Talk:Epicureanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
[edit] What's with the huge quote from the watchtower society?
Question: What is with the 4 paragraphs impregnated in the article from the "Watchtower Society" with no reference? ≈Superbeatles™ 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grammar?
How on earth did the word "epicureanism" end up meaning "the love of food or drink" in English? Berdidaine 00:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Atheism?
I have a question? 8)) How can we justify the recent classification of this page under the category "Atheism"? It seems to me that Epicurus acknowledged the very real existence of the gods. He said that the gods were made out of atoms--just like people. So how could you classify this page under "Atheism"? For Epicurus, the gods were real and physical, were they not? 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 16:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- In agreement. I don't think this should be catagorized thus. Even if it were atheistic, it still doesn't belong in that catagory unless we also include things like Sartre's philosophy and such. Anyway, the philosophy doesn't seem consistent with the catagory designation (just look at the other articles in it) so I'm removing atheism as a catagory. If disagree, discuss. -SocratesJedi | Talk 03:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd imagine the connection is coming from Epicurus' statement that after death, there is nothing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.201.132 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] First paragraph
"from fear through knowledge." ? What is this meant to mean?ftthowerto;sehrtopeiuhrt ertgy wrt
[edit] Epicureanism is Hedonist
Epicureans who deny that simply don't know what Hedonism is. Hedonism, simply put, is the philosophy which believes pleasure should by the goal of life. The wiki on Epiceanism says that it advocates intellectual pleasure. Well, take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
Hedonism is not inherently avarice, or physical pleasures. Epicurus was the one who refined Hedonism, to make it sensible, making a difference between harmful pleasures, long term, etc. That's what they said in my Ethics class, and I'll find the source in the book as well. Anyway, I'll change this tomorrow, unless anyone has any disputes. Nathyn 20:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hedonism is the single minded pursuit of pleasure, often at the cost of all else and without consideration. Epicureanism, as I understand it, is a philosophy which deals with the minimisation of pain, as opposed to the pursuit of pleasure. The difference: Epicureanism allows delayed gratification, where as hedonism doesn't. Kenneth Charles 07:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
There are different forms of hedonism. The type you're talking about is, I believe called Cyranic Hedonism or something like that (I don't have my philosophy book in from of me). I believe this is what the author intended by "hedonism (as most people understand it). In fact Epicureanism is one form of hedonism.207.157.121.50 02:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey
The Cyrenaic school of philosophy, founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, advocated a more extreme form of hedonism, Epicurus' is more moderate an refined, but hedonism nonetheless. --Fabullus 15:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: "from fear through knowledge"
It reads "Freedom from fear through knowledge". I think you need to read the whole phrase for it to make sense. Basically it implies religeons dominate through fear (better to believe, than to be wrong and punished). But if you seek knowledge, you can be free from that fear.
[edit] epicureanism vs hedonism
what's the difference?you guys are gay
I believe that there has been some complete basics removed from the eupircurian belief and how stoicism holds roots in it. I apologize since I do not have my resources with me right now about them since I am in grad school right now, but the roots of eupicureanism is found in the ways they try to eliminate fear from the three main causes of fear. They are in this order, fear of gods, fear of death, and competition. The fear of gods can be eliminated through adopting methodological naturalism, which is already discussed. The fear of death can be eliminated through the same way and by understanding that you go into nothingness. and I cannot remember competition and this is why I have not edited the main text. If peeps seem to confirm this I will then edit the main text.
[edit] Question left on article page put here now
This was left on the article page by an anonymous user, and I reverted and am placing her/his question here...Kenosis 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- have question what is the origin of this?
- + and contextual info
- + can u make a sentence with this allusion in it for me put it here ...01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
A piece of (probably) useless information: In 1977, a group of students at Bristol University formed an Epicurian Party, and subsequently campaigned in the Student Union elections under the slogan of 'wine, women and song' and a manifesto promising to concentrate on matters relating to students' welfare and entertainment. The student body, probably in reaction to the overwhelmingly political preoccupations of the Student Union at the time, voted for the Epicurians en masse, and they swept to power. As I recall, a year later they were swept out again. The Long Bar in the Queen's Road Union building was subsequently renamed the 'Epicurian Bar' or 'Epi' for short.
[edit] Link to Lucretius Article "On the Nature...."
The link is bad for the Gutenburg Project version of the essay.
It is: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/785
Sorry that I don't know where the proper place to fix this is.
70.56.55.52 14:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Rich Williams (rchaswms@hotmail.com)
[edit] Rework the page to avoid double info?
Hi! Is epicureanism supposed to give mostly info about Epicurus' doctrine, or mostly about its developement and revisitation during the centuries? I think that there are a lot of double info with Epicurus, concerning the doctrine and its history. What about reworking the page, putting info about Epicurus in his article and developing the history of epicureanism here? Benio76 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are quite right. I am looking forward to your proposals. --Fabullus (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merger
The sections I marked to merge from Epicurus are incredibly difficult reads and I'm not even sure that there's anything worth moving into this page, but at the very least I know they don't belong in Epicurus as they are the sort of detailed discussions of Epicureanism that belong here. James 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The height of happiness according to Epicurus
I have undone the revision of 23:37, 3 December 2007 because in the first place it introduces a tautology ("Epicurus regarded eudaimonia (= happiness) ... as the height of happiness."), and in the second place it fails to distinguish Epicurus significantly from other philosophers, as the original statement did. Many different philosophers agreed in proclaiming happiness the ultimate goal of life. The real issue is what they thought happiness consisted of. In the case of Epicurus happiness consisted in ataraxia and aponia, as was originally stated. --Fabullus (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PBS special raises dispute to many points of this article.
There was recently a multi-part special on PBS called, Philosophy: A Guide To Happiness, that in one episode titled, "Epicurus On Happiness", described Epicurus as a simple man that sought lived his philisophy on hapiness by living a simple life outside of any urban areas, self-farming, and eating very simple food (himself considering eating cheese an extravagence).
This is contrary to many things I had learned in the past and what is described in this article. If correct, the references to general hedonsism and desire for great foods are an utter falsehood. The narrator made it a point to note that the reference 'Epicurean' as a desire for good food and wine is a complete misnomer.
Can anyone comment on this? Thanks! --Mespinola (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't claim to be an expert on Epicureanism, but this PBS episode sounds to me to be a good summary of Epicurus and his beliefs. I'm slightly puzzled as to why you think this article goes contrary to that. The only reference to hedonism in this article comes with a disclaimer, and this article agrees, I think, that a desire for good food is a misnomer. There are problems with this article: as others have pointed out there is an awkward division of content between this page and the Epicurus page; and there is the usual Wikipedia problem of haphazard content. You would aid the editors of this page I think if you could highlight which bits you find confusing or which bits you think are explicitly contrary to what you learnt. Singinglemon (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
