|
The ancient Greek version of the Cārvāka/Lokāyata mindset By Bodhangkur 1) Epicurus (341–270 BCE): the nearest functional
analogue Shared
posture with Cārvāka ·
No transcendence as an explanatory resource: The gods
(if they exist) are inert and irrelevant to the world; no divine governance,
no providence. ·
Anti-priestcraft / anti-fear economy: Religion
exploits fear of gods and death; liberation comes from dissolving these
fears. ·
Nature is all we’ve got: Physics
explains phenomena; nothing super-natural is needed. ·
Make the best of life (this-worldly eudaimonia): The good
life is achievable here and now. ·
No afterlife: Death is annihilation; “where
we are, death is not; where death is, we are not.” Alignment
with the druid Finn’s minim ·
Cārvāka: “No
heaven, no return; live well now.” ·
Epicurus: Same end-state, but with a theory of
fear-management (ataraxia) as the functional benefit of naturalism. ·
Finn’s upgrade: Epicurus removes transcendence;
Finn adds a production rule (constraint-grammar) for how nature
generates the appearances religion mislabels as divine. Divergence ·
Epicurus keeps a therapeutic ethics; Cārvāka is more bluntly hedonistic; Finn
recodes “pleasure” as feedback in adaptive systems rather than as a
normative end. Verdict: Epicurus
is the Greek Cārvāka in posture
(anti-transcendence, anti-priestcraft, immanence, finite life), with a more
developed psychology of fear and desire. 2) Democritus (c. 460–370 BCE) and the Atomists:
immanence without gods Shared
posture ·
Nature suffices: Reality
is atoms and void; phenomena arise from material interactions. ·
Mind is naturalised:
Soul/mind is a material configuration (fine atoms); no detachable soul. ·
No cosmic moral order: No
teleological justice engine in the sky. Alignment
with Finn ·
Cārvāka:
consciousness emerges from elements. ·
Democritus: mind emerges from atomic
configurations. ·
Finn: identity and experience emerge from constrained
interactions (a generalised, mechanised version of atomism). Divergence ·
Democritus offers a physical substrate theory but
lacks a formal constraint-grammar of emergence. ·
Social critique of priestcraft is present but
less central than in Cārvāka. Verdict: Atomism
supplies the naturalist ontology Cārvāka
gestures at; Finn supplies the generative grammar atomism lacks. 3) The Cyrenaics (Aristippus,
4th c. BCE): blunt life-affirmation Shared
posture ·
This-worldly value:
Immediate pleasure as the rational good; no appeal to afterlife or cosmic
moral accounting. ·
Suspicion of ascetic metaphysics: No
sanctification of suffering for otherworldly reward. Alignment
with Finn ·
Cārvāka’s “eat the
rice despite the husk” maps to Cyrenaic pragmatism. ·
Finn’s translation: pleasure/relief are feedback
signals of successful constraint resolution. Divergence ·
Cyrenaics are ethically
focused; weak on metaphysical demolition of priestcraft; no naturalist
production theory. Verdict: Same life-affirming
stance; thinner metaphysics. 4) Sophistic and atheistic critics: Critias, Diagoras, Theodorus Critias
(Sisyphus fragment, 5th c. BCE) ·
Religion as social technology: Gods
were invented to police behaviour via fear. ·
Direct analogue to Cārvāka’s
“priestcraft as livelihood tech.” Diagoras of Melos; Theodorus “the
Atheist” ·
Open rejection of gods and cultic authority. ·
Public demystification of religious claims. Alignment
with Finn ·
These figures perform Finn’s “call their
bluff” move socially: expose transcendence as control narrative. ·
Finn generalises this into religion-as-AI: a
guidance-and-control procedure installed in the social substrate. Divergence ·
Largely critical and social; little constructive
naturalist ontology. Verdict: Strong Cārvāka-style priestcraft critique;
weak on positive metaphysics. 5) Protagoras and the Sophists (partial overlap) Shared
posture ·
Suspension on gods:
“Concerning the gods, I am unable to know…” ·
Human-centred pragmatics: norms
and meanings are human constructs. Divergence ·
Epistemic agnosticism rather than immanent
naturalism; no commitment to “nature is all we’ve got.” Verdict: Shares
the veto on transcendence-claims, not the naturalist replacement. Clean comparison (Charvaka ↔ Greeks ↔ Finn) ·
Charvaka: o No transcendence;
priestcraft as livelihood bluff; nature suffices; finite life → live
well now. o Lacks a
formal generative model of how nature produces identities/experience. ·
Greek analogues: o Epicurus: same
posture + fear-dissolution program. o Democritus:
naturalist ontology of mind/world. o Critias/Diagoras: religion as control
technology. o None
supply a general constraint-grammar of emergence. ·
Finn (Procedure Monism): o Same veto
on transcendence and priestcraft. o “Nature
is God” = the only engine is immanent. o Adds the
missing piece: how nature computes reality (constraints acting on
randomness; identity as operational stability; affect as feedback). Bottom line Epicurus
is the closest Greek analogue to the Cārvāka
mindset (anti-transcendence, anti-priestcraft, naturalism,
finite-life affirmation). Finn’s
originality is to unify these ancient intuitions into a single non-transcendent
production theory: not only rejecting gods and after-worlds but
specifying the engine of immanence that generates the very phenomena
religion once monopolised. The Cārvāka mindset as it reappears in later Indian
philosophy |