Commendable work and a fine explanation. I am reminded of St. Paul's address in ACTS 17:18-34:
"18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new."
Some of the earliest Christian gentiles were Greeks devoted to truth and reason.
Solid summary of the issues at play. Your "... you might be an Epicurean" reminded me of the old Jeff Foxworthy routine "... you might be a Redneck." I may have to try to write up a few of those for the Epicurean side of things. :-D
After some meditations (pun slightly intended), I appreciate drawing a proper distinction between Stoics and Epicureans. It's been too long since I last deeply engaged in the Greek philosophers, and I did indeed forget the overlap between the two. I also still had the latter reduced to "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die."
After some reflections, based on what you have written, I still find myself more firmly in the Stoic vein.
I am a Christian, so I do believe the world operates in inevitable accordance with the divine Logos - Logos as in the formulation from the beginning of John's Gospel ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1 NASB 2020) I don't know that this necessarily puts me against science as framed in the article, but that may be more because the ancient Greeks worshiped gods that were capricious and why study what can be changed on a whim? Whereas the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob tells us we can understand him through study of His creation. That was the foundation for many natural sciences, even if they've forgotten or abandoned their roots.
I also think that putting pleasure before pain as a first principle leads to a retarded growth and a lesser life. It takes pain to build muscle, frustration to build skill, and all manner of temporary pain to achieve something worthwhile. And, unfortunately, some people learn best from pain. And for those people external alleviation prevents the understanding and growth needed.
I may have to dig in and write a proper reply, but first I want to read your "Why You Should Be an Epicurean".
Thank you for this. I have long believed that Epicureanism has gotten a bum rap in history and is much misunderstood, and that it actually has more in common with Stoicism than is commonly assumed. Thanks for elucidating this in a clear fashion.
Commendable work and a fine explanation. I am reminded of St. Paul's address in ACTS 17:18-34:
"18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new."
Some of the earliest Christian gentiles were Greeks devoted to truth and reason.
Makes sense.
Solid summary of the issues at play. Your "... you might be an Epicurean" reminded me of the old Jeff Foxworthy routine "... you might be a Redneck." I may have to try to write up a few of those for the Epicurean side of things. :-D
Even Epictetus had this to say about his students: "You will find that most of you are Epicureans and some few Peripatetics" (Discourses 2.19).
Here's how I think it happened that all of these people who call themselves "Stoics" but without belief in actual Stoicism came about: https://ataraxiaorbust.substack.com/p/the-stoicism-scam
Thank you for the article. I know very little about Epicurean thought. I've only read "On the Nature of Things". Do have any reading recommendations?
My recommendations for the ancient sources are here: https://www.untroubled.blog/p/primary-sources
And explore the rest of the articles here, of course!
Well that was a good one to have read.
Try this: https://gregorybsadler.substack.com/p/reading-recommendations-for-epicurean
👏🏻💯
After some meditations (pun slightly intended), I appreciate drawing a proper distinction between Stoics and Epicureans. It's been too long since I last deeply engaged in the Greek philosophers, and I did indeed forget the overlap between the two. I also still had the latter reduced to "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die."
After some reflections, based on what you have written, I still find myself more firmly in the Stoic vein.
I am a Christian, so I do believe the world operates in inevitable accordance with the divine Logos - Logos as in the formulation from the beginning of John's Gospel ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1 NASB 2020) I don't know that this necessarily puts me against science as framed in the article, but that may be more because the ancient Greeks worshiped gods that were capricious and why study what can be changed on a whim? Whereas the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob tells us we can understand him through study of His creation. That was the foundation for many natural sciences, even if they've forgotten or abandoned their roots.
I also think that putting pleasure before pain as a first principle leads to a retarded growth and a lesser life. It takes pain to build muscle, frustration to build skill, and all manner of temporary pain to achieve something worthwhile. And, unfortunately, some people learn best from pain. And for those people external alleviation prevents the understanding and growth needed.
I may have to dig in and write a proper reply, but first I want to read your "Why You Should Be an Epicurean".
Thank you for this. I have long believed that Epicureanism has gotten a bum rap in history and is much misunderstood, and that it actually has more in common with Stoicism than is commonly assumed. Thanks for elucidating this in a clear fashion.