Who to believe?

    Is it right that there is no writings directly from Epicurus left?


    The problem I’m having reading around the forum is that everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what Epicureans should be. I understand this is going to happen but reading between the lines people seem to hold quite different views. Some people quite into physical pleasure for its own sake calling themselves cyreaniacs (or something like that). This doesn’t seem to fit with the Epicurean view at all and I’m finding it quite confusing and almost contradictory and rather go back to the source if possible.

    TC - You are right to want to read the original materials, and right that there is much disagreement.


    The biography by Diogenes Laertius contains three letters by Epicurus himself, and there are fragments that seem reliable but no way to be sure.


    This is a continuing source of confusion that is not going away. Most everyone has exactly the same question, and if they don't, they aren't paying attention.


    This should be a great thread to get lots of different views from those of us who have been through this before.

    Quote from ThinkingCat

    The problem I’m having reading around the forum is that everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what Epicureans should be. I understand this is going to happen but reading between the lines people seem to hold quite different views. Some people quite into physical pleasure for its own sake calling themselves cyreaniacs (or something like that). This doesn’t seem to fit with the Epicurean view at all and I’m finding it quite confusing and almost contradictory and rather go back to the source if possible.

    The way that I take it is to always return to the extant writings and to contemplate them. Then you must work to apply them to your own life. For one person a very sensual pleasure may end up bring too much pain, as compared to another person - some people choose not to drink any alcohol where as others are able to choose to drink in such a way that it doesn't cause them future pains (they drink to enjoy the taste and not to "medicate" into drunkeness, although there may be a time a place for a slight drunkenness if one is able to still hold onto free choice while intoxicated, and wisely making sure not to drive a vehicle while drunk).


    So we don't categorize things as "right" or "wrong" -

    Principal Doctrine 8:

    "No pleasure is bad in itself; but the means of paying for some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves." So it is a case by case situation that only you can decide for yourself.


    I just created this graphic which may help:

    Quote from ThinkingCat

    Some people quite into physical pleasure for its own sake calling themselves cyreaniacs (or something like that).

    Pleasure for its own sake is the goal given to us by nature which we observe in babies, animals, and as adult humans we redeem pleasure from the false belief that it is somehow "wrong".


    As for the ancient Cyrenaics, they didn't take the relief from pain as a pleasure, nor the pleasure of mental pleasures, so they focused on "in the now" and stimulating pleasures -- and this is very different than the Epicurean understanding of pleasure. Perhaps if there are people on here saying they are "cyrenaic" then they are just trying to emphasize the sensual aspect of pleasure as being okay.


    As we see that Diogenes Laertius says that Epicurus said:

    “I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, of sex, of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form.”


    So the Epicureans are totally fine with sensual pleasure, but as long as they also address the removal of any mental disturbances such as fear of death, fear of "irrational" punishment from the gods, or fear of pain (strong pain is short, and dull pains don't stop the enjoyment of pleasure).

    Also as to the Cyreniacs, Diogenes Laertius records:


    A proper understanding of Epicurus doesn't just fall off the page: it takes time, and work, but ultimately is very rewarding.


    As noted, there isn't much remaining from Epicurus himself, and many of the ancient sources are hostile. As is much of the modern and contemporary scholarship.


    My process began with reading as much I could find, often haphazardly, and trying to make sense of it. Then I discovered this forum; at that time writing and developing personal outlines of the philosophy was being emphasized. I found writing and getting feedback on an outline was very helpful, a bit intimidating, and just a beginning.


    A key part of my process has been to try to put to use what I've read and to see if it is useful in my daily life. This has been very helpful, as it has allowed me to shed some unhelpful ideas while continuing to pursue those which I find fruitful.


    Continuing with reading: modern, non-Epicurean authors such as Victor Stenger, Lisa Feldman Barrett and many others have proven to be quite relevant for me. Plus some (but not much, I find it painful!) reading of Plato and Aristotle has been really good for providing context. Even a book or two on the pre-Socratics has been quite interesting, to show the early development of Greek thought.


    In short, for me at least, Epicurus has proven to be a gateway to all sorts of study and understanding. So much of his thinking is being built upon even today, mostly without acknowledgement. He wrote that he got great pleasure from the study of natural philosophy, and I'm finding something similar. The interesting thing is that so much divergent reading can lead to a better understanding of what Epicurus was saying so long ago.


