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
You can't treat your projection as applicable to anyone else or even to yourself at a later time. A moment by moment analysis is all that is possible,
A thought experiment that can help clarify things is asking yourself:
For any given choice, ask: Will what I do and the outcome matter to me next week, in one month, in a year, or 10 years from now?
What you choose to eat for breakfast hardly matters (unless it is really unhealthy). But some choices absolutely matter in the long term.
The test of whether a desire is necessary is in determining whether a feeling of pain results if that desire is not satisfied. If pain results, the desire is necessary. If pain does not result, the desire is unnecessary.
Joshuawould you want to add the word "bodily"?
So it would be:
The test of whether a desire is necessary is in determining whether a feeling of bodily pain results if that desire is not satisfied. If bodily pain results, the desire is necessary. If bodily pain does not result, the desire is unnecessary.
But where does this leave us with regard to health and happiness of the soul?
- natural and necessary - desire for something for survival, for health of the body, for happiness of the soul
- natural yet unnecessary - desire for something which is difficult to get or causes much more pain
- unnatural and unnecessary - desire for something which is an "empty" concept which has no limit, and does not contribute to a happy life - such as power, great wealth, or immortality.
I'm just re-reading over this list and each definition, and realizing that things like cream-puffs and rootbeer floats would fall into the first category if they are easy to get, but they would fall into the second category if they were unavailable for you to make/purchase. (And if rootbeer made you breakout in hives it would also fall into the second category).
So then in essence this list has slightly different definitions than what has been said in other places on the forum, and it is also different from what is in Austin's book "Living for Pleasure"...
.
Thoughts?
This works as a type of remedy, by reasoning through one's desires. It is common sense to know what is necessary for survival and health of the body. For happiness we must rely on the knowledge and experience of wise people (elders) and likely Epicurus gave clear guidance in his writing (which we no longer have). We do see in the Principal Doctrines that friendship is necessary for happiness.
There is a hubris here in thinking that everything that humans imagine can eventually be technologically created...the hubris is in the idea of going beyond Nature, and the nature of things ("atoms/void").
Regarding the word hubris:
English picked up both the concept of hubris and the term for that particular brand of cockiness from the ancient Greeks, who considered hubris a dangerous character flaw capable of provoking the wrath of the gods. In classical Greek tragedy, hubris was often a fatal shortcoming that brought about the fall of the tragic hero. Typically, overconfidence led the hero to attempt to overstep the boundaries of human limitations and assume a godlike status; in response, the gods inevitably humbled the offender with a sharp reminder of human mortality. Take, for example, the story of Phaethon, a mortal son of the sun god Helios. In his hubris, Phaethon drives his father's sun chariot into the heavens but loses control of its horses. The chariot begins to scorch the earth, and Zeus strikes Phaethon down with a thunderbolt.
The sooner we accept that death means nothing to us, the more satisfying everyone's life will be, as limited at it is.
I think that there is a difference between saying that "death i s nothing to us [me]"...vs..."death means nothing to us [me]".
Maybe I am splitting hairs here...but...
The first one is a simply way of saying that you can't think about or experience death once it has occurred, and therefore for this reason we should not spend time worrying about it. The second one is seeming to say that the concept of death is empty of meaning, but this isn't true because we need to be able to think about the concept of death so that we don't procrastinate in living our lives to the fullest.
Respectfully, aside from the use of vast computing power that virtually no one will be able to use even if it became possible, the hubris of those who create such a capability is laughable
This popped into my mind...having recently re-watched the movie "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", and there is a scene in which they return to the supercomputer that is working on "the question" and having been left to her own devices she is busy watching television.
Hi all! I'm excited to share that I started a project to improve website navigation, and no doubt that Cassius will implement these ideas in the best manner as he sees fit. I'd like to eventually see changes in the drop-down menu in the future, but in the meantime we'll be adding this "Website Overview" as a page (as well as adding it to the homepage) ...It will have clickable links and more of a "bird's eye view" of what we have to offer. This is still a work in progress, as Cassius will be adding the code to the website to create the card view (boxes).
Table of Links:
FORUM |
GETTING STARTED |
PODCAST |
TEXTS |
REFERENCE |
STUDY RESOURCES |
GALLERY |
CALENDAR |
SITE TOOLS |
MEMBER PAGES |
Happy Thanksgiving everyone! 
During last Sunday's Zoom meeting I mentioned the newly posted book by Gassendi-Bernier.
