on Monday to go to work and get yelled at by your tyrannical boss, get stuck in traffic, fill out your taxes… Now imagine yourself playing music with Apollo, discussing philosophy with Athena, observing the stars with Zeus, arm wrestling with Ares, playing poker with Hermes, partying with Dionysus, hiking with Pan, caressing the body of Aphrodite (or if you prefer, Eros)…

Third lesson: picture multiple gods. The second lesson had us interacting with the gods, the key word here being “interacting”. After all, we lack the invulnerability of the gods. We have weak bodies that get sick and old, have back pain… And of course, we have to deal with bad bosses, traffic, taxes and all the other “perks” of living among humans. We cannot avoid these things. But when we contemplate the perfect life of the gods, we see them living in communities, enjoying each other’s company, building friendships. This is within our grasp. Thinking about the gods is imagining the best of all possible lives. And that divine happiness has a word: friendship. And now we see why monotheism doesn’t work in this philosophy. A solitary god is no model for us. Gods are social animals.

Fourth lesson: view the gods as embodiments of happiness. Diogenes of Oinoanda, says: “Some statues of gods shoot arrows and are produced holding a bow, represented like Heracles in Homer; others are attended by a body-guard of wild beasts; others are angry with the prosperous, like Nemesis according to popular opinion; whereas we ought to make statues of the gods genial and smiling, so that we may smile back at them rather than be afraid of them.”[14]

Notes:

[1] Translated by Peter Saint-Andre: https://monadnock.net/epicurus/letter.html
[2] Also in the Letter to Menoeceus: https://monadnock.net/epicurus/letter.html
[3] For more on the complex relation between Greek philosophy and religion: https://www.academia.edu/4990433/Greek_Philosophy_and_Religion
[4] It should be noted that within scholarship, there are two interpretations of the Epicurean gods: realist an idealist. According to scholar David Sedley, : “Epicurean theology has come to be viewed as a battleground between two parties of interpreters, the realists and the idealists. Realists take Epicurus to have regarded the gods as biologically immortal beings […] idealists take Epicurus’ idea to have been, rather, that gods are our own graphic idealization of the life to which we aspire.” We consider that the textual evidence overwhelmingly favors the realist interpretation. In order to get a good understanding of Epicurus’ theology, we recommend the following article: The Polytheism of the Epicureans by Paul T M Jackson: https://www.academia.edu/36564126/The_Polytheism_of_the_Epicureans
[5] While we believe the realist interpretation of the gods is what Epicurus intended, this article takes the position the idealist interpretation is more useful to us today as part of an Epicurean revival for the 21st century. It is worth mentioning that many modern Epicurean practitioners prefer to call this the “non-realist” rather that “idealist” interpretation, but both mean the same thing.
[6] Translated by Ian Johnston: http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/lucretius/lucretius3html.html
[7] It is important to keep in mind that Epicurean theology is intertwined with Epicurean cosmology. The gods did not create the universe but are a part o it and subject to its laws.
[8] To get a sense of Epicurean reasoning on the gods, one argument they put forth is that in an infinite universe with infinite possibilities, the existence of such beings is inevitable.
[9] According to Epicurus and his followers, our cosmos is but one of an infinite amount of world systems.
[10] To live within a cosmos is to be subject to the same forces of destruction that end up destroying that cosmos. Nothing lasts forever and all life must end. There is no eternal soul, no afterlife. The gods seem to escape this fate because they live in the metakosmia—in other words, in the spaces in between different cosmoi.
[11] As physical beings, the gods lose atoms over time but they are able to replenish all the atoms that they lose with new ones. Also, the gods have intelligence and wisdom, which allows them to actively preserve their bodies and mind.
[12] Quote from Space and Movement in Philodemus’ De dis 3: an Anti-Aristotelian Account by Holger Essler. https://www.academia.edu/26142444/Space_and_Movement_in_Philodemus_De_dis_3_an_Anti_Aristotelian_Account
[13] https://monadnock.net/epicurus/letter.html
[14] Quote from M. F. Smith’s work, The Epicurean Inscription. See https://www.english.enoanda.cat/the_inscription.html

 

Happy Twentieth! On the Nature of Rights

Eikas cheers to all our readers. This month, we discovered the video Lucretius the Epicurean Poet, a friendly and short introduction to Lucretius’ De rerum natura. We also published a book review of The Happiness Diet, and considered whether this means that the nutrients that are considered essential (that is, that our body cannot make on its own) for both health and happiness must be incorporated into our hedonic regimen.

