Mahatmalamalist Epicureanism
The doctrines of The Universal
Mahatmalamalist Established Church of Baja LasVegastan generally follows
those of Epicurus, but with some modifications. The
Mahatmalamalist doctrines are:
Physics
Epicurus was an atomist, believing that the fundamental constituents of the
world were uncuttable little bits of matter (atoms) flying through empty space
(void). Everything that occurs is the result of the atoms colliding, rebounding,
and becoming entangled with one another, with no purpose or plan behind their
motions.
Some say that Epicurus' physics is bogus (and, thus, that his theology is
probably bogus, too), since atoms have been observed being "cut" into electrons,
protons, neutrons, mesons, and numerous other sub-atomic particles. The fact
that "sub-atomic" particles exist (these people say) means that the atomists --
including Epicurus -- were simply wrong.
No. It means only that it is these sub-atomic particles -- and not the "atoms" of
classical physics and chemistry -- that are the "atoms" which Epicurus was referring to.
Indeed, these sub-atomic particles may each be conveniently be viewed as
small collections of a small number of yet-smaller "quarks". Quarks, in
turn, have never been independently observed, and there are some good quantum-theoretical reasons why they cannot be independently observed. The
same quantum theory also gives some good reasons why these quarks can combine only
in a limited number of ways. And, indeed, a sub-atomic particle representing
each possible combination has in fact been observed -- and no other particle has
ever been observed.
OK, maybe it's the quarks -- and not the "sub-atomic particles" -- that
Epicurus was calling "atoms". This is a matter of no importance. We've now left
physics and entered into mere nomenclature.
Free Will
Epicurus' theory differs from earlier atomism, in that earlier atomists
believed that atoms always follow straight lines. Epicurus correctly taught that
that the direction of
motion of an atom may occasionally exhibit a 'swerve'. He thus departs from the
determinism implicit in the earlier atomism and affirms free will.
Modern physics confirms this. Subatomic physics is probabilistic and not
deterministic. A subatomic event produces a probabilistic result distribution,
however, which is deterministic. The probabilistic result distribution
of these subatomic events in turn determines a probabilistic result distribution
of larger (atomic and macroscopic) events.
One way of viewing this -- and a fairly mainstream
view, at that -- is the so-called "many-worlds interpretation". (Mahatmalamalism
has embraced this interpretation as a necessary result of its embrace of the
Epicurean theological concept of the Metakosmia.)
Suppose that a photon of light approaches a half-silvered mirror. Half of the
time it passes through the mirror; the other half of the time it reflects from
the mirror. According to the many-worlds interpretation, the photon's approach
to the mirror causes the entire previous world to split into two subsequent
worlds. In one of the subsequent worlds, the photon passes through the mirror;
in the other of the subsequent worlds, the photon reflects from the mirror.
In the above example, there were only two discrete possible results, and thus
only two discrete subsequent worlds. Many -- perhaps most -- subatomic events
have an infinite number of possible results, continuously varying from one
another. The many subsequent worlds resulting from each such event are similarly
infinite in number, and continuously varying from one another.
All of these many subsequent worlds "exist" in some important sense.
According to Mahatmalamalism, a previous man (that is, previous to some
subatomic event which is about to create many subsequent worlds) has free will,
in that he can choose which of these many worlds to subsequently live in.
Yes, it is true that many other subsequent men will split off from the
previous man. Yes, it is also true that these other subsequent men will choose
to live in other subsequent worlds -- and to live with the consequences of their
choices. These truths are of no importance to the Mahatmalamalist. In the words
of Heraclitus, "No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it's not the
same river and he's not the same man."
Mahatmalamalism is thus seen to be quite similar to conventional Christianity
(Matthew 18:7) on this point: "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it
must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence
cometh!".
Teleology
The existence of free will does not imply the
existence of teleology. The probabilistic result-distribution of a subatomic
event depends only
upon what has happened in the past, and not upon anything that will happen -- or
can happen, or should happen -- in the future. In particular, teleology -- the
belief that there is a future goal for the entire universe -- is simply wrong.
- A man -- or other free agent; Mahatmalamalism embraces the
possibility, but not the necessity, of non-human free agents -- may well
have a goal.
- The universe itself, however, does not have any goal. The universe
offers many worlds -- and busily generates all of them.
When a man does have a goal (and not all men do), then he chooses -- for his
future home -- the world which seems to best approximate his goal.
