18 ms·

Epicurus for Our Time

86 points by diodorus 4y ago

eternalban 4y ago
"I would rather discover a new aetiology than acquire the Persian crown." - Epicurus “In physics, where he is the most pretentious, Epicurus is a perfect stranger. Most of it belongs to Democritus; where he deviates from him, where he endeavours to improve, he spoils and worsens it.” - Cicero “Of this great man [Democritus] we scarcely know anything but what Epicurus borrowed from him, and Epicurus was not capable of always taking the best.” - Leibniz Epicurus' philosophy very much reminds me of Goethe's regarding perception of colors (contrasted with the objective position of Newton regarding colors). As I am aging I am becoming convinced that the experience is the meaning, and youthful insistence on "meaning of life" is precisely pre-mature. (And as a Persian, I think he also made the right call regarding the crown of Persia ..) [The quotes are taken from Karl Marx's school thesis btw.]
- criddell 4y ago
  What was meant by Epicurus is a perfect stranger in physics? Does it mean he didn't interact with other physicists? Was physics something different 2000 years ago?
  - ColanR 4y ago
    I think it just means he was really bad at it.
- _0w8t 4y ago
  But then who among Ancient Greek philosophers was good at physics? They only tried to explain, that is, tell stories about how things worked. They did not try to make predictions and verify that they matched the reality.
  - eimrine 4y ago
    There is no physics in Liberal Arts but there were Geometry, Music, Astronomy - some parts of which are parts of what today is called Physics. All I know about pure Physics in Ancient times is Zeno's paradoxes which is how they used to analyze movement and maybe three Archimedean simple machines among the 6 classical ones which is how they applied their knowledge about movement into practice.
  - kromem 4y ago
    Epicurus. The comment above is using the quotes of people who didn't understand modern science ('physics' meant the study of nature) to dismiss the guy who in retrospect was the closest to modern science. For example, Lucretius (the Epicurean poet) nailed survival of the fittest and roughly described Mendelian trait inheritance nearly two millennia before Darwin. But I very much doubt Cicero or even Leibniz would have recognized that as a correct understanding of nature.
    - _0w8t 4y ago
      Even Epicurus just tried to explain according to his surviving works. As for Lucretius preceding Darwin by 2 millennia, then consider that the idea of survival of the fittest by itself is not a scientific theory in the modern sense that makes predictions that can be verified. Basically one can explain anything with it by defining what “fittest” means post-factum. The science begins when one tries to predict with it things like speed of evolution or the existence of species not yet observed in paleontological records. There is nothing like that in Lucretius works AFAIK.
- kromem 4y ago
  Except that it's the Epicureans that got the closest to modern scientific knowledge in hindsight. Lucretius's De Rerum Natura is the only extant work from antiquity to explicitly describe the claim that what we see around us started from senseless primordial beings that through intermediate mutants came to be what we see around us via the process of survival of the fittest in relation to reproduction. It also claimed that trait inheritance occurred as the result of a "doubled seed" from each parent. It theorized that quantized matter must be governed by a degree of uncertainty in outcomes for free will to exist ("the swerve"). That light was also quantized and what we see is the result of these quantized parts moving very quickly. That thunder and lighting might occur at the same time but one moves faster to reach us. That the entire world was the result of primordial quanta randomly interacting. That this was not the only world like it, but was one of an uncountable number of worlds all from this random process. So that's great that a bunch of idiots in antiquity who had no idea what was actually correct thought that Democritus was superior (who they also claimed was just ripping off Mochus of Sidon) and Epicurus the lesser. But their opinions are hardly authoritative given they would have also claimed most of the above wasn't true. The Epicurean understanding of nature was outstanding in retrospect with the exception of his local cosmology.
fogzen 4y ago
We cannot heal the wasteland within while creating a wasteland without. We cannot fix the problem until we recognize the problem: industrial society and the hubris of technological progress. The more we attempt to improve on nature, the more we destroy nature and ourselves. We have alienated ourselves and our soul in the aimless pursuit of progress. We have gained little yet lost nearly everything. But why must we progress? Nature is fine as it is. We are fine as we are. Our internal and external wasteland is caused by the blind pursuit of decadent desire. Epicurus had a garden. When was the last time you spent the day in a garden, napped under the shade of a tree, smelled the plants and the flowers, and saw the moon and the stars in all their glory?
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  For me, HN is a largely-textmode garden, without whose walls are a cacophony of autoplay shorts, and within whose walls I may hope to find conversation and the ingredients for an active life of the mind. (NB: dang serves as a bit of a fountain: hope springs eternal in his patient moderation, and we are grateful in return!)