    The Stoics are famous for their "spiritual exercises"; this continuing study is an important Epicurean exercise. As is always testing what you read through your direct experience.


    Hopefully this rambling post is of some relevance to your question ThinkingCat !

    Quote from Godfrey

    Then I discovered this forum; at that time writing and developing personal outlines of the philosophy was being emphasized. I found writing and getting feedback on an outline was very helpful, a bit intimidating, and just a beginning.

    We should begin to emphasis that again and keep at it!

    Personally, I don’t have any problem with the variety of interpretations – which I suspect is inescapable in any milieu that does not stifle critical thinking.


    I would be much more concerned about any sharp-edged, cookie-cutter definition about what a “True Epicurean™” must be and do. But, then again, I would not be much concerned about whether or not my understanding/interpretation of Epicurus fit the contours of that cookie cutter. (Till the Inquisitors show up, anyway =O ;) – but then, Epicurean philosophy, as I see it, is really not amenable to any Inquisition. :) ) But, then again – again – I don’t mind being convinced that I am wrong, or at least would do well to rethink things (though I might be a bit stubborn along the way X/ ).


    After all, a hard rule-based (command-based, imperative-based) approach is more in line with Platonism / Stoicism / Kantianism – and strict creedalistic religions. I find an Epicurean outlook to be freeing from all that (and, in my case, has taken years to come to).


    With all that said, there are certain lineaments of the philosophy that I think can be discerned (such as non-supernaturalism) – even as that discernment is advanced by continued study, and by dialectical discussion from multiple perspectives – as takes place on here every day. And, as my understanding has been thereby deepened (hopefully), I find myself more relaxed and at ease about it all.


    ~ ~ ~


    Note: Perhaps my favorite portrait of Epicurus is Frances Wright’s fictional account in A Few Days in Athens – partly because of how she portrays him responding to issues like this one: robust reasoning, but always with graciousness and a kind of easy grace.

    Quote from ThinkingCat

    Is it right that there is no writings directly from Epicurus left?

    Not at all. Among those works that have survived are his Epistles to Herodotus, Pythokles, Menoikeus, and Idomeneus, in addition to his Last Will. We have a list Key Doctrines from a similarly named work, and two, preserved lists of Sayings. We have several hundred fragments from Epicurus' works, famously organized by Hermann Usener. In addition to those source materials, we have secondary sources from Epicurean opponents who cite Epicurus directly, or else, Epicureans, themselves, who reinforce the original positions of Epicurus. As Epicurus' school is renown for being doctrinally conservative, we find more historical consistency between ancient Epicureans than with their opponents.

    Thanks everyone, A lot for me to think on and you are all bringing up some interesting points. I had an idea, if you were asked “what does it mean to you personally to be epicurean in 30 words or less?”, what would your response be?

    Quote from ThinkingCat

    I had an idea, if you were asked “what does it mean to you personally to be epicurean in 30 words or less?”, what would your response be?

    I'll take that challenge :) and it was more difficult to keep to <=30 words than I thought!


    With pleasure as my North Star, I choose and reject paths leading onward. I am grateful for all my pleasurable memories, those I have now and those to come.

    Quote from ThinkingCat

    “what does it mean to you personally to be epicurean in 30 words or less?”, what would your response be?

    Pleasure, my natural goal: to remove pain and anxiety and experience the pleasures of sensation. With prudence overcoming the sorrows of life and experiencing sweetness. Smiling, being alive feels good!


    (And...study and practice the philosophy with others of like mind).

    A life of happy, harmonious well-being* and a pleasurable/pleasant life – in body and mind – are the same. Free from fear of gods or grave, I abide in simplicity and ease.


    ~ ~ ~


    * My rendering of eudaimonia.

    Quote from ThinkingCat

    Wow, these responses are very inspiring, a treasure trove! I’m off to read dewitt!

    If you haven't read Dr. Emily Austin's book yet, I'd suggest that one as the first book. That is a very approachable introduction. DeWitt is a good introduction but he comes across as more academic even though he's writing for a popular audience. You can tell he's a professor writing in 1954.