Bertrand Russell (History of Western Philosophy; I am in no position to judge his accuracy here) describes Epicureanism as dominated by the avoidance of pain. Small helpings of simple food, for fear of indigestion. Avoid sexual entanglements, for fear of heartache. Very different from the modern concept.
"Maimonides rules that an Epikoros is a person who denies that God communicates with humans through prophecy, or one who denies the prophecy of Moses, or one who denies God's knowledge of the affairs of humans."
Well, Epicurus certainly fits the bill. Although, contra common misunderstanding, he was not an atheist. More like what we would call a deist.
Massimo, strictly speaking I’m not sure the deist, watchmaker god of the Enlightenment corresponds to Epicurean thought since Epicurus does not claim that the gods (or a god) put the cosmos in order and then set it free. Epicurus’s cosmology as far as I know does not offer an origin story. The gods are there by dint of the infinite combination of atoms.
In the Talmudic tradition, Epicurus as a materialist and believer in the material status of the many gods (ie, not monotheism) presented a more radical threat to Judaism than deism would, since deism is consistent with monotheism and even the non-material status of that deity. I’m not sure deism as such was a threat to rabbinic Judaism in the Hellenic and Roman world, but Epicureanism certainly was! This threat is reflected in the terminology.
The term apikoros is also taken from the Greek, and according to Rabbi Salkin originates with the philosopher Epicurus (regarding his philosophy). Salkin argues that the early Jews changed the meaning of the term to refer to “someone who mocks or scoffs at the tradition of Torah,” giving it the negative understanding it now has in the Jewish world. He then points out the irony that some of the most influential Jewish philosophers and visionaries, including Maimonides, Spinoza, Marx, Freud and Einstein, were seen by some as apikoris. Not bad company.
Daniel, good points. Yes, Epicurus is silent on the "origin story" of the gods. But his metaphysics does have a deist flavor in the sense that the gods do their own godly thing without any concern or interference with human affairs.
Still, you are right, Epicureanism is much more of a threat to monotheism than Enlightenment-type deism.
When a friend said, “You are a Buddhist and don’t even know it.” (Living in the now with minimal possessions.) I replied, “No...I’m closer to a Stoic.” He laughed, “You?...Mr. Complainer?” (We studied at NYU together so he can get away with saying that to me at my age.) This article should be email blasted to everyone’s inbox like a pandemic advisory. It’s on par with taking the red or the blue pill in The Matrix. Well done. 👏
What a good description of the main streams of ancient philosophy and how the distortions of Christian polemics impacted our common modern understanding of these terms. Thanks for your ongoing efforts to reclaim these helpful, therapeutic approaches to life.
Not sure I agree with all of your description of the modern usages.
Isn't a cynic especially someone who expects bad motives from other people? (esp. their self-interest)
Among the self-declared skeptics we have climate and vax skeptics. They don't really fit the gloom label as they believe that things will turn out well without the measures they dislike.
Not sure if the present-day word for epicureans is pejorative. We don't use that word for a 20-beers-a-night type? But rather for someone who is able to distinguish 20 different grapes (wine). With hedonists this is less clear, sure.
Maurits, the definitions I used in the article are straight from the dictionary. But you make some good points. "Epicurean" is both pejorative and not, depending on the context and who's using it.
Cynic can have the additional connotation you mention.
As for climate and vax "skeptics" that's clearly a very recent misappropriation of the term, and I'm fighting hard against it. I think those people should be labeled climate and vax deniers, not skeptics.
Thank you, I wondered about that. I wasn’t sure if their pejorative sense was unique to the English language or was widely shared with other European languages
Bertrand Russell (History of Western Philosophy; I am in no position to judge his accuracy here) describes Epicureanism as dominated by the avoidance of pain. Small helpings of simple food, for fear of indigestion. Avoid sexual entanglements, for fear of heartache. Very different from the modern concept.
Paul, yes, that's correct. The focus was on lack of pain, which Epicurus thought was the greatest pleasure of all.
Massimo, you might find the derivation of the Hebrew word Apikoros interesting:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epikoros
Daniel, interesting indeed!
"Maimonides rules that an Epikoros is a person who denies that God communicates with humans through prophecy, or one who denies the prophecy of Moses, or one who denies God's knowledge of the affairs of humans."
Well, Epicurus certainly fits the bill. Although, contra common misunderstanding, he was not an atheist. More like what we would call a deist.
Massimo, strictly speaking I’m not sure the deist, watchmaker god of the Enlightenment corresponds to Epicurean thought since Epicurus does not claim that the gods (or a god) put the cosmos in order and then set it free. Epicurus’s cosmology as far as I know does not offer an origin story. The gods are there by dint of the infinite combination of atoms.
In the Talmudic tradition, Epicurus as a materialist and believer in the material status of the many gods (ie, not monotheism) presented a more radical threat to Judaism than deism would, since deism is consistent with monotheism and even the non-material status of that deity. I’m not sure deism as such was a threat to rabbinic Judaism in the Hellenic and Roman world, but Epicureanism certainly was! This threat is reflected in the terminology.
Spinoza as Apikoros ...
http://www.crossingtheboundary.org/tag/spinoza/
From the article:
The term apikoros is also taken from the Greek, and according to Rabbi Salkin originates with the philosopher Epicurus (regarding his philosophy). Salkin argues that the early Jews changed the meaning of the term to refer to “someone who mocks or scoffs at the tradition of Torah,” giving it the negative understanding it now has in the Jewish world. He then points out the irony that some of the most influential Jewish philosophers and visionaries, including Maimonides, Spinoza, Marx, Freud and Einstein, were seen by some as apikoris. Not bad company.
Not a bad company indeed!
Daniel, good points. Yes, Epicurus is silent on the "origin story" of the gods. But his metaphysics does have a deist flavor in the sense that the gods do their own godly thing without any concern or interference with human affairs.
Still, you are right, Epicureanism is much more of a threat to monotheism than Enlightenment-type deism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfp8xrNAS6I
When a friend said, “You are a Buddhist and don’t even know it.” (Living in the now with minimal possessions.) I replied, “No...I’m closer to a Stoic.” He laughed, “You?...Mr. Complainer?” (We studied at NYU together so he can get away with saying that to me at my age.) This article should be email blasted to everyone’s inbox like a pandemic advisory. It’s on par with taking the red or the blue pill in The Matrix. Well done. 👏
Thanks Mike, appreciated! (And feel free to forward to your friend.)
What a good description of the main streams of ancient philosophy and how the distortions of Christian polemics impacted our common modern understanding of these terms. Thanks for your ongoing efforts to reclaim these helpful, therapeutic approaches to life.
Not sure I agree with all of your description of the modern usages.
Isn't a cynic especially someone who expects bad motives from other people? (esp. their self-interest)
Among the self-declared skeptics we have climate and vax skeptics. They don't really fit the gloom label as they believe that things will turn out well without the measures they dislike.
Not sure if the present-day word for epicureans is pejorative. We don't use that word for a 20-beers-a-night type? But rather for someone who is able to distinguish 20 different grapes (wine). With hedonists this is less clear, sure.
Maurits, the definitions I used in the article are straight from the dictionary. But you make some good points. "Epicurean" is both pejorative and not, depending on the context and who's using it.
Cynic can have the additional connotation you mention.
As for climate and vax "skeptics" that's clearly a very recent misappropriation of the term, and I'm fighting hard against it. I think those people should be labeled climate and vax deniers, not skeptics.
Indeed, they claim to find the evidence unconvincing, when the reality is that they have decided not to be convinced by the evidence
Exactly!
Thank you, I wondered about that. I wasn’t sure if their pejorative sense was unique to the English language or was widely shared with other European languages
In French, German and Dutch is basically the same as in English
Yup, it's a shared thing, because it happened sufficiently back in time, during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.