We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Please welcome AUtC who tells me:
Hello, I would like to learn more about Epicureanism. I want to talk to others that are also interested in the same things. I have no background or deep education on Epicurean, other than what I have read online in a few spaces.
Thank you.
Welcome AUtC !
There is one last step to complete your registration:
All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).
You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.
Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.
This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.
You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.
We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).
Welcome to the forum!
As for me personally this may be why i think the word "Quasi" always sounds fake or negative:
Eikadistes thank you for all that commentary!
I don't disagree with any of it but would mention only slight tone question as to "quasi." In my mind that word for some reason carries a negative connotation that evokes space ghosts, but I don't think what Cicero was conveying should be presumed to carry any baggage with it. I would infer it to mean only "something like" or "something analogous too" or "something that functions analogously" and I would not read more into it than that.
Having said that I agree with virtually everything you wrote there. *Everything* gives off images not just gods and not just things that are close or far away.
So Francois Bernier is the person to whom we owe so much here for access to this material:
Bernier abridged and translated the philosophical writings of his friend Pierre Gassendi from Latin into French. Initial editions of Bernier's Abregé de la Philosophie de Gassendi were published in Paris in 1674 by the family Langlois and in 1675 by Estienne Michallet. A complete edition in eight volumes was published by Anisson and Posuel at Lyon in 1678; Anisson and Posuel joined with Rigaud to publish a second edition in seven volumes in 1684. Bernier objectively and faithfully rendered Gassendi's ideas in his Abregé, without editorial interjection or invention. However, Bernier remained uncomfortable with some of Gassendi's notions: in 1682, Estienne Michallet was again his publisher, putting forth his Doutes de Mr. Bernier sur quelques-uns des principaux Chapitres de son Abregé de la Philosophie de Gassendi.
Clear evidence of Gassendi letting his religion get in the way of his reasoning:
Gassendi seems to specifically repudiate Epicurus on the swerve and liberty, leading up to this statement:
On page 362 there is a discussion of Theophrastus taking the position that it is ok to lie for a friend because friendship is the higher priority. I'm not sure that I have seen where Epicurus commented on that kind of apparent conflict between Friendship and Virtue (honesty) but I suspect that the Stoics would be none to happy with Theophrastus and perhaps Aristotle over this (?)
On page 347 under Virtue I see this paragraph which appears in the midst of a section on Epicurean views of friendship. but seems to deviate what i understand to be the standard understanding that Epicurus took the position that friends should NOT hold their property in common. Could be an example of Gassendi misinterpreting or misstating Epicurus but would need further review. Later in the page he mentions Aristotle so he could be mashing together Epicurus with Aristotle even though much of this section seems to be quoted from the Torquatus section of On Ends.
Note: This will be the thread to post about Gassendi's commentary on Epicurus from the "Liberty" section of his 1699 Three Discourses On Happiness - Virtue - Liberty.
An example of info on Epicurus from page 394:
Note: This will be the thread to post about Gassendi's commentary on Epicurus from the "Virtue" section of his 1699 Three Discourses On Happiness - Virtue - Liberty.
Some PDF page references:
Virtue; 177
Stoics; 184
Epicurus on Following Nature; 209
Lactantius' Objections To Epicurus; 211
Epicurus on Natural Ties Between Men; 226
Politics - Colotes; 230
Epicurus - A mean soul becomes insolent in prosperity and dejected in adversity; 266
Pain (seems to follow Epicurus); 283
Epicurus on sobriety; 287
Epicurus - Extraordinary anger turns a man into a fool; 301
Epicurus on Justice; 317
No justice with those who cannot undersand justice; 325
Epicurus gives the strongest foundation of Justice; 330
Epicurus on Reverencing God; 343
Here Let us leave Epicurus; 346
Cites Cicero on True Law As Right Reason; 348
The PDF at Archive.org that you've found Tau Phi contains the full book and therefore considerable commentary on Epicurus under both the topics of Virtue and Liberty (Virtue i know because I've now glanced at most of it; Liberty I am presuming.).
This is going to open up considerably more access than we've had before. The Bernier edition is MUCH easier to read than the Thomas Stanley version of Gassendi's life of Epicurus.
I'll rearrange the forum on Gassendi and set up separate locations to discuss those other two topics, because there is a lot of material I doubt most of us have seen before.
Happy Birthday to briefvacation! Learn more about briefvacation and say happy birthday on briefvacation's timeline: briefvacation
Thank you Tau Phi this will be extremely helpful!
