Category Archives: Theology

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

 

On the Harm and Benefit of the Gods

The subject of the harm and benefit of the gods is covered in the (incomplete) Philodeman Scroll Peri Eusebeias (On Piety). The scroll discusses the physical and mental benefits of piety, which are documented to some extent in modern research on meditation and chanting. The study of the benefits of religious techniques from a purely naturalist perspective will continue to enlighten us in our investigation of this subject, but here I’m interested in going to the Epicurean sources where the discussion of the harms and benefits of the gods begins. The Letter to Menoeceus contains an interesting declaration:

For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in people like to themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind.

These are strange statements, considering that we know that the first Epicureans did not believe that the gods intervened in human affairs. Here, it seems that the gods are being studied as a cultural phenomenon, based on the signs or effects that they have as cultural creations. The Monadnock translation says it differently:

The things that most people say about the gods are based on false assumptions, not a firm grasp of the facts, because they say that the greatest goods and the greatest harms come from the gods. For since they are at home with what is best about themselves, they accept that which is similar and consider alien that which is different.

… which seems to indicate an art of attuning to the gods according to our own qualities (a subject which Sri Krishna, curiously, also discusses in the Bhagavad Gita, saying that everyone worships according to their own tendencies). Peter St Andre adds notes / commentaries that clarify that here, Epicurus is referring to the “prolepsis” (or preconception) of the gods, and another note that says:

This is a puzzling sentence. Some translators understand it as applying to “the gods” from the previous sentence, with the sense that the gods would not interfere in human affairs because they don’t care about (“consider as alien”) mortal creatures who are so different from themselves. Other translators understand it as applying to “most people” from the previous sentence, with the sense that most people assume that immortal beings so different from themselves must want to interfere in human affairs.

The essay Epicure, dieu et image de dieu: une autarcie extatique presents some interesting points (it was shared with me by my friend Marcus, who compares the author with Norman DeWitt and laments that she has not been translated into English). It compares participation in the studies of Epicurean philosophy with the ancient mysteries (because only initiates had insight into the knowledge being taught in the Garden and were able to participate in the blissful practices).

In the past I’ve used the word “osmosis” (the process of gradual or unconscious assimilation of ideas, knowledge, etc.) to refer to the religious techniques that were used in the Garden to help students imitate the Kathegemones (Epicurean Guides)–and especially Epicurus and Metrodorus–in order to experience the pleasures they enjoyed. In “Dieu et image de Dieu“, the author uses the word scissiparité, which translates into the English word “fission” (the action of dividing or splitting something into two or more parts). It’s the process by which one cell divides into two clone cells.

This metaphor drawn from biology is used to describe how, by contemplating on the sages and gods, on their ataraxia and bliss, we may become like them. In the case of osmosis, it would be through a slow assimilation of our psyche into the larger, blissful psyche of the deity or the sage; in the case of “scissiparité” it seems like we would merge into a union with divinity through some religious technique (like “chanting the names”, a popular practice in Bhakti-yoga) and then separation, where we would take with us the bliss and pleasant impressions acquired via the divine union. It’s interesting that in both English and French we are today using verbiage and metaphors from science, from nature, from organisms–rather than supernatural language–to describe these religious techniques.

Lucretius has more to say on this. In Liber Sextvs, he says:

For even those men who have learned full well
That godheads lead a long life free of care,
If yet meanwhile they wonder by what plan
Things can go on (and chiefly yon high things
Observed o’erhead on the ethereal coasts),
Again are hurried back unto the fears
Of old religion and adopt again
Harsh masters, deemed almighty,- wretched men,
Unwitting what can be and what cannot,
And by what law to each its scope prescribed,
Its boundary stone that clings so deep in Time.

This passage reminds me of “the Almighty”, a false-god character from the film 10,000 BC who (in the movie) seems to have been a survivor of Atlantis. Whenever he appears, everyone in the city must bow and kiss the ground, and his attendants approach him covering their faces with their hands and long nails in fear. This type of primitive religious fear is one of the main “diseases of the soul” that Epicurean philosophy saves us from. Lucretius elsewhere continues:

Wherefore the more are they borne wandering on
By blindfold reason. And, Memmius, unless
From out thy mind thou spuest all of this
And casteth far from thee all thoughts which be
Unworthy of gods and alien to their peace,
Then often will the holy majesties
Of the high gods be harmful unto thee,
As by thy thought degraded,- not, indeed,
That essence supreme of gods could be by this
So outraged as in wrath to thirst to seek
Revenges keen; but even because thyself
Thou plaguest with the notion that the gods,
Even they, the Calm Ones in serene repose,
Do roll the mighty waves of wrath on wrath;
Nor wilt thou enter with a serene breast
Shrines of the gods; nor wilt thou able be
In tranquil peace of mind to take and know
Those images which from their holy bodies
Are carried into intellects of men,
As the announcers of their form divine.
What sort of life will follow after this
‘Tis thine to see.

Here, Lucretius is accentuating that the error of fear-based religion and superstition is not only degrading, but also keeps us from having the proper disposition to be able to derive benefit from religious techniques. He says that unless we purge these thoughts that are unworthy of the gods, they will be harmful to us “as if they had been degraded by our own thought”.

Our own thoughts cannot harm the natural gods (who, if they exist, would live in outer space): we can only hurt ourselves with our beliefs about the gods. Lucretius says that we “plague ourselves” with the belief that the gods are wrathful, and nor will we be able to enter their shrine in peace or to visualize them ecstatically (a practice that ancient Epicureans seem to have found both blissful and ethically useful) if we really hold evil beliefs about the gods.

Lucretius also warns that we will see what sort of life arises from our view of the gods, that this will be self-evident to us. Immediately, I think about the obscene orgies of violence and terrorism that we see today in Islam, and about the misery that is accepted blindly and passively as a yolk by the Christians who believe that God wants them to “bear their cross” and who believe that suffering is good, that it dignifies us and makes us good people. I also think of the Jehova’s Witnesses and others who reject blood transfusions for their own children and themselves even if this is the only life-saving method because of blind obedience to a Bronze-Age Biblical taboo against having contact with blood, etc. Fear of gods is just as harmful today as it was in antiquity.

These Lucretian verses are in line with the “cognitive purity code” that Epicurus established for the gods when he said we could believe anything about them so long as it didn’t contradict their incorruptibility and beatitude (ever-blissful nature) in his Epistle to Menoeceus–an epitome, or summary of his ethics. Epicurus must have looked at many case-studies and elaborated on this teaching in many ways with his disciples prior to summarizing it in this way. Lucretius continues, making an appeal to reason–which helps to save us from superstition and its dangers–and warning against the tendency to degrade ourselves with fear-based auguries or oracles:

But that afar from us
Veriest reason may drive such life away,
Much yet remains to be embellished yet
In polished verses, albeit hath issued forth
So much from me already; lo, there is
The law and aspect of the sky to be
By reason grasped; there are the tempest times
And the bright lightnings to be hymned now-
Even what they do and from what cause soe’er
They’re borne along- that thou mayst tremble not,
Marking off regions of prophetic skies
For auguries, O foolishly distraught
Even as to whence the flying flame hath come,
Or to which half of heaven it turns, or how
Through walled places it hath wound its way,
Or, after proving its dominion there,
How it hath speeded forth from thence amain-
Whereof nowise the causes do men know,
And think divinities are working there.

Here we see that 2,000 years ago, Lucretius warned against a still-popular mistake among the men of religion of our day: the “God of the gaps” argument, which tries to impose or project the image of God unto whatever field of knowledge has not yet been deciphered and pierced by science. As science has advanced, the “gap” that God needs to fill has narrowed and, today, there is very little that can be justified by an appeal to a creator, vindictive or intervening God. For instance, creationism is little more than a joke, and the theory of evolution by natural selection eloquently explains the nature of things.

It is unfair to speak of the harms that come from incorrect religiosity without also addressing the benefits of correct piety, according to Epicurean philosophy. If we claim that there is nothing whatsoever worthy of honor or praise, this would seem to endorse a cynical nihilism that can only awkwardly attach itself to a pleasant lifestyle and philosophy. Piety was an important area of interest for the ancient Epicurean Guides.

Honoring a sage is itself a great good to the one who honors. – Epicurean Saying 32

Epicurean Guides like Hermarchus and Philodemus seemed convinced that those who practice philosophy correctly feel as if they were protected by a lucky star or a guardian angel, but it’s not a spirit or supernatural force that is protecting us. They addressed philosophy in salvific terms, and Epicurus said that to be truly free we must be slaves to philosophy. It’s philosophy that liberates us and protects us, our heads, and our characters, if we honor her and practice correctly: the canon protects us from false views that are harmful for our happiness, the parrhesia (frank criticism) of our friends protects us from error and helps keep our character healthy, some of the healing Doctrines diagnose some disease of the soul and carry medicine for it, etc. If we engage the process of philosophy, it’s as if we have created guardian angels for ourselves. This reminds me of this ecstatic, poetic, and quasi-shamanic statement in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra:

I want to have goblins about me, for I am courageous. The courage which scareth away ghosts, createth for itself goblins- it wanteth to laugh.

… which reminds me of religious techniques used in many cultures, which involve music, loud noises, and other playful behavior believed to shoo away bad spirits (sadness, depression, etc.) and attract good spirits (happy dispositions). The book De l’inhumanité de la religion discusses interesting aspects of the intersection between play-behavior and primitive (pre-agricultural) forms of shamanic religion. In nature, we see that play behavior has didactic utility: puppies and cubs learn social skills, hierarchical structure, hunting techniques, and other useful skills for survival and socializing. I believe the intersection between primitive religiosity and play behavior deserves more focused study from a specifically Epicurean perspective.

Form our meleta on the Philodeman Scroll On Piety, I get the sense that Epicurus was specifically interested in the bodily and mental repercussions of pious practices, and their effect on our bodies, minds, habits, and dispositions. If some form of pious practice is playful, blissful, ethically useful and correct as per our Doctrines, and treats fear-based beliefs and superstitions as taboo, it may qualify as a specifically-Epicurean experiment in piety, and might in the future furnish a useful case-study that would allow us to speak with more authority on the subject of the harms and benefits of the gods.

Further Reading:

The Epicurean Gods: a SoFE Educational Module

 Piety according to the sources of Epicurean Philosophy

Dialogues on the Epicurean Gods

Second Dialogue on the Epicurean Gods

“For there ARE Gods …”

PD 1: On the Utility of the Epicurean Gods

Piety according to the sources of Epicurean Philosophy

An essay by George Kaplanis, founding member of the Group of friends of Epicurean Philosophy-Garden of Thessaloniki. Originally written in Greek; translation was edited for grammar correction and clarity by Elli Pensa and Hiram Crespo.

O humankind unhappy!- when it ascribed
Unto divinities such awesome deeds,
And coupled thereto rigours of fierce wrath!
What groans did men on that sad day beget
Even for themselves, and O what wounds for us,
What tears for our children’s children! Nor, O man,
Is thy true piety in this: with head
Under the veil, still to be seen to turn
Fronting a stone, and ever to approach
Unto all altars; nor so prone on earth
Forward to fall, to spread upturned palms
Before the shrines of gods, nor yet to dew
Altars with profuse blood of four-foot beasts,
Nor vows with vows to link. But rather this:
To look on all things with a master eye
And mind at peace.

Lucretius, in De Rerum Natura

For two years now, in the Gardens, we have been discussing two possibilities: a) whether Epicurus was an atheist, and was hiding behind a theology to avoid persecution, or b) whether Epicurus was indeed pious, and he meant what he said. Of course, Cicero explicitly states that the Epicurean methodology of thinking does not accept disjunctive dilemmas, but that is another big issue.

However, both in the above cases, Epicurus, integrating his theology into his philosophy, should have faced the problem of cohesion. That is to say, if we likened his philosophy to a coherent system, we should be able to go from one point to another. But if he built a theology simply as a cover up, he risked building something strange, unrelated to the rest, and ridicule, since, in that era, people would have understood it (was a cover up) immediately. Therefore, in order for his teaching to remain coherent, he had to manifest his piety to the gods, in line with his Physics, Canon, and Ethics.

And here we have to define “piety”. It is very easy, because it is defined by Lucretius (in his work “DE RERUM NATURA”, Book V, f. 1200 – 1205): << Piety is…. to be able to see everything with reasonable calculus (sober reasoning), without anxiety>> (see a different translation above).

And so, since “everything” goes back to the Nature of Things, the ataraxia on Ethics and the “calculus” in the Canon, the consistency exists at least in the practice, in the experiential approach of theology. This is piety, according to Lucretius: it isn’t to present yourself with your head covered, to bow before stones, to visit altars, to raise your hands to the sanctuaries, to repeat prayers one after another,

But when you can see all the things with sober calculus, piety is imitation of the gods, but also rivalry to the gods (that is: competing with them in bliss), which ultimately function as templates, and in my view as archetypes, meaning as prototypes, i.e. as reference points. Thus, the Epicurean tries to live as a god among men (see the closing words of the Letter to Meneoceus). This corresponds to the “theosis” (defined as “the likeness to or union with a god; deification. The process of attaining this state.”) that other religions have. But that “theosis” requires many sacrifices, pains, fasts, etc., while whoever lives according to Epicurean philosophy, becomes pious and competes with the gods in happiness. Noteworthy is Diogenes of Oenoandas‘ report:

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.

Thus, we conclude that the course of the life of Epicurus, which is a course of the study of Nature, is at the same time a course of theosis, in the epicurean sense. It is a course of initiation, but without secret/mystical teachings. This process also includes participation in religious feasts, because they honor the divine standards, as well as prayer.

As for prayer, Epicurus said that it is «οικείον» intimate to our nature to pray, and advised us to pray, not because the gods need prayers, but because in this way we can capture the value and perfection of the gods. Thus, in practice, prayer activates the mental and ethical forces of man, but it also activates his brain functions, stimulates the mind and helps to bring inspiration to the person who prays.

For years I had been looking for an Epicurean prayer. It was finally in front of me. Lucretius begins his work with a prayer to Aphrodite. Lucretius begins to write a scientific work, a work of scientific research on the nature of things. At first, he briefly refers to the dynamic of nature that moves things, and he attributes this to Aphrodite:

Mother of Rome, delight of Gods and men,
Dear Venus that beneath the gliding stars
Makest to teem the many-voyaged main
And fruitful lands- for all of living things
Through thee alone are evermore conceived,
Through thee are risen to visit the great sun-
Before thee, Goddess, and thy coming on,
Flee stormy wind and massy cloud away,
For thee the daedal Earth bears scented flowers,
For thee waters of the unvexed deep
Smile, and the hollows of the serene sky
Glow with diffused radiance for thee!

Seeking a way to stimulate his mental functions and to enliven his inspiration, Lucretius continues the prayer :

And since ’tis thou alone
Guidest the Cosmos, and without thee naught
Is risen to reach the shining shores of light,
Nor aught of joyful or of lovely born,
Thee do I crave co-partner in that verse
Which I presume on Nature to compose.

Thus, Aphrodite, Lucretius and his work become one.

Further Reading:
Philodemus On Piety: Critical Text with Commentary Part 1 (Philodemus Translation Series

“For there ARE Gods …”

Those things which without ceasing I have declared unto you, do them, and exercise yourself in them, holding them to be the elements of right life.

First believe that a God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that is repugnant to his blessedness. Believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. For there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that men do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them.

Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in men like themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind.

Epicurus of Samos, Epistle to Menoeceus

An Epicurean Theology?

The establishment of an Epicurean Theology group on facebook opened the floodgates for revisiting the ancient sources and evaluating what the Epicureans of old actually believed and why. The subject had been mostly dismissed previously among modern Epicureans, in part because the sources are not easy to interpret and incomplete, and in part because the subject is largely seen as irrelevant. Some of us have advanced the third interpretation of the gods–i.e. the atheistic one, arguing that there is no place for them in our cosmology and that they do not pass the test of the Canon.