The terminology for this concept is not yet settled. The Mahatmalama prefers
the words "world" (what Epicurus would call a "cosmos") and "universe". Others
prefer "universe" and "multiverse". Here, as is so often the case, the concept
is more important than the terminology.
The Forms
Epicurus, like most men of his day (and, indeed, of
ours), believed in a theory of The Forms. As Epicurus saw it, forms consisted of
atoms in a void -- and:
were all that there was.
Forms can change, but not their inherent qualities, for change can only
affect their shape. Some things can be changed -- and some things cannot be changed
-- because forms that are unchangeable cannot be destroyed even though certain attributes
can be removed. After all, attributes not only have the intention of altering an
unchangeable form, but also the inevitable possibility of becoming -- in relation
to the form’s disposition to its present environment -- both an armor and a
vulnerability to its stability.
There is further proof that there are unchangeable forms, and of their inability to be
destroyed -- the concept of the “non-evident.” A form cannot come into being
from the void, which is nothing. It would be as if all forms come into being
spontaneously, needless of reproduction. The implied meaning of “destroying”
something is to undo its existence, to make it not there anymore. This cannot be
so. After all, if the void is that which does not exist, and if this void is the implied
destination of the destroyed, then the thing in reality cannot be destroyed --
the thing (and all things) could not have existed in the first place. This
totality of forms is thus eternal and unchangeable.
Atoms move, in the appropriate way, constantly and for all time. Forms first
come to us in images or “films” -- outlines of their true selves. For an image
to be perceived by the human eye, the “atoms” of the image must cross a great
distance at enormous speed and must not encounter any conflicting atoms along
the way. The "atoms" referred to here are what the modern physicist calls
"photons" -- uncuttable quanta of light, rather than cuttable waves of light.
This is the essence of Einstein's explanation of the
Photoelectric Effect.
The presence of atomic resistance produces atomic slowness. If the path is
deficient of atomic resistance, however, the traversal rate is much faster (and
clearer). Because of resistance, forms must be unlimited (unchangeable and able
to grasp any point within the void) because, if they weren't, a form's image
would not come from a single place, but fragmented and from several places. This
confirms that a single form cannot be at multiple places at the same time.
And the senses warrant us other means of perception: hearing and smelling. As
in the same way an image traverses through the air, the atoms of sound and smell
traverse the same way. This perceptive experience is itself the flow of the
moving atoms; and like the changeable and unchangeable forms, the form from
which the flow traverses is shed and shattered into even smaller atoms, atoms of
which still represent the original form, but they are slightly disconnected and
of diverse magnitudes. This flow, like that of an echo, reverberates (off one's
senses) and goes back to its start; meaning, one’s sensory perception happens in
the coming, going, or arch, of the flow; and when the flow retreats back to its
starting position, the atomic image is back together again: thus when one smells
something one has the ability to see it too.
Modern physics confirms this as well. Hearing comes in "atoms" of sound,
called phonons. Smelling comes
in "atoms" of aroma, called molecules.
Philosophy
Epicurus' philosophy is based on the theory that all good and bad derive from
the sensations of pleasure and pain. What is good is what is pleasurable, and
what is bad is what is painful. Pleasure and pain are thus the basis for the moral distinction between good and bad. If pain is chosen over
pleasure in some cases it is only because it later leads to a greater pleasure. Moral
reasoning is a matter of calculating the benefits and costs in terms of pleasure
and pain.
Although Epicurus is commonly misunderstood to advocate the rampant pursuit
of pleasure, what he really is after is the absence of pain, both physical
(suffering) and mental (anxiety). What he advocates is a state of satiation and
tranquility that is free of the fear of death and the retribution of the gods.
When we do not suffer pain, we are no longer in need of pleasure.
Epicurus explicitly warns against overindulgence because it often leads to
pain. For instance, in what might be described as a "hangover" theory, Epicurus
warned against pursuing love too ardently. However, having a circle of friends
that you can trust is one of the most important means for securing a tranquil
life.
Theology
Epicurus participated in the activities of traditional Greek religion, but
taught that one should avoid holding false opinions about the gods. The gods are
immortal. The gods are blessed; that is, they are tranquil (that is to say, they
have achieved the tranquility to which all men should aspire). Men should not ascribe any
additional qualities that are alien to immortality and blessedness/tranquility.
Men who make such ascriptions
are, thus, impious and evil -- and should be suppressed.
