 |
| Helix Bridge, Singapore-Socialphy.com |
PhD Edit
William Ferraiolo (2005) notes many anti-theists deduce that the all-powerful God would not allow his children[1] to suffer, and therefore the God of theism is an irrational concept.[2] Philosopher Theodore P. Rebard (1996) states that the logical problem of evil exists since God is omnibenevolent[3] and omnipotent,[4] and writes critics can view the logical problem as meaning that if God cannot end evil, he is not omnipotent, and if he can prevent evil and does not, he is not omnibenevolent or all loving.[5] Rebard concludes that God either does not exist or is misunderstood.[6] Greek philosopher Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80).
July 15, 2013
In my MPhil and PhD theses work
continually I would see in written form the logical problem of evil within
philosophy of religion/philosophy traced back to
Epicurus.
Blackburn explains Epicurus was born
on the island of Samos but moved to Athens 307-306 BC where he established a secluded
community known as the ‘Garden’ Blackburn (1996: 122). His work was written up in ‘Diogenes Laertius’ and via Lucretius' poem ‘De Rerun Natura' his view was shown, 'atomistic metaphysics' which
allowed for empty space and an infinite number of atoms and infinite number of
worlds. Blackburn (1996: 122).
The Blackburn account was vague on the authorship, thank you to Looney for clarification as I checked this and I see now in context that Blackburn did not mean Epicurus was the author. Not clear from my initial reading.
Blackburn reasons that Epicurus had a doctrine of the survival of the fittest in order to account for the evolution of species with an appeal to the causes of Aristotle. Blackburn (1996: 122).
The Blackburn account was vague on the authorship, thank you to Looney for clarification as I checked this and I see now in context that Blackburn did not mean Epicurus was the author. Not clear from my initial reading.
Blackburn reasons that Epicurus had a doctrine of the survival of the fittest in order to account for the evolution of species with an appeal to the causes of Aristotle. Blackburn (1996: 122).
Gods were philosophically allowed but played no part
in the cosmos or in first causes or maintaining existence. Blackburn (1996:
122). He allows for free will as atoms can swerve in their course. Blackburn
(1996: 122).
David N. Sedley states that the
Epicurean atomistic system was developed from a fifth century BC
system of Democritus where space includes absolute void without which motion
would be impossible and with which body is constituted out of indivisible particles
known as atoms. Sedley (1996: 230).
The gods are not the divine minds behind the evolution of life and society, but rather are viewed as ideal beings and models of an ideal life and detached from humanity. Sedley (1996: 230).
The gods are not the divine minds behind the evolution of life and society, but rather are viewed as ideal beings and models of an ideal life and detached from humanity. Sedley (1996: 230).
The aim of this philosophy would be
to practically live well, with cultivated friendships, and the ending of unneeded
negative desires and wishes. Blackburn (1996: 122). Epicurean philosophy is hedonistic seeking
pleasure and pain is viewed as an evil, pleasure is even valued over virtue.
Sedley (1996: 231).
Sedley lists Epicurus' years as (341-271 B.C.). Sedley (1996: 230).
Sedley lists Epicurus' years as (341-271 B.C.). Sedley (1996: 230).
In my mind Epicurus is obviously a
key historical philosopher. In a sense because of his impact he is a great
philosopher. However, although I am not a scientist and I can reason that he
made some reasonable deductions to even arrive with the term ‘atoms’, obviously
his science would now largely be outdated by twenty-first century standards.
Philosophically, Biblical
Christianity is not in agreement with a life of hedonism at the expense of
virtue, certainly.
As far as the logical problem of evil
statement attributed to him, I of course dealt with that and the gratuitous
problem of evil with a Reformed based Sovereignty defence/theodicy.
It could be seen philosophically how one that holds to Epicureanism would not accept a God, or God that willingly had a problem of evil in existence.
I therefore am not in agreement.
It could be seen philosophically how one that holds to Epicureanism would not accept a God, or God that willingly had a problem of evil in existence.
I therefore am not in agreement.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CAUTHEN,
KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net,
Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen,
Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.
EPICURUS (341-270 B.C.)(1949) in Overcoming
Evil from the German translation, Von der
Ueberwindung der Furcht, Zurich, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht.
FERRAIOLO,
WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois,
Quodlibet Journal.
