Talk:Epicureanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[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)
[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
[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)
