Who can be an Epicurean today and why not

February 15, 2012 · Filed Under Epicurean Conduct Of Life (ECOL), Epicurean solutions, normal madness, unwittingly Epicurean

To my mind being “Epicurean” today may mean many thins to many people. We cannot simply pretend to ignore that the word “epicurean” is being used to describe at least three semantically different categories:

1. fond of or adapted to luxury or indulgence in sensual pleasures; having luxurious tastes or habits, especially in eating and drinking.

2. fit for an epicure: epicurean delicacies.

3. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Epicurus or Epicureanism.

We might, of course agree to exclude the foodies but the rest of the world might ignore our decision. But even after the arbitrary exclusion of the first two established meanings of the word we would have at one end of the remaining wide spectrum the people who have heard that it is not the same as being a foodie , plus, on reading Lactantius’s “if god is willing to prevent evil, but not able?…then he is not omnipotent..” they feel they like it and repost it on Facebook’s Epicurus wall (every month or so). At the other end might stand those people who would live in an Epicurean community an Epicurean way of life, communally practicing the teachings. We could agree, of course, that by barely subscribing to a set of principles, like for instance the Principal Doctrines, Vatican Sayings, and the Letter to Menoeceus, or maybe even just the Tetrapharmakos, one should be entitled to describe oneself as a n“ Epicurean”. Or maybe as a “non-practicing Epicurean” or “principled Epicurean” or “philosophical Epicurean” etc.. The above mentioned general principles are general enough to be acceptable for the vast majority of those people who value a minimum level of rationality and honesty, even though they might have been baptized/incorporated/engulfed into some vast and vague and abstract worldview ‘community’ like Christianity, or Buddhism, or the Islam – or any of their local branches.

Without practicing the teachings the subscribers to a set of Epicurean principles might be no more ‘Epicureans’ as the majority of Christians and other members of the established mass-religions are. (I never stop being astonished by seeing the word “Christian” describe an honest Amish craftsman and Ken Lay, the Christian Extraordinaire. )What is the meaning of the word Christian then? And what should be the meaning of the word “Epicurean”? Or what word or combination of words should more or less appropriately describe the non-foodie branch of practicing Epicureans?

Maybe we should start by agreeing on whether being a member of an Epicurean community is a necessary element of designating someone or oneself as Epicurean. The freemasons decided that there is no such thing as a freemason outside of a lodge. Can or should this principle be applied to self-proclaimed Epicureans? Or shall we try to develop a more precise terminology?

As you see, we have two problems to deal with

1. define what we mean by the word “Epicurean”

2. then find a better word for it

We can, of course eschew the challenge and go on messing up the terms further describing our own personal mixture of philosophical and/or psychological and/or sociological ingredients as “Epicureanism” or even “Neo-Epicureanism”.