Pretty interesting piece here by Hiram Crespo discussing and advocating for the Epicurean practice of regular common meals in order to (among other things) promote friendship

https://hiramcrespo.substack.com/p/an-eikas-manifesto
#Epicureanism #Philosophy #Meals #Food #Practice #Friendship #Fellowship #Epicurus

Why should I fear death?
If I am, then death is not.
If Death is, then I am not.
Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?

#quote #Epicurus #life #death #fear #exist

Hedonisme (5): Epikouros en daarna https://sargasso.nl/hedonisme-5-epikouros-en-daarna/ #hellenisme #Filosofie #Epikoeros #hedonisme #epicurus

Hedonisme (4): De tuin van Epikouros https://sargasso.nl/hedonisme-4-de-tuin-van-epikouros/ #Aristippos #Democritus #Demokritos #hellenisme #Filosofie #Epikoeros #hedonisme #epicurus

The Cyrenaics were a philosophical school of thought founded c. 4th century BCE by Aristippus of Cyrene (l. c. 435-356 BCE) who taught that sensual pleasure was the highest good and only worthwhile pursuit in life. #History #Philosophy #Epicurus #Cyrene #HistoryFacts https://www.worldhistory.org/Cyrenaics/

@euwatchers I've always thought queer people should establish Epicurean-style communes. Pleased to see it becoming a reality! #lgbt #queer #trans #epicurus

Why should I fear death?
If I am, then death is not.
If Death is, then I am not.
Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?

#quote #Epicurus #Death #fear #not #exist

You don't develop courage by being happy in your relationships everyday. You develop it by surviving difficult times and challenging adversity.

— Epicurus

#Stoic #Stoicism #Epicurus

If a tree falls in the wood and there's no one around to hear it? ... #Epicurus #philosophy #materialism #ecology #JohnBellamy

Why should I fear death?
If I am, then death is not.
If Death is, then I am not.
Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?

#quote #Epicurus #death #fear #not

Epicurus And Evil:

OK this takes some work which I've done already, it can get lengthy, but I can reduce it greatly at the risk of typing small tracts over again.

Epicurus is essentially right, we can argue as to his theistic stance(s), but you can take his offer and finalize it, I did so.

Once you indicate God as your creator, and God being Tri-Omni, then evil, which is not needed at all, is one of God's mistakes in his design of man.

Original sin is the trap to compel Jesus. And to blame Eve (Man) for God's bad mistakes.

God admits his faults with Noah in Genesis.

For religions it also seems that they preach and speak to morality, but via Jesus and otherwise, they have a way to do wrong and have someone else pay.

And by that they reject morality, since their faith allows or compels it.

The defense typically is that God allows free will, and that often comes along with faux claims that evil is needed for man to survive.

Also since it is there, then we need to accept evil as God's plan is the claim. It self-supports as some hope to claim and do with/via God.

This compels and invents the need for God and with Jesuits, Jesus to save them.

The claim Jesus can not deny himself, attempts to cover the fact that Ten Commandments implore you to reject all other Gods. (2 Timothy 2:13)

Their God(s) leave the same way.

That tends to bootstrap God using God to prove God, but in fact both premises are false.

You don't entangle free will with the need for evil, or to validate God.

Morality would not be subjective or a factor at all, if evil was removed.

God would make a design with man incapable of doing evil, and morality nulls out of the lexicon.

Without Biblical Noah, which admits and proves God as wrong and not God, you can use the fact God made man this way, and the need for God and his proxies to save you from it, as a way to prove God false.

You can have free will devoid of evil, remove evil from the design.

You choose to have coffee or tea. Just don't toss the hot scalding liquid onto the waiter's face.

Reduce it again further: You choose to have coffee or tea.

The fallacy argument they offer is:

"I decided to have tea, hence God exists. QED"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma#Epicurus'_trilemma

#Apartheid #Atheism #BanTheBible #BanTheKoran #BanTheTalmud #Bennett #Bible #Church #ClergyAbuse #Christ #Gaza #God #Islam #Israel #Jesus #Judaism #Koran #Lapid #Mecca #Muhammad #Netanyahu #Palestine #Pope #Quran #Religion #Talmud #Vatican #Zionism #Epicurus

People have been asking me to work up a set of recommended works for understanding Epicurus and the Epicurean school, similar to the one I put together on Stoicism. Finished the new one this morning

https://medium.com/practical-rationality/epicureanism-reading-recommendations-59ae1d45dbc2

#Philosophy #Epicureanism #Epicurus #Recommendations

Animals avoid pain and pursue pleasure by nature (ie, they are hedonists), and our hedonism resembles the hedonism of every other sentient animal in many respects. Like other animals, we explore and process the world through sensory experience, especially our feelings of pleasure and pain. Like other animals, we fundamentally want to feel secure from external threat and experience pleasure.

https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-seek-out-and-savour-lifes-joys-like-an-epicurean

#Philosophy #Epicurus

The question of "god-belief" is already inherently biased toward religion. When someone asks you, "Do you believe in God," from an intellectual standpoint, it's like asking "When did you stop beating your significant other?"

