Podcasts about Epicurus

Welcome to Episode 336 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues. This week will continue in Book Two, where we will take up Section 8 Our text will come fromCicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here: Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archivehttps://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/5109-episode-336-eataq18-a-coherent-whole-or-an-arbitrary-mess-the-necessity-of-the-s/

Welcome to Episode 335 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues. This week will continue in Book Two, where we will take up Section 8 Our text will come fromCicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here: Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archivehttps://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/5101-episode-335-eataq-17-epicurean-analysis-of-stoic-claims-about-notions-and-memory/

Welcome to Episode 334 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes. This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues. This week will continue in Book Two, where we will take up Section 8 Our text will come fromCicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here: Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Greek philosopher Epicurus made a rather bold claim over two thousand years ago. The key to life, he said, is simple: pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Around this maxim he developed a school of philosophy, Epicureanism, which promised its adherents that if they took care of their basic needs, surrounded themselves with trustworthy friends, and developed a basic understanding of science, they would be happy. But is it really that simple? Can the advice of someone born 2,363 years ago still hold true? To answer these questions, we turned to Emily Austin, professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University and author of the delightful book Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life. (This episode first aired in January 2023.) Sponsored By: Granola — If meetings are eating up your day, Granola is a no-brainer. You can try it totally free for three months. Just head to granola.ai/idea  Incogni — Protect your personal information online and get an exclusive 60% off an annual plan at incogni.com/nbi  Quince — Refresh your spring wardrobe and get free shipping and 365-day returns at quince.com/nbi    Shopify — Launch your business for just $1/month. Start selling today at shopify.com/nbi

Welcome to Episode 333 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes. This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will continue in Section 7

This episode is a replay from The Existential Stoic library. Enjoy! Is your life your own? Do you feel like you're constantly doing things because you have to, not because you want to? Do you know yourself? Danny and Randy discuss what it means to be true to yourself.Subscribe to ESP's YouTube Channel! Thanks for listening!  Do you have a question you want answered in a future episode? If so, send your question to: existentialstoic@protonmail.com  

Epicurus - How To Live Like A God On An Average Salary (Epicureanism). In this video we will be talking about How To Live Like A God On An Average Salary from the philosophy of Epicurus. His philosophy is often referenced as Epicurean hedonism or simply Epicureanism. So here are 5 ways to live like a God from the philosophy of Epicurus -  01. Categorize Your Desires02. The "Cheese" Principle03. Prioritize “Aponia” and “Ataraxia"04. Invest in your  "Garden" 05. Master the "Fear of Lack"I hope you enjoyed watching the video and hope these 5 ways to live like a God from the philosophy of Epicurus will add value to your life. Epicurus is one of the most important figures in the history of philosophy, as well as of science. He is less known than Plato or Socrates, but, nonetheless, his teachings are precious and timeless. He lived between 341 to 270 BC, and wrote more than 300 works during his lifetime. Most of his work has been lost, but what remains is extremely relevant even today. In science, he was one of the first to describe the natural world as made of atoms and he rightly understood that all the natural phenomena are in fact based on the movement of atoms. Also, he strongly stressed the importance of basing our beliefs on empirical evidence and logic. In philosophy, he was part of the hedonist movement and he was most famous for his skilful insights into the concept of happiness, starting his own School of Happiness, also known as Epicurean hedonism or simply Epicureanism. If stoics believed that living justly and virtuously is the highest good and that we should be indifferent to pleasure and pain, Epicureanism believed that we should seek to maximise the pleasures in life. There were some rumours that in his school people lavished  themselves in orgies, luxury and decadence, but these rumours were unfounded. Epicurus didn't have any interest in orgies and expensive meals. His idea of pleasure is far from the classical one. He departed from the classical school of hedonism for which pleasure is the highest good, adding that the pleasure of the mind, not the pleasure of the senses, is the true ‘highest good'. He believed that the greatest happiness comes from reducing suffering, achieving an inner state of peace which he called ataraxia. Ataraxia means being content with simple things in life, like having philosophical conversations about the meaning of life, in your small garden, with your best friends. According to Epicurus, the pleasure from pursuing wisdom is the highest form of pleasure, and the most valuable as it is the one that leads us to true happiness.

Get all sides of every story and be better informed at https://ground.news/AlexOC - subscribe for 40% off unlimited access.For early, ad-free access to videos, and to support the channel, subscribe to my Substack: https://www.alexoconnor.com.Jonny Thomson is a philosopher and the founder of PhilosophyMinis . He is on the Executive Board for the British Philosophy Association and is a staff writer at Big Think.Get Jonny's upcoming book, The Art of Enough: The Ancient Epicurean Philosophy of Finding – and Keeping – HappinessTIMESTAMPS:00:00 - Are Epicureans Selfish?05:30 - Why Epicureanism?10:31 - Who Was Epicurus?16:42 - Godless But Not Atheistic23:21 - Epicurus' Metaphysics27:24 - Why Focus on Pleasure?35:29 - Epicureanism vs Utilitarianism48:59 - What About Immoral Pleasures?53:02 - Could AI be Epicurean?01:00:50 - The Experience Machine01:10:59 - Why Epicurus Didn't Like Sex01:16:21 - Are Influencers Watering Down Ancient Philosophy?01:20:06 - Are You In Control of Your Happiness?01:26:33 - Epicureanism vs Stoicism01:32:36 - Epicurus on Death01:36:42 - Do We Have a Happiness Crisis? - CONNECTMy Website: https://www.alexoconnor.comSOCIAL LINKS:Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/cosmicskepticFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/cosmicskepticInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/cosmicskepticTikTok: @CosmicSkepticThe Within Reason Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/within-reason/id1458675168 - CONTACTBusiness email: contact@alexoconnor.comBrand enquiries: David@modernstoa.co

Welcome to Episode 332 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus.This week will transition to Book Two, where we will begin with Section 7Our text will come fromCicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Hey everyone, it's Jack here. I'm still out in the camper van writing a travel book – I'm really excited to share more on this soon. At the same time, we've been producing live events and YouTube videos – so there's been a lot going on. We'll be sharing audio from the live shows soon, as well as recording an old school Panpsycast episode at the end of May. In the meantime, I'm excited to share another conversation I've had for the new YouTube channel with Jonny Thomson on the philosophy of Epicurus. I confront Jonny on my verdict that Epicurus is the worst philosopher ever; and he does a tremendous job of telling me why I'm wrong. It's a great conversation, which i'm excited for you to hear it. So without further ado: here it is! Links Jonny Thomson, The Art of Enough (pre-order now!) Jonny Thomson, Mini Philosophy Philosophy Minis (Instagram) Philosophy Minis (TikTok) Jack Symes, YouTube

Welcome to Episode 331 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.   This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will focus on  Section 12. and transition to Book Two, where we will begin with Section 7 Our text will come fromCicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archivehttps://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/5057-episode-331-eataq-13-the-self-defeating-paradox-of-radical-skepticism/

