Stoics & Epicureans @dawn-LISTEN... Democritus & the Sophists-LISTEN... Urgency & the Epicure-LISTEN
Epicureanism: A Very Short Introduction, ch 1-2ch1
1. For most of history, Epicureanism has conjured what image? Did J.S. Mill share that view?
2. What signaled a bold Epicurean break from Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics?
3. Epicureanism asserted that there's "nothing to be feared or hope for" from what?
4. What Epicurean view did Cicero agree with? What alternative doctrines contrary to Epicurus's did Stoics subscribe to?
5. How did early Christians and Muslims regard Epicureanism?
4. What Epicurean view did Cicero agree with? What alternative doctrines contrary to Epicurus's did Stoics subscribe to?
5. How did early Christians and Muslims regard Epicureanism?
6. What 15th century discovery became one of the important texts for 17th and 18th century philosophers, poets, and naturalists?
Discussion Questions
Discussion Questions
Discussion Questions
- Why do you think Epicureanism has so often been errantly confused with "swinishness"? Do we humans have difficulty conceiving a difference between pleasure and hedonism?
- What kinds of pleasures do you consider most relevant to your happiness? (Or if you prefer, to your good life?) Do you agree with Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics (contra Epicurus) that sensual pleasures are inferior to those of the mind?
- COMMENT: “All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher.” ― Titus Lucretius Carus, On the Nature of Things: de Rerum Natura
- COMMENT: “To fear death, then, is foolish, since death is the final and complete annihilation of personal identity, the ultimate release from anxiety and pain.” ― Titus Lucretius Carus, On the Nature of Things... Gutenberg etext
- What do you make of Epicurus's "piety towards the gods" (according to Diogenes Laertius), in light of the Epicureans' reputation for considering them irrelevant (at most) to our happiness?
1. Who were Epicurus's atomistic precursors?
2. How did the Epicureans come to believe in the early theory of atoms?
3. Was Epicurus a determinist?
3. Was Epicurus a determinist?
4. What pre-Socratic philosopher deemed the theory of atomism impossible?
5. By what time did an early version of Epicurean atomism become popular?
6. How did Epicureanism eventually become compatible with Christian doctrine?
5. By what time did an early version of Epicurean atomism become popular?
6. How did Epicureanism eventually become compatible with Christian doctrine?
Discussion Questions
- Do you think Epicurus was on the right track in thinking of atomic "swerve" as a "basis for free will"? 11 If they swerve randomly and unpredictably, how does that refute or challenge determinism? Or is his point that we can try to emulate their example and be random and unpredictable ourselves? Is random unpredictability really another name for freedom? (Remind me to tell my undergrad pub story...)
- Do you subscribe (like the Stoics) to belief in a "divine plan for the good of the universe, including human choices and decision"? 12 Is a choice a real choice, if it's foreordained?
- Does the image of "dust motes dancing in a sunbeam" remind you, as it does me, of Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot ("a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam" 12)? Do you see any parallels between Sagan's cosmic philosophy and Epicureanism? What about the "multiplicity of worlds" hypothesis vs. the view of Christian salvation as limited to "one small corner of the many world universe" etc. 16
- COMMENT: "Neither incorporeal souls nor bodiless divinities exist, according to the atomist, exist, and magic... is impossible." (14) Is the atomist's world less fearful than the supernaturalist's, and thus more prone to happiness? Is it more hopeful? (17) Less pervaded by "spirits"? (19)
- Do you find a "top-down imposition of order and harmony" in the world more intuitively plausible than the atomists' bottom-up vision of a universe becoming gradually more ordered and complex as time goes by? 16
- Is there any reason, on Epicurean or other grounds, to treat the "underlying reality" of atoms as any more or less real than the world of everyday experience and perception?
Is there a relationship between Epicureanism and the modern political movement Libertarianism for whom liberty is the most important value?
ReplyDeleteDoes not every political party claim that as the most important value?!!
DeleteHow did the Epicureans come to believe in the early theory of atoms? the Epicureans surmised that a world full of solid objects must be constituted by some primary element they called atoms. I have often pondered how the Epicureans, Aristotle and other philosophers, by mere observation and discernment, arrived at theories about inner workings of matter and biology that turned out to be so amazingly spot on.