There's no good response to the question. If you say you "don't believe," people get bent out of shape and start pestering you with nonsense like "how can you not believe--who made the universe, then?" or "no one knows what happens after you die" and "you can't prove that." Well, duh, the question was about *belief,* not proof. On the other hand if you say you *do* believe, most people take your belief at face value as your right under freedom of religion, and leave you alone.

So what's really being asked? Do you conform? Are you willing to submit to social proof? What group identity are you willing to embrace? It's a no-win situation. You either self-identify as a social pariah, you lie, or you face-plant intellectually.

Because the question assumes its own premise, that there's a God that can be "believed in" or "not believed in." Stripped down to its essentials the question is asking you to accept that this all-important thing, hinges on the opinions of human beings.

As George Carlin pointed out, no one has to ask if you believe in the Sun.

The better question about God is, "does it exist?" Well, what is "it?" Most people refuse to define their terms. Let's take a commonly accepted definition:

"God is a supreme being, a creator and ruler of the universe, who is believed to be transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent."

This definition is absurd. Logically inconsistent and nonsensical for all the familiar reasons.

-Any creator of the universe must also have a creator, so "god" solves nothing.

-A "ruler" of the universe would mean that it's an undemocratic place. Hitchens' "celestial dictatorship" is the model for all Earthly dictatorships. Which are a horror show.

-Despite all the efforts dedicated to theodicy over the centuries, there's no way to reconcile the problem of evil with a benevolent God.

-Epicurus famous Trilemma: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

So, to sum up:

1) The question of god-belief is a nasty bit of social engineering to force you into a positive answer, with the implication that a negative response will be punished with exclusion.

2) The question of "god's" existence is logically absurd and meaningless, in addition to being unfalsifiable. Dismissed without regard or hesitation.

So "atheism" (as declared non-belief in god) only makes sense as a political reaction to the cultural hegemony of god-belief. Forget Dawkins' 7-point scale and all that jazz. Without "God" as the default position, atheism has no meaning.

This is why I self-identify as an *anti-theist.* Anti-theocracy. Because what's worth opposing with every gram of passion you can muster, are all the despicable things being done in "God's" name.

#atheism #antitheism #carlin #dawkins #epicurus #hitchens #theodicy #god #theocracy

https://medium.com/@terry88jones/epicurus-and-evil-12ccd66e29bc

#Apartheid #Atheism #BanTheBible #BanTheKoran #BanTheTalmud #Bennett #Bible #Church #ClergyAbuse #Christ #Gaza #God #Islam #Israel #Jesus #Judaism #Koran #Lapid #Mecca #Muhammad #Netanyahu #Palestine #Pope #Quran #Religion #Talmud #Vatican #Zionism #Epicurus

https://medium.com/@terry88jones/is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-9efe0aa45e86

#Apartheid #Atheism #BanTheBible #BanTheKoran #BanTheTalmud #Bennett #Bible #Church #ClergyAbuse #Christ #Gaza #God #Islam #Israel #Jesus #Judaism #Koran #Lapid #Mecca #Muhammad #Netanyahu #Palestine #Pope #Quran #Religion #Talmud #Vatican #Zionism #Epicurus

“It is not so much our friends' help that helps us, as the confidence of their help.”
― Epicurus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

#Bot #Quote #Friendship #Epicurus

"Het lijkt wel of genieten het hoofddoel van het leven is." – Felicia Dekkers met #ZINtijd over ruimte maken in je hoofd om jezelf en de ander te zien #Epicurus #filosofie https://www.nieuwwij.nl/opinie/enjoy-or-calm-down-carnaval-en-veertigdagentijd/

Enjoy or calm down, carnaval en veertigdagentijd? – Felicia Dekkers met #ZINtijd over ruimte maken in je hoofd om jezelf en de ander te zien #Epicurus #filosofie https://www.nieuwwij.nl/opinie/enjoy-or-calm-down-carnaval-en-veertigdagentijd/

"Het lijkt wel of genieten het hoofddoel van het leven is." – Felicia Dekkers met #ZINtijd over ruimte maken in je hoofd om jezelf en de ander te zien #Epicurus #filosofie https://www.nieuwwij.nl/opinie/enjoy-or-calm-down-carnaval-en-veertigdagentijd/