The Principal Doctrines of Epicurus
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>
Epicurus (Greek: Ἐπίκουρος, Epikouros, "ally, comrade"; Samos, 341 BCE
– Athens, 270 BCE; 72 years) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the
founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism.
Epicurus is a key figure in the development of science and the
scientific method because of his insistence that nothing should be
believed except that which was tested through direct observation and
logical deduction. Many of his ideas about nature and physics presaged
important scientific concepts of our time. He was a key figure in the
Axial Age, the period from 800 BCE to 200 BCE, during which similarly
revolutionary thinking appeared in China, India, Iran, the Near East,
and Ancient Greece. His statement of the Ethic of Reciprocity as the
foundation of ethics is the earliest in Ancient Greece, and he differs
from the formulation of utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill by
emphasizing the minimization of harm to oneself and others as the way
to maximize happiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines (Κyriai Doxai in Greek) come down to us
from Diogenes Laertius' 10th book of his Lives and Opinions of Eminent
Philosophers. The scholiast commentary are notes of uncertain
authorship found embedded in the actual manuscript source. The
authenticity of the Principal Doctrines is also asserted by
testimonials found in several works of antiquity.
The enumeration (1-40) is not actually part of the original text; they
are standardized divisions employed since the late 19th century. The
italicized section headings are an original thematic overview.
This presentation produced by Erik Anderson, 2004.
Index
The Principal Doctrines of Epicurus
Scholiast Commentary
Testimonials
The Principal Doctrines of Epicurus
The four-fold cure for anxiety:
Don't fear the gods; Nor death; Goods are easy to obtain; Evils
are easy to endure
1) A blessed and imperishable being neither has trouble itself nor
does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore, it does not
experience feelings of anger or indebtedness, for such feelings
signify weakness.
2) Death is nothing to us, because a body that has been dispersed
into elements experiences no sensations, and the absence of sensation
is nothing to us.
3) Pleasure reaches its maximum limit at the removal of all sources
of pain. When such pleasure is present, for as long as it lasts, there
is no cause of physical nor mental pain present – nor of both
together.
4) Continuous physical pain does not last long. Instead, extreme
pain lasts only a very short time, and even less-extreme pain does not
last for many days at once. Even protracted diseases allow periods of
physical comfort that exceed feelings of pain.
Pleasure and virtue are interdependent
5) It is impossible to live pleasantly without living wisely and
honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and
honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of
these is lacking (when, for instance, one is not able to live wisely,
though he lives honorably and justly) it is impossible for him to live
a pleasant life.
Social and financial status have recognizable costs and benefits
6) That natural benefit of kingship and high office is (and only is)
the degree to which they provide security from other men.
7) Some seek fame and status, thinking that they could thereby
protect themselves against other men. If their lives really are
secure, then they have attained a natural good; if, however, they're
insecure, they still lack what they originally sought by natural
instinct.
8) No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but some pleasures are only
obtainable at the cost of excessive troubles.
Through the study of Nature, we discern the limits of things
9) If every pleasure could be prolonged to endure in both body or
mind, pleasures would never differ from one another.
10) If the things which debauched men find pleasurable put an end to
all fears (such as concerns about the heavenly bodies, death, and
pain) and if they revealed how we ought to limit our desires, we would
have no reason to reproach them, for they would be fulfilled with
pleasures from every source while experiencing no pain, neither in
mind nor body, which is the chief evil of life.
11) If we were never troubled by how phenomena in the sky or death
might concern us, or by our failures to grasp the limits of pains and
desires, we would have no need to study nature.
12) One cannot rid himself of his primal fears if he does not
understand the nature of the universe but instead suspects the truth
of some mythical story. So without the study of nature, there can be
no enjoyment of pure pleasure.
13) One gains nothing by securing protection from other men if he
still has apprehensions about things above and beneath the earth and
throughout the infinite universe.
Unlike social and financial status, which are unlimited,
Peace of mind can be wholly secured
14) Supreme power and great wealth may, to some degree, protect us
from other men; but security in general depends upon peace of mind and
social detachment.
15) Natural wealth is both limited and easily obtained, but vanity is
insatiable.