ReplyDeleteJust lucky? Or maybe there's just something intuitive about atomism to recommend itself to the speculative inquirer.
DeleteEpicureanism asserted that there's "nothing to be feared or hope for" from what? The Gods, the many gods and their temples which permeated society at that time and held the attention of people who feared that neglecting any one of these deities and failing to bring them sacrifices would result in disaster. Early Christians like Paul were attacked and run out of town because their view that there was one God threatened the vast income realized by these temples to many different gods from pilgrims making sacrifices and buying idols for the mantle and at home worship.
ReplyDeleteThe gods, and the oppressive fear of a punitive and eternally-painful afterlife in The Bad Place.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a top down imposition of order is more likely than an order arising from the random swirving of atoms. Even given incredible amounts of time the sheer amount of void in the universe would make collisions unlikely and those collisions resulting in the combination of atoms into solid substances even more unlikely. Not even to mention principles from physical science of increasing entropy.
ReplyDelete"Neither incorporeal souls nor bodiless divinities exist, according to the atomist, exist, and magic... is impossible." (14) Is the atomist's world less fearful than the supernaturalist's, and thus more prone to happiness? Is it more hopeful? (17) Less pervaded by "spirits"? (19)
ReplyDeleteIf you take "less fearful" as meaning that there are fewer things in out life that can threaten our existence or lifestyle, then I suppose so. However, in the same vein, one could argue that the absence of supernatural entities, like the divine and the spirit, than what hope does one have in his or her greatest rut? Are you just destined to nonexistence after your life? To some, this may be far more horrifying than any thought of ghosts, spirits, and wrathful deities.
Hope is a fickle thing that we all seem to derive from varying sources. Two miserable individuals exposed to the same dreadful experiences may come to grips with their experiences in a multitude of ways. For instance, the God-Fearing man may find hope in the approaching afterlife while the atheist may simply find hope in the disappearance of her pain as her life is extinguished and she ceases to feel any sensation at all. Nonetheless, this question is an interesting one that may very well just be up to taste.
What kinds of pleasures do you consider most relevant to your happiness? (Or if you prefer, to your good life?) Do you agree with Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics (contra Epicurus) that sensual pleasures are inferior to those of the mind?
ReplyDeleteI hope I don’t sound too terribly cliché in saying this, but I would say it really is the small, simple pleasures that are the most relevant to my happiness. I actually would go as far to say, I 100 percent disagree with Plato, Aristotle, and the stoics with their view on sensual pleasures being inferior to those of the mind. I think sensual pleasures, like all things in life, hold what value (in this case “emotional” value) you allow them to. Simply stated, small pleasures of the senses can make just as much impact as anything else if you have the right perspective. I love the way the book describes their vies as seeing sensual pleasure getting in the way or conflicting with the “true good” and Epicurus serves as pleasure’s defender, and I can say, I’d back him up!
"Neither incorporeal souls nor bodiless divinities exist, according to the atomist, exist, and magic... is impossible."
ReplyDeleteI would say that this ideal is "less fearful" than the super naturalist's in a spirits aspect, but I don't necessarily think that would make them prone to being happier per say. I think some, if not even most, people find at least some comfort in the thought of their passed loved ones "watching over them" or "being in a better place" or "having their souls set free", so I think for a lot of those people not having that safety net would actually in return make them more scared of death and the afterlife. I think at least from a supernaturalism point of view, you have the comfort of at least they are moving on to somewhere in some way, shape, or form.
3. Epicureanism asserted that there's "nothing to be feared or hope for" from what?
ReplyDeleteAlthough (to me) it read in the text that he did not directly reject the existence of any god or gods, he did essentially state that everything that happens, does so on the grounds of a cosmological "nature" and therefore, has no sort of personal or spiritual attachment to any of us. I would agree, but I do think that this would be a view that negates some of the dogma of certain religions, specifically those that claim the existence of that "nature" being a force that is propelled by our behaviors, good or bad.