χαίρετε, ὦ ἀκροαταί! Here is our latest episode, continuing from last time talking about Epicurus. This time we begin reading his letter to Menoeceus including his famous expression "death is nothing to us". καλῶς ὑμῖν γένοιτο!Leandros & JosepHere are the sections recited and discussed:122Μήτε νέος τις ὢν μελλέτω φιλοσοφεῖν, μήτε γέρωνὑπάρχων κοπιάτω φιλοσοφῶν. οὔτε γὰρ ἄωρος οὐδείς ἐστινοὔτε πάρωρος πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν ὑγιαῖνον. ὁ δὲ λέγων ἢμήπω τοῦ φιλοσοφεῖν ὑπάρχειν ὥραν ἢ παρεληλυθέναι τὴνὥραν ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ λέγοντι πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ἢ μὴπαρεῖναι τὴν ὥραν ἢ μηκέτι εἶναι. ὥστε φιλοσοφητέον καὶνέῳ καὶ γέροντι, τῷ μὲν ὅπως γηράσκων νεάζῃ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖςδιὰ τὴν χάριν τῶν γεγονότων, τῷ δὲ ὅπως νέος ἅμα καὶπαλαιὸς ᾖ διὰ τὴν ἀφοβίαν τῶν μελλόντων· μελετᾶν οὖνχρὴ τὰ ποιοῦντα τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, εἴπερ παρούσης μὲναὐτῆς πάντα ἔχομεν, ἀπούσης δὲ πάντα πράττομεν εἰς τὸταύτην ἔχειν.123Ἃ δέ σοι συνεχῶς παρήγγελλον, ταῦτα καὶ πρᾶττε καὶμελέτα, στοιχεῖα τοῦ καλῶς ζῆν ταῦτ' εἶναι διαλαμβάνων.Πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριοννομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη, μηθὲν μήτετῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειοναὐτῷ πρόσαπτε· πᾶν δὲ τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον τὴνμετὰ ἀφθαρσίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτὸν δόξαζε. θεοὶ μὲνγὰρ εἰσίν· ἐναργὴς γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις· οἵους δ'αὐτοὺς οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσιν, οὐκ εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ φυλάττουσιν αὐτοὺς οἵουςνομίζουσιν. ἀσεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ τοὺς τῶν πολλῶν θεοὺςἀναιρῶν, ἀλλ' ὁ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας θεοῖς προσάπτων.124οὐ γὰρ προλήψεις εἰσὶν ἀλλ' ὑπολήψεις ψευδεῖς αἱ τῶνπολλῶν ὑπὲρ θεῶν ἀποφάσεις. ἔνθεν αἱ μέγισται βλάβαι†αἴτιαι τοῖς κακοῖς ἐκ θεῶν ἐπάγονται καὶ ὠφέλειαι. ταῖς γὰρἰδίαις οἰκειούμενοι διὰ παντὸς ἀρεταῖς τοὺς ὁμοίουςἀποδέχονται, πᾶν τὸ μὴ τοιοῦτον ὡς ἀλλότριον νομίζοντες.Συνέθιζε δὲ ἐν τῷ νομίζειν μηδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἶναι τὸνθάνατον· ἐπεὶ πᾶν ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακὸν ἐν αἰσθήσει· στέρησιςδέ ἐστιν αἰσθήσεως ὁ θάνατος. ὅθεν γνῶσις ὀρθὴ τοῦ μηθὲνεἶναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸν θάνατον ἀπολαυστὸν ποιεῖ τὸ τῆς ζωῆςθνητόν, οὐκ ἄπειρον προστιθεῖσα χρόνον, ἀλλὰ τὸν τῆςἀθανασίας ἀφελομένη πόθον.Full text available here:https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0537.tlg012.1st1K-grc1:122-126/Support the podcast and get access to episodes in advance as well as lots of extra bonus materials: https://www.patreon.com/Hellenizdein Would you like to take AG classes with us? Check out our website for details: https://hellenicadidagmata.wordpress.com/ Follow us on “Twitter”: https://x.com/ancientgreekpod Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/leighcobley.bsky.social Join our Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/604916774052809 Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ancientgreekpodcast/ Send us an email: theancientgreekpodcast@gmail.com 

 Kriebels van mezelf krijgen Jezelf zo zielig vindenKrijg jezelf eruit via een resetDe hedonistische resetGenieten als levensdoelJames Bond (filmreeks gestart in 1962)Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890)Epicurus (341 v.Chr.–270 v.Chr.)Verplicht jezelf om even hedonistisch te doenJe knapt ervan opMain Character SyndromeIk had er even last vanIedereen keek naar mijIedereenVia YouTube podcast luisterenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REFlqBVnXR0Smerig en lekkerKriebels van mezelf krijgenDe introvert in mijDe vlieg op de muurSupport the show1)  Ontvang elke woensdagavond een mail van me over gevoelens waar niemand over praat. 2) Mijn shop vol boeken boeken, posters en tasjes3) Steun me via petjeaf.com/tomsondarko en luister exclusieve afleveringen.

Welcome to Episode 330 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.    This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will focus on  Section 9 and10. Our text will come fromCicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archivehttps://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/5047-episode-330-eataq-12-in-contrast-with-epicurus-the-stoics-opt-for-virtue-at-any/?postID=39439#post39439

Welcome to Episode 329 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.    This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will focus on the ending of Section 9. Our text will come fromCicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveQuote from Academic Questions - Yonge IX. This was the first philosophy handed down to them by Plato. And if you like I will explain to you those discussions which have originated in it. Indeed, said I, we shall be glad if you will; and I can answer for Atticus as well as for myself. You are quite right, said he; for the doctrine both of the Peripatetics and of the old Academy is most admirably explained. Aristotle, then, was the first to undermine the doctrine of species (forms), which I have just now mentioned, and which Plato had embraced in a wonderful manner; so that he even affirmed that there was something divine in it. But Theophrastus, a man of very delightful eloquence, and of such purity of morals that his probity and integrity were notorious to all men, broke down more vigorously still the authority of the old school; for he stripped virtue of its beauty, and made it powerless, by denying that to live happily depended solely on it. For Strato, his pupil, although a man of brilliant abilities, must still be excluded entirely from that school; for, having deserted that most indispensable part of philosophy which is placed in virtue and morals, and having devoted himself wholly to the investigation of nature, he by that very conduct departs as widely as possible from his companions. But Speusippus and Xenocrates, who were the earliest supporters of the system and authority of Plato,— and, after them, Polemo and Crates, and at the same time Crantor,— being all collected together in the Academy, diligently maintained those doctrines which they had received from their predecessors. Zeno and Arcesilas had been diligent attenders on Polemo; but Zeno, who preceded Arcesilas in point of time, and argued with more subtilty, and was a man of the greatest acuteness, attempted to correct the system of that school. And, if you like, I will explain to you the way in which he set about that correction, as Antiochus used to explain it. Indeed, said I, I shall be very glad to hear you do so; and you see that Pomponius intimates the same wish.

Welcome to Episode 328 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.   This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will focus on the ending of Section 8.Our text will come fromCicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveQuoteVIII.The third part of philosophy, which is next in order, being conversant about reason and discussion, was thus handled by both schools. They said that, although it originated in the senses, still the power of judging of the truth was not in the senses. They insisted upon it that intellect was the judge of things. They thought that the only thing deserving of belief, because it alone discerned that which was always simple and uniform, and which perceived its real character. This they call idea, having already received this name from Plato; and we properly entitle it species.But they thought that all the senses were dull and slow, and that they did not by any means perceive those things which appeared subjected to the senses; which were either so small as to be unable to come under the notice of sense, or so moveable and rapid that none of them was ever one consistent thing, nor even the same thing, because everything was in a continual state of transition and disappearance. And therefore they called all this division of things one resting wholly on opinion. But they thought that science had no existence anywhere except in the notions and reasonings of the mind; on which account they approved of the definitions of things, and employed them on everything which was brought under discussion. The explanation of words also was approved of — that is to say, the explanation of the cause why everything was named as it was; and that they called etymology. Afterwards they used arguments, and, as it were, marks of things, for the proof and conclusion of what they wished to have explained; in which the whole system of dialectics — that is to say, of an oration brought to its conclusion by ratiocination, was handed down. And to this there was added, as a kind of second part, the oratorical power of speaking, which consists in developing a continued discourse, composed in a manner adapted to produce conviction.