Here is an excerpt relevant to food:
We have hitherto treated of Pleasure, as it is generally understood: We shall now speak of that particular specifick Pleasure unto which a Wise Man confines himself, as being in its own Nature not only very easie to be obtain’d, but also most lasting and free from Repentance. In a word, that Pleasure that we before called the Tranquility of the Mind, and the exemption of the Body from Pain, now we have great Reason to call it most Natural; for at this sort of Pleasure Nature seems chiefly to aim, as not having regard to other Pleasures, which are always shifting and in a constant Motion, any otherwise than to make them useful in the obtaining this; as for Instance; It hath appointed the Pleasure of Tasting, to make the action of Eating more grateful, and by that means to oblige us to the Act, whereby to satisfie our Hunger, which is that pain we feel, and caused by the cravings of an empty Stomach. But in reference to the satisfaction and tranquility of Mind which we enjoy when Hunger is appeas’d. This Nature hath reserv’d as her last End, and designed it as her chief Good: We have great reason to say, that it is very easie to be obtain’d, because it is in every one’s Power to moderate his Desires, by supplying himself with things necessary for his Body, whereby to free it from Pain, and thereby render his Mind calm and easy. I say, That it is very lasting, because other Pleasures pass away in a Moment, and free from us, whereas this continues the same, unless it be interrupted and perish by our own Miscarriages. Lastly, I describe it to be very free from Repentance; for all other Pleasures may be attended by some Evil, whereas, this is altogether innocent, and draws upon us no such Mischief. - pg. 113
Here is the link to "Three Discourses of Happiness, Virtue, and Liberty".
Also, I'm posting a video which explains how certain foods spike the release of insulin, which causes fat storage, but also certain foods greatly increase food cravings because of how quickly they are digested.
So it is important to see all the causes regarding cravings and over-eating - that food choices affect us greatly.
Here are the slides that I presented in today's Zoom:
It's the Epicurean who really understands the virtuous / honorable position on these issues.
Could the word "wise" be used here instead? ...It's the Epicurean who really (or correctly) understands the wise position on these issues.
Wishing everyone a Happy Twentieth!
Welcome to the forum Tony Fox
You might like this video overview by Cassius (if you haven't already seen it)...
I have anticipated you Fortune and I have entrenched myself against all your secret attacks. I have not and will not give myself up as captive to you or to any other circumstance. When it is time for me to go, I will spit contempt upon those who vainly cling to life, and I will leave life crying aloud in glorious triumph that I have lived well.
This is a quote by Metrodorus. I also want to say that the "spitting contempt" part just doesn't make sense from an Epicurean standpoint - at least in my mind. The Epicurean would be too busy either: enjoying a last taste of something pleasurable, or busy remembering an event that was one of the best moments of life.
Welcome to the forum!
Eventually, however, my interest returned and I began comparing Stoic and Epicurean physics, and I've come to the conclusion that Epicureanism probably better represents what nature is.
Just asking for clarity sake...were you referring to the Epicurean natural physics or referring to Epicurean ethics based on nature/what is natural?
In the book "Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life" there is the usage of the word "corrosive" for the "unnatural/unnecessary" category of desires. We have likely discussed this before, but it is worth bringing up again.
I would recommend against using the word "corrosive" for several reasons:
1) It gives a situation a kind of static state that sounds difficult to remedy (once something is corroded it is difficult to restore it back to its original nature), where as the truth is that the human mind can shift rather quickly out of the "unnatural/unnecessary" when realizing the truth of something.
2) It sounds overly "dramatic" (envisioning leaking battery acid that corrodes metal). And it attributes an aweful lot of power to desires, making them sound dangerous or "evil" (it almost has a "Christian puritanical" sound to it). But if you dig down to see what is going on then you will see that there are basic needs hiding deep below the surface (below the "unnatural" desire), but it is actually the strategy for meeting those needs isn't the best strategy. (Needs for safety, security, reassurance, or knowledge could be the deeper needs).
3) It doesn't accurately describe the biggest problem for things that are "unnatural" -- the main problem is that they are "empty" of happiness and pleasure (and that they cause more pain than pleasure).
----I think most people here on the forum would understand that "natural" is something that nature gives to animals or occurs naturally for animals. Where as, "unnatural" is something which is only an opinion with no basis in nature. Once we are clear about what these categories are, then we can decide how best to label them.
My own current take on the three categories of desires:
1) natural and necessary for well-being
2) nice to have but optional
3) empty, painful, or leading to unwanted consequences
Here is an article that takes a different view from the one that I posted above, and which makes good points also:
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/06/nx-s1-5276331/you-have-more-control-over-your-emotions-than-you-think