SEDLEY DAVID
N. (1996) ‘Epicureanism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of
Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
REBARD,
THEODORE P. (1996) ‘The Problem of Evil Revisited’, in Catholic.net, North
Haven, Connecticut, Christian Philosophy,
Catholic. net.
THIESSEN,
HENRY C. (1956) Introductory
Lectures in Systematic Theology,
Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[1] In
context Farraiolo is describing human beings.
[2]
Ferraiolo (2005: 1).
[3]
Cauthen describes this as perfect goodness and love. Cauthen (1997: 1). Henry Thiessen in Introductory Lectures in
Systematic Theology states that the goodness of God includes his
benevolence and love. Thiessen (1956:
130).
[4]
Rebard (1996: 1).
[5]
Rebard (1996: 1). Greek philosopher
Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80).
[6]
Rebard (1996: 1).
ReplyDeleteMargie Garrison has sold more than 241,987 copies of her simple eBook!
And she's made an incredible amount of money in the process.
If you knew what she knew, you could do the same thing.
It's easier than you think.
It's all here (but coming down soon)
Mom emailed that 'opportunity' to me, and I watched most of the video.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to previous Ebook course I took.
'Only' $300 for three months after a ten day trial which is not free...
hi!,I love your writing so so much! proportion we keep up a correspondence extra about
ReplyDeleteyour post on AOL? I need an expert on this space to solve my problem.
May be that's you! Looking forward to peer you.
I don't even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great. I don't know who
ReplyDeleteyou are but certainly you are going to a famous
blogger if you are not already ;) Cheers!
'Looking forward to peer you.'
ReplyDeleteWell, now besides Facebook, due to Google’s nagging I now have four Google+ accounts.
These are associated with Google/Blogger emails. The same two are associated with each theology/philosophy blog individually, and my comic art blog has another. The first two are full Google+ sites where I am seeking reciprocal Friends/Followers, but the email associated with the comic art site and the Gmail Google+ site, R Wales & R Wales II respectively, these are just pages. I am not seeking anything else.
So plenty of opportunity to connect.
Basically when I would sign on I would be nagged to join Google+. Googled to death. So, after more than a year I gave in FOUR TIMES.
I also think Google/Blogger Friend Connect is on the way out as it as been phased off of non-Blogger sites, and I can use my extra Google+ sites to assist persons with 'Likes' and such. But no I absolutely do not want to build four complete Google+ sites...crazy, and also krazy.
Already, I have more 'Friends' on R Wales II than just my other three entities because of an email sending out glitch, but I obviously will not turn people down and be a jerk (like my old German Shepherd-Husky).;)
'I don't know who
ReplyDeleteyou are but certainly you are going to a famous blogger if you are not already ;) Cheers!'
I am R Wales of course.;)
Hey very cool web site!! Man .. Beautiful
ReplyDelete.. Superb .. I'll bookmark your blog and take the feeds also? I'm satisfied
to find numerous useful info right here within the submit, we'd like work out extra strategies on this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .
Check out my homepage; You have actually come to the ideal place if you are looking for love poems or love quotes. We have a remarkable collection of passion poetry
Love quotes?
ReplyDeleteThat just made me think of the
Love Boat
Cheers
Are you sick of hype?
ReplyDeleteHey
I don't know about you but I am getting
a bit jaded by all the hype online.
I will hold my hands up and admit I have
fallen into the trap myself from time to time.
It's an easy one to fall into, because you see
so many other's doing it you think that must be
the way.
But not anymore.
It's just not me.
I am middle aged Dad of 2 from the UK, not
an online "Rockstar" or "Ninja"
Whatever either those have to do with
making money online I have no idea.
So the hype is gone, and the real me has
emerged.
So I have created 3 free videos for you to
watch and learn how to quickly and easily,
and I genuinely mean that, build a website
to kick start your online income.
CLICK HERE
You can even watch the first video without
opt-ing in.
If even if you have a business online, I
I know you are going to find some great
tips in there to add into any current projects.
(Avoided over the top hype there pretty well, I think)
CLICK HERE
Look forward to hearing your feedback.
Cheers
Anthony
I am hyped of sick...
ReplyDeleteCheck #759348 issued for acct
ReplyDeleteDear info@internettrafficmethods4u.com, This email is to tell you that you have a made sales and are owed commissions. Click here to receive your commissions http://track.safe-swaps.com/3oombThis email is only valid for 12 hours,if the commissions are not claimed,they will be forfeited. ThanksClickBank Team Click here to unsubscribe. http://dg.bilaal-hussain.com/u.php?p=xa/rs/gsi/rt/xk/rsDear %User:EmailAddress,
You've been paid!