The gods do not punish the bad and reward the good as the common man
believes. The opinion of the common man is that the gods "send
great evils to the wicked and great blessings to the righteous who model
themselves after the gods." In reality, the gods do not concern themselves at
all with human beings. They are, as above noted, tranquil.
Epicurus does not deny the existence of Gods, but he does not think of them
along the lines that lead to the paradox of evil: "How can a 'God' (by
definition both benevolent and omnipotent) co-exist with evil -- the existence
of which we run into every day?".
Instead, he thinks of the gods (or, as
appropriate, God) as blissful and immortal beings inhabiting the
Metakosmia --
the relatively empty spaces in the infinite void where worlds have not yet been
formed by the joining together of the atoms through their endless motion. Yes,
the gods are immortal and blissful/tranquil living beings, made of atoms.
However, these atoms have not yet been joined together -- which is precisely
why the gods are immortal and blissful/tranquil.
Epicurus -- a product of his culture -- assumed
(without any deliberate thought) that the gods were plural. The Mahatmalama,
however, does not know the singularity/plurality of God/the-gods, and therefore
does not considers it appropriate:
- to dictate to the gods that they should become singular (or remain
plural); nor
- to dictate to God that he should become plural (or remain singular).
Indeed, the singularity/plurality of God/the-gods is inherently unknowable.
God/the-gods necessarily lives/live between the worlds, and not
in any of them -- and certainly not in our world. And
our knowledge is necessarily limited to our world -- the world whose atoms are
joined to our atoms.
This concept of the Metakosmia -- the relatively empty spaces in the infinite
void where worlds have not yet been formed by the joining together of the atoms
through their endless motion -- is essential to the Mahatmalamalist embrace of
the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics.
Death
Epicurus also believed that death was not to be feared. When a man dies, he
does not feel the pain of death because he no longer is and he therefore feels
nothing. Therefore, as Epicurus famously said, "death is nothing to us. When we
exist death is not, and when death exists we are not." All sensation and
consciousness ends with death. In death, therefore, there is neither pleasure
nor pain. The fear of death arises from the false belief that in death there is
awareness.
As proof of this, consider the "prelife", and not
just the "afterlife".
- Who among us remembers the sorrow of not yet having been born, and
therefore rejoices in the fact of his own birth? None.
- Should any of us therefore view the afterlife with dread? No.
Epistemology
The Principle of Multiple Explanations, advocated by Epicurus, is an early
contribution to the philosophy of science -- if several theories are consistent
with the observed data, then retain them all: "There are also some things for
which it is not enough to state a single cause, but several, of which one,
however, is the case. Just as if you were to see the lifeless corpse of a man
lying far away, it would be fitting to state all the causes of death in order
that the single cause of this death may be stated. For you would not be able to
establish conclusively that he died by the sword or of cold or of illness or
perhaps by poison, but we know that there is something of this kind that
happened to him."
Lifestyle
Epicureans showed little interest in participating
in the politics of the day, since doing so leads to trouble. Epicurus instead
advocated seclusion. His garden can be compared to present-day communes.
The most well-known Epicurean verse, which epitomizes his philosophy, is "live secretly",
or "get through life without
drawing attention to yourself". Epicurus thus advocated that we live without
pursuing glory or wealth or power, but anonymously -- enjoying the little things,
like food, the company of friends, and so on. Translated into a modern-day
colloquialism: "Live low enough that no one will be tempted to write a
Wikipedia article about
you, and that an article (if written) would be promptly deleted as being about a
person who is insufficiently
notable.
Tetrapharmakos
The Tetrapharmakos, or, "The four-part cure," is Epicurus' overall statement
of how to live the happiest possible life. This poetic doctrine was handed down
by an anonymous Epicurean who summed up Epicurus' philosophy on happiness in
four simple lines:
The fundamental obstacle to happiness is anxiety.
Don’t fear god.
As a prelude to "Don't worry about death," the concept of "god" in
Epicurus' time was incompatible to Epicurus' beliefs. The worrying about
whether or not the gods are concerned about the actions of human beings and
the observance and amount of worship ascribed to the gods, was the people's
general view of the gods. But Epicurus and many other Greeks at the time
conceived the gods to be a hypothetical state of bliss rather than higher
bodies of judgment; they are an indestructible entity that is completely
invulnerable, enviable to mortals, and, most importantly, unconcerned about
anything beyond the bliss and happiness they represent. They are mere role
models for human beings, "who emulate the happiness of the gods, within the
limits imposed by human nature".
