REMINDER: SUNDAY WEEKLY ZOOM - July 5, 2026 -12:30 PM EDT - Ancient text study and discussion: De Rerum Natura - - Level 03 members and above (and Level 02 by Admin. approval) - read the agenda here.
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Yes that emphasizes how I do not think this terminology makes sense
Well, in some ways, you're not really arguing with me; you're arguing with Epicurus. He's the one who decided to use the same word to describe both the structure of the universe (atoms and *void*) and a category of desires. Just saying.
There IS something there, the false front is there.
Yes. The desire exists. There's just nothing to back it up
Let's get away from the "unable to be filled" metaphor for now. I still think it's applicable, but it's obviously not helpful in our current context of this discussion.
Possibly a more apt metaphor is the old Western movie set where there appears to be a main street of the town, but it's only a line of facades. The facades may be indistinguishable from actual buildings, but walk through them and you're in the desert. There's nothing there. It's an empty space. Likewise, the empty desires are nothing but attractive shells or facades. There may be bright neon signs on the facades with POWER, MONEY, etc, but there's nothing to back them up. To put it colloquially, "there's no there there."
I am not sure that I agree that the void doesn't move, at least in terms of a particular location. You CAN fill a vessel with atoms, can you not, and that displaces the void in that particular location.
Void isn't a "thing". It's not composed of atoms. It's the "medium" in which the atoms move if you will, and even "medium" isn't the right word.
I'll have more to write and respond soon. There's a teaser.
the nature of the atoms and void is that they move around,
The void doesn't move and it extends infinitely. The atoms will never fill the void.
Empty (κενός) as a metaphor in the texts is derived from the actual, physical meaning of an empty vessel or box. You can place your hand in an empty box and move it around. It's the word Epicurus also used for void because it implies the atoms are able to move in the emptiness. Likewise, an empty desire is literally empty.
Here's what I wrote in my Menoikeus commentary: "This is a word that carries a wide range of connotations, but all have that sense of emptiness, void, no ground to stand on (literally and figuratively). It carries the physical connotation of an empty box. If a box is κενός, it would be possible to move your hand around in it. There's nothing there to impede your movement."
Here's the LSJ definition:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κενός
So, the common thread of κενός is void, empty, not able to be filled.
I have to disagree with some of your points.
In clinical situations, there will be people who become heavily addicted, but those are the exceptions who go to a doctor.
Addictive behaviors are much more widespread than I have realized, and the exceptions are those people who seek treatment. I think many people with addictive behaviors don't seek professional help. That was one of the points underlying Dr. Lembke's book.
Desire is not fundamentally insatiable.
Some desires are, some desires aren't. Epicurus specifically calls out the "empty" desires because they are insatiable. I've come to understand "empty" desires to mean that no matter how much you "fill" the box of an empty desire, it's still empty. Desires for money, fame, power for their own sake and not to achieve a certain goal are insatiable. That box is always going to be empty.
There is no good reason to try and eliminate desires.
It's maybe not a matter of "elimination" but a matter of choosing which desires are worthwhile to pursue and which aren't. "Eliminating desires" sounds Buddhist. Making choices on which desires to choose and which to reject to lead to a pleasurable life puts it into an Epicurean context.
If a desire appears to be insatiable, it is likely because a person is otherwise unhappy or because the desire is for something impossible.
It may be the case that someone is unhappy or has some underlying issue, but that still means they're pursuing a desire that's going to be insatiable (or "empty" as I described above)
When a person is focused on an impossible desire, such as to live forever, the poor fit of substitute pleasures makes them feel their ordinary desires are insatiable.
I would include a desire for immortality as an empty desire, but there are many others, too. I don't think those people are necessarily feeling ordinary desires to be insatiable. I think they find them unsatisfying for any number of reasons, but we mighty be talking about two separate problems.
If I've misunderstood any of your positions due to a translation problem, my apologies. But I felt I should clarify my understanding of those issues in light of reading Lembke's book as well as Epicurus's texts.
I'm always stunned - I find it completely amazing that people think "rational thought drives our behavior". How deep that idea has pervaded our culture!
Agreed! Goes the whole way back to Socrates and Plato.
Joshua you're right on point with the themes of the book! The author's addiction that she reveals was reading romance novels. Innocuous, one might assume, but it really took over her life in many ways. The patients she talks about are dealing with sex, drugs, alcohol, food addictions. Addiction can manifest itself in myriad ways it seems.
I don't know if I'll have time for this one, but I think you are absolutely right about its application.
I'm curious whether Dr. Lembke goes into the other 4 major hormones/neurotransmitters of serotonin (mood, sleep, digestion), endorphins (mitigation of stress and pain), cortisol (increase of stress, and activation of "fight or flight" response) and oxytocin (associated with empathy, relationships and sex). Probably I do need to make time for this!