The thought-provoking Psyche.co essay Don’t be Stoic argues that prominent ancient Stoics show Stoicism’s perniciousness as the “philosophy of collaborators”, and shares case-studies of how Stoicism encourages collaboration with tyranny and cruelty by convincing people to completely submit to fate. In my mind, this is only a little different from Catholic instructions to “bear your cross”.

The essay Classifying the Epicurean Goods, by Alex R Gillham was shared with us. It invites us into a discussion of the “immortal goods” that Epicurus mentions in his Epistle to Menoeceus, and into what other goods exist in our ethics. It’s beyond the scope of this Twentieth message to delve too deeply into the essay, but I will mention that one method that Epicureans may use to move from the abstract to the concrete is to refer to them in the plural. In this case, “The Good” (which is a Platonic idea) is transformed into something useful and concrete–“the goods”. Even better–the author mentions intrinsic goods versus instrumental goods, etc., with specific mention of which goods are being discussed. This specificity de-Platonizes the Good and/or naturalizes the goods.

Today I’d like to consider the case study of the Pallini Declaration, better known as the Declaration of the right of happiness in the European Union, in light of Epicurean doctrines on justice and on the canon. The Pallini Declaration was co-edited by a group of Epicureans from Greece in 2014, with the intention of requesting that the European Union recognize the right to happiness as a foundational European value. Here is the Declaration:

One of the main foundations of European civilization is philosophy. Aristotle and Epicurus realized that the purpose of philosophy is happiness (well-being). Epicurus taught that happiness corresponds to absence of mental and physical pain and may be attained though observation of nature, prudence, free will, virtue and friendship.

Many centuries later, in 1776, the main author of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, influenced by Epicurus’ teachings, included among basic human rights the right of pursuit of happiness. In 2012, the United Nations decided to recognize that the pursue of happiness is a fundamental human goal and right, designating the 20th of March of every year as International day of Happiness.

Given the fact that the right to pursue happiness is not included in the 54 articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010/C 83/02), we ask for the recognition of this right of happiness in the European Union, since it is self-evident that it is a fundamental human right and its non-recognition in any part of the world constitutes the violation of this natural right.

The Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden” of Greece
4th Pan-Hellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy
Pallini, Athens, Greece
February 15, 2014

The Pallini Declaration was unveiled during the Epicurean philosophy symposium in February 2014 at Gargettus, in the Municipality of Pallini, where Epicurus had his ancient Garden. The webpage for the Declaration contains some historical background, which ties back to the Greek Constitution and social contract, and reflects the Epicurean conception of agreed-upon law based on the principle of “not harming and not being harmed” (see Epicurus’ Principal Doctrine 31). There were 114 signatures on the Declaration, in honor of the 114 articles of the Greek Constitution.

The following is my meleta on the Pallini Declaration, which is a type of humanist and Epicurean manifesto.

The first paragraph contains three statements which are historical and not controversial, except that some people may have an issue with the statement that some philosophers have “realized” that happiness is the goal of life. This implies that the statement is a discovery and an insight or realization, not an invention. I do not take issue with this–in fact I affirm it–, but I realize that this is a doctrinal statement, framed within the larger tradition of humanist manifestos that includes the Declaration of Independence, the US and French Constitutions, and other documents that are meant to be treated as both social contract, as well as doctrinal (humanist) manifestos.

The second paragraph contains two additional historical statements, which are treated as precedents. It is here that Pallini Declaration appeals to Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment ideas that inspired him. In the third paragraph, the Declaration seeks to have a new statute added to what is seen as the social contract that applies to all Europeans.

The Declaration places the “right to happiness” within the context of European values, and ties these values to a shared heritage–which is claimed for all Europeans. Pallini is today where the ancient neighborhood of Gargettus was, where Epicurus founded his Garden around 2,300 years ago, and which for centuries was the seat of the Epicurean Mother Garden. By accentuating its place of origin, the Declaration is an acknowledgement of the deep Epicurean roots of Western civilization. It is a statement of our shared Western values, and claims some level of Epicurean identity or heritage for all Europeans.

Are Rights Self-Evident, or Fictional?