[Slide 1] John Tillotson [Slide 2] Born 1630 to a Puritan Clothier Graduated Cambridge in 1650 and was made a fellow of his college in 1651. He identified himself with the Presbyterians until the Act of Uniformity in 1662. He devoted himself to the study of the patristic writers, especially Basil and John Chrysostom. His preaching tended to be far more practical rather than theological as a result of his studies. He earned his doctorate in Divinity in 1666. In 1672 he became the dean of Canterbury. Through various connections with Lady Russell and Princess Anne, he was made clerk of the closet to the king in 1689, showing the level of confidence both William and Mary had in him. Soon after this he was elected as the Archbishop of Canterbury, but accepted the position with extreme reluctance and actually deferred his appointment to the position, at his request, until 1691 where it became official. Shortly before his death he published four lectures on the Socinian controversy to make it clear that he had no sympathy for the Socinian heresy. Ultimately it was his attempt to reform several abuses in the Church of England that led to a political movement known as the Jacobites pursuing him with insults and reproach until he died in November of 1694. [Slide 3] We are not sure when this sermon was preached in his career, but it has often been preached on Easter Sundays throughout the last 300 years or so. You will notice his style as he attempts to show how reason is not an enemy to the Christian doctrines of the Resurrection. I chose this sermon because it touches both the thinkers and philosophers among us and also has quite a practical punch at the very end. Truly something for everyone. As much as possible I left the language and spelling the way it was in the original. I have only made small modifications for clarity. [Slide 4 (blank)] So let me pray, and when I say amen every word that follows will be Doctor John Tilloston's from his sermon entitled The Reasonableness of a Resurrection. [Slide 5] Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?—Acts 26:8. The resurrection of the dead is one of the great articles of the Christian faith; and yet so it hath happened that this great article of our religion hath been made one of the chief objections against it. There is nothing that Christianity hath been more upbraided for withal, both by the heathens of old and by the infidels of later times, than the impossibility of this article; so that it is a matter of great consideration and consequence to vindicate our religion in this particular. But if the thing be evidently impossible, then it is highly unreasonable to propose it to the belief of mankind. I know that some, more devout than wise, and who, it is to be hoped, mean better than they understand, make nothing of impossibilities in matters of faith, and would fain persuade us that the more impossible anything is, for that very reason it is the fitter to be believed; and that it is an argument of a poor and low faith to believe only things that are possible; but a generous and heroical faith will swallow contradictions with as much ease as reason assents to the plainest and most evident propositions. Tertullian, in the heat of his zeal and eloquence, upon this point of the death and resurrection of Christ, lets fall a very odd passage, and which must have many grains of allowance to make it tolerable: He said “it is therefore very credible, because it is foolish, and certain, because it is impossible. And it is necessary the Christian faith should be thus disgraced by the belief of impossibilities and contradictions.” I suppose he means that this article of the resurrection was not in itself the less credible because the heathen philosophers [objected] at it as a thing impossible and [contradictory], and endeavored to disgrace the Christian religion upon that account. For if he meant otherwise, that the thing was therefore credible because it was really and in itself foolish and impossible; this had been to recommend the Christian religion from the absurdity of the things to be believed; which would be a strange recommendation of any religion to the sober and reasonable part of mankind. I know not what some men may find in themselves; but I must freely acknowledge that I could never yet attain to that bold and hardy degree of faith as to believe anything for this reason, because it was impossible: for this would be to believe a thing to be, because I am sure it can not be. So that I am very far from being of his mind, that wanted not only more difficulties, but even impossibilities in the Christian religion, to exercise his faith upon. Leaving to the Church of Rome that foolhardiness of faith, to believe things to be true which at the same time their reason plainly tells them are impossible, I shall at this time endeavor to assert and vindicate this article of the resurrection from the pretended impossibility of it. And I hope, by God's assistance, to make the possibility of the thing so plain as to leave no considerable scruple about it in any free and unprejudiced mind. And this I shall do from these words of St. Paul, which are part of the defense which he made for himself before Festus and Agrippa. the substance whereof is this, that he had lived a blameless and inoffensive life among the Jews, in whose religion he had been bred up; that he was of the strictest sect of that religion, a Pharisee, which, in opposition to the Sadducees, maintained the resurrection of the dead and a future state of rewards and punishments in another life; and that for the hope of this he was called in question, and accused by the Jews. “And now I stand here, and am judged, for the hope of the promise made unto the fathers; unto which promise our twelve scribes, instantly serving God, day and night, hope to come; for which hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” That is, he was accused for preaching that Jesus was risen from the dead, which is a particular instance of the general doctrine of the resurrection which was entertained by the greatest part of the Jews, and which to the natural reason of mankind ([even though] the heathen … were prejudiced against it), hath nothing in it that is incredible. And for this he appeals to his judges, Festus and Agrippa: “why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?” Which words being a question without an answer, imply in them these two propositions: [Slide 6] First, That it was thought by some a thing incredible that the dead should be raised. This is supposed in the question, as the foundation of it: for he who asks why a thing is so, supposeth it to be so. Secondly, That this apprehension, that it is a thing incredible that God should raise the dead, is very unreasonable. For the question being left unanswered, implies its own answer, and is to be resolved into this affirmative, that there is no reason why they or any man else should think it a thing incredible that God should raise the dead. I shall speak to these two propositions as briefly as I can; and then show what influence this doctrine of the resurrection ought to have upon our lives. First, that it was thought by some a thing incredible that God should raise the dead. This St. Paul has reason to suppose, having from his own experience found men so averse from the entertaining of this doctrine. When he preached to the philosophers at Athens, and declared to them the resurrection of one Jesus from the dead, they were amazed at this new doctrine, and knew not what he meant by it. They said, “he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods, because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection.” He had discoursed to them of the resurrection of one Jesus from the dead; but this business of the resurrection of one Jesus from the dead was a thing so remote from their apprehensions that they had no manner of conception of it; but understood him quite in another sense, as if he had declared to them two new deities, Jesus and Anastasis; as if he had brought a new god and a new goddess among them, Jesus and the Resurrection. And when he discoursed to them again more fully of this matter, it is said that, “when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, they mocked.” And at the twenty-fourth verse of this twenty-sixth chapter, when he spake of the resurrection, Festus told him he would hear him no further, and that he looked upon him as a man beside himself, whom much learning had made mad. Festus looked upon this business of the resurrection as the wild speculation of a crazy head. And indeed the heathens generally, even those who believed the immortality of the soul, and another state after this life, looked upon the resurrection of the body as a thing impossible. Pliny, I remember, reckons it among those things which are impossible, and which God himself can not do; and in the primitive times the heathen philosophers very much derided the Christians, upon account of this strange doctrine of the resurrection, looking always upon this article of their faith as a ridiculous and impossible assertion. So easy it is for prejudice to blind the minds of men, and to represent everything to them which hath a great appearance of difficulty in it as impossible. But I shall endeavor to show that if the matter be thoroughly examined, there is no ground for any such apprehension. I proceed therefore to the second proposition, namely, that this apprehension, that it is an incredible thing that God should raise the dead, is very unreasonable: “why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” That is, there is no sufficient reason why any man should look upon the resurrection of the dead as a thing impossible to the power of God; the only reason why they thought it incredible being because they judged it impossible; so that nothing can be vainer than for men to pretend to believe the resurrection; and yet at the same time to grant it to be a thing in reason impossible, because no man can believe that which he thinks to be incredible; and the impossibility of a thing is the best reason any man can have to think a thing incredible. So that the meaning of St. Paul's question is, “why should it be thought a thing impossible that God should raise the dead?” To come then to the business: I shall endeavor to show that there is no sufficient reason why men should look upon the resurrection of the dead as a thing impossible to God. “Why should it be thought a thing incredible (that is, impossible) with you, that God should raise the dead?” which question implies in it these three things: [Slide 7] 1. That it is above the power of nature to raise the dead. 2. But it is not above the power of God to raise the dead. 3. That God should be able to do this is by no means incredible to natural reason. First. This question implies that it is above the power of nature to raise the dead; and therefore the apostle puts the question very cautiously, “why should it be thought incredible that God should raise the dead?” by which he seems to grant that it is impossible to any natural power to raise the dead; which is granted on all hands. Secondly. But this question does plainly imply that it is not above the power of God to do this. Tho the raising of the dead to life be a thing above the power of nature, yet why should it be thought incredible that God, who is the author of nature, should be able to do this? and indeed the apostle's putting the question in this manner takes away the main ground of the objection against the resurrection from the impossibility of the thing. For the main reason why it was looked upon as impossible was, because it was contrary to the course of nature that there should be any return from a perfect privation to a habit, and that a body perfectly dead should be restored to life again: but for all this no man that believes in a God who made the world, and this natural frame of things, but must think it very reasonable to believe that He can do things far above the power of anything that He hath made. Thirdly. This question implies that it is not a thing incredible to natural reason that God should be able to raise the dead. I do not say that by natural light we can discover that God will raise the dead; for that, depending merely upon the will of God, can no otherwise be certainly known than by divine revelation: but that God can do this is not at all incredible to natural reason. And this is sufficiently implied in the question which St. Paul asks, in which he appeals to Festus and Agrippa, neither of them Christians, “why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?” And why should he appeal to them concerning the credibility of this matter if it be a thing incredible to natural reason? That it is not, I shall first endeavor to prove, and then to answer the chief objections against the possibility of it. And I prove it thus: it is not incredible to natural reason that God made the world, and all the creatures in it; that mankind is His offspring; and that He gives us life and breath, and all things. This was acknowledged and firmly believed by many of the heathens. And indeed, whoever believes that the being of God may be known by natural light, must grant that it may be known by the natural light of reason that God made the world; because one of the chief arguments of the being of God is taken from those visible effects of wisdom, and power, and goodness, which we see in the frame of the world. Now He that can do the greater can undoubtedly do the less; He that made all things of nothing, can much more raise a body out of dust; He who at first gave life to so many inanimate beings, can easily restore that which is dead to life again. It is an excellent saying of one of the Jewish rabbis: He who made that which was not, to be, can certainly make that which was once, to be again. This hath the force