Some have also suggested that Epicurus may not have been sincere, that he was really an atheist but in order to avoid the prejudice that atheists suffered in his day, he devised his naturalist theology. But this does not seem correct: some sources cite Epicurus’ own hostility towards “the atheists”, and Philodemus mentions a few of his atheist enemies by name. These hostilities deserve attention on their own, but here it should suffice to mention that they seem to indicate that sincere pious activities were taking place inside the Garden.

The word “Gods” has so much baggage and has been so awfully misused, that it is understandable that so many Epicureans wish to just drop it and use another term. There was a tradition among early Epicureans of redefining terms in alignment with the study of nature, and it seems far more likely that this is what the ancient atomists did: in a cosmos that does not need a creator and that has no beginning or end, and where nothing comes from nothing, and in a cosmos where humans are not the apex of creation, the gods would have to be those super-evolved animals in the ecology of the cosmos that have reached the closest thing to perfection: the kind of animals that our descendants in the far future may hope to become as we continue evolving.

Some of the people involved in the initiative to focus on our theology believe that it has a lot to offer in a theological battleground decidedly monopolized by the idealists, and hold that the teachings about the Epicurean Gods are absolutely central, that they are much more than a vestigial legacy of science fiction in our tradition, and point to the fact that two of the seminal documents mention the Gods: The Letter to Menoeceus–where it is counted among the “elements of the right life”–and the very first of the Principal Doctrines–which shows how central this reasoning was to Epicurean philosophy.

A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness. – PD 1

There’s even a “thou shalt not” in the Epistle to Menoeceus: a taboo against holding vulgar beliefs about the gods that produce anything but pleasure. Epicurus said: “You shall not affirm of them anything that is foreign to their immortality or that is repugnant to their blessedness. Believe about them whatever may uphold both their blessedness and immortality“.

The two central attributes mentioned in these two documents that qualify a super-evolved animal as a deity are immortality–that is, indestructibility–and blessedness, which is sometimes described as a state of pure, uninterrupted pleasure or bliss. Implicit in this second attribute is the pre-requisite that it must be a sentient being capable of experiencing these heights of blissful existence.

The Denizens of the Intermundia

Epicurus gave a new definition to the gods not as supernatural beings, but as superior animals who are perfect in their bliss and self-sufficiency, making them pretty much irrelevant to us. They don’t need our worship or prayer, and in all likelihood do not know we even exist.

One ethical goal of this is to do away with fear-based superstition about the gods, to “civilize” them and thus free mortals from religious fear and degradation. According to the sources, these deities live in the region “between the worlds” (the intermundia). The reasoning for this, it seems, is that they would be less likely to be dismantled by the natural processes of decay familiar to us in our part of the cosmos: they would not be bombarded by particles, or subject to gamma ray bursts.

Because they evolved in a different environment and are immune to threats to their mortality, the gods would need to have radically different faculties. For instance, since they are entirely self-sustaining and self-sufficient, they would lack a sense of gratitude and vindictiveness as indicated in PD 1. The entire lack of external threats would also make them perfectly innocent and confident.

It is as difficult for us to imagine the self-sufficiency of the Gods as it would have been difficult for our primitive ape ancestors to imagine what the life of a modern human is like today, but we can speculate that if our post-human descendants in the far future decide to create a habitat that they can live in–far from the known galaxies in order to have at least one population of humans who can avoid the danger of gamma ray bursts, and secure their immortality in perpetuity as much as nature allows–they would probably evolve far past the instinctive biological clock that is tied to the circadian rhythms, to the orbits and rhythms the solar system that served as our cradle. Lack of exposure to natural light will mean that they will not need melanin. They will most likely develop radically different constitutions and lifestyles from ours living in such a radically stable environment.

