An Observation On Using Opposing Philosophers To Argue Epicurean Positions

What we tend to see is Epicureans adapting the ideas of others, but refashioning them so that they slot in to the broader framework of Epicureanism.

The Empedoclean view of the principles of Love and Strife as ethical forces of nature was not found suitable, but the Lucretian refashioning of this idea into the metaphorical Venus and Mars of atomic physics was useful to him as a didactic poet, so he used it.

His borrowing of the account of the plague in Athens from Thucydides might have followed a similar course, except that the poem ends abruptly.

And DeWitt points out somewhere that Epicurus was capable of enlisting Homer in his defense if it came to it.

In line with Joshua 's point, I've often thought of the categories of desire as an improvement on Eastern philosophies that treat desire as something to be suppressed. This may be historically controversial but I feel like it's a high probability FWIW. There was plenty of cultural exchange in the ancient world and it only makes sense that a radical thinker like Epicurus would make use of all of the information available to him.

I'm not aware of any counter-examples, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were at least some.

It makes a lot of sense that what you say would be the case, though. When you have a philosophy that is not only attractive to the average person, but whose principles are self-evident, or logically derived from what is self-evident, you would have nothing to gain, and much to lose by any kind of appeal to authority.

(And I'm not really sure how much the Greek philosophers were really considered authorities outside their own students. I have the impression they were frequently thought of more like clowns, or potential trouble-makers.)

For the later Stoics and the Christians, the situation was different. At that time, there were lots of Epicureans, they were known as being difficult to convert, and they definitely wanted to convert them. So it makes sense that the Stoics and Christians would try to portray their ideas as compatible with Epicurus' teachings as much as they could.

Edit:

...then once they had accomplished that, that they would try to erase the memory of Epicurus. Interestingly, the Jews, who were not trying to make converts, just straightforwardly called him a heretic.

Great point. As a bit of "an exception that proves the rule," we do have:

"[Epicurus] especially approved of Anaxagoras among the ancients, Diocles says ¬ even though in some respects [Epicurus] had opposed [Anaxagoras] – and also [Epicurus approved of] Archelaus, the teacher of Socrates."

^{μάλιστα δ᾽ ἀπεδέχετο, φησὶ Διοκλῆς, τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἀναξαγόραν ¬ καίτοι ἔν τισιν ἀντειρηκὼς αὐτῷ – καὶ Ἀρχέλαον, τὸν Σωκράτους διδάσκαλον Diogenes Laertius (_fl.c. 220 CE), 10.12 fin.}