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    HN isn't great for conversations because if you post more than a couple of times in a thread you start getting "You're posting too fast" messages.
    - eimrine 4y ago
      HN is maybe fits better for conversations between humans, it really sucks if you have to post one message per minute or faster.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  > We have alienated ourselves and our soul in the aimless pursuit of progress. Evidence required
  - 4y ago
082349872349872 4y ago
> yet how many of us believe that we must first learn the art of friendship In (some) non-anglophone countries, education includes not only learning how to do, but also learning how to get along: not only savoir-faire, but also savoir-être.
thenerdhead 4y ago
> These Epicurean virtues are in short supply these days. Philosophers also have their flaws. Hedonism as seen by Epicurus has been taken to an extreme in this modern world and likely back then too. People may live too much of a Kierkegaard “aesthetic” life rather than an “ethical” one. This of course is the main argument that they can choose either/or. We constantly hear of people refer to this pursuit of happiness or aestheticism through the hedonic treadmill that one can’t get off. Instead their happiness remains at a baseline regardless of accomplishments throughout life. Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is not a realistic way to live. The existentialists all argue this as quoted at the beginning with perhaps a misunderstood Nietzsche idea of the last man and the “overman” who overcomes the wasteland by rejecting excess pleasure and embracing pain as a source of strength. The last man being the end of man due to complacency who only seeks pleasure. Overall I quite enjoyed this article, it feels as if the author is trying to defend Epicurus in the sense that he is wildly misunderstood. He looks to have a book on literary gardens that looks quite interesting. Will probably pick it up.
- t8sr 4y ago
  I don't think Epicurus would recognize the hedonistic values ascribed to him today. He was not a well man for the latter part of his life, and his idea of a life without pain was one where he is content with what he has and is surrounded by friends. In his letters, this is the theme he always returns to. In fact, of the philosophers we know from that era, Epicurus was the only one who wasn't an aristocrat. He came from a middle class background and he at his most "hedonistic" probably would have thrown a positively simple party compared to an average evening at Plato's.
foundart 4y ago
I think a better article on Epicurus is https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-seek-out-and-savour-lifes-joys-like-an-epicurean https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-seek-out-and-savour-lifes-jo... > Forget shallow hedonism. Follow this philosophy for wondrous, unexpected joys and resilience against inevitable misfortune And > Epicurus thinks that we not only need friends, but that friends contribute the most to life’s goodness. Friend groups give us confidence of support in times of material and emotional distress, and they help us learn about ourselves and the world. Sometimes only friends can effectively communicate difficult truths. For Epicurus, the crowning grace of good friends is their role in building the library of joyful memories we rely on in times of difficulty, boredom or misfortune.
pelasaco 4y ago
Less Epicurus and more Aristotle. We need eudaimonia, which is achieved through the cultivation of virtues and the development of a good character.
lordleft 4y ago
Epicurus is compelling, but I ultimately reject his philosophy in favor of Stoicism / Academic Skepticism for two reasons: a) The Epicurean belief that emotional disturbance/perturbation is basically bad stymes emotional thriving. In a podcast with fellow Stoic Massimo Pigulicci, therapist and Stoic Scholar Donald Robertson points out that this idea is very close to the statement "anxiety is bad", a belief that correlates strongly with a host of pathological mental conditions/states. b) The Epicurean aversion to anxiety pushes us away from political engagement and many other activities that root us in the murk of life. That being said, there are still many profound insights to be gleaned from Epicurus' thought.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zvmaz 4y ago
  I am sorry but I did not understand your comment. As for Stoicism, it is a very hard philosophy to live by if one is not temperamentally inclined to the "serenity to accept the things [one] cannot change, Courage to change the things [one] can, and Wisdom to know the difference".
  - seizethecheese 4y ago
    But the harder it is temperamentally, the more useful it is.
    - zvmaz 4y ago
      I don't know. It certainly is an interesting intellectual movement. Bertrand Russell wrote scathingly of Stoicism in his History of Western Philosophy [1], to which Massimo Pigliucci, the author cited above in the comment, responded [2]. I tend to be sympathetic to Russell's critique now, as Stoicism did not "work" for me. [1] https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy/page/n266/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy/pa... [2] https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/bertrand-russell-got-stoicism-seriously-wrong/ https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/bertrand-russ...

