Eric Vogelin identifies the "ecumenical empires" of the Axial Age as the origin-point of Manicheaism and Gnosticism. Magic, aka Hermeticism, was also endemic to the riverine civilizations of the Near East. All three of these ideas split the universe into good and evil, opposing and interacting forces, constituent elements. This is both necessary to invent skepticism and the scientific method AND the source of modern ideologies which engage in psychological splitting with scientistic pretensions. Humans are not as original as we like to think.
Since you double posted I'll repost my response here for other readers, and thank you for the challenge:
The heading is a play on the original discourse in book 2 of Epictetus, “Against Epicureans and Lazy Academics." In order to get the joke, you have to read the Discourses.
Making a direct connection with Feminism specifically is a stretch, although I think there are obvious parallels between Epicureanism and post-modern philosophies such as radical subjectivity and deconstructionism which call into question our ways of knowing and deconstruct traditional belief. These include traditional values on marriage, family and patriotism.
1. The link between women and sensuality seems to be deeply rooted in evolutionary differences. On a symbolic level, the realm of the unconscious is often relegated to women. Many cultures attribute a feminine persona to night and a masculine persona to day. Likewise, we refer to "feminine intuition" versus the male consciousness which is more often described as "brilliant." This makes sense, considering a woman's complex physiology. Our first experiences are in complete dependence on a woman's body, nursing our own unconscious and attachment style.
With its focus on sensuality and intuition, Epicureanism seems linked to women's natural ways of knowing.
2. The argument that I would like to make if I had more time is that as a philosophy, Feminist culture over-emphasizes the body in the same way that Epicureanism did (from a Stoic perspective) eg "my body, my choice" and "sex positive" or "body positive."
Women are associated with the sensual by men, because that's how males in society have traditionally viewed them - as sensual/sexual objects, or as being "closer to nature" than men. And feminist culture understands that the body is important, because women's sexual and reproductive capabilities are what make them desired by and useful to men. I understand now, thank you.
Eric Vogelin identifies the "ecumenical empires" of the Axial Age as the origin-point of Manicheaism and Gnosticism. Magic, aka Hermeticism, was also endemic to the riverine civilizations of the Near East. All three of these ideas split the universe into good and evil, opposing and interacting forces, constituent elements. This is both necessary to invent skepticism and the scientific method AND the source of modern ideologies which engage in psychological splitting with scientistic pretensions. Humans are not as original as we like to think.
It sure looks like it from what you've written!
Since you double posted I'll repost my response here for other readers, and thank you for the challenge:
The heading is a play on the original discourse in book 2 of Epictetus, “Against Epicureans and Lazy Academics." In order to get the joke, you have to read the Discourses.
Making a direct connection with Feminism specifically is a stretch, although I think there are obvious parallels between Epicureanism and post-modern philosophies such as radical subjectivity and deconstructionism which call into question our ways of knowing and deconstruct traditional belief. These include traditional values on marriage, family and patriotism.
So there is no real connection between Epicureanism and feminism. Got it.
If you have your own sources and opinion on Epicureanism, by all means share. Thank you.
I'm just asking how Epicureanism is related to feminism and why you link the two together.
1. The link between women and sensuality seems to be deeply rooted in evolutionary differences. On a symbolic level, the realm of the unconscious is often relegated to women. Many cultures attribute a feminine persona to night and a masculine persona to day. Likewise, we refer to "feminine intuition" versus the male consciousness which is more often described as "brilliant." This makes sense, considering a woman's complex physiology. Our first experiences are in complete dependence on a woman's body, nursing our own unconscious and attachment style.
With its focus on sensuality and intuition, Epicureanism seems linked to women's natural ways of knowing.
2. The argument that I would like to make if I had more time is that as a philosophy, Feminist culture over-emphasizes the body in the same way that Epicureanism did (from a Stoic perspective) eg "my body, my choice" and "sex positive" or "body positive."
Thank you again for the clarifying question.
Women are associated with the sensual by men, because that's how males in society have traditionally viewed them - as sensual/sexual objects, or as being "closer to nature" than men. And feminist culture understands that the body is important, because women's sexual and reproductive capabilities are what make them desired by and useful to men. I understand now, thank you.
I'm glad someone mentioned it! Immediately off putting to me tbh.
Case in point when an anonymous person LARPing as a Dionysian cannibal comes out to say they don’t like my Stoicism.