Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 1 of 14 (314261)
05-22-2006 7:19 AM


Or, How the philosophy of Epicureanism founded the modern world.
It is a common assumption amongst believers on this site that Christianity preceded atheism in Western culture and that modern secularism is just a curious anomaly in the long tradition of that culture. In this post I am going to argue that, on the contrary, not only did atheism precede Christianity, but that there is a direct link between the atheistic philosophy of Epicurus and the birth of modern secularism.
(The title of this post, of course, was penned by that self-confessed Epicurean, Thomas Jefferson:
Thomas Jefferson writes:
As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
From the Letter to William Short.)
A summary of Epicureanism
Epicurus lived between 341 and 240 BCE, about a generation after Aristotle. He was the founder of a school of philosphy that was distinguished by the following beliefs:
1. That the universe consists of atoms falling through a void, and that all things result from random swerves and collisions of those atoms;
2. That the universe was not created by the gods, and that the gods play no part in human affairs;
3. That knowledge is gained through the senses, rather than solely through the operation of reason;
4. That virtues are not an end in themselves, but are considered good because they are a means to achieving happiness or the avoidance of pain. (Epicurean ethics is a utilitarian ethics)
In these beliefs we can see the origins of three of the main features of modern secular humanism, i.e. Empiricism, Physical Naturalism and Utilitarian Ethics.
Roman Epicureanism
Stoicism and Epicureanism were the two predominant philosophies in pre-Christian Rome, and one of the great works of Latin literature, Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (On The Nature of Things), was effectively a hymn to Epicurean philosophy. After the adoption of Christianity, Epicureanism, for obvious reasons, was repressed.
Modern Epicureanism
Both Nietsche and Marx were influenced by Epicureanism, but the most interesting influence from my point of view is that on the Western liberal tradition. Consider this quote from the Wikipedia article on Epicurus:
Epicurus was one of the first thinkers to develop the notion of justice as a social contract. He defined justice as an agreement "neither to harm nor be harmed." The point of living in a society with laws and punishments is to be protected from harm so that one is free to pursue happiness. Because of this, laws that do not help contribute to promoting human happiness are not just.
This was later picked up by the democratic thinkers of the French Revolution, and others, like John Locke, who wrote that people had a right to "life, liberty, and property." To Locke, one's own body was part of their property, and thus one's right to property would theoretically guarantee safety for their persons, as well as their possessions.
This triad was carried forward into the American freedom movement and Declaration of Independence, by American founding father, Thomas Jefferson, as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by JavaMan, posted 05-24-2006 11:06 AM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 05-24-2006 11:50 AM JavaMan has replied
 Message 6 by ikabod, posted 05-25-2006 4:04 AM JavaMan has replied
 Message 12 by U can call me Cookie, posted 05-25-2006 10:42 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 2 of 14 (314864)
05-24-2006 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
05-22-2006 7:19 AM


Bump for admin
Is there anybody there?
I'd like to be put into Comparative Religion, if that's alright by you

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 05-22-2006 7:19 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 14 (314866)
05-24-2006 11:12 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 14 (314877)
05-24-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
05-22-2006 7:19 AM


It is a common assumption amongst believers on this site that Christianity preceded atheism in Western culture and that modern secularism is just a curious anomaly in the long tradition of that culture. In this post I am going to argue that, on the contrary, not only did atheism precede Christianity, but that there is a direct link between the atheistic philosophy of Epicurus and the birth of modern secularism.
I'm not sure where you get this idea that believers think Christianity preceded atheism. Even the Bible acknowledges that there are atheists: "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" -- (Psalms 14:1, 53:1).
But maybe you are right to the extent that my picture of what preceded Christianity in the west was a variety of paganisms, rather than atheism -- but my focus has been more on the beliefs of the many tribes of heathen Europe before they were converted to Christianity than on the Greeks and Romans. However, even Epicurus according to your quotes, acknowledged "gods" even if he regarded them as uninvolved in human life. But I have no reason to dispute your connection of atheism back to the Greeks. Carry on.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 05-22-2006 7:19 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by JavaMan, posted 05-25-2006 3:51 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 10 by RickJB, posted 05-25-2006 8:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 05-25-2006 11:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 5 of 14 (315062)
05-25-2006 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
05-24-2006 11:50 AM


There's no practical difference between Deism and Atheism
Carry on
Thank you, I will
However, even Epicurus according to your quotes, acknowledged "gods" even if he regarded them as uninvolved in human life.
Yes, I know, but if the gods don't create the universe and don't have anything to do with it, there's no practical difference between this deistic position and atheism. From my reading of history, it seems that people take up a deistic position when explicit atheism would be considered antagonistic to the prevailing religious culture. It allows them to make their philosophical point without worrying that they're going to end up on a bonfire.