Don’t worry about death.
"While you are alive, you
don't have to deal with being dead, but when you are dead you don't have to
deal with it either, because you aren't there to deal with it." In Epicurus'
own words, "Death means nothing to us...when we exist, death is not yet
present, and when death is present, then we do not exist". There is no
afterlife after we die. Death is the greatest anxiety of all,
in length and intensity. This anxiety about death impedes the quality and
happiness of one's life by the theory of afterlife: the worrying about whether
or not one's deeds and actions in life will translate well into the region of
the gods, the wondering whether one will be assigned to an eternity of pain or
to an eternity of pleasure. Don't worry, and don't wonder.
What is good is easy to get.
Sustenance and shelter, these things can be acquired by anyone -- by both
animal and human -- with minimal effort, regardless of wealth. But if one
wants more than one needs (overindulgence, gluttony, etc.), then one is limiting
the chances of satisfaction and happiness -- and therefore creating a “needless
anxiety” in one’s life. "What is good is easy to get" implies that the minimum
amount of necessity it takes to satisfy an urge is the maximum amount of
interest a person should have in satisfying that urge.
What is terrible is easy to endure.
The Epicureans understood that, in nature, discomfort -- illness and pain
-- is not suffered
for very long. Discomfort is either "brief or chronic...either mild or
intense, but discomfort that is both chronic and intense is very unusual; so
there is no need to be concerned about the prospect of suffering". It's like
"What is good is easy to get". Recognizing one's physical and mental limit and
one's threshold of pain -- understanding how much pain the body or mind can
endure -- and maintaining confidence that pleasure only follows pain (and the
avoidance of anxiety about the length of pain), is the remedy against
prolonged suffering.
Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to
seek modest pleasures in order to attain:
- a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia); and
- absence of bodily pain (aponia)
through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires.
The combination of these two states thus constitutes happiness in its
highest form.
Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism (insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good), its conception of
absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life
make it quite different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.
For Epicurus, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was
obtained by knowledge, friendship, and living a virtuous and temperate life.
He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from
bodily desires (such as sex and appetites) verging on asceticism. He argued
that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to
dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford
such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and
dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate the broad
system of social ethics that has survived under his name.
The philosophy originated by Epicurus flourished for seven centuries. It
centered around the idea that the pleasure of the individual was the sole or
chief good in life. Hence, Epicurus advocated living in such a way as to
derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one’s lifetime, yet
doing so moderately in order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence
in such pleasure. The emphasis was placed on pleasures of the mind rather than
on physical pleasures. Therefore, according to Epicurus, with whom a person
eats is of greater importance than what is eaten. Unnecessary (and, especially,
artificially produced) desires were to be suppressed. Since learning, culture,
and civilization as well as social and political involvements could give rise
to desires that are difficult to satisfy and thus result in disturbing one’s
peace of mind, they were discouraged. Knowledge was sought only to rid oneself
of religious fears and superstitions, the two primary fears to be eliminated
being fear of the gods and of death. Viewing marriage and what attends it as a
threat to one’s peace of mind, Epicurus lived a celibate life but did not
impose this restriction on his followers.
The revival of atomism (perhaps under the name of "quarkism") in modern
physics, together with the abhorrence with pain-for-its-own-sake that arose
during and after World War One, has led to the triumph of The Mahatmalamalist
Church. Soon, soon, all of the world will embrace
Mahatmalamalism.
Epicurus:
-
Wikipedia
publishes some pretty good material under the
GNU Free Documentation License.
-
HISTORY: I've taken some material, below, from Wikipedia's web
pieces (last accessed in 2007) on Epicureanism,
Epicurus,
Many-Worlds
Interpretation,
The Tetrapharmakos,
and Metakosmia.
-
I've also
reworked it and added some material of my own. Please therefore consider this
entire webpage to be subject to that GNU license, and act accordingly.
-
Yes, this
webpage -- like the rest of this website -- is a perpetual work in progress.
Please therefore link back to it when you use it for your own material -- but don't
expect it to still read the same way as when you came up with your own material!
-
See the legalese for more details.
-
Another fine overview of Epicurus and Epicureanism appears in
The Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (IEP), a project of the University of Tennessee at Martin.
IEP has asked to be linked to rather than republished, so that's what I've done.
|