Go here
Enjoy
Bilaal
Total fabrication and nonsense.
ReplyDeleteYour account is on restricted status CIBC.Online.Request@cibc.com
ReplyDeletePhony as four dollar bill...
ReplyDeleteIn this section, we are going to look at style and some fashion tips for men
ReplyDeletethat you're going to have to adapt to so that you know how to be a male gigolo that will have his clients asking for his services time and time again. Sunglasses in different colors like orange, red, hot pink, dark pink, blue, light blue and green shades are in-fashion.
That might be the dumbest comment yet, certainly a candidate and yet there is comedy appeal...
ReplyDeleteHmmm. I thought that Diogenes Laertius was a third century AD writer who wrote a series of short biographies of the philosophers, including one on Epicurus. Now I am all confused.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Looney.
ReplyDeleteI clarified. The way it was written in Blackburn it was vague and unclear but I reasoned Epicurus was the author, but once you mentioned, I checked and I see in context Epicurus is not author.
Changed in main body.
Wοah! I'm really loving the template/theme of this blog. It'ѕ simple, yet еffective. Α lοt of tіmeѕ it's very difficult to get that "perfect balance" between user friendliness and appearance. I must say that you've donе а fantaѕtic job with this. Αlѕo, thе blog loаds verу quicκ fοг mе on Safaгi. Οutstаndіng Blog! my webрage
ReplyDeleteThank you.
ReplyDeleteToo complicated, like a lot of female fashion bloggers have for example, and admittedly many of them have many more followers than I do, I just find too difficult to read, as in effort. I do not prefer a blog that is too busy, but I prefer an interesting blog that can be read like a book somewhat.
I have reviewed thousands of blogs over the last nine years.
With my last computer, my last desktop, Safari was my preference, along with Firefox, on this laptop they are both DOGS.
I had a thought regarding free will. I play a game on Facebook that includes a part where you click on things and get random items. However, the programmers had to plug in code that gives the game some sort of formula to go by in order to choose which item to give to you. So, though on the surface the items seem to be randomly chosen, underneath it all, there is a specific code determining which items are given and when. I would hypothesize that all created things are set up in certain ways to do certain things. Human beings were created each with certain specific traits and characteristics, certain genes, hair color, eye color, personalities, etc. Similarly, what we call "free will" choices have to be based on some type of programming within us. So, if it is based on some sort of programming, then there is some sort of direction and pre-planning to it that has been put within us. So, "free will" cannot be totally and completely free apart from the Creator, because the Creator is the One Who programmed that will in the first place. Therefore, in some fashion or other, there is predetermination guiding that so-called "free will."
ReplyDeleteIf suffering leads to a greater good, does not suffering then become something good and useful?
ReplyDeleteEpicurean philosophy is hedonistic seeking pleasure and pain is viewed as an evil, pleasure is even valued over virtue. Sedley (1996: 231).
ReplyDeleteIt has been experientially proved in the lives of millions of people, over and over, that too much pleasure can often lead to pain of some sort or other as a consequence. Therefore, that aspect of Epicurean philosophy is faulty.
'So, "free will" cannot be totally and completely free apart from the Creator, because the Creator is the One Who programmed that will in the first place. Therefore, in some fashion or other, there is predetermination guiding that so-called "free will."'
ReplyDeleteFree will is connected to human nature, which is connected to God’s nature from which flows God’s free will choices. God would be the first cause, human beings and angelic beings and satanic beings secondary causes that would be morally accountable when thoughts acts/actions are done via nature, will and choice that are significantly free, meaning limited freedom, still caused by God as primary cause, but not forced or coerced.
If God only causes a creature to commit and an act/action even within nature, without significant limited free will, such as for example a tiger killing a child, I do not see the tiger as morally responsible. Although the tiger may still need to be destroyed for human safety.
Does God have libertarian free will as opposed to limited free will as creatures do, when significant free will thoughts, acts and actions are committed?
God still is restricted by his nature as are creatures. God cannot choose to sin, for example.
But he is not simultaneously, language from my MPhil/PhD work, influenced by a secondary cause to commit an action.
So, that is a subject for debate. He seems to have largely libertarian free will, I suppose, but not what some radical liberals would suppose as such, as a concept.