That people have a right to happiness is not exactly what Epicurus argued: he taught that pleasure is a faculty that is native to our organism (“congenital to our nature”) and necessary for our choices and rejections, and that it helps us to discern the natural and pragmatic goal of life. He made a claim about nature, not about rights. The Pallini Declaration is making a new claim, an evolution of that original claim. And it makes a policy recommendation to government.

This level and type of involvement in public affairs is perhaps an innovation, but I argue that this innovation is rooted in Epicurean philosophy. From the perspective of the Doxai, this form of activism in favor of the inclusion of a “right to happiness” as a statute within the official social contract for all Europeans is, among other things, a way of practicing the Doxai on justice (PDs 30-38).

The Pallini Declaration is silent on the nature of “rights”, which can be argued to be fictions written into our legal systems. But notice that it still affirms their utility! From the perspective of the Doxai, by making this particular policy recommendation, the Declaration says that we find it advantageous for mutual association (see PD’s 37-38) to include happiness among the named human rights in our social contract or legal code. In other words, rights (even if fictional) are treated as concrete tokens of Epicurean justice. They’re agreements: useful statutes, or contracts, agreed upon for the sake of mutual association.

This social contract is the means by which Epicureans define justice in concrete terms. By explicitly naming itself Epicurean, the Declaration further recognizes that the right to be happy, once enshrined formally into the social contract and into the cultural and civilizational identity of all Europeans, will help to set the foundation for an Epicurean sense of justice or righteousness in the societies that uphold it. In other words, the recognition of this right to happiness will be a matter of justice and of the social contract, the formally agreed-upon values of all Europeans, and–once enshrined as law–it will be considered unjust to violate this right.

But let us look at the ontological status of rights, since there seems to be an unresolved controversy here. Most humanists believe that rights do not exist conventionally. They are not god-given, as many have claimed, and in fact many of the rights we enjoy today required generations of struggle to attain. But while these rights may be fictions in some sense, they’re still agreed-upon values which, by virtue of the shared agreement among the members of a society, have political and social power. They serve as guidelines for policy and are useful for co-existence. They have utility.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – United States’ Declaration of Independence (edited by Epicurean founding father Thomas Jefferson)

The framers of these humanist manifestos–from the founding fathers to the authors of the Pallini Declaration–are making claims about natural rights which invite a reassessment of the fictional nature of rights. They are taken to be “self-evident”, which is another Epicurean statement of doctrine, and in fact this can also be claimed about the nature of Epicurean justice: that justice can be observed with enargeia (clearly or self-evidently) based on its utility or benefit for mutual association. Since the authors of these manifestos are claiming enargeia (clarity, immediacy of experience) for these truth statements, I argue that they are making specifically Epicurean statements of doctrine that are based on our methods of studying nature. We saw in Principal Doctrine 22 that enargeia is part of the Epicurean toolkit, and that this particular Doctrine is found among the four canonical Doxai that act as a filter for truth claims.

While, to us, the Creator is nature, Jefferson was comfortable using the term “Creator” within the social contract to establish an ecumenical conversation between the various flavors of Christians and Humanists that deliberated on this particular social contract. Concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we observe that humans are often willing to die for these principles, that without them it’s impossible to live well and pleasantly, and that they make life worth-living. Happiness and life (together with health) are included in the three categories of natural and necessary desires that Epicurus mentions in his Epistle to Menoeceus. Therefore, Epicurus was making similar (though not identical) claims in this epistle as Jefferson was making in the Declaration of Independence.

We have reason to be undecided as to the nature of these natural rights. On the one hand, Epicurean philosophy teaches that these rights are self-evident, and therefore that they’re not entirely fictional: they are self-evident and exist in some way. On the other hand, rights are not conventionally real–that is, they are not made up of particles. They seem to be relational, social and cultural products born from our mutual agreement and based on our mutual benefit. I wish to note here how Epicurean justice imitates the tendency towards symbiosis in nature, a system by which living bodies show a tendency to develop mutually-beneficial relations. The bottom line is that the pragmatic necessity of justice makes things like laws and rights a needed feature in all human-centered philosophy.

These are some of our initial deliberations on this, not the final word. We will continue our meleta about the nature of human rights. I’m curious to know what others think.