of a demonstration; for no man that believes that God hath done the one, can make any doubt but that He can, if He please, do the other. This seems to be so very clear, that they must be strong objections indeed, that can render it incredible. [Slide 8] There are but two that I know of, that are of any consideration, and I shall not be afraid to represent them to you with their utmost advantage; and they are these: First, against the resurrection in general: it is pretended impossible, after the bodies of men are resolved into dust, to re-collect all the dispersed parts and bring them together, to be united into one body. The second is leveled against a resurrection in some particular instances, and pretends it to be impossible in some cases only like when that which was the matter of one man's body does afterward become the matter of another man's body; in which case, say they, it is impossible that both these should, at the resurrection, each have his own body. The difficulty of both these objections is perfectly avoided by those who hold that it is not necessary that our bodies at the resurrection should consist of the very same parts of matter that they did before. There being no such great difference between one parcel of dust and another; neither in respect of the power of God, which can easily command this parcel of dust as that to become a living body, and being united to a living soul to rise up and walk; so that the miracle of the resurrection will be all one in the main, whether our bodies be made of the very same matter they were before, or not; nor will there be any difference as to us; for whatever matter our bodies be made of, when they are once reunited to our souls, they will be then as much our own as if they had been made of the very same matter of which they consisted before. Besides that, the change which the resurrection will make in our bodies will be so great that we could not know them to be the same, tho they were so. Now upon this supposition, which seems philosophical enough, the force of both these objections is wholly declined. But there is no need to fly to this refuge; and therefore I will take this article of the resurrection in the strictest sense for the raising of a body to life, consisting of the same individual matter that it did before; and in this sense, I think, it has generally been received by Christians, not without ground, from Scripture. I will only mention one text, which seems very strongly to imply it: “and the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and the grave delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to his works.” Now why should the sea and the grave be said to deliver up their dead, if there were not a resurrection of the same body; for any dust formed into a living body and united to the soul, would serve the turn? We will therefore take it for granted that the very same body will be raised, and I doubt not, even in this sense, to vindicate the possibility of the resurrection from both these objections. First, against the resurrection in general of the same body; it is pretended impossible, after the bodies of men are moldered into dust, and by infinite accidents have been scattered up and down the world, and have undergone a thousand changes, to re-collect and rally together the very same parts of which they consisted before. This the heathens used to object to the primitive Christians; for which reason they also used to burn the bodies of the martyrs, and to scatter their ashes in the air, to be blown about by the wind, in derision of their hopes of a resurrection. I know not how strong malice might make this objection to appear; but surely in reason it is very weak; for it wholly depends upon a gross mistake of the nature of God and his providence, as if it did not extend to the smallest things; as if God did not know all things that He hath made, and had them not always in His view, and perfectly under His command; and as if it were a trouble and burden to infinite knowledge and power to understand and order the least things; whereas infinite knowledge and power can know and manage all things with as much ease as we can understand and order any one thing; so that this objection is grounded upon a low and false apprehension of the Divine nature, and is only fit for Epicurus and his herd, who fancied to themselves a sort of slothful and unthinking deities, whose happiness consisted in their laziness, and a privilege to do nothing. [Slide 9] I proceed therefore to the second objection, which is more close and pressing; and this is leveled against the resurrection in some particular instances. I will mention but two, by which all the rest may be measured and answered. One is, of those who are drowned in the sea, and their bodies eaten up by fishes, and turned into their nourishment: and those fishes perhaps eaten afterward by men, and converted into the substance of their bodies. The other is of the cannibals; some of whom, as credible relations tell us, have lived wholly or chiefly on the flesh of men; and consequently the whole, or the greater part of the substance of their bodies is made of the bodies of other men. In these and the like cases, wherein one man's body is supposed to be turned into the substance of another man's body, how should both these at the resurrection each recover his own body? So that this objection is like that of the Sadducees to our Savior, concerning a woman that had seven husbands: they ask, “whose wife of the seven shall she be at the resurrection?” So here, when several have had the same body, whose shall it be at the resurrection? and how shall they be supplied that have it not? This is the objection; and in order to the answering of it, I shall premise these two things: [Slide 10] 1. That the body of man is not a constant and permanent thing, always continuing in the same state, and consisting of the same matter; but a successive thing, which is continually spending and continually renewing itself, every day losing something of the matter which it had before, and gaining new; so that most men have new bodies oftener than they have new clothes; only with this difference, that we change our clothes commonly at once, but our bodies by degrees. And this is undeniably certain from experience. For so much as our bodies grow, so much new matter is added to them, over and beside the repairing of what is continually spent; and after a man come to his full growth, so much of his food as every day turns into nourishment, so much of his yesterday's body is usually wasted, and carried off by insensible perspiration... It is true indeed the more solid parts of the body, as the bones, do not change so often as the fluid and fleshy; but that they also do change is certain, because they grow, and whatever grows is nourished and spends, because otherwise it would not need to be repaired. 2. The body which a man hath at any time of his life is as much his own body as that which he hath at his death; so that if the very matter of his body which a man had at any time of his life be raised, it is as much his own and the same body as that which he had at his death, and commonly much more perfect; because they who die of lingering sickness or old age are usually mere skeletons when they die; so that there is no reason to suppose that the very matter of which our bodies consists at the time of our death shall be that which shall be raised, that being commonly the worst and most imperfect body of all the rest. These two things being premised, the answer to this objection can not be difficult. For as to the more solid and firm parts of the body, as the skull and bones, it is not, I think, pretended that the cannibals eat them; and if they did, so much of the matter even of these solid parts wastes away in a few years, as being collected together would supply them many times over. And as for the fleshy and fluid parts, these are so very often changed and renewed that we can allow the cannibals to eat them all up, and to turn them all into nourishment, and yet no man need contend for want of a body of his own at the resurrection for he has any of those bodies which he had ten or twenty years before; which are every whit as good and as much his own as that which was eaten. [Slide 11] Having thus shown that the resurrection is not a thing incredible to natural reason, I should now proceed to show the certainty of it from divine revelation. For as reason tells us it is not impossible, so the word of God hath assured us that it is certain. The texts of Scripture are so many and clear to this purpose, and so well known to all Christians, that I will produce none. I shall only tell you that as it is expressly revealed in the gospel, so our blest Savior, for the confirmation of our faith and the comfort and encouragement of our hope, hath given us the experiment of it in his own resurrection, which is “the earnest and first-fruits of ours.” So St. Paul tells us that “Christ is risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept.” And that Christ did really rise from the dead, we have as good evidence as for any ancient matter of fact which we do most firmly believe; and more and greater evidence than this the thing is not capable of; and because it is not, no reasonable man ought to require it. Now what remains but to conclude this discourse with those practical inferences which our apostle makes from this doctrine of the resurrection; and I shall mention these two: [Slide 12] The first for our support and comfort under the infirmities and miseries of this mortal life. The second for the encouragement of obedience and a good life. 1. For our comfort and support under the infirmities and miseries of this mortal state. The consideration of the glorious change of our bodies at the resurrection of the just can not but be a great comfort to us, under all bodily pain and sufferings. One of the greatest burdens of human nature is the frailty and infirmity of our bodies, the necessities they are frequently prest withal, the manifold diseases they are liable to, and the dangers and terrors of death, to which they are continually subject and enslaved. But the time is coming, if we be careful to prepare ourselves for it, when we shall be clothed with other kinds of bodies, free from all the miseries and inconveniences which flesh and blood is subject to. For “these vile bodies shall be changed, and fashioned like to the glorious body of the Son of God.” When our bodies shall be raised to a new life, they shall become incorruptible; “for this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality; and then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, death is swallowed up in victory.” When this last enemy is conquered, there shall be no “fleshly lusts” nor brutish passions “to fight against the soul; no law in our members to war against the laws of our minds”: no disease to torment us; no danger of death to amaze and terrify us. Then all the passions and appetites of our outward man shall be subject to the reason of our minds, and our bodies shall partake of the immortality of our souls. It is but a very little while that our spirits shall be crusht and clogged with these heavy and sluggish bodies; at the resurrection they shall be refined from all dregs of corruption, and become spiritual, and incorruptible, and glorious, and every way suited to the activity and perfection of a glorified soul and the “spirits of just men made perfect.” 2. For the encouragement of obedience and a good life. Let the belief of this great article of our faith have the same influence upon us which St. Paul tells it had upon him. “I have hope toward God that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; and herein do I exercise myself always to have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward man.” The firm belief of a resurrection to another life should make every one of us very careful how we demean ourselves in this life, and afraid to do anything or to neglect anything that may defeat our hopes of a blest immortality, and expose us to the extreme and endless misery of body and soul in another life. Particularly, it should be an argument to us, “to glorify God in our bodies and in our spirits”; and to use the members of the one and the faculties of the other as “instruments of righteousness unto holiness.” We should reverence ourselves, and take heed not only how we defile our souls by sinful passions, but how we dishonor our bodies by sensual and brutish lusts; since God hath designed so great an honor and happiness for both at the resurrection. So often as we think of a blest resurrection to eternal life, and the happy consequences of it, the thought of so glorious a reward should make us diligent and unwearied in the service of so good a Master and so great a Prince, who can and will prefer us to infinitely greater honors than any that are to be had in this world. This inference the apostle makes from the doctrine of the resurrection. “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord; for as much as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” Nay, we may begin this blest state while we are upon earth, by “setting our hearts and affections upon the things that are above, and having our conversation in heaven, from whence also we look for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile bodies, that they may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.” [Slide 13 (end)] “Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make us perfect in every good work to do his will, working in us always that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever. Amen.”[1] [1] John Tillotson, “The Reasonableness of a Resurrection,” in The World's Great Sermons: Hooker to South, ed. Grenville Kleiser, vol. 2 (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908), 135–154.