16) Chance has little effect upon the wise man, for his greatest and
highest interests are directed by reason throughout the course of
life.
17) The just man is the freest of anyone from anxiety; but the unjust
man is perpetually haunted by it.
18) When pain arising from need has been removed, bodily pleasure
cannot increase – it merely varies. But the limit of mental pleasure
is reached after we reflect upon these bodily pleasures and the
related mental distress prior to fulfillment.
19) Infinite and finite time afford equal pleasure, if one measures
its limits by reason.
20) Bodily pleasure seems unlimited, and to provide it would require
unlimited time. But the mind, recognizing the limits of the body, and
dismissing apprehensions about eternity, furnishes a complete and
optimal life, so we no longer have any need of unlimited time.
Nevertheless, the mind does not shun pleasure; moreover, when the end
of life approaches, it does not feel remorse, as if it fell short in
any way from living the best life possible.
21) He who understands the limits of life knows that things which
remove pain arising from need are easy to obtain, and furnish a
complete and optimal life. Thus he no longer needs things that are
troublesome to attain.
Happiness depends on foresight and friendship
22) We must consider the ultimate goal to be real, and reconcile our
opinions with sensory experience; otherwise, life will be full of
confusion and disturbance.
23) If you argue against all your sensations, you will then have no
criterion to declare any of them false.
24) If you arbitrarily reject any one sensory experience and fail to
differentiate between an opinion awaiting confirmation and what is
already perceived by the senses, feelings, and every intuitive faculty
of mind, you will impute trouble to all other sensory experiences,
thereby rejecting every criterion. And if you concurrently affirm
what awaits confirmation as well as actual sensory experience, you
will still blunder, because you will foster equal reasons to doubt the
truth and falsehood of everything.
25) If you do not reconcile your behavior with the goal of nature,
but instead use some other criterion in matters of choice and
avoidance, then there will be a conflict between theory and practice.
26) All desires which create no pain when unfulfilled are not
necessary; such desires may easily be dispelled when they are seen as
difficult to fulfill or likely to produce harm.
27) Of all things that wisdom provides for living one’s entire life
in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship.
28) The same conviction which inspires confidence that nothing
terrible lasts forever, or even for long, also enables us to see that
in the midst of life's limited evils, nothing enhances our security so
much as friendship.
29) Among desires some are natural and necessary, some natural but
not necessary, and others neither natural nor necessary, but due to
baseless opinion.
30) Those natural desires which create no pain when unfulfilled,
though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to baseless
opinion; and if they are not dispelled, it is not because of their own
nature, but because of human vanity.
The benefits of natural justice are far-reaching
31) Natural justice is the advantage conferred by mutual agreements
not to inflict nor allow harm.
32) For all living creatures incapable of making agreements not to
harm one another, nothing is ever just or unjust; and so it is
likewise for all tribes of men which have been unable or unwilling to
make such agreements.
33) Absolute justice does not exist. There are only mutual
agreements among men, made at various times and places, not to inflict
nor allow harm.
34) Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of
the accompanying fear of being unable to escape those assigned to
punish unjust acts.
35) It is not possible for one who secretly violates the provisos of
the agreement not to inflict nor allow harm to be confident that he
won’t get caught, even if he has gotten away with it a thousand times
before. For up until the time of death, there is no certainty that he
will indeed escape detection.
36) Justice is essentially the same for all peoples insofar as it
benefits human interaction. But the details of how justice is applied
in particular countries or circumstances may vary.
37) Among actions legally recognized as just, that which is confirmed
by experience as mutually beneficial has the virtue of justice,
whether it is the same for all peoples or not. But if a law is made
which results in no such advantage, then it no longer carries the
hallmark of justice. And if something that used to be mutually
beneficial changes, though for some time it conformed to our concept
of justice, it is still true that it really was just during that time
– at least for those who do not fret about technicalities and instead
prefer to examine and judge each case for themselves.
38) Where, without any change in circumstances, things held to be
just by law are revealed to be in conflict with the essence of
justice, such laws were never really just. But wherever or whenever
laws have ceased to be advantageous because of a change in
circumstances, in that case or time the laws were just when they
benefited human interaction, and ceased to be just only when they were
no longer beneficial.