'If suffering leads to a greater good, does not suffering then become something good and useful?'
ReplyDeleteIn a sense suffering is evil.
In a sense it can be good in that it can lead to spiritual development, for example.
Romans 8: 28-30: In verse 28, God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose. NASB.
Predestination and calling is brought in as concept in verse 30, as is justification and glorification.
Thank you, Jeff.
'It has been experientially proved in the lives of millions of people, over and over, that too much pleasure can often lead to pain of some sort or other as a consequence. Therefore, that aspect of Epicurean philosophy is faulty.'
ReplyDeleteThe evils of misdirected pleasure...
The other detail is that "de rerum natura" (in Latin) was written by Lucretius. There are no surviving works of Epicurus, so we use Lucretius as a proxy for the beliefs of Epicurus. (i.e. "Epicurus taught" = "Lucretius wrote") Cicero's "De Natura Deorum" is another source.
ReplyDeleteEpicurus taught that the gods formed by the collision and accumulation of quasi-atoms, but they were too thin and flimsy to interact with men. Mainline theology seems to me to be rather similar.
Epicurus was also the founder of new Atheism. He argued that the gods commanded people to do things that were evil (i.e. sacrificing children), hence, a disregard of the gods, plus a scientific understanding of physics, would cause men to act in a morally improved manner.
His other major contribution to modern intellectual discourse was the identification of the distinction between science and superstition. Any opinion that Epicurus held to was - by definition - science, hence, any attempt to refute his views could only be attempted by some fool whose mind was a slave to superstition. "I am right because I represent science, therefore you are wrong and a superstitious fool". The power of this technique for philosophical inquiries was rediscovered by Darwin and is now a key part of modern academia.
Russ, have a good day. Sure wish I had a copy of all the physics texts that Epicurus wrote!
ReplyDelete"His work was written up in ‘Diogenes Laertius’ and via Lucretius' poem ‘De Rerun Natura' his view was shown, 'atomistic metaphysics''
ReplyDeleteCorrect, thanks Looney. The wrong name beginning with 'L' was repeated.
It makes sense that his works were rare or gone since his comments in regard to the logical problem of evil are merely alluded to and he is assumed the source and we therefore have 'The Epicurean Dilemma'.
It also makes it tricky to document an article about him...
'The other detail is that "de rerum natura" (in Latin) was written by Lucretius. There are no surviving works of Epicurus, so we use Lucretius as a proxy for the beliefs of Epicurus. (i.e. "Epicurus taught" = "Lucretius wrote") Cicero's "De Natura Deorum" is another source.'
'Russ, have a good day. Sure wish I had a copy of all the physics texts that Epicurus wrote!'
ReplyDeleteThanks, sir.
Revising is part of the work.
All my posts have little errors that I end up fixing but this one was worse because of in my opinion the confusing nature of the sources, and lack of, for Epicurus' material and then how it was presented. But anyway, stuff happens.;)
Dоn't be worried, shy or lack any confidence just because of a few spots - you are who you are - so be proud of yourself and that will shine through. If you want to finally discover proven, effective cheap methods for how to get rid of adult acne then look no further. A person's envігonment,
ReplyDeletepaired with the persоn's lifestyle, can play a major part in whether or not someone gets acne.
Seacret Direct
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that modern scholars have a very difficult time facing Epicurus, so it is best to go to the source on his writings. As I said about David Hume, he was an Epicurean, but chose to dishonestly pretend he was a Skeptic.
ReplyDeleteSomething I just noticed recently is that the Sadducees of the Bible share two key doctrines with the Epicureans: 1) The soul is never reconstructed after death. 2) Fate has no bearing in anything and we are complete masters of our Will. The Bible and Josephus tell us of the first doctrine, while Josephus tells us of the second. For Lucretius, the second doctrine is something that is a direct consequence of the atomic "swerve", which I am sure you understand every bit as well as Epicurus did.
It would be impossible to prove, but I believe that the Sadducees were Judaized Epicureans, just as the Pharisees were quite close to the Stoics.
'so it is best to go to the source on his writings.'
ReplyDeleteOf course it is difficult without original author works and I know from MPhil and PhD research that discussing what an author thinks about another author can be quite controversial, for example the debate on how John Calvin interpreted Augustine. Some view that he made mistakes in 'Bondage' and I would deduce in 'Institutes', perhaps these would often be Roman Catholics seeking to keep Augustine within the incompatibilist camp, while some Reformers may come to the defence of Calvin. I concluded that Augustine was likely a incompatibilist and difficult to read, although, translated, and if a compatibilist as well, a confused one, obviously.