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 05-24-2006 11:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 6 of 14 (315065)
05-25-2006 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
05-22-2006 7:19 AM


sorry but i must argue that the modern world is founded on the priciples of greed , selfinterest , and "what is the least i can do and stay in power"
life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness are the bribes used by the "power brokers" to keep the population acquiescent to their rule .
even when the the power brokers fail and are replaced , it is by a set of clones who soon return to the traditional methods .
politics is the smoke screen behind which power is maintained , your rights are there only as long as it suits the design of the power brokers .
Epicureanism has given a direction to philosophical debate and asperational idealisum , but i dont think it made today , it has given today some of its decoration and colour , just has religion , but none of its real substance .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 05-22-2006 7:19 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by JavaMan, posted 05-25-2006 4:59 AM ikabod has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 7 of 14 (315069)
05-25-2006 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ikabod
05-25-2006 4:04 AM


Self-interest and liberal democracy
sorry but i must argue that the modern world is founded on the priciples of greed , selfinterest , and "what is the least i can do and stay in power"
Is self-interest wrong? Is your self-interest wrong? I certainly don't think mine is.
life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness are the bribes used by the "power brokers" to keep the population acquiescent to their rule .
even when the the power brokers fail and are replaced , it is by a set of clones who soon return to the traditional methods .
politics is the smoke screen behind which power is maintained , your rights are there only as long as it suits the design of the power brokers.
The difference between a liberal democracy and a totalitarian state is not that the rulers are better people in the former than in the latter, but that in a liberal democracy we tie their hands behind their backs so that they can't rob and murder us so easily.
Do you have an alternative form of government in mind?

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ikabod, posted 05-25-2006 4:04 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ikabod, posted 05-25-2006 6:16 AM JavaMan has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 8 of 14 (315071)
05-25-2006 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by JavaMan
05-25-2006 4:59 AM


Re: Self-interest and liberal democracy
i did not use the word wrong in any part , wrong and right are judgments based on personal views . i was talking about drives and methods .
as to self-interest its not a question of right or wrong its a qualification of if it , in the widest use of the word , harms others .
In this context i am using it to mean put one self , and ones desires and needs above others reguardless of the effect on others .
sorry but you are falling into the trap of looking at the power by the labels it wears .. all goverments control , the means they use , the stick and carrot employed to keep a stable , productive ( from the view point of the power brokers ) population is a mask .
...all forms goverments end up serving power not the people , not only for the reason that those with power try to hold on to it , but because the people can be lulled into being lead , and handing power over to others .
dont forget a live slave/citizen is more productive than a dead one
, and one who thinks they see a desire being forefilled is more likely to be coorperative ...
......it May be part of the human condition that we are to some degree still herd /pack animals ...
Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.
Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by JavaMan, posted 05-25-2006 4:59 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JavaMan, posted 05-25-2006 7:17 AM ikabod has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 9 of 14 (315077)
05-25-2006 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ikabod
05-25-2006 6:16 AM


Re: Self-interest and liberal democracy
sorry but you are falling into the trap of looking at the power by the labels it wears .. all goverments control , the means they use , the stick and carrot employed to keep a stable , productive ( from the view point of the power brokers ) population is a mask .
...all forms goverments end up serving power not the people , not only for the reason that those with power try to hold on to it , but because the people can be lulled into being lead , and handing power over to others .
No. You're falling into the trap of generalisation. Is there really no difference between a liberal democracy and a totalitarian state? Are the power relationships between government and governed just the same in Britain compared to Belarus, say, or in Switzerland compared to Saudi Arabia?
You sound very cynical about human nature and society. Do you think the world could be different than it is? And do you believe it should be?

