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
When ever talking about "science" consider the following, as a tool against pseudo-science (and to spot when science is done "poorly"):
The Baloney Detection Kit, by Carl Sagan:
It's from a very good book, by Carl Sagan: "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"
Further thoughts on the original question: "What fears does modern science remove?'
Modern science can usually diagnose diseases so that you can know if you have a terminal illness or something curable...and so in that way can sometimes reduce anxiety.
Modern science hasn't produced definitve answers for everything, so then fears will remain. We then need to go back to the Epicurean philosophy and work with our basic existential issues, in order to manage fears. I am adding in these links for anyone who happens to be reading this thread (there are of course many other threads on the forum dealing with these issues):
--Fear of dying - see this section of the forum:
Dealing With Death, Dying, And Old Age
--Fear of pain - see this thread:
--What can I control? ...Choices and avoidances, but some things still happen by chance. For free will read this article:
It's in these new found fears and anxieties. Genetic predispositions to painful or deadly diseases can make some feel trapped by some biological destiny. Psychology or neuroscience can also make some feel trapped by brain chemistry or childhood experiences (even compound the anxiety of biological destiny). Climate change can be the source of much existential dread. The interesting question is how does the Epicurean respond to these new problems?
I am trying to remember what Epicurean philosophy says about length of life/a complete life.
The need to deal with the fear of death would be the antidote here. Also the need to understand free will and the ability to employ wise choice and avoidance. And to deal with fear of pain itself. All these are dealt with in Epicurean philosophy.
I'll try to find and link to previous discussions on these topics tomorrow (unless anyone else wants to post here).
We need to balance it all with the fact that before modern medicine the infant/mother mortality rate and the mortality rate in general was much higher. Also in modern times, more safety for more people (much less warfare, although depending on when/where you are living).
On the flip side, you could say that modern science has resulted in germ-warfare and nuclear weapons. Also, modern medicine has the ability to resuscitate an unconscious person and prolong "life" (in a vegetative state). Unless you have a "Do not attempt resuscitation order", CPR will be performed on you (no matter how old you are or your condition - read about it here) and even though it has a low likelihood of success in certain conditions.
We must remember the Epicurean idea that it isn't the longest life but the most pleasant (whenever discussion of the doomsday clock comes up).
That said, I think we can both agree that ice cream is not necessary for a pleasant life.
What!!!? Ice cream isn't necessary? (lol 
) That's like saying sex isn't necessary!
For the most pleasant life I would recommend both.
But I think you could still be happy with vanilla yogurt and massages. 
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you Kalosyni, and please correct me if I am, but it seems that your definition leads to an ascetic view of Epicureanism in which we should only pursue what is strictly necessary.
Lol, I was thinking the other way around...lol, that you Rolf were coming from an ascetic view (due to your comment about ice