Welcome to Episode 327 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.    This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will focus on the ending of Section 7. Our text will come fromCicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

χαίρετε πάντες! This week we chat about Epicurus and whether philosophy can help us overcome our fears, paranoias and superstitions so as to lead a better life… We sure hope so, what do you think? εὐωχεῖσθε τοῦ ἐπεισοδίου!Leandros & JosepSupport the podcast and get access to episodes in advance as well as lots of bonus materials: https://www.patreon.com/Hellenizdein Would you like to take AG classes with us? Check out our website for details: https://hellenicadidagmata.wordpress.com/ Follow us on “Twitter”: https://x.com/ancientgreekpod Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/leighcobley.bsky.social Join our Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/604916774052809 Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ancientgreekpodcast/ Send us an email: theancientgreekpodcast@gmail.com 

The Epicurean Paradox highlighted the incongruity of the characteristics of God with the observation we make concerning evil. But the Epicurean Paradox is not really about God and who He is, it points to the lack of obedience. Epicurus would have been better off if he had ask how can mankind be so evil when he obtains no benefit from it.

What did Epicurus, Buddha, and Viktor Frankl understand about meaning that most people never question? In Part 2 of this masterclass, bestselling author and Harvard professor Arthur Brooks joins Ryan to break down Epicureanism, Buddhism, Christianity, and other schools of thought, revealing what each one gets right (and wrong) about happiness, meaning, and how to actually live.Arthur Brooks is a bestselling author, Harvard professor, and one of the world's leading voices on happiness, meaning, and human flourishing. Through his books, columns, and teaching, Brooks helps people build more meaningful, satisfying lives grounded in both philosophy and modern research.

Welcome to Episode 326 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.   This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will will continue in Section 7https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4986-episode-326-eataq-08-who-cares-about-indivisibility-and-why/

The book of Ecclesiastes has puzzled readers for millennia with its unflinching observations about absurdity, meaninglessness, vanity, and futility. Biblical scholar Jesse Peterson joins Evan Rosa to discuss his book, Qoheleth and the Philosophy of Value, bringing contemporary philosophy into dialogue with this ancient text and reflecting on what happens when a sage confronts the gap between expectation and reality. "Can you view your work, your toil, not just as a means to a further end? Can you rather turn to simply enjoy the work itself?" Together they discuss the distinction between meaning and value, why Qoheleth denies lasting significance while affirming joy, the harm of death and the death of memory, Ecclesiastes and Camus's absurdism, and the book's surprising message about enjoyment as an intrinsic good. Episode Highlights "I think what's at the heart of the Book of Ecclesiastes is just to say, maybe not, maybe there isn't a direct line between what you do and what the result will be." "It's not just that you'll physically die, but meaning that you've accrued in your life, if there was such a thing, that dies with you." "In this moment of working on what I'm working on, whatever it is, I am fully alive." "You have a little piece of the pie, and just own it. Absorb yourself into whatever that may be." "Can you view your work, your toil, not just as a means to a further end? Can you rather turn to simply enjoy the work itself?" About Jesse Peterson Jesse Peterson is an Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies in the School of Theology and Honors Program at George Fox University. He previously taught at Purdue University, Fordham University, and St. John's University. He earned a PhD in Hebrew Bible from Durham University (UK), an MDiv from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and a BA in music and Jewish studies from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. His work on Ecclesiastes has appeared in Harvard Theological Review, Vetus Testamentum, and the Journal of Theological Studies. He is the author of Qoheleth and the Philosophy of Value (Cambridge University Press). Helpful Links and Resources Qoheleth and the Philosophy of Value, by Jesse Peterson https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/qoheleth-and-the-philosophy-of-value/877B040C17EE8B9DD60174DEC7C306F7 Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: https://www.amazon.com/Flow-Psychology-Experience-Perennial-Classics/dp/0061339202 Featured music by the Jesse Peterson Quartet https://jessepetersonquartet.bandcamp.com/album/man-of-the-earth Show Notes The most philosophical book in the Bible Bringing Ecclesiastes into dialogue with contemporary philosophy of value Jaco Gericke's Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion as catalyst Authorship: why scholars date Ecclesiastes to the 3rd century BCE The Solomonic persona and the epilogue problem Amal (toil) and yitron (gain): does life add up? Qoheleth as businessman: commercial language for philosophy Three theories of meaning: subjectivism, consequentialism, intersubjectivism "Maybe there isn't a direct line between what you do and what the result will be" Brueggemann's orientation, disorientation, new orientation The absurd: expectation vs. reality, linking Qoheleth to Camus "Meaning that you've accrued in your life, if there was such a thing, that dies with you" The same fate for all: wise and foolish, human and animal Epicurus and the harm of death Hebrew anthropology: dust plus life-breath, no afterlife The carpe diem passages: "Go eat your bread with joy" Joy as robust, not narcotic—enjoying toil as an end in itself "In this moment of working on what I'm working on, I am fully alive" Csikszentmihalyi's Flow and the autotelic experience "Just own it. Absorb yourself into whatever that may be." #Ecclesiastes #Qoheleth #PhilosophyOfValue #MeaningInLife #BiblicalStudies #HebrewBible #WisdomLiterature #CarpeDiem #Absurdity #ForTheLifeOfTheWorld Production Notes This podcast featured Jesse Peterson Edited and Produced by Evan Rosa Hosted by Evan Rosa Production Assistance by Noah Senthil A Production of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture at Yale Divinity School https://faith.yale.edu/about Support For the Life of the World podcast by giving to the Yale Center for Faith & Culture: https://faith.yale.edu/give

