RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
franky172



Posts: 158
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,11:52   

Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 29 2007,11:47)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 29 2007,18:32)
 
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 29 2007,09:38)
   
Quote (franky172 @ Oct. 29 2007,16:14)
       
Quote
You remember Epi, don’t cha? His whole goal was to “get rid of the gods.” He and his other pre-Socratic “thinkers” like Lucretius and Democritus didn’t like all that duty and responsibility to higher powers and fellow mortals crap.

Epicurius was convinced that the myths of the Greeks involving the gods coming to earth and impregnating humans giving rise to super-humans was sheer folly.  I can see how his rejection of the myths of ancient Greece might be infuriating to Mr. Giles.  Or is Mr. Giles' point that Epicurius was right to reject the myths of his time?

Edit: <i> to quote, forgot I'm not on Fark.

Not to mention that, of all the ancient schools of philosophy, the Epicureans were renowned for living good, morally blameless lives, yet not being prigs about it.  Even their philosophical opponents who rejected their criterion for happiness (pleasure) -- especially the Stoics -- had to admit, ruefully, that the Epicureans couldn't be touched for the way they actually led their lives.

A hint: "pleasure" didn't mean shopping and f#cking.

Also, neither Democritus nor Epicurus is "pre-Socratic."  What the hell, Lucretius, who was primarily a poet, was Roman and lived several hundred years after Socrates.  His De rerum natura is a great philosophical poem in the epic mode.

Missed that in the original.

Here's a few nice quotes from Epicurus's Principal Doctrines:
 
Quote

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.

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.

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.

There's more wisdom and good advice there than in a stack of bibles.

No, no, no!  Mr. Giles just told me that atheists are atheists because they want to be loose and randy and Epicurius didn't have anything smart to say - he just didn’t like "all that duty and responsibility to higher powers and fellow mortals crap".

/damn evidence

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]