7mo ago

A cool guide to Epicurean Paradox

You're viewing a single thread.

157 comments

You forgot the actual Epicurean belief. God(s) exist but they don't give a fuuuuuuuuuck.
Epicurus was the first deist.
- Really more an atheist.
  Don't forget that not long before him Socrates was murdered by the state on the charge of impiety.
  Plato in Timeaus refuses to even entertain a rejection of intelligent design "because it's impious."
  By the time of Lucretius, Epicureanism is very much rejecting intelligent design but does so while acknowledging the existence of the gods, despite having effectively completely removed them from the picture.
  It may have been too dangerous to outright say what was on their minds, but the Epicurean cosmology does not depend on the existence of gods at all, and you even see things like eventually Epicurus's name becoming synonymous with atheism in Judea.
  He is probably best described as a closeted atheist at a time when being one openly was still too dangerous.
  
  wouldn't that be more like an agnostic than an atheist?
  since atheist believes that gods don't exist
  
  since atheist believes that gods don't exist
  This is a common misconception.
  Theist is someone who believes God(s) exist(s).
  An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists. They don't need to have a positive belief of nonexistence of God.
  Much like how a gnostic is someone who believes there is knowledge of the topic.
  And an agnostic is someone who believes either they don't have that knowledge or that the knowledge doesn't exist.
  So you could be an agnostic atheist ("I don't know and I don't believe either way in the absence of knowledge") or an agnostic atheist ("I don't know but I believe anyways") or a gnostic atheist ("I know that they don't and because I know I don't believe") or a gnostic theist ("I know they do and I believe because I know").
  Epicurus would have been an Agnostic atheist if we were categorizing. They ended up right about so much because they were so committed to not ruling anything out. They even propose that there might be different rules for different versions of parallel universes (they thought both time and matter were infinite so there were infinite worlds). It's entirely plausible he would have argued for both the existence and nonexistence of gods in different variations of existence given how committed they were to this notion of not ruling anything out.
  But it's pretty clear from the collection of his beliefs that the notion of a god as either creator or overseer of this universe was not actively believed in outside of the lip service that essentially "yeah, sure, there's gods in between the fabric of existence, but not in it."
  The Epicurean philosophy itself was very focused on the idea that the very notion of gods was making everyone sick, and that they offered their 'cure' for people to stop giving a crap about what gods might think or do.
  
  I see, I have no more knowledge to improve this conversation, but thanks for sharing
  
  Based on the anecdote of Socrates and the Pythia, that makes you one of the wisest people in this conversation.
  
  Your second one is a typo "I don't know but I believe" should be an agnostic thiest.
  
  Thanks for the heads up! Fixed
  
  It may have been too dangerous to outright say what was on their minds,
  That alone has held back a lot of progres throughout the centuries.
  
  It still does today, too.

157 comments