The other neurotransmitters do come up repeatedly although her main focus is, of course, dopamine. She talks a lot about the reward pathways in the brain and how they get hijacked (my word, not hers) and lead to addictive behaviors.
I just finished listening to Dopamine Nation by Dr. Anna Lembke and would recommend it for anyone trying to understand the mechanism of pleasure in the brain and its role in addictive behavior.
I had heard a podcast with the author and, at first, thought the focus on addiction was too narrow. But I was wrong. While some of the patients discussed in the book (with their informed consent!) are difficult to hear/read, Lembke does an excellent job in showing the wide range of addictive behaviors.
I saw many echoes and/or applications to Epicurean philosophy in the book. To me, books like this are important because we can "philosophize" all day, but Epicurus advocates for evidence and knowing the science behind the brain and its reward pathways and how and why "not every pleasure is to be chosen" and "we sometimes choose pain for greater pleasures to come" is a reason to know the current science.
I'll be interested if anyone reads it and has any comments.
Here's another article on the Cyrenaics:
Cyrenaics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
It's a solid article. Here are just a couple quick snippets:
Another striking feature of the Cyrenaic theory is its lack of future-concern. The Cyrenaics advocate going after whatever will bring one pleasure now, enjoying the pleasure while one is experiencing it, and not worrying too much about what the future will bring. Although the Cyrenaics say that prudence is valuable for attaining pleasure, they do not seem much concerned with exercising self-control in pursuing pleasure, or with deferring present pleasures (or undergoing present pains) for the sake of experiencing greater pleasure (or avoiding greater pains) in the future.
The Cyrenaics instead aim at enjoying the pleasures that are present, without letting themselves be troubled at what is not present, that is, the past and future. Epicurus thinks that the memory of past pleasures, and the expectation of future pleasures, are themselves most pleasant, and hence he emphasizes the importance of careful planning in arranging what one will experience in the future. The Cyrenaics, however, deny this, saying that pleasures are pleasant only when actually being experienced.
That's been why I've gravitated to the Epicureans and not the Cyrenaics. I'm not "old and infirm" but I take great pleasure in reliving trips taken and other events in the past. I just did a nice review of last year on Jan 1 and took great pleasure in thinking about what my family was able to do this past year all things considered.
56–57. The wise man feels no more pain when being tortured himself than when his friend tortured, and will die for him; for if he betrays his friend, his whole life will be confounded by distrust and completely upset.
This shows up in the Vatican Sayings on the torture question. To be honest, I barely remember talking about this!
Well, it makes a difference if you said it a week ago (you) or just listened to it on the way to work (me) 
And I speak from experience!
That is a directly relevant VS, too! Thanks! I'm looking forward into digging into the manuscripts to see how they divide those up in Diogenes Laertius. Yeah, this is what I call fun
Quick pedantic reply to Cassius 's mention of the Tetrapharmakos.
The 4th line is actually:
And the terrible can be easily endured*
Not "easily avoided." That would change the whole flavor.
*And the terrible can be "endured" because it's either short and fatal or long and we can find some pleasure within it.
Listening to the podcast and found Joshua insight into the rack/ friends sayings about the characteristics of the wise very intriguing. I never considered the "he" in the second mention of torture to refer to the friends but now I'm not sure. I'm going to have to go back to the Greek and the manuscripts. You may need on to something! Thanks for the food for thought:
118 And even ifthe wise man be put on the rack, he is happy. Only the wise man will show gratitude, and will constantly speak well of his friends alike in their presence and their absence. Yet when *he* (the sage or the friend??) is on the rack, then he (the sage?) will cry out and lament.
PS: One hesitation is that the word "friends" is plural, and the "he" in the next sentence is singular. But I could see talking of friends in general then a specific friend in the singular. In any case, this has provided some thought-food.
Thanks, Godfrey. I'm glad you find the layout helpful.
At least according to this, the references that Epicurus makes to diet seem to be much less to do with radical asceticism and more to do with mainstream Greek culture. Another strike against interpreting him as a minimalist
I happened to find this quote about μάζα in The Deipnosophists:
Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, Book XIV., chapter 83
It too talks about the basic nature of the meal as a staple.
PS. I also found this:
The most common food among the Greeks was the μάζα, a kind of soft cake, which was prepared in different ways, as appears by the various names which were given to it (Pollux, vi. 76). The φυστὴ μάζα, of which Philocleon partakes on returning home from the courts ( Suet. Vesp.610), is said by the Scholiast to have been made of barley and wine. The μάζα continued to the latest times to be the common food of the lower classes. Wheaten or barley bread was the second most usual species of food; it was sometimes made at home, but more usually bought at the market.
From http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Ancient/en/Deipnon.html
Thanks, Cassius. I've taken your advice and uploaded to the Filebase Library and linked to it from here. I appreciate the suggestion!
btw I'll be curious if anyone tries the maza recipe referenced in verse 131 It's on my list of things to do.
We can resurrect this thread is anyone's interested:
