Skip to main content

The Epicurus quote, part III


When I have previously shared the thoughts I discussed in the two preceding blog posts, I have often got answers that can be paraphrased "but what about the Jews?" 

Judaism was a lively part of the east-Mediterranean thought world in which Epicurus wrote. Indeed, his lifetime coincides with the period of the creation of the great translation of their sacred literature into Greek (the Septuagint). 

That chronological fact comes to mind because, as I have mentioned, it is not clear on the face of it WHO Epicurus was arguing with.  If he did make something like the statement Hume attributes to him, and a lot of AD 21st century memes pick up on then, as I suggested last week, he may have had Stoicism in mind.  If so, he may not have understood it well. 

This draws the riposte: why could Epicurus not have had the monotheism of the Jews in mind? It would be good to have some context of when and why he said it -- if he wrote this in a lost text entitled "Why those Jews are crazy" that fact would be an addition to our understanding. 

But were the Jews of that time, when the Septuagint was a work in progress, axtually describing their God with all these omnis? As omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent? Today's theologians, in all three of the traditions that trace themselves to Abraham, may read those omnis into the Jewish scriptures, but I have a hard time finding them there. God seems to be a limited struggling sort of being, though a powerful one. Not unlike the Homeric Zeus.

Was there any Jewish thinker before perhaps Maimonides who made any effort at theodicy? If the answer is "no," then could not the reason for that be that Judaism wasn't really into the OMNIs much earlier than he? 
So the question is: if Epicurus knew of the Jews’ worship of this one God -- even if (which seems unlikely) he had a fairly extensive knowledge of their texts: did he then know of a case in which somebody believed in an all-powerful and benevolent Being? If, as I suspect, then answer is “No,” then it is still up to us to ask: who did Epicurus think he was refuting? I submit that my answer in the above, in accord with what I take to be Lactantius’ answer, that it was likely the Stoics he had in mind, remains at least as solid a guess as any alternative I know of.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more