Victor Frankl and the Search for Meaning

False Dichotomies

We recently read the essay There Are Two Kinds of Happy People, which compares Stoic and Epicurean philosophies. The essay makes some good points (we can borrow from each other yet remain grounded in our own traditions), but essays like this create false dichotomies: you almost never hear people saying “Buddhists meditate and Christians pray, and maybe they should try each other’s techniques“. In reality, Buddhists also pray and Christians sometimes also meditate. The essay assumes that Epicureans do not seek meaning, or create meaning, and it perhaps even assumes that meaning and pleasure are mutually contradictory, but there is no reason whatsoever to think this is the case.

I want to resist the tendency to antagonize Stoics because that produces a situation where it seems like Epicureanism frustrates the search for meaning or the ability for resilience, and that is not at all true. Epicurean philosophy provides various different pathways to meaning and resilience.

He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how. – Nietzsche

I finally recently finished reading Victor Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning, which is highly recommended among proponents of philosophy as therapy for the soul. It argues that human beings require meaning in their lives, and that the best way to deal with boredom, existential ennui, depression, or suffering, is to make it meaningful. He particularly favors three ways of doing this: through work (doing something significant), through loving someone, or through courage during difficulties.

As a psychoanalyst, Frankl proposes “logotherapy” (a therapy of meaning). Our Friend Nathan says:

It’s a powerful story of someone who survives grotesque circumstances. His themes seem to me to be within the existentialist genre, primarily, defining value and meaning in a violent and unforgiving world. He largely demonstrates how having an appropriate mental disposition can help people manage seemingly-hopeless circumstances.

Meaning-making is contrasted with nihilism and a depressing sense of defeat in life. This is from page 72

Regarding our “provisional existence” as unreal was in itself an important factor in causing the prisoners to lose their hold on life: everything in a way became pointless. Some people forgot that often it is just such an exceptionally difficult external situation which gives man the opportunity to grow spiritually beyond himself. Instead of taking the camp’s difficulties as a test of their inner strength, they did not take their life seriously and despised it as something of no consequence. They preferred to close their eyes and to live in the past. Life for such people became meaningless.

This other quote, from the following page (73), reminds us of our past meleta concerning Epimetheus (who only looks to the past) and his brother Prometheus (who looks to the future). To Frankl, redemption is found in the Promethean approach.

It is a peculiarity of man that he can only live by looking to the future. And this is his salvation in the most difficult moments of his existence, although he sometimes has to force his mind to the task.

… which remind me of Epicurean Saying 48:

While you are on the road, try to make the later part better than the earlier part; and be equally happy when you reach the end.

Frankl mentions laughter as a technique, and as a sign that one is healed. In Tending the Epicurean Garden, I mentioned that the Epicureans follow the lineage of the laughing philosophers, and that laughter helps us to feel superior to the thing we are laughing at / about. Frankl says this differently: being able to laugh at yourself and your situation is a sign that you have already begun to overcome.

At one point in page 130, Frankl seems to accuse materialist reductionism of producing nihilism. In Epicurean philosophy we see that that is not necessarily the case. Other materialists may be nihilists, but in our tradition we have methods of drawing values and meaning from the study of nature. Here, he attacks:

the danger inherent in the teaching that man is nothing but the result of the biological, psychological, and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment … This neurotic fatalism is fostered and strengthened by a psychotherapy which denies that man is free.

I applaud that Frankl is drawing a connection between nihilism and materialism, as this is one of the main knots by which people who are suffering entangle themselves into harmful patterns of powerless thinking. To me, this accentuates the need for rejecting scientism (=the “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques“), and for studying philosophy as a separate and equally important field of knowledge alongside science.

“Embracing the Exile”: a Case Study

In my college years when I confided in a University social worker and mentor (whom I greatly respected and loved) concerning my struggles to reconcile my Christian upbringing with my gay sexuality, he kindly lent me the book Embracing the Exile – Healing Journeys of Gay Christians. Back then, this book had a great impact on me, since the religious and psychological abuse of homophobia were strongly imprinted in my mind and affected me in very real ways.

Embracing the Exile is my most familiar case study for logotherapy. It argued that as Christians, gay people should embrace their exile, and carry their particular cross, with acceptance. It also taught that we should love our enemies anyway, regardless of what they do to us or say about us, and it even treats Queer identities as a form of “chosenness” where we are left to make sense of our way of being different. The book meant to soften the passions of a bruised soul, and it succeeded, but in the end, Christianity was definitely not for me. Many LGBT Christians feel that they are able to lovingly engage in LGBT activism, and at the same time confront other Christians with the evil that is done in the name of their religion from inside their churches. I’m torn between my solidarity and support for the struggle of LGBT people who choose to remain Christian, and the need to address the profound epistemological errors (and cruelties) of Christianity.