'As I said about David Hume, he was an Epicurean, but chose to dishonestly pretend he was a Sceptic.'
Hume is also historically very well-known as an Empiricist as well as sceptic, more so than Epicurean.
Yes my texts and the web based on a quick search verify this. And of course I did deal with him significantly in my PhD.
Thanks, sir.
The Skeptics - at least as described in Diogenes Laertius - denied the possibility of empiricism. Epicurus was the most prolific imaginative and gnostic writer of the classic era, yet he claimed that everything he taught was based on direct observation and nothing was derived indirectly. That is, Epicurus insisted that he was the first and only scientific Empiricist. Hume's Empiricism was taken directly from the Epicureans.
ReplyDeleteWe had some similar discussion regarding Augustine and Calvin at church last week. The subject being Free Will and Predestination. I am not sure I have any hope to get this right, since both of them wrote too much!
'Hume's Empiricism was taken directly from the Epicureans.'
ReplyDeleteAlthough Epicurus may be documented as an Empiricist, academically it appears it will be difficult to make a solid connection between the two theories.
And of course Hume was a sceptic many years after so the definition is not necessarily the same.
New Advent
Origins traced closer to Locke and
Berkeley according to this article:
'All materialists are of course sensists. Though the converse is not the case, nevertheless, by denying any essential difference between sensations and ideas (intellectual states), sensism logically involves materialism. Sensism, which is found with Empedocles and Protagoras amongst the ancients, was given its first systematic form by Locke (d. 1704), though Bacon (d. 1626) and Hobbes (d. 1679) had prepared the data.
Locke derives all simple ideas from external experience (sensations), all compound ideas (modes, substances, relations) from internal experience (reflection). Substance and cause are simply associations of subjective phenomena; universal ideas are mere mental figments. Locke admits the existence, though he denies the demonstrability, in man of an immaterial and immortal principle, the soul.
Berkeley (d. 1753), accepting the teaching of Locke that ideas are only transfigured sensations, subjectivizes not only the sensible or secondary qualities of matter (sensibilia propria, e.g. colour and sound) as his predecessor had done, but also the primary qualities (sensibilia communia, extension, space, etc.), which Locke held to be objective. Berkeley denies the objective basis of universal ideas and indeed of the whole material universe. The reality of things he places in their being perceived (esse rei est percipi), and this "perceivedness" is effected in the mind by God, not by the object or subject. He still retains the substance-reality of the human soul and of spirits generally, God included.
Hume (d. 1776) agrees with his two empiricist predecessors in teaching that the mind knows only its own subjective organic impressions, whereof ideas are but the images. The supersensible is therefore unknowable; the principle of causality is resolved into a mere feeling of successiveness of phenomena; its necessity is reduced to a subjective feeling resulting from uniform association experienced in consciousness, and the spiritual essence or substantial being of the soul is dissipated into a series of conscious states. Locke's sensism was taken up by Condillac (d. 1780), who eliminated entirely the subjective factor (Locke's "reflection") and sought to explain all cognitional states by a mere mechanical, passive transformation of external sensations. The French sensist retained the spiritual soul, but his followers disposed of it as Hume had done with the Berkeleian soul relic. The Herbartians confound the image with the idea, nor does Wundt make a clear distinction between primitive concepts (empirische Begriffe, representations of individual objects) and the image: "Denken ist Phantasieren in Begriffen und Phantasieren ist Denken in Bildern".'
Ηi! ӏ сoulԁ have sworn I've been to this site before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it's new to me.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, I'm definitely happy I found it and I'll be bookmаrking
and chесking back frequеntly!
Also visit my web sіtе: jaѕon ferгuggіa mіnimaliѕt trаіning pdf
downlοad :: :
Google
ReplyDelete'Your search - jaѕon ferгuggіa - did not match any documents.'
Shocked...
Some of you out here on Gather tend to the academic side when you write
ReplyDeletethat�s fine and good, but I'm going to make it nice and plain. When you go out to buy used electronics you have a few choices. i - Phone copies have many of the same features of the original i - Phone and some new features, similar looks and a much lower price tag.
You made me laugh. I respect you for acknowledging the academic blog and then off into your pitch.
ReplyDeleteI published for comedy material...
Have a good rest of the week.
Naymz
ReplyDeleteRussell,
We checked the web for Russell Murray and found 23 new items.
Tend to your reputation
Cheers,
Tom & Tony
Listen ‘Tomny’,
ReplyDeleteHere is a revolutionary idea, instead of sending me SPAM emails telling what to do like a lot of other people online, why don't you show some initiative and make it worthwhile.
The 'lazyass' copywrite geared for the seller, benefits the seller.
A break while I am working on a journal article, but still I need to think, what for?
What is in it for the client?
I realize economic times are tough in the West, but seriously there are many sellers that need a serious metaphorical 'whack' on the head in regard to Matthew 22 and Mark 12. Theists or not.
Actually offer something for a client and maybe one will prosper in the long run...
And yes, I walk the walk and talk the talk, I blog for free. But of course I have motives that benefit self and others.
I'm wondering which blogging platform you'гe running?
ReplyDeleteΙ'm new to operating a blog and have been thinking about using the Quizilla platform. Do you think this is a good platform to start with? I would be very grateful if I could ask you some questions through email so I can learn a bit more prior to getting started. When you have some free time, please be sure to get in touch with me at: adriennericci@mailup.net. Thanks a lot
I barely know Quizilla from Godzilla or Gongzilla, sorry.
ReplyDeleteThis is Blogger. Thank you.
Russ, thanks for the info. I feel I know Hume and Epicurus well, but not so much Locke and Berkeley. I will give it another look and perhaps get a chance to post something on this over the weekend.
ReplyDeleteLooney, thanks.
ReplyDeleteI am basing on documentation in Cambridge, Oxford Dictionaries of Philosophy plus New Advent, and brief web searching. Again I did not see the connection in PhD studies, but my studies on Hume were not exhaustive.
Remember, Epicurus that is documented to may have been an Empiricist from my reading is approximately two thousand years before Hume that is a noted Empiricist. The approach you are trying to take is more speculative than documented fact.
Even the odd (certain) scholar that may agree with such a speculation will not make it fact.:)
Something from a UK University researcher:
ReplyDeletemcmenemy
mcmenemy
Quote:
'Paul McMenemy: ‘Epicurus in the Scottish Enlightenment’
Epicurus is an anomalous figure in the history of thought, at once influential and
marginal. His thought is probably more agnostic than atheistic, but either way was
seen as incompatible with Christianity. From the end of the Classical period to the
18th Century the term Epicureanism is little more than a crude synonym for atheism.
This begins to be re-evaluated first by the French philosophes, and less daringly by
the Scottish literati. David Hume is the only Scottish philosopher to identify with
Epicurus, even as an imaginative exercise, most notably for a whole chapter of the
Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. However Hume’s Epicurus is not strictly
the historical one, inasmuch as we know anything about him. Nonetheless this
“Epicureanism”, as much as anything else, brought upon Hume the wrath of James
Beattie. Beattie’s extreme piety could see only atheism in Epicurus or Hume. He
continues the tradition of using the terms Epicureanism and atheism
interchangeably. Other Scottish philosophers took more nuanced views but generally
steered clear of the controversy. The only other Scottish writer to seriously discuss
Epicurean ideas, and the one with the most complex attitude towards them, was
James Burnet, Lord Monboddo. Yet he does his best to avoid the association, citing
Horace rather than Lucretius as the source of his extremely Lucretian (and thereby
Epicurean) views on human origins. Beattie, despite his personal relationship with
Monboddo, was revolted by his arguments and attacks Monboddo as he had earlier
done Hume. In Hume’s case Epicureanism was only one of many criticisms; for
Monboddo, Beattie uses it as his main weapon, perhaps because he was aware of
Monboddo’s aversion. Epicureanism remained disreputable but this eighteenth
century discussion may mark a move towards its re-admittance to the philosophical
mainstream.'
Note
'David Hume is the only Scottish philosopher to identify with
Epicurus, even as an imaginative exercise, most notably for a whole chapter of the
Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. However Hume’s Epicurus is not strictly
the historical one, inasmuch as we know anything about him. Nonetheless this
“Epicureanism”, as much as anything else, brought upon Hume the wrath of James
Beattie'
‘Epicureanism’ is in quotes meaning not an orthodox form it appears. We can see that Epicurus would have had some historical influence, but that would have been typical in the philosophical community and Hume took notice of some of his work, but there is no direct evidence in regard to directly establishing a direct connection in regard to his philosophy or in regard to empiricism.