As a test I decided to look for the original version of whatever was used to generate this part, which occurs on page 21 right before the beginning of the section entitled "How Epicurus and Aristippus Differ"
Checking the digital copy of the English translation it appears to me that looking for this would take us to this page, to which I would then scroll to the bottom:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A42442.0001.001/1:4.1.2?rgn=div3;view=fulltext
But I can't find anything parallel there.
In contrast, the paraphrasing of the start of the next section "How Epicurus and Aristippus Differ" does track nicely with the original, which is here:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A42442.0001.001/1:4.2.1?rgn=div3;view=fulltext
I'm not sure why that method of finding the link doesn't track, but here's one that does seem to match:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A42442.0001.001/1:4.2?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
Which can be word searched to find:
There is but one passage more that may seem to create some difficulty. It is that which Cicero ob∣jects, as being taken out of the Book wherein Epi∣curus's Ends and Designs are described; for he makes him say, That if we take away Bodily and Sen∣sual Pleasures, he knows no other good. But why may we not easily suppose that the Stoicks, who have been so bold to forge whole Books, and make Epi∣curus their Author, have maliciously put this Passage in his Book, and it being thus abused and falsified, it is come into the hands of Cicero, and Atheneus? That which makes us suspect this is, First, That Laertius, who hath left us a Catalogue of Epicurus's Books, and consequently ought to know what was in them, when he relates a passage out of his Book of The End, and others of the same, saith, That they are Fools that impose such things upon Epicurus,for they are not to be found in the true Copies. And Hesichius assures us that they are gross Lyars, that assert any such thing of him. Secondly, Epicurus himself complains of their making him speak those words which were against his Judgment, and his Disciples would never acknowledge that passage; but they have rather always complain'd of it, and exclaim'd against it. Thirdly, These words are expresly contrary to those, which are known to be of Epicurus, Res Venereae nunquam prosunt, & multum est ni noceant, as we have already observ'd. Fourth∣ly, That Cicero amongst these Objections that he makes, cannot but propose this Question, as if Truth himself had forced him to it; What, do you believe that Epicurus was of this Perswasion, and that his Opinions were dishonest, sensual, and lewd? For my part I can't believe it; for I find, that he declares a great many excellent things, and very vertuous. Fifthly, That Cicero acknowledges, as he was a very Popular Man, that he did not tie up himself to speak according to the strict Opinions of the Philosophers, but agreeable with the Notions of the People. Verum ego non quaero nunc quae sit Phi∣losophia verissima, sed quae Oratori conjuncta maxime: Not to say that he could not bar himself from speaking well of Epicurus, as being a Man without Malice, or rather a right honest Man. Venit Epicu∣rus Vir minime malus, vel potius Vir optimus. And when he speaks of the Epicureans, he saith, that they are very good Men, that he hath never met with a sort of Persons less malicious; that the Epicureans complain of his endeavouring to speak ill of Epicurus; that whole Crowds of Epicureans came frequently to visit him, but that nevertheless he doth not despise them. Quos tamen non aspernor; These are his own words. description PAGE 58 Wherein Epicurus, and Aristippus differ. NOW that we may see exactly in what Epicu∣rus differs from Aristippus, we ne
So the paraphrase is definitely accurate and Gassendi does allege that this statement is not true to Epicurus.
I don't find Gassendi's reasoning to be persuasive nor do I recall other scholars following him on it.
So this little exercise indicates well of the paraphrase but also indicates the hazards of following Gassendi too closely.
I haven't had time to pursue this further but my current thought is that much of the usefulness of this presentation is going to turn on the extent to which we can verify that this modernization is consistent with the original text. On first look I haven't seen a link to an original Latin or French version of this text, so if someone finds something over time please be sure to post here.
OK I finished it. The article tails off into an overly-long praise of frugality and simple living, even managing to finish with some praise of walking around naked and shoeless, but the lack of a rousing ending does not diminish what a generally interesting and helpful article this is.
I'd like to know what Karl Marx's criticism was to see how it comports with mine, but as I see it on first reading the defects are pretty limited but clear:
1- Gassendi won't abandon or examine the implications of the absence of a supernatural god.
2 - Ditto as to there not being an immortal soul.
3 - He doesn't seem to appreciate fully that the mental pleasures of rest that he praises are in addition to, and not solely for the sake of, his pleasures of rest. But he actually does catch himself and goes on relatively at length to insist that Epicurean pleasures do not entail inaction, so he's not as bad on that score as some.
In general, my summary would be that this is an essential article for anyone who wants to understand Epicurus and how we got to where we are today in appraising him.
There are lots and lots of anecdotal quotes that I've never seen referenced before.