Embracing the Exile might be particularly helpful for people who might be struggling with suicide ideation, or who have recently come out and who come from a Christian background and are still attached to it, or for LGBT people who wish to return to Christianity. It provides a few “technologies of the soul” for that specific population.

But the book is not without its potential dangers, even if it came from a place of love and sincerity. Church leaders are experts at softening the blows of their emotional and psychological acts of aggression and dressing things that are deeply worthy of objection in the disguise of innocence and sanctity. Furthermore, if we decide that our policy towards our abusers is to “love them anyway”, does this not risk neglecting the possibility of moral development for our abusers? It can be a difficult balance to maintain, particularly when those who are most likely to harm LGBT youth in a church are also the same people who find themselves most entangled in their ideological errors and are least likely to think they might be wrong. The idea of gays embracing Christianity reminds me of a commentary about the colorful cow in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra that I came across recently:

In the town called the Pied Cow, the people are extremely content. They exemplify the concept of decadence. As Nietzsche says in Thus Spake Zarathustra to a citizen of the town of Pied Cow: “thy cow, affliction, milkedst thou—now drinketh thou the sweet milk of her udder.” His language shows that the cow’s milk is pleasurable and sweet, but it is an affliction that causes us to forget our real purpose. It is analogous to soma in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, an orgasmically pleasurable drug that causes the citizens of a fascist regime to forget their suffering and keep working.

One of the main dangers of the logotherapy approach is that, by choosing a false refuge or a false sense of meaning, we may end up harming ourselves and wasting opportunities for moral reform, freedom, creativity, and true happiness. Meaning must therefore be secondary to our impulse towards truth and towards the sober pleasure that Epicurus mentions in his Epistle to Menoeceus.

Some Epicurean Ideas

Life is not obligated to make sense to us. We are the ones who seek to make sense of it willfully, using our creativity and resources, our art of living (techne biou), and with the help of the study of nature. In this, Lucretius, Epicurus, and others are role models to us.

We are able to create meaning through the process of hedonic calculus: by choosing and rejecting in a manner consistent with our values, our pains or sufferings are redeemed and made valuable by the greater pleasures that they gain.

When I recently shared 3 Brain Systems That Control Your Behavior: Reptilian, Limbic, Neo Cortex, by Robert Sapolsky, our Friend Nathan commented that these three parts of the brain reminded him of “sensations, feelings, and preconceptions”–the three sets of faculties that exist within the Epicurean canon, which are our connection with nature.

The video makes the argument that the most primitive part of the brain (the reptilian part) involves the most basic instincts. This includes the senses, but also the sense of time, the circadian rhythm–a set of faculties that require that animals attune themselves to the day and night cycles, and require cold-blooded animals to regulate their body temperature by various means. Then, our ancestors evolved the mammalian brain, which involved complex fight-or-flight mechanisms, panic instincts, and other powers that Nathan associates with the canonical faculties involved in feelings. The final evolutionary stage is where animals evolved the cortex of the brain that facilitates complex thinking and language. Of all the highest animals (mostly the primates), the humans are the ones who have evolved the most complex “prolepsis” cortex. The parallels noted between the canonical faculties and the layers of brain cortex are interesting, and it had never occurred to me to think of it this way.

I am particularly interested in this third set of faculties in our discussion of meaning because the prolepsis faculty facilitates language, and it seems to me that our discussion of meaning is a discussion of language, and that the creation of meaning is therefore mainly a function of the prolepsis faculty. We are perhaps translating our experiences into something that our rational brains may apprehend, and doing so helps us to process our ideas and emotions.

Seen this way, the thirst for meaning becomes an impulse toward naming our own narratives, our lives, our selves, our relations, our life cycles, the projects that “give” our lives “meaning”, our technologies of the soul, etc. How else do we create meaning? Nietzsche suggested (and I agree) that we may do this through art, poetry, dance, ritual. The technique of relabeling (as we’ve discussed before) is another method for this.

In the search for meaning, it often seems like self-expression has been frustrated and seeks an outlet. The prolepsis of self-expression (Self-Ex-Pression) reminds me of a process of pressing-out parts of the self into some external form. The faculty of prolepsis allows us to clearly conceive an idea, which is necessary in the first place if we are to “press it out” of our psyche. Prolepsis helps us to conceive, which reminds us of seeds, of germination. Conceiving an idea carries creative potential.

Conclusion

Some people say Frankl’s Man’s Search of Meaning is a Stoic book, but it’s more nuanced than that. Yes, Man’s Search for Meaning has a strong Stoic influence. It teaches that the “only” thing that others can’t take away is how we respond to a situation, and focuses on the realm of possible therapies available to someone who is powerless to change their fate. But it also elsewhere criticizes key aspects of Stoicism. In page 56, we find:

The camp inmate was frightened of making decisions and of taking any sort of initiative whatsoever. This was the result of a strong feeling that fate was one’s master, and that one must not try to influence it in any way, but instead let it take its own course. In addition, there was a great apathy, which contributed in no small part to the feelings of the prisoner.

The book is a bit depressing, but this is not necessarily a bad thing, as suffering does have the power to make us better people. My recent anecdote on this has to do with a particular co-worker who for many months did not greet me, or smile at me, or acknowledge me at all at work. Some people (particularly people who have money or power) can afford to be quite stand-offish; others are simply introverted by nature. This co-worker was a cancer survivor and, upon getting a second diagnosis of cancer, he changed. Perhaps he realized that life is short and shifted his conception of the things that matter. He began to greet me with a smile. He became more personal. I think his suffering as a result of his health, and his sense of vulnerability, is what made him a better, gentler, more caring person.

This anecdote confirms, to me, the power of suffering to purify our character–even if we rebel against the idealization and sacralizing of suffering that we see, for instance, in Catholicism.

Frakl says “man is ultimately self determining”, meaning that we are subjects, not objects or machines. One of the main virtues of this book is that Frankl humanizes his patients. He at all times refuses to diminish or humiliate or mistreat his patients. His years of suffering during World War II make Frankl a wounded healer: he had been through hell, and could now help others in a similar situation. For this reason, many people who are experiencing great suffering and who are truly powerless in their situation would benefit from critically engaging the insights of this book.

Further Reading:

Man’s Search for Meaning

 

The Oshún Mythical Cycle: The Seduction of Ogún

The following is an Epicurean meleta (deliberation or commentary) on an African fairy tale, which is here placed before the eyes and treated as a philosophical parable about Divine Pleasure as the Guide of Life. In this myth, Oshún heroically smears herself in honey and dances seductively in order to lure Ogún out of the jungle and back into civilization, and save human society from collapse.

I’ve heard many Oriki (chants) for Oshún (Yoruba Goddess of sweetness, a form of the Venus-archetype) which I’ve found beautiful and enchanting, but if I was to choose a soundtrack for this essay (after all, Venus is associated with music, art, and aesthetics), I would choose either La India’s prelude to Yemayá y Ochún or, better yet, the magical Mongo Santamaría song Ye Ye.

I was speechless when I found this painting, by Lili Bernard, titled Sale of Venus. It refers to the arrival of the cult of Oshún to Cuba via the slave trade. Here, however, she is syncretized with Venus, instead of with her Catholic aspect as “Our Lady of Charity”.

When we studied the Prometheus myth at Eikas, we discussed a bit about some of the ethical problems related to technology (personified as Hephaistos), when it answers to power entanglements rather than to ethical guidance and personal loyalty. Today, I’d like to discuss a bit about how a parallel character (Ogún, the artisan and smith of the Yoruba Gods) was lured back into civilization by Oshún (the Yoruba version of Venus).

Concerning the archetype of Ogún, the story is that he was one of the first Orisha who made a path through the jungle. He was a scout, a hunter, and a perceptive tracker. But most importantly he “makes a path” where no one else has made a path yet. He is a creative force, and quite introverted by all accounts (even in the Greek version of this archetype, Hephaistos), being quite socially awkward in both traditions, and often preferring to remain in his workshop all day. He is the God of iron, of the forge, and of technology. Without Ogún, Yorubas believe that civilization simply cannot progress.

Yoruba myths are known in Cuba as patakís, and this one is found in this page, although many versions of it exist in oral tradition (and now on YouTube). For reasons explained in other myths, Ogún was “cursed” with constant toil, and part of his social contract involved the demands caused by the societal need for his particular skillset. In reality, Ogún represents men (and women) who are by their natural constitution hard-working and active in productive labor. In the myth, Ogún decided to take a break from all his work. The way it’s explained in the OrishaNet page, he did this because “his heart always remained in the forest”, but some may interpret this as a labor strike; others may interpret this as an episode of depression. This last interpretation is probably the most useful, ethically speaking, and also because when people are depressed they lose the pleasure derived from doing many things, which they normally desire to do.

The point is that “once upon a time” Ogún disappeared from the city and went into the forest, and very soon (since he is the Orisha or spirit of industriousness) civilization came to a halt. No tools can be built without him, since he is the smith. No trains may run. No wheels constructed, and no machines. No one can plow the fields. No construction. There’s no progress, no civilization.

Once they realized that Ogún went into hiding, many of the divine powers tried to convince him to return, but (after a long series of attempts) no one succeeded until a young Orisha, Oshún, offered to try to lure him back into the city. This worried the other Orishas, who did not think she would succeed. However, absent other options, she was allowed by wise old Obatalá (the Orisha of the head, where decisions are made) to go on this mission.

How did she do this? Oshún is the Goddess of sex, an enchantress. By singing and dancing semi-naked, and by seducing and entrancing Ogún with her charms, from time to time pouring honey over herself–and when she saw that Ogún was ogling her, placing some honey on his lips–she slowly got him to move out of his forest refuge and slowly lured him out, danced him out, seduced him out of the forest and back into the city. She probably did this following the path of some spring or river, as Oshún is a river-goddess of fresh waters and her role in the universe is to “cool” the other Orisha and to refresh the world with her sweet waters. The story ends:

And all learned that sweetness (is) sometimes the most powerful weapon of all, and that Oshún was much more powerful than she appeared and was to be respected.

… which immediately reminds me of our meleta on the Lucretian passage where Venus subdues Mars. I must here note a parallel between this patakí and another one where Oshún saves the world once again, this time during times of famine and by bringing rains. In that other myth, we also see that the other Orishas from the onset underestimated Oshún. Stories about Oshún seem to be an ongoing commentary in Yoruba mythos about the status of women, and a warning to not underestimate them but to allow them to be leaders and to prove themselves, because without their gifts there is no possibility of successful human civilization.

That Oshún is sexually emancipated, adds to her role as an empowering Orisha for women. One merely needs to look at the high levels of involvement of women at all levels of society in southern Nigeria, where Oshún is still revered, versus the horrible oppression that women suffer in the Islamic north of Nigeria, where women are constantly targeted for rape, violence, and abduction, and are routinely denied basic human rights.

This might give us some ideas about why Epicurean philosophy was not historically favored, unlike Platonism, Stoicism, and other philosophies. Epicureanism has always suffered the fate of enjoying the same reputation as that of the Goddess of sex and pleasure, who embodies our ethical ideals, and this reputation and respectability greatly diminished under patriarchal hegemony.

Going back to the role of Hephaistos in the Promethean cycle, during our meleta on The Betrayal and Passion of Prometheus, we had discussed:

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.

In the Yoruba myth, Ogún is set right by Oshun’s sweetness, represented by the honey she smears on herself.

From the perspective of the psychological interpretation, where Ogún suffers from depression, she uses pleasure / honey / sweetness as medicine for depression and heals him.

From the perspective of refusal to work, she made him productive by using the powerful appeal and the seduction of pleasure, of sweetness. She would have made work agreeable.

From the literal perspective, he simply goes back to being himself and performing his role in the world … but what is going on inside? As when I studied Taoism, I am here reminded of Epicurean Saying 21:

We must not force Nature, but gently persuade her.

What were the Yoruba ancestors trying to teach when they articulated this particular myth? Notice the contrast between how the Greeks warned us that Zeus (associated with Power) corrupts Hephaistos, whereas the Yoruba warned us that the Yoruba Venus (associated with sweetness, Pleasure) saves and redeems both the Yoruba Hephaistos and the world.

Power corrupts, but Pleasure saves and heals.

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:

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. The practice of friendship (philía) was a central aspect of the teaching mission. Each friend furnishes a concrete instance of loving our neighbor
  4. 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.