86 points by diodorus 4y ago

"I would rather discover a new aetiology than acquire the Persian crown." - Epicurus “In physics, where he is the most pretentious, Epicurus is a perfect stranger. Most of it belongs to Democritus; where he deviates from him, where he endeavours to improve, he spoils and worsens it.” - Cicero “Of this great man [Democritus] we scarcely know anything but what Epicurus borrowed from him, and Epicurus was not capable of always taking the best.” - Leibniz Epicurus' philosophy very much reminds me of Goethe's regarding perception of colors (contrasted with the objective position of Newton regarding colors). As I am aging I am becoming convinced that the experience is the meaning, and youthful insistence on "meaning of life" is precisely pre-mature. (And as a Persian, I think he also made the right call regarding the crown of Persia ..) [The quotes are taken from Karl Marx's school thesis btw.]

criddell 4y ago
What was meant by Epicurus is a perfect stranger in physics? Does it mean he didn't interact with other physicists? Was physics something different 2000 years ago?
- ColanR 4y ago
  I think it just means he was really bad at it.
_0w8t 4y ago
But then who among Ancient Greek philosophers was good at physics? They only tried to explain, that is, tell stories about how things worked. They did not try to make predictions and verify that they matched the reality.
- eimrine 4y ago
  There is no physics in Liberal Arts but there were Geometry, Music, Astronomy - some parts of which are parts of what today is called Physics. All I know about pure Physics in Ancient times is Zeno's paradoxes which is how they used to analyze movement and maybe three Archimedean simple machines among the 6 classical ones which is how they applied their knowledge about movement into practice.
- kromem 4y ago
  Epicurus. The comment above is using the quotes of people who didn't understand modern science ('physics' meant the study of nature) to dismiss the guy who in retrospect was the closest to modern science. For example, Lucretius (the Epicurean poet) nailed survival of the fittest and roughly described Mendelian trait inheritance nearly two millennia before Darwin. But I very much doubt Cicero or even Leibniz would have recognized that as a correct understanding of nature.
  - _0w8t 4y ago
    Even Epicurus just tried to explain according to his surviving works. As for Lucretius preceding Darwin by 2 millennia, then consider that the idea of survival of the fittest by itself is not a scientific theory in the modern sense that makes predictions that can be verified. Basically one can explain anything with it by defining what “fittest” means post-factum. The science begins when one tries to predict with it things like speed of evolution or the existence of species not yet observed in paleontological records. There is nothing like that in Lucretius works AFAIK.
kromem 4y ago
Except that it's the Epicureans that got the closest to modern scientific knowledge in hindsight. Lucretius's De Rerum Natura is the only extant work from antiquity to explicitly describe the claim that what we see around us started from senseless primordial beings that through intermediate mutants came to be what we see around us via the process of survival of the fittest in relation to reproduction. It also claimed that trait inheritance occurred as the result of a "doubled seed" from each parent. It theorized that quantized matter must be governed by a degree of uncertainty in outcomes for free will to exist ("the swerve"). That light was also quantized and what we see is the result of these quantized parts moving very quickly. That thunder and lighting might occur at the same time but one moves faster to reach us. That the entire world was the result of primordial quanta randomly interacting. That this was not the only world like it, but was one of an uncountable number of worlds all from this random process. So that's great that a bunch of idiots in antiquity who had no idea what was actually correct thought that Democritus was superior (who they also claimed was just ripping off Mochus of Sidon) and Epicurus the lesser. But their opinions are hardly authoritative given they would have also claimed most of the above wasn't true. The Epicurean understanding of nature was outstanding in retrospect with the exception of his local cosmology.

fogzen 4y ago

We cannot heal the wasteland within while creating a wasteland without. We cannot fix the problem until we recognize the problem: industrial society and the hubris of technological progress. The more we attempt to improve on nature, the more we destroy nature and ourselves. We have alienated ourselves and our soul in the aimless pursuit of progress. We have gained little yet lost nearly everything. But why must we progress? Nature is fine as it is. We are fine as we are. Our internal and external wasteland is caused by the blind pursuit of decadent desire. Epicurus had a garden. When was the last time you spent the day in a garden, napped under the shade of a tree, smelled the plants and the flowers, and saw the moon and the stars in all their glory?