So happiness can be secured in all circumstances
39) He who desires to live in tranquility with nothing to fear from
other men ought to make friends. Those of whom he cannot make
friends, he should at least avoid rendering enemies; and if that is
not in his power, he should, as much as possible, avoid all dealings
with them, and keep them aloof, insofar as it is in his interest to do
so.
40) The happiest men are those who enjoy the condition of having
nothing to fear from those who surround them. Such men live among one
another most agreeably, having the firmest grounds for confidence in
one another, enjoying the benefits of friendship in all their
fullness, and they do not mourn a friend who dies before they do, as
if there was a need for pity.
Scholiast Commentary
PD 1: Elsewhere he says that the gods are discernible as mental
impressions, some being unique, while others look similar, owing to
the continuous flow of similar images to the same place, culminating
in human form.
PD 29: Epicurus considers things which bring relief from pain as
natural and necessary, for instance, drinking to relieve thirst.
Things that are natural but not necessary merely vary pleasure without
removing pain, such as expensive foods. Neither natural nor necessary
are, for example, kingship and the erection of statues in one's honor.
Testimonials
(Compiled by Hermann Usener)
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Philosophers, X.29 (Epicurus): Among the
writings of Epicurus, the following are his best ... Principal
Doctrines ... Ibid., 138: So then, let us put a seal, as they say, to
my entire work and to this philosopher by relating below his Principal
Doctrines, closing my entire work by making the end of it the
beginning of happiness.
Philodemus, On Anger, Column XLIII, Vol. Herc. alt. coll. I.66 p. 143
[Gomperz]: ... like some who, criticizing the Principal Doctrines in
their writings, will act absolutely surprised that one might have the
audacity to assert that anger, gratitude, and any similar feeling stem
from weakness {c.f. PD 1}, while Alexander, who was more powerful than
anyone else, was frequently subject to anger and demonstrated
gratitude towards innumerable persons.
Uncertain Epicurean Author, Column XV Vol. Herc. (2) alt. coll. XI.34,
edited by Comparetti, Fragments of Epicurean Ethics, p. 19 [Rivista di
filogogia, 7, p. 417]: We must also, accordingly, speak to the matter
of external factors which contribute towards fame, to precisely
establish what significance they might have to us, as for example:
luxury, beauty, wealth in general, and marriage – as we have already
mentioned. It is also for this reason also that they are dealt with
in the Principal Doctrines, and would also say that...
Uncertain Epicurean Author, Vol. Herc. (2) alt. coll. VII.21, Column
XXVII: now, as for that which is closest to the matter at hand, we
remain faithful to a book, having the title Principal Doctrines.
Therein, Epicurus shows that that which is imperishable, by nature,
insofar as the end... when he says ...
Cicero, On The Nature of The Gods, I.30.85 (Cotta to Velleius): In
that selection of his concise sayings, which you call the Principal
Doctrines, this, I believe, is his first: {proceeds to cite PD 1}.
Cicero, On the Laws, I.7.21: Nor indeed can the Epicureans stand it,
and will become very agitated, if they hear that you have betrayed the
first maxim of that superlative work in which he wrote that “God
doesn't trouble himself about anything – neither his own concerns nor
those of others.” [PD 1]
Cicero, On Ends, Good and Bad, II.7.20: In another book, containing a
compendium of his most important doctrines, we are told he had
expressed the very oracles of wisdom. Therein he writes the following
words, (which surely you know, Torquatus, for who among you has not
learned Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines – maxims that, notwithstanding
their conciseness, are extraordinary useful for living happily?) [he
proceeds to cite PD 10]
Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, XXV fragment 1, Dind.: The
philosopher Epicurus, in those works of his entitled Principal
Doctrines...
Plutarch, Against Colotes, 31, p. 1125E: ... in the first of the
Principal Doctrines, [PD 1], they directly subvert it [the social
cohesion afforded by religion].
Lucian, Alexander the Oracle Monger, 47: In this connection [railing
against Epicurean debunkers] Alexander once made himself supremely
ridiculous. Coming across Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines, the most
admirable of his books, as you know, with its terse presentment of his
wise conclusions, he brought it into the middle of the marketplace,
there burned it on a fig wood fire for the sins of its author, and
cast its ashes into the sea. He issued an oracle on the occasion: “The
dotard’s maxims to the flames be given.” The fellow had no conception
of the blessings conferred by that book upon its readers, of the
peace, tranquillity, and independence of mind it produces, of the
protection it gives against terrors, phantoms, and marvels, vain hopes
and insubordinate desires, of the judgment and candor that it fosters,
or of its true purging of the spirit, not with torches and squills and
such rubbish, but with right reason, truth, and frankness.
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Philosophers, X.31 (Epicurus): In the
Canon, Epicurus specifically says that the standards of truth are the
sensations, the preconceptions, and the passions. The Epicureans
generally include mental impressions also. His own statements may be
found in the summary addressed to Herodotus, and in the Principal
Doctrines. [PD 24]
Alciphron, Letters of Courtesans, 17.II.2 (Leontium depicted writing
to Lamia): How long can one suffer this philosopher? Let him keep his
books On Nature, the Principal Doctrines, The Canon, and, my lady, let
me be mistress to myself, as Nature intended, without anger and abuse.
Ibid., 7: Some flatter him and go about singing the praises of his
Doctrines.
Aelian (Claudius Aelianus), On Providence, fragment 61 [Suda, under
Epicurus and klaein]: And the book had contained the doctrines of
Epicurus which he called his Principal ones – Epicurus’ wicked
sayings. Among these, indeed, there were also the following claims:
that Creation was established by chance and not from the will and
justice of God. Then, these rather celebrated atoms, by colliding
with one another and then dispersing, formed the air, the earth, and
the sea. Then the assemblies and compounds disintegrate and
completely disappear, dissolving into atoms. All of creation, then,
arises through necessity and happenstance, with no basis in the wisdom
of the Creator. Moreover, Epicurus maintains that everything combined
itself together without providence, without a helmsman, nor guide, nor
shepherd... That one, however, sacrificed to the gods, and sent
Epicurus and his Doctrines to the devil.
http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/PD.html#1
Please dissect the above and explain why you agree or disagree with
this most brilliant of men.
Let us enter into the engagement with a mind as to what each of may
learn in consideration of these 40 powerful aphorisms.
What say you?
Regards to all
Psychonomist
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
klytu
<jazzyjeff34@hotmail.com>klytu: Interesting historical background! While I don't have time to
comment on all 40 points at the moment, a couple that I fully agree
with are 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, & 39 and I already strive to live my life
by those principles. However, Epicurus' comments about justice I find
somewhat confused. In 31, he defines "natural justice"; and in 33 he
claims there is no such thing as "absolute justice". Well, then what
does he mean by "justice". If it's only "natural justice", then why
the qualifier of "natural"? In other words, it seems to me that
Epicurus does in fact have a specific idea in mind when he speaks of
justice and that idea includes more than "the advantage conferred by
mutual agreements not to inflict nor allow harm."
> Regards to all
>
> Psychonomist
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Mar 28, 1:45 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How many years were there between Epicurus being alive and the written word
> which was published of what he had to say?
Observer
Observer
Epicurus's 300 books (written works) were written by him while he was
alive leaving a gap of zero years between his life time and the
writings He authored.
Epicurus (Greek: Ἐπίκουρος, Epikouros, "ally, comrade"; Samos, 341 BCE
– Athens, 270 BCE; 72 years) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the
founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism.
What is your point ? If any?
Psychonomist
> ...
>
> read more »
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>
Observer
One must assume that he was aware of the following circumstantial
understandings of the word justice.
"Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics,
rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
In which case he would of course differentiate his opinion from that
of others.
At any rate such is my opinion.
Thanks for the response.
Regards Psychonomist
Regards to all
>
> > Psychonomist
lawrey
<commentslawrey@btinternet.com>An interesting insight and a far more in depth study of the character
than I could afford in my text book type work; addressing some 600
characters.
But it lays along-side quite well and his ideas though seen some-what
quirky at the time were not too far short of the mark in generality.
His theory on space and atoms came remarkably close to
comparatively modern thinking.
It's such a pity that the DARK AGES of religion had to intervene.
One is left to contemplate that science may have been so much
further advanced, but for religion.
I did but a brief synopsis, but it is interesting to see how they
compare.
Epicurus (341 - 270 B.C.) [Samos, Athens]. Epicurus started a school
at Athens, which tended toward the Cynenaic school of thought in
philosophy in 306 B.C. Only a few of his books survive, though he
wrote
many. The aim of philosophy was practical and the goal of life,
happiness.
For him theory was subordinate, an instrument for reaching the end
which life seeks. Logic teaches that the test of truth is in
sensations as
far as he was concerned. Error comes in the judgements we make about
our sense perceptions, not from our immediate sense perceptions.
The hypotheses formed about the world must be tested by appeal to
sense experience; this conformity to sense is the test of truth.
The causes of pain are bad and the causes of pleasure are good.
As Democritus taught, the real world is a material one, composed of
indivisible atoms, eternal in existence, differing in size, shape, and
weight. Atoms move constantly in infinite space. They originally fell
in straight lines, at the same rate of speed; some swerved by chance
and as a consequence, there were collisions and a redistribution of
atoms. The evolution of the universe came out of this, and plants,
animals, and men. Epicuru's empirical theory of knowledge led him to
conclude that gods must exist, for men to have ideas of them, and all
ideas originate in sense perception. But the gods too, are material
and mortal beings, living in their own realm far from man.
However man does not need to concern himself with the gods, they
are especially blessed and free from care, it would be an annoyance
or them to have to deal with men. Human biology and psychology are
materialistic throughout. The soul itself is made of fury atoms.
At death the personality disintegrates; there is no immortality.
Ones aim should be to enjoy ones existence, but enjoyment should
be of a kind that is appropriate to man. After all, man is a rational
animal, not a brute beast.
Mental pleasure is superior to physical, and for man the former is
essential even to the latter. Pleasures are mixed with pains;
moderation is necessary; subtle pleasures are less painful. The goal
should be complete freedom from pain. Pleasures should not be
deliberately sought, for too many desires make frustration inevitable.
Virtue is necessary for happiness. Epicurus wrote that social life
evolves for the mutual benefit of individuals. Laws and institutions
are the rules adopted by men for living together. There is nothing
absolute about them. We follow rules for our own satisfaction.
Since individual happiness is the goal of living, the wise man will
participate in public life as little as possible, in order to avoid
its
disturbing influences and to minimise his own obligations.
> beneficial ...
>
> read more »
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>Thanks lawrey, for the insightful reply.
I always appreciate your insights and the clarity of mind that you
exemplify ,
Best regards
Psychonomist
> ...
>
> read more »
TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com>On Mar 28, 12:02 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Epicurus (Greek: Ἐπίκουρος, Epikouros, "ally, comrade"; Samos, 341 BCE
> – Athens, 270 BCE; 72 years) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the
> founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism.
>
> Epicurus is a key figure in the development of science and the
> scientific method because of his insistence that nothing should be
> believed except that which was tested through direct observation and
> logical deduction. Many of his ideas about nature and physics presaged
> important scientific concepts of our time. He was a key figure in the
> Axial Age, the period from 800 BCE to 200 BCE, during which similarly
> revolutionary thinking appeared in China, India, Iran, the Near East,
> and Ancient Greece. His statement of the Ethic of Reciprocity
This revolution (The Banana Revolution) is Epicurean by simplicity in
food as well as by observation of the above statement, which is widely
practice among the monkeys: "You scratch my back, I scratch yours!"
TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com>On Mar 28, 1:45 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How many years were there between Epicurus being alive and the written word
> which was published of what he had to say?
The early Christians dedicated themselves to burning his books, so we
may never know much of what he said.
It's a pity, is it not?
Khurram Chaudhry
<khurramc73@gmail.com>TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com>On Apr 2, 6:45 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what is The Banana Revolution?
It's belief that we humans can reciprocate like monkeys. The meaning
of the banana is particularly funny in a situation where the lion
either wants to eat the monkey or ignores his needs (like the upper
classes do with the poor), and the monkey replies, "Eat my
banana!" (love or middle finger)
***
I'd like to add something to the above, stating the Law of Reciprocity
and its implications. This may seem like a moot point, but we find the
"lex talionis" is the norm on our roads...
(I quote)
The social norm of reciprocity is the expectation that people will
respond to each other in similar ways—responding to gifts and
kindnesses from others with similar benevolence of their own, and
responding to harmful, hurtful acts from others with either
indifference or some form of retaliation. Such norms can be crude and
mechanical, such as a literal reading of the eye-for-an-eye rule lex
talionis, or they can be complex and sophisticated, such as a subtle
understanding of how anonymous donations to an international
organization can be a form of reciprocity for the receipt of very
personal benefits, such as the love of a parent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_%28social_and_political_philosophy%29
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>I enjoyed reading these doctrines and I'll try to get round to
discussing all of them, but first just regarding this one I'll say
that it seems to me that a feeling of indebtedness seems to me to be
tied up with a sense of justice. I would say that feeling indebted
when someone has done you a favour functions so as to help you act
more justly. I'm with him on it being good to avoid feelings of anger,
but I'm not sure about the feelings of indebtedness.
TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com>There's something distinctly different, though, between the Banana
Revolution or Wisdom of the Jungle (another name for it) and Epicurus:
In the jungle everything is connected to everything else, and you can
NOT retire to a Garden (think of a gated community) to live the good
happy life.
The jungle makes you fight for your own survival and that of other
similar kind. One application of it is how we should take a stand for
the people that want to ride a bicycle or walk and can't because of
all the terrorism present on our roads. If nobody does it, then the
world is doomed to war and climate change.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>Observer
Thanks for the reply . Tell us more of your opinion in relation to
this problem of indebtedness which you offer up.
Perhaps (and of course probably ) I have missed something important.
Regards
Psychonomist
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Apr 2, 6:43 pm, "TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu"
Observer
Indeed so . Christianity has destroyed much of what was beautiful ,
useful, and paid honor to the glories of
nature .
Regards
Psychonomist
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>I suppose I might be being inconsistent. As far as feelings of anger
go I go along with the idea that they are counter-productive and that
the goal should be to get them to go away. But I don't take that line
with regard to feelings of indebtedness. It seems to me that that
helps you to cultivate a disposition to act justly towards those who
have helped you. I don't regard it as counter-productive.
I mean, I feel indebted towards my parents because they have helped me
a lot, right? They also are responsible for my very existence,
although I don't know whether that should factor into the equation.
But they certainly have helped me a lot and I think that it helps me
to cultivate consciousness of that when I am thinking about my
situation. If you forget about the fact that others have helped you
then it may lead to behaving in ways which don't lead to happiness.
This may be due to some misunderstanding of what Epicurus means by
"indebtedness".
TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com>On Apr 3, 2:37 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I suppose I might be being inconsistent. As far as feelings of anger
> go I go along with the idea that they are counter-productive and that
> the goal should be to get them to go away. But I don't take that line
> with regard to feelings of indebtedness. It seems to me that that
> helps you to cultivate a disposition to act justly towards those who
> have helped you.
By the definition of RECIPROCITY I quoted above you can either
retaliate or IGNORE those who hurt you. I often follow the latter,
when I don't have a chance to teach them a lesson. ;)
But to pay back those who hurt you with love is not only stupid, it's
never practiced among the Christians themselves.
Only this monkey practiced the "love your enemy" teaching:
THE LION ROARS AT THE MONKEY TRYING TO INTIMIDATE HIM, AND HE
ANSWERS, 'SIR, YOU CAN EAT MY BANANA!'
Wasn't sharing his banana a symbol of love? ;)
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Apr 4, 9:38 am, "TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu"
I met a chap on the Internet who said he forgave the people who
murdered his brother and hoped that they would be rehabilitated into
society. (This was because he was a hard determinist who believed that
no-one was responsible for their actions.) That could be one
interpretation of "love your enemy". It's not that you don't hold them
accountable for what they've done, but you give them a chance to
redeem themselves.
TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu
<thetibetanmonkey@yahoo.com>Can we forgive those who destroy the environment for short term
profits and then lie in denial of man-made climate change?
No way, brother.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Apr 4, 2:41 pm, "TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu"
I believe that anthropogenic climate change is taking place, based on
reports I have heard in the media that that is the consensus among
climatologists at the moment. I would have to confess that I myself
have not read a peer-reviewed journal in climate science. Given that I
have not done so, I would have a hard time refusing to forgive those
who hold a different view from me, even if I suspect that it might not
be rationally grounded.
Since I believe that anthropogenic climate change is taking place and
that it is the developing nations who will suffer the worst effects
first I do believe that it is a very important moral issue, and that
in fact the president of Uganda was correct to characterise the
conduct of the developed nations as "a form of aggression", but I
would have to confess that I have not yet gotten around to calculating
my carbon footprint and taking steps to reduce it, although I can at
least take comfort in the fact that I have made a good start with my
vegan diet. If this means I am beyond the point of forgiveness then
that is certainly very sad but there it is.
I'm certainly with you on being concerned about climate change but
talking about who can and cannot be forgiven is not very productive
really. The main point is to do what we can to see if the problem can
be adequately solved. Unfortunately it is quite hard to feel confident
about that.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>providing this. I was unfamiliar with the bulk of Epicurus's
philosophy.
Happy Easter, or Spring, as you may prefer!
TibetanMonkey, Founder of the Church of the CommonSense
<comandante.banana@yahoo.com>On Apr 4, 12:51 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe that anthropogenic climate change is taking place, based on
> reports I have heard in the media that that is the consensus among
> climatologists at the moment. I would have to confess that I myself
> have not read a peer-reviewed journal in climate science. Given that I
> have not done so, I would have a hard time refusing to forgive those
> who hold a different view from me, even if I suspect that it might not
> be rationally grounded.
>
> Since I believe that anthropogenic climate change is taking place and
> that it is the developing nations who will suffer the worst effects
> first I do believe that it is a very important moral issue, and that
> in fact the president of Uganda was correct to characterise the
> conduct of the developed nations as "a form of aggression", but I
> would have to confess that I have not yet gotten around to calculating
> my carbon footprint and taking steps to reduce it, although I can at
> least take comfort in the fact that I have made a good start with my
> vegan diet. If this means I am beyond the point of forgiveness then
> that is certainly very sad but there it is.
>
> I'm certainly with you on being concerned about climate change but
> talking about who can and cannot be forgiven is not very productive
> really. The main point is to do what we can to see if the problem can
> be adequately solved. Unfortunately it is quite hard to feel confident
> about that.
It is hard for us who have more of the UNSELFISH GENE to forgive those
who suffer from the SELFISH GENE.
I find really despicable character, one step below serial criminals...
After all, serial criminals only kill a handful of people, unless they
are the president of a country.
I just throw shit at them. ;)
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Apr 5, 8:29 am, "TibetanMonkey, Founder of the Church of the
But whom do you have in mind here? This is a problem for which the
responsibility is widely distributed. I will be catching a plane to
Melbourne on Friday. Am I on your list of people who is "one step
below a serial killer"?
TibetanMonkey, Founder of the Church of the CommonSense
<comandante.banana@yahoo.com>On Apr 4, 7:49 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:29 am, "TibetanMonkey, Founder of the Church of the
> > I just throw shit at them. ;)
>
> But whom do you have in mind here? This is a problem for which the
> responsibility is widely distributed. I will be catching a plane to
> Melbourne on Friday. Am I on your list of people who is "one step
> below a serial killer"?
Oh not at all! I just aim at those who drive jungle vehicles (SUVs) in
the middle of civilization while denying climate change. ;)
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Apr 4, 9:40 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a lot to digest, but initially, thank youObserverfor
> providing this. I was unfamiliar with the bulk of Epicurus's
> philosophy.
>
> Happy Easter, or Spring, as you may prefer!
Thanks for your reply.
May your Fantasies become your truth for in living life there is
perpetual youth.
Psychonomist
> ...
>
> read more »