The comparison of percentages of genes we share with other species, plus how distant in time we are to them after four billion years of evolution on Earth, plus the likelihood that future post-humans are highly likely to self-consciously direct their evolutionary journey via eugenics–particularly if they face the evolutionary pressures of isolation in space–might give us an idea of how much speciation may happen in the future of our own genome over deep time, and based on that we can then speculate about other possible superior species that may have evolved elsewhere.

The Art of Epicurean Piety

But were the Epicurean Gods objects of contemplation among the Epicureans of old? Were these early Epicureans the awe-struck Carl-Sagans of antiquity?

It is true that Epicurus sought to fight superstition and to banish the perturbations created by false or evil beliefs about deity, but there was also a positive pursuit of pleasure in piety. We find indications in Philodemus’ scroll on Piety and other sources that the first Epicureans found in contemplation of the Gods’ blessedness a source of pure, effortless pleasure. The scroll On Piety and other sources claim that through contemplation of the gods and pious practices, mortals are able to train themselves to lead lives of such self-sufficiency and pleasure, that they “will live as gods among men”, and in fact this is the promise with which the Epistle to Menoeceus concludes.

Exercise yourself in these and related precepts day and night, both by yourself and with one who is like-minded; then never, either in waking or in dream, will you be disturbed, but will live as a god among men. For man loses all semblance of mortality by living in the midst of immortal blessings.

We see that, from the onset all the way through the conclusion of the main ethical document in Epicurean philosophy, the Epicurean Gods are appealed to as models of the pleasant life that we should strive for. But this role for religion among Epicureans entirely hinges on their having pure and wholesome beliefs about their Gods, beliefs that are based on the study of nature, and not on superstition or vulgar piety. If these doctrines are correctly understood and piety is correctly carried out, then a kind of affinity with these blissful beings ensues that is experienced as “pure, unalloyed pleasure” by the pious mortal, and this is what Epicurus holds as the goal of all religion. In the Epistle to Menoeceus we are told that “hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in men like themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind“.

It seems like this blissful side-effect of their contemplation happens as a matter of natural law, and not by any effort on part of the Gods, as beings of their kind would not bother with mortals at all. An analogy may be drawn from the way in which people are happier in the presence of loved ones, or the way in which people experience greater peace and joy in nature, or when breathing fresh air, or when they see the colors green and blue–which have been shown to have mood-boosting effects. One Epicurean mentioned the analogy of how dogs look up to humans as their alpha, and said that we could imagine that a similar kind of imprint might be involved in piety.

Epicurean piety can therefore be considered as falling within the realm of aesthetics. We can consider true (that is, natural) religion as an art-form and practice it as a way to cultivate certain pleasant experiences and attributes, to take into our minds divine beauty, tranquility and bliss in order to tread on blissful neural pathways with more frequency and habituate ourselves in them just as we train the body through exercise.

Furthermore, one last thing must be said of Epicurean theology and its unique value: it places noble expectations on theologians that their beliefs be aligned with nature while entirely ignoring wishful thinking, faith, and revelation as sources of knowledge. When Epicurus says: “Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious“, he is expecting us to align our values and views with nature and not with common belief. Epicurus challenges theologians to reconcile their views with the study of nature, which is the steady and stable foundation of all inquiry.

Some objections still remain for the realist, and even the idealist, interpretations of the Gods: Are they really a reliable source of pure pleasure, considering how many vulgar beliefs exist about the Gods in human culture and considering that only a few sages have been able to preserve the pure conception of the Gods? Doesn’t the lack of confirmation of their existence make them too speculative for serious consideration?

I’m still on the “third interpretation” of the gods myself, but these discussions have forced some of us to think about how some of the original doctrines can be appreciated, considered, and even defended, regardless of our agreement with them. If such a thing as Gods exist in nature, then these are the speculations that our non-supernatural cosmology offers … and, unlike the Gods of the supernatural cosmologies of traditional religions, we can say of our own Gods together with Lucretius that “this may have INDEED happened in the Great All“.

Further Reading:

Dialogues on the Epicurean Gods

 “This May Have Happened in the Great All“

Epicureanism as a Religious Identity

Venus as Spiritual Guide