082349872349872 4y ago
For me, HN is a largely-textmode garden, without whose walls are a cacophony of autoplay shorts, and within whose walls I may hope to find conversation and the ingredients for an active life of the mind. (NB: dang serves as a bit of a fountain: hope springs eternal in his patient moderation, and we are grateful in return!)
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  HN isn't great for conversations because if you post more than a couple of times in a thread you start getting "You're posting too fast" messages.
  - eimrine 4y ago
    HN is maybe fits better for conversations between humans, it really sucks if you have to post one message per minute or faster.
csdvrx 4y ago
> We have alienated ourselves and our soul in the aimless pursuit of progress. Evidence required
- 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago

> yet how many of us believe that we must first learn the art of friendship In (some) non-anglophone countries, education includes not only learning how to do, but also learning how to get along: not only savoir-faire, but also savoir-être.

thenerdhead 4y ago

> These Epicurean virtues are in short supply these days. Philosophers also have their flaws. Hedonism as seen by Epicurus has been taken to an extreme in this modern world and likely back then too. People may live too much of a Kierkegaard “aesthetic” life rather than an “ethical” one. This of course is the main argument that they can choose either/or. We constantly hear of people refer to this pursuit of happiness or aestheticism through the hedonic treadmill that one can’t get off. Instead their happiness remains at a baseline regardless of accomplishments throughout life. Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is not a realistic way to live. The existentialists all argue this as quoted at the beginning with perhaps a misunderstood Nietzsche idea of the last man and the “overman” who overcomes the wasteland by rejecting excess pleasure and embracing pain as a source of strength. The last man being the end of man due to complacency who only seeks pleasure. Overall I quite enjoyed this article, it feels as if the author is trying to defend Epicurus in the sense that he is wildly misunderstood. He looks to have a book on literary gardens that looks quite interesting. Will probably pick it up.

t8sr 4y ago
I don't think Epicurus would recognize the hedonistic values ascribed to him today. He was not a well man for the latter part of his life, and his idea of a life without pain was one where he is content with what he has and is surrounded by friends. In his letters, this is the theme he always returns to. In fact, of the philosophers we know from that era, Epicurus was the only one who wasn't an aristocrat. He came from a middle class background and he at his most "hedonistic" probably would have thrown a positively simple party compared to an average evening at Plato's.

foundart 4y ago

I think a better article on Epicurus is https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-seek-out-and-savour-lifes-joys-like-an-epicurean https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-seek-out-and-savour-lifes-jo... > Forget shallow hedonism. Follow this philosophy for wondrous, unexpected joys and resilience against inevitable misfortune And > Epicurus thinks that we not only need friends, but that friends contribute the most to life’s goodness. Friend groups give us confidence of support in times of material and emotional distress, and they help us learn about ourselves and the world. Sometimes only friends can effectively communicate difficult truths. For Epicurus, the crowning grace of good friends is their role in building the library of joyful memories we rely on in times of difficulty, boredom or misfortune.

pelasaco 4y ago

Less Epicurus and more Aristotle. We need eudaimonia, which is achieved through the cultivation of virtues and the development of a good character.

lordleft 4y ago

Epicurus is compelling, but I ultimately reject his philosophy in favor of Stoicism / Academic Skepticism for two reasons: a) The Epicurean belief that emotional disturbance/perturbation is basically bad stymes emotional thriving. In a podcast with fellow Stoic Massimo Pigulicci, therapist and Stoic Scholar Donald Robertson points out that this idea is very close to the statement "anxiety is bad", a belief that correlates strongly with a host of pathological mental conditions/states. b) The Epicurean aversion to anxiety pushes us away from political engagement and many other activities that root us in the murk of life. That being said, there are still many profound insights to be gleaned from Epicurus' thought.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zvmaz 4y ago
I am sorry but I did not understand your comment. As for Stoicism, it is a very hard philosophy to live by if one is not temperamentally inclined to the "serenity to accept the things [one] cannot change, Courage to change the things [one] can, and Wisdom to know the difference".
- seizethecheese 4y ago
  But the harder it is temperamentally, the more useful it is.
  - zvmaz 4y ago
    I don't know. It certainly is an interesting intellectual movement. Bertrand Russell wrote scathingly of Stoicism in his History of Western Philosophy [1], to which Massimo Pigliucci, the author cited above in the comment, responded [2]. I tend to be sympathetic to Russell's critique now, as Stoicism did not "work" for me. [1] https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy/page/n266/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy/pa... [2] https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/bertrand-russell-got-stoicism-seriously-wrong/ https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/bertrand-russ...