This may have been what you have come across previously, basically. More likely Hume dealt with some filtered down concepts of Epicurus, and was more influenced by philosophers closer to his time period.
Cheers
The Brutal Truth about making $1000 Per day Online [Good read]
ReplyDeleteMore often, we (marketers) throw the word around
about making $1000 per day online money
There is no error in this.
You can make $1k every single day online.
We are doing this. Some of the popular
internet marketers that you see out there are
making this amount of money every day
online and even more.
But What Will It Take?
Continue reading this blog post here.<====
'The Brutal Truth about making $1000 Per day Online [Good read]'
ReplyDeleteA truth is it is extremely difficult to do and likely easier to do by promoting systems than selling product.
'A word to rioting Muslims'
I respect the stance against Islamic political and religious intolerance.
Lauded as one of the top ten DJ's in the world, Ferry Corsten has made quite a name for himself in the trance and techno music world over the past couple of decades
ReplyDeleteHis parents gave him quite a name for himself.
ReplyDeleteSorry I am no expert of DJs...
Does he have a brother named Harry?
Start Making $5k-7k A month Today!
ReplyDeleteHey,
Ok, so are you tired of all of the crazy scam artists promising
you $2,000 dollars a day with just 7 clicks of your mouse?
Are you ready to access some REAL (NO BS) internet cash
strategies that can show you how to generate a full time
income working from your computer?
If so, check out this FREE powerful information!
And the best part is, I'm going to show you step by step how
to start doing this today!
http://nicoleh-B.webcopycat.com
Live long and prosper,
JT Martin
PS - Don't forget your free bonuses.
Bonus #1
Bonus #2
Bonus #3
Bonus #4
***************************************************
Residual income is king. Take a look at these!
Pump $20 payments into your Paypal without spending
any money. I know it sounds to good to be true but you
need to click on the link and you'll see the truth.
http://jtlikes.com/t/go.php?c=20allday
Awesome resource for products and training plus 75%
commissions on recurring income. Join for free, upgrade,
then promote.
http://jtlikes.com/t/rrw.html
****************************************************
Anything that you may purchase or download from a
link in this email is probably provided by one of
our partners. Most of these will result in some form
of affiliate compensation for us. That is how we pay
the bills. We recommend that you always do your own
independent research before purchasing or downloading
anything online.
'Start Making $5k-7k A month Today!
ReplyDeleteHey,
Ok, so are you tired of all of the crazy scam artists promising
you $2,000 dollars a day with just 7 clicks of your mouse?'
Unlikely, that will be made. Best case scenarios.
'Anything that you may purchase or download from a
link in this email is probably provided by one of
our partners. Most of these will result in some form
of affiliate compensation for us. That is how we pay
the bills. We recommend that you always do your own
independent research before purchasing or downloading
anything online.'
This is true, and this is what the internet course I signed up with out of Utah/Texas refused to admit they had knowledge of, in fact they sanctioned. Technically legal but ethically wrong not to let the client know. So, the true cost of the course was not given up front.
Nor, of course of how difficult it is to make the money back I would have spent.
I informed authorities of each State.
Your Newbie TRAINING !
ReplyDeleteMy team and I scan the Warrior Forum every day for amazing
deals, cutting-edge systems and simple "money making tips" that you
can use for FAST and EASY success BEFORE the general public can....
==================
Today's FREE Gift for IM INSIDERS
Newbie, Zombie?
ReplyDeleteWould there be much difference?
If someone is researching into Epicurean philosophy, does that make them epicurious?
ReplyDeleteI have a new post now...
ReplyDeleteDZP
Russ, I must bow to you. I went back through Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" and found that Locke and Berkeley are credited by Hume, although in the footnotes and not the primary text. The primary text focuses on classical references.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I still think his Empiricism and Skepticism were not actual philosophical positions that he intended to stand on, but rather rhetorical devices to be used selectively against any opinion he did not approve of. Thus, the only identifiable target of Hume's skepticism is "superstition", which is what Lucretius declares Epicurus to be the enemy of.
Thus, I agree with you that modern skepticism is different from the classical. The difference is that the classical skeptic made some attempt to live according to his belief system, whereas the modern skeptic makes no such attempt and merely employs the rhetorical weapons of skepticism against his opponents in order to gain some advantage.
Well-done, sir.
ReplyDelete