What this blog is about

Posted by on

Websites about Epicureanism seem to proliferate, most of them saying the same  things, with little new.  The problem with Epicureanism in particular is that so many of the ancient writings were either lost or were deliberately destroyed by early Christians, but this does not deter people from regurgitating the fragments left ad nauseam.   But to what end?

What is the point of philosophy if it cannot offer some guidance (or, at least, spark debate about) how one might react to events and social issues; most importantly, how to live one’s life, especially since morality is no longer taught and anything seems to go?

So much of philosophy is wrapped up in gobble-de-gook, and is incomprehensible or irrelevant to ordinary folk.  It has become a dead end (parts of  de Rerum Natura, by Lucretius are incomprehensible as well, if it comes to that).

What this blog seeks to do is to take the humane teachings of Epicurus, and try to relate them to real, modern life.  It seeks to take immediate issues and discuss what Epicurus, as far as we know his world view, might think about them.   How  should our moral and practical views of life be influenced by this great, enlightened humanist? How should we approach and think about things?

The regurgitators are absolutely free to regurgitate: they have a valuable telling role in educating people about what Epicurus said.  However, some totally miss the point of philosophy.  The hope is to steer a few interested people towards a more practical and usable view of Epicureanism.  Indeed,  all philosophy!  Philosophy shouldn’t be about the arcane meaning of words.

Events in Israel from a Jewish point of view

Posted by on

Please excuse the length of this posting, but I thought readers should see a report sent to members  of Jewish Voice for Peace, the rapidly growing group of moderate Jewish Americans. The complaint is about the biased reporting of current events in Israel by the New York Times:

“Our analysis of over 30 New York Times stories over the last few weeks shows clearly that the New York Times still values Israeli lives more than Palestinian ones.  Even though the vast majority of those killed and injured are Palestinian, and Palestinians are facing extreme collective punishment, Israeli violence against Palestinians doesn’t make the news:

– Over 50% of headlines depicted Palestinians as the instigators of violence, while no headlines depicted Israelis as aggressors. 45 Palestinians have been killed, a fact unreported in America.
-No headlines referenced racist mobs that have roamed the streets of Jerusalem shouting “Death to Arabs.”
-Palestinians were referred to as terrorists 41 times, while the term was used four times (including quotes from Palestinians) to refer to violent Israeli actions intended to terrorize Palestinians.
-The terms “violent” or “violence” were used 36 times to refer to Palestinians, and twice to refer to Israelis.
– The terms “attack(s)” or “attackers” were used 110 times to describe Palestinian actions and people, and 17 times to describe Israelis.   Here’s some of what the New York Times didn’t say:

– The root causes of the current uprising are Israel’s ongoing policies of occupation, displacement and oppression.  Over the last year, from the Negev to East Jerusalem, Israel has demolished an average of 1.7 homes each day and allowed increasing numbers of Jewish settlers to take over homes in Palestinian neighborhoods.
– Settlers, the police, and racist mobs attacking Palestinians are a frequent occurrence in Palestinian neighborhoods.
Real journalism — the kind we expect from the Times — isn’t just reporting the views of whoever has the most power. Real journalism is giving context and background, and reporting on ALL the facts. The context to what’s happening is clear: Palestinians are rising up because the status quo is unsustainable, and it is now reaching its breaking point.  We can’t let the New York Times off the hook, not now. We need fair and factual reporting”.

Cecilie Surasky, Jewish Voice for Peace

Why this posting? Because Epicureanism stands for moderation and, in this context, fair reporting.

Words from a great Epicurean

Posted by on

“Human beings should aspire to pleasure and happiness in this world, avoiding rude, vulgar people, cruelty, warfare, those with no empathy or care for others, and those striving for recognition and power”.     (Michel de Montaigne (1533—1592))

In one sentence Montaigne has summed up some of the main thoughts and attitudes of Epicurus.

Conversion therapy for gay and transgender minors.

Posted by on

California, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, have banned licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy on gays, but, amazingly, many Americans still think this “therapy” works.  Earlier this year 17-year-old Leelah Alcorn, who wrote on a Tumblr post that her parents had forced her to go to conversion therapy, took her own life, provoking the White House to talk about the potentially devastating effects this practice has on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, and bisexual, and queer youth, and to calling for the end of it, but at state, not federal level. (from an article by Eyda Peralta, NPR, April 8, 2015)

Informed people know that homosexuality is not a choice that you can back out of with a few sessions with a councillor; you are born that way.  Nature has determined that approximately 10% of the human race are either homosexual or have difficulty deciding what gender they are.  This segment of the population has always been with us.  Homosexuals had to hide their nature for many centuries; it must have been excruciatingly difficult for them.  Now most people accept that that is how the world is – but some religious people have not caught up with the science of biology.  So much the worse for them. Clinging on to the social attitudes of pre-history does not constitute consistency; it illustrates bigotry and ignorance.  Epicureans accept people as they are.

Conversation and marriage

Posted by on

Milton said that “a meet and happy conversation is the chief and noblest end of marriage,” by which he meant that physical love is all well and good but true marriage is a meeting of the minds.  He knew whereof he spoke because after he married his attractive young wife he discovered that she was incapable of having a sustained conversation about anything at all (or so he claimed).  Although he does not say so this was the price they paid in those days for educating only boys (if anyone was educated at all), so his impatience with her is unattractive.  What did he expect?

In the course of marriage people grow and change.   If one partner grows intellectually and the other does not, the situation is worse than if one partner grows less interested in sex.   Epicurus would have seconded that thought, although one might guess that his interest in the opposite gender was typical of the age and country in which he lived.  It is probably true to say that it takes a decade or three for a man to realize that companionship, a meeting of the minds, and similar interests are more important than only a pretty face.