Welcome to Episode 325 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.   This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will will continue in Section 6And these are those three kinds which most people believe the Peripatetics speak of: and so far they are not wrong; for this division is the work of that school. But they are mistaken if they think that the Academicians — those at least who bore this name at that time — are different from the Peripatetics. The principle, and the chief good asserted by both appeared to be the same — namely, to attain those things which were in the first class by nature, and which were intrinsically desirable; the whole of them, if possible, or, at all events, the most important of them. But those are the most important which exist in the mind itself, and are conversant about virtue itself. Therefore, all that ancient philosophy perceived that a happy life was placed in virtue alone; and yet that it was not the happiest life possible, unless the good qualities of the body were added to it, and all the other things which have been already mentioned, which are serviceable towards acquiring a habit of virtue. From this definition of theirs, a certain principle of action in life, and of duty itself, was discovered, which consisted in the preservation of those things which nature might prescribe. Hence arose the avoidance of sloth, and contempt of pleasures; from which proceeded the willingness to encounter many and great labours and pains, for the sake of what was right and honourable, and of those things which are conformable to the objects of nature. Hence was generated friendship, and justice, and equity; and these things were preferred to pleasure and to many of the advantages of life. This was the system of morals recommended in their school, and the method and design of that division which I have placed first.But concerning nature (for that came next), they spoke in such a manner that they divided it into two parts,— making one efficient, and the other lending itself, as it were, to the first, as subject matter to be worked upon. For that part which was efficient they thought there was power; and in that which was made something by it they thought there was some matter; and something of both in each. For they considered that matter itself could have no cohesion, unless it were held together by some power; and that power could have none without some matter to work upon; for that is nothing which is not necessarily somewhere. But that which exists from a combination of the two they called at once body, and a sort of quality, as it were. For you will give me leave, in speaking of subjects which have not previously been in fashion, to use at times words which have never been heard of (which, indeed, is no more than the Greeks themselves do, who have been long in the habit of discussing these subjects).https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4974-episode-325-eataq-07-the-false-platonic-division-of-the-universe-into-a-force-wh/?postID=38993#post38993

Welcome to Episode 324 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will will continue in Section 6https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4966-episode-324-eataq-06-is-pleasure-the-good-or-the-enemy-of-the-good/

William Clouston, leader of the SDP, shocks by calling himself more conservative than most Tories while demanding an end to mass migration and evidence-based borders. Go to https://andrewgoldheretics.com  to get exclusive content and the bonus questions. Follow William on X: https://x.com/WilliamClouston  SPONSORS: Organise your life: https://akiflow.pro/Heretics  Earn up to 4 per cent on gold, paid in gold: https://www.monetary-metals.com/heretics/  Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at https://mintmobile.com/heretics  In this no-holds-barred Heretics interview, Andrew Gold sits down with William Clouston, leader of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), who reveals why he believes the SDP is economically to the left of Labour yet far more socially conservative than Nigel Farage or the modern Tories. Clouston pulls no punches on Britain's deepest crises: the devastating housing shortage made impossible by unchecked mass migration, the failure of liberal "magic soil" assimilation fantasies, the importation of culturally dissimilar attitudes from "backward societies" (backed by evidence like Pew data on antisemitism and crime stats), and why progressive denial of reality is anti-empirical bigotry. He dismantles Owen Jones-style fact avoidance, explains why proximity and national interest must trump global altruism, critiques trans ideology's assault on truth and categories, and outlines the painful sacrifices needed to rebuild Britain—massive grid and nuclear investment, welfare cuts to fund house-building, ending de-industrialisation, and reclaiming state capacity in energy, rail, and water. Clouston discusses his SDP-Reform electoral pact, views on Tommy Robinson, the collapse of Christianity in Britain amid religious immigration waves, and why economic and social liberalism are "two cheeks of the same backside" destroying the nation. He praises Trump and Vance for proving borders can be enforced, admires philosopher Epicurus as his favourite heretic for rejecting gods and embracing simple, desire-limited living, and urges viewers to reject fantasy politics for evidence-based truth. If you're tired of woke denial and want real solutions rooted in faith, flag, family, borders, and national prosperity, this is must-watch. #MassMigration #BritainFirst #AntiWoke Join the 30k heretics on my mailing list: https://andrewgoldheretics.com  Check out my new documentary channel: https://youtube.com/@andrewgoldinvestigates  Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok   Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Chapters: 0:00 SDP's Red-Blue Mix Explained 3:02 End Mass Migration or No Homes 5:04 Why Migration Doesn't Fix Building 7:03 True Conservatives vs Fake Ones 10:38 Owen Jones Called Out on Facts 15:04 Magic Soil Myth Busted 17:02 Trump & Vance Changing Everything 21:52 Trans Policy & Truth on Sex 24:04 Legal Sex Change Reversal Push 29:05 Reform, Tories & Future Coalitions 31:57 Economic & Social Liberalism Fail 37:00 SDP-Reform Pact Revealed 40:59 Is Britain Still Christian? 43:22 Religious Collapse & Migration Risks 47:09 A Heretic William Admires Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Episode 323 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will will continue in Section 5https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4961-episode-323-eataq-05-the-pre-epicurean-view-three-divisions-of-philosophy-and-th/?postID=38879#post38879

Welcome to Episode 322 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.       This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will will continue in [Section 2](https://epicurustoday.com/02-keysources/045-cicero-academic-questions-yonge/#ii) and our focus will include a statement by Varro in praise of Socrates, and possible Epicurean responses to it.We'll also look at Socrates' "Second Sailing" and the major topics contained in the Mark Riley Article "The Epicurean Criticism of Socrates"https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4954-episode-322-epicurean-moral-outrage-against-socrates/

Welcome to Episode 321 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.   This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will will continue in Section 2 and our focus will include a statement by Varro in praise of Socrates, and possible Epicurean responses to it.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4941-episode-321-the-epicurean-problems-with-socrates-not-yet-released/?postID=38748#post38748

Welcome to Episode 320 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.       This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4939-episode-320-eateq-02-are-the-good-of-a-sheep-and-the-good-of-a-man-the-same-not/

What does it mean to say that the good life is a life of pleasure? Although you might think of champagne and caviar, Hellenistic philosopher Epicurus actually considered the good life to be more about appreciating the simple things in life and letting go of the things that bring us only temporary pleasure but lead to pain in the long run. Why has Epicureanism so often been misrepresented, and what did Epicurus really say? In episode 160 of Overthink, Ellie and David investigate the teachings of Epicurus in The Epicurus Reader. They explain his four-part cure on how to life a better life, including why we shouldn't be worried about death. They also offer critiques on his view of justice and its lack of application to political life. How can attaining ataraxia lead us to achieving eudaimonia and living the good life? In the Substack bonus segment, your hosts elaborate on whether or not Epicurus's argument that we should not fear death is convincing.Works Discussed:Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson, The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and TestimoniaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to Episode 319 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.       Last week we completed our series on Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations," and this week we start a new series that will help us with canonics / epistemology. We will eventually move to Philodemus' "On Signs" / "On Methods of Inference," and when we do we will refer to David Sedley's article on "On Signs," and the appendix in the translation prepared by Philip Lacey, both of which are very good but difficult.To get us acclimated to the issues, we need a little more Cicero from his work "Academic Questions." This is much shorter than On Ends and Tusculan Disputations but gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and shows how Aristotle and the Stoics (and Epicurus) responded to those controversies.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4922-episode-319-is-the-secret-to-happiness-found-in-supernatural-causes-and-geometry/

What Epicurus has to say about gratitude deserves our attention, especially today... Check out my new book! It's called: The Last Human: How Technology is Changing What it Means to be Humanhttps://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Technology-Changing-Means/dp/1069510831/

Welcome to Episode 318 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.       We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week with [Section 34 of Part 5](https://epicurustoday.com/02-keysources/044-cicero-tusculan-disputations-yonge/#xxxiv-2).Cicero spends the final sections trying to chip away at pleasure being the goal of life by discussing how luxury, honor, and riches are not required for happiness. He does so generically without direct mention of Epicurus, but we'll discuss his examples and how his argument actually proves Epicurus' point that pleasure is the goal: those who overindulge obtain do not _in sum_ obtain pleasure, but in fact more pain than pleasure.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4921-episode-318-td44-completing-tusculan-disputations-not-yet-released/

Welcome to Episode 317 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.       We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week with more on [Section 32 of Part 5](https://epicurustoday.com/02-keysources/044-cicero-tusculan-disputations-yonge/#xxx-2).https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4906-episode-317-td43-the-epicurean-system-of-counterbalancing-in-pursuit-of-pleasure/

Welcome to Episode 316 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.   We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week after Section 30 of Part 5.Thanks to Joshua for reminding us that this episode will mark our sixth year anniversary of podcasting about Epicurus!https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4897-episode-316-happiness-is-the-goal-of-life-nothing-good-but-pleasure-to-be-record/

This episode is a replay from The Existential Stoic library. Enjoy! Are ancient philosophies like Epicureanism still relevant today? In this episode, Danny and Randy discuss why Epicureanism is still applicable.  Thanks to listener Alex B. for this episode topic.Subscribe to ESP's YouTube Channel! Thanks for listening!  Do you have a question you want answered in a future episode? If so, send your question to: existentialstoic@protonmail.com

Welcome to Episode 315 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.           We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week after [Section 27 of Part 5](https://epicurustoday.com/02-keysources/044-cicero-tusculan-disputations-yonge/#xxvii-2).https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4886-episode-315-td-42-not-yet-released/?postID=38372#post38372

Welcome to Episode 314 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.   We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week after Section 26 of Part 5.As we close in on Cicero's final arguments on virtue, we will focus on the very different view of virtue held by Epicurus. Two passages that reveal this difference are:QuoteCicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.41—42 (Usener 67, 69)[Epicurus On The End] 'For my part I cannot conceive of anything as the good if I remove the pleasures perceived by means of taste and sex and listening to music, and the pleasant motions felt by the eyes through beautiful sights, or any other pleasures which some sensation generates in a man as a whole. Certainly it is impossible to say that mental delight is the only good. For a delighted mind, as I understand it, consists in the expectation of all the things I just mentioned - to be of a nature able to acquire them without pain... ' A little later he adds: 'I have often asked men who were called wise what they could retain as the content of goods if they removed those things, unless they wanted to pour out empty words. I could learn nothing from them; and if they want to babble on about virtues and wisdoms, they will be speaking of nothing except the way in which those pleasures I mentioned are produced.' (Long & Sedley - Hellenistic Philosophers)QuoteXII. The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.Suppose on the other hand a person crushed beneath the heaviest load of mental and of bodily anguish to which humanity is liable. Grant him no hope of ultimate relief in view also give him no pleasure either present or in prospect. Can one describe or imagine a more pitiable state? If then a life full of pain is the thing most to be avoided, it follows that to live in pain is the highest evil; and this position implies that a life of pleasure is the ultimate good. In fact the mind possesses nothing in itself upon which it can rest as final. Every fear, every sorrow can be traced back to pain; there is no other thing besides pain which is of its own nature capable of causing either anxiety or distress.Pleasure and pain moreover supply the motives of desire and of avoidance, and the springs of conduct generally. This being so, it clearly follows that actions are right and praiseworthy only as being a means to the attainment of a life of pleasure. But that which is not itself a means to anything else, but to which all else is a means, is what the Greeks term the Telos, the highest, ultimate or final Good. It must therefore be admitted that the Chief Good is to live agreeably.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4876-episode-314-td41-the-war-between-virtue-defined-1-absolutely-as-end-in-itself-vs/?postID=38314#post38314

Welcome to Episode 313 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.  Last week we began to close in on the end of our coverage of Tusculan Disputations, and one of the points made last week was that while a lot of philosophy can be viewed by non-specialists as a word game, there are deep differences in the foundations of the different schools that lead to dramatically different conclusions about how to live.  The words can begin to blur together, and the definition-games can become tedious, but it is extremely important to know what is behind the analysis of any viewpoint in order to judge the ultimate result.This issue of whether virtue is the only good, or whether virtue is sufficient for happiness, has tremendous practical implications.  Who or what gets to decide what "good" is?  Who or what gets to decide what "virtue" is?  Who or what gets to decide what "happiness" is?  Behind the Stoic / Platonic / non-Epicurean viewpoint is this idea that there are supernatural gods, or supernatural ideal forms, to which we should look to tell us what to do rather than the sense of pleasure and pain which Nature gives to each of us individually.  The choice of school you choose to follow is therefore going to have tremendous implications on your life individually, socially, religiously, politically, and in probably every way imaginable.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4867-episode-313-td40-diagnosing-when-words-are-empty-of-meaning/

Welcome to Episode 312 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.   We'll pick up this week at Section 15 of Part 5 of Tusculan Disputations, continuing to look at how the Stoic/Platonic philosophers use logic to deduce that since only virtue is within our control, happiness comes from exclusively relying on virtue, excluding all else from being considered to be truly good.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4850-episode-312-td39-word-games-are-no-substitute-for-reality/

Welcome to Episode 311 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.  This week in the absence of Joshua and Kalosyni we will make a brief review of Dr. Emily Austin's "Epicurus and The Politics Of The Fear of Death," which we have discussed in a recent thread thanks to Pacatus bringing the article to our attention.Next week we will be back with more Tusculan Disputations, but this week we'll set the stage for more discussion of this very good article.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4837-episode-311-not-yet-recorded/?postID=38045#post38045

Dave and Bethlie discuss the book Manhood by Senator Josh Hawley.  About the Author: Represents Missouri in US Senate First Amendment Lawyer and law professor Former Attorney General of Missouri They live in Ozark MO and have three children About the Book: Senator Hawley addresses an issue that concerns many in our world today - the issue of masculinity under attack.   He calls this issue a crisis and I agree Why I love the book: It is good and offers a perspective that is sometimes outside of my realm He shows how manhood was perceived in the Greek and Roman era He has great illustrations from his own experiences growing up in a rural area He build a model of manhood following the Bible, the Word of God What is the point? Senator Hawley shows the essential virtues a man should cultivate Shows why a man has to be a warrior, builder, priest, and king Show the important of courage and commitment as the starting point for manhood Shows the philosophy behind modern liberalism and offers evidence of why it is so destructive to our nation as a whole. The chapters; 2 Parts 10 chapters In the Beginning A Man's Mission A Man's Battle  A Man's Promise Husband Father Warrior Builder Priest King Chapter 1  General patterns Living Habits and Work More and more young men remain at home 50 % of Lower skilled young men in their 20s who have a job still live at home (or with a close relative) If they don't have a job, 70% still live at home. 2015 - 1/4 of young men 20-20 had no work at all In 1970, 95 percent of 30 years old made more money then their fathers had In 2014, only 44 percent did Underperformance at school 70% of Ds and Fs are given to boys By 8th grade, only 20% of boys are proficient in writing At same age, only 24% can earn proficient scores on reading exams Boys now make up 2/3 of students in remedial programs, not because their intelligence is lower, but because they aren't trying! What do young men do with their time? Screens Leisure Porn Another way of saying it is:  Socializing, relaxing, leisure Vast amount of leisure time includes video games and porn These young men are now battling depression and drug abuse at historic levels and the results have been disastrous Liberalism is the philosophy behind it all Liberalism believes that western society is unequal unjust and corrupt to its foundations Masculinity is one of the foundations and it must be "smashed" for man to be free Senator Hawley's point is that the answer to our masculine crisis is "the oldest and most profound story there is. It is the story of the Bible"   Chapter 2 places an emphasis on man's purpose by tracing our story back to the garden of Eden   Chapter 3 places an emphasis on man's responsibility and duty   Chapter 4 is especially worth considering It details how masculinity became something oppressive, something to be avoided and eradicated In chapter 3, he introduces the readers to Epicurus and to Rousseau and showed how that their ideology lead to men throwing off all responsibility and choosing only to do what they wanted to do.  Their happiness and their fulfillment was the only reason to live In this chapter, he show how the followers of Karl Marx paved the way for the attack on modern masculinity It saw traditional culture as the enemy; especially Christianity From there, it attacked femininity and masculinity Senator Hawley gives ample illustrations of how this is being taught in our schools and in our institutions and how it is destroy our nation as we know it

Mark 14:26-42 (ESV)Andrew and Edwin discuss the theodicy of Jesus's prayer in the garden. P.S. A theodicy is a defense of God in the face of evil in the world.Read the written devo that goes along with this episode by clicking here.    Let us know what you are learning or any questions you have. Email us at TextTalk@ChristiansMeetHere.org.    Join the Facebook community and join the conversation by clicking here. We'd love to meet you. Be a guest among the Christians who meet on Livingston Avenue. Click here to find out more. Michael Eldridge sang all four parts of our theme song. Find more from him by clicking here.   Thanks for talking about the text with us today.________________________________________________If the hyperlinks do not work, copy the following addresses and paste them into the URL bar of your web browser: Daily Written Devo: https://readthebiblemakedisciples.wordpress.com/?p=23677The Christians Who Meet on Livingston Avenue: http://www.christiansmeethere.org/Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/TalkAboutTheTextFacebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/texttalkMichael Eldridge: https://acapeldridge.com/ 

Episode 310 - Neither Happiness Nor Virtue Are Binary StatesWelcome to Episode 310 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.       We'll pick up this week at [Section 14 of Part 5](https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/Library/Text-Cicero-TusculanDisputations/#xiv_2) of Tusculan Disputations, continuing to look at how the Stoic/Platonic philosophers use logic to deduce that since only virtue is within our control, happiness comes from exclusively relying on virtue, excluding all else from being considered to be truly good.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4829-episode-310-td38-neither-happiness-nor-virtue-are-binary-states/

Welcome to another Barn Raising Episode.  ____________________________________________________________________   Follow us here: https://allmylinks.com/the-amish-inquisition Leave us a voicemail: 07562245894 Signup for the newsletter, join the community, follow us online, and most importantly share links!   Message us here....follow, like, subscribe and share. (comments, corrections, future topics etc). We read out iTunes reviews if you leave them. Website - http://www.theamishinquisition.com/ Join the Element server: https://matrix.to/#/%23the-amish-inquisition%3Amatrix.org Subscribe to the Newsletter: http://www.theamishinquisition.com/p/subscribe-to-the-newsletter/ Get your Merch from: The Amish Loot Chest - https://teespring.com/en-GB/stores/amish-inquisition-loot-chest Email - theamishinquisition@gmail.com Buy us a Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/theamishguys Patreon -https://www.patreon.com/theamishinquisition Twitch - https://www.twitch.tv/theamishinquisition Odysee Channel - https://odysee.com/@theamishinquisition:e Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/c-1347401 TikTok - https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLtYEueE/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/amishinqpodcast Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/amish.inquisit.3 Instagram - https://www.inAmish Inquisition | Facebookstagram.com/theamishinquisition/?hl=en Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/channel/0fNMZAQctCme/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmv8ucrv5a2KpaRWyBWfBUA Find out how to become a Producer here - http://www.theamishinquisition.com/p/phil-1523918247/ Become a Producer! The Amish Inquisition is 100% supported by YOU.  NO Ads, NO Sponsorship, NO Paywalls. We really don't want to suckle at the teat of some faceless corporate overlord. But that is only avoidable with your help! Join your fellow producers by donating to The Amish Inquisition via the PayPal button on our website, simply donate whatever you think the show is worth to you. If you find the podcast valuable, please consider returning some value to us and help keep the show free and honest.

Episode 309 - The Error Of Basing Happiness On The Alleged Divinity Of The Human MindWelcome to Episode 309 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.       We'll pick up this week at Section 11 of Part 5 of Tusculan Disputations. Here Cicero's student points out that Cicero has been contradicting himself in his own books as to the significance of the different positions on whether virtue alone is sufficient for happiness.[Cicero - Tusculan Disputations - EpicureanFriends Handbook](https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/Library/Text-Cicero-TusculanDisputations/#xi_2)The heart of this argument is going to reveal how the line of non-Epicurean Greeks including Pythagorus/Socrates/Plato and the others listed here insist on finding the good only through their divinely-ordained reasoning of the mind:> Quote> > But the human mind, being derived from the divine reason, can be compared with nothing but with the Deity itself, if I may be allowed the expression. This, then, if it is improved, and when its perception is so preserved as not to be blinded by errors, becomes a perfect understanding, that is to say, absolute reason, which is the very same as virtue. And if everything is happy which wants nothing, and is complete and perfect in its kind, and that is the peculiar lot of virtue; certainly all who are possessed of virtue are happy. And in this I agree with Brutus, and also with Aristotle, Xenocrates, Speusippus, Polemon.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4815-episode-309-the-error-of-basing-happiness-on-the-alleged-divinity-of-the-human-m/

Welcome to Episode 308 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.           This week we continue covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean perspective. Today we continue our discussion with the second half of [section 10 of Part 5](https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/Library/Text-Cicero-TusculanDisputations/#x_3) where Cicero criticizes Metrodorus and Epicurus for allegedly making high-sounding statements by being inconsistent for involving pleasure and pain in them.    Today we will look at the four points that are summarized all-too-briefly in the "Tetrapharmakon," and we will expand on the meaning of each branch by referring to the full text of the first four supporting statements in the Principal Doctrines, the letters of Epicurus, through the Tetrapharmakon, through the most complete stateement of them by Cicero's Epicurean speakershttps://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4804-episode-308-tracing-epicurus-key-ideas-from-the-principal-doctrines-to-the-tetra/

Tim Sandefur joins to discuss individualism in American culture. In this fun (but weird) conversation, we go through zombie shows, Westerns, and Star Trek, while invoking Hobbes, Ayn Rand, Epicurus, the Stoics, Plato and Aristotle. He is the author of the new book "You Don't Own Me: Individualism and the Culture of Liberty."   Past Sandefur chats:   ATA: The Last Policeman https://alienating.libsyn.com/the-last-policeman   ATA: Let's Fight About the Undiscovered Country https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lets-fight-about-the-undiscovered-country/id1488171922?i=1000485799630   ATA: Is Life Worth Living in a Perfect Utopia? https://alienating.libsyn.com/is-life-worth-living-in-a-perfect-utopia   ATA: Cold War Kirk vs. Picard the Moral Relativist https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-war-kirk-vs-picard-the-moral-relativist/id1488171922?i=1000456934729  

Stop chasing the next big purchase and start finding genuine contentment. The world tells us that more money, more stuff, and a higher status equal happiness, yet we only feel more anxious and unfulfilled. Enter the ancient philosopher Epicurus, who flips the script on modern consumerism. We discuss how the Epicurean pursuit of tranquility and freedom from pain is the shortest, most reliable path to happiness and financial independence. Get the full show notes, show references, and more information here: https://www.insideoutmoney.org/134-finding-happiness-through-ancient-wisdom-the-epicurus-way/