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ikabod, posted 05-25-2006 6:16 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ikabod, posted 05-25-2006 8:36 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 10 of 14 (315080)
05-25-2006 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
05-24-2006 11:50 AM


faith writes:
Even the Bible acknowledges that there are atheists: "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" -- (Psalms 14:1, 53:1).
Hehehe. Sneaky choice of quotation there, methinks! ;-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 05-24-2006 11:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 11 of 14 (315086)
05-25-2006 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by JavaMan
05-25-2006 7:17 AM


Re: Self-interest and liberal democracy
apologize for not making my point clearly ..
Yes there is a vast difference in the goverments of Britain compared to Belarus, and in Switzerland compared to Saudi Arabia?
But those goverments are the tool / the face / outer apperance of the power that controls , the nature of the goverments is made to be acceptable to the population so that control is kept , Britian has had a number of revolutions removing one form of goverment and replacing it with another stlye , but the control remains .. the current british goverment is in fact often accused of making policy totally at odds to the pulbic will .. ie the gulf . , of mass breaches of human rights , .. and when it claimed to be looking at how to make people happy was accused of vote chasing .
And show me a liberal democracy that does not keep tabs on those of differiving view points , does not spy on its own citizens , does not when it needs to uses totalitarian methods , and if it was better able to keep its secrets would not go further ..
am i cynical about human nature and society , i think no , i am a realist ..humans can be wounderful , and terrible .. some times in the same person .. we can pervet the noblest vision to the most evil ends , we can be totally sefless and lay down out live to save others , we can give up all our wealth and status and live to serve others, we can bring into being ideas of life , liberty and happyness .. BUT we always seem to fail ... because to often we refuse to see the bad in ourselves and others and become blinded by the good we see.
we need to understand greed , self-interest , and how power works and is weilded to see the reality we build our socities on .
inaction because we kept content is the bases of control in liberal democracy .... the velvet glove in place of the iron fist , which is more right , more truthfull, and honest .. does the fact it has to go through 5 courts before a death sentence is carried out make it better ... would the human rights issue in Saudi Arabia be a bigger political item if WE did not want petrol for OUR cars ??
is it better to force a man to work or give him the freedom to starve ...
is there a true , correct right answer to these sorts of questions ...
is that not why we seek god(s) to help us deal with such matters
sorry getting off topic i think
go back to why life , liberty and the pursuit of happyness and what role ANY form of goverment should play in such matters .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JavaMan, posted 05-25-2006 7:17 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 12 of 14 (315109)
05-25-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
05-22-2006 7:19 AM


maybe not the sole source...
While it could be argued that Epicurus and certain other Greeks, like Democritus, have contributed to the foundations of modern secularism, I'm pretty sure that they can't be regarded as the sole source of such.
One shouldn't disregard the eastern schools that have a long history of Atheism and Agnosticism.
While I don't know much about their ideas, the Chinese delved into these matters as far back as 7th Century BCE
Religious beliefs in Ancient China
Concerning Indian schools of thought: There were many such schools, whether they stick to the Vedas or not, that were clearly quite atheistic or agnostic.
One group that stuck out, though, were the Charvakas. They were strict materialists, to the point of Hedonism. Their philosophy is thought to have originated around the 6th Century BCE. While the Charvaka philosophy seemed to have died out around 1400 CE, many of the ideas, principles, and refutations of spiritual thought still exist today in modern atheism. In fact, their main goal was the pursuit of happiness (and pleasure) as a means of reducing suffering.
The Charvakas

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 05-22-2006 7:19 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by JavaMan, posted 05-26-2006 6:22 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 13 of 14 (315117)
05-25-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
05-24-2006 11:50 AM


Faith
"The fool has said in his heart there is no God" -- (Psalms 14:1, 53:1).
Methinks the writer is expressing an ad hominem attack on peopl who disagree with their viewpoint and defaulted to character assaination as the only means of mature and rational discourse left to them.
How enlightened and worthy of respect that posiition has always proved to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 05-24-2006 11:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 14 of 14 (315243)
05-26-2006 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by U can call me Cookie
05-25-2006 10:42 AM


Re: maybe not the sole source...
As much as I'd like to, I don't think I could advance Chinese or Indian philosophers as evidence of a long history of atheism in the Western tradition.

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by U can call me Cookie, posted 05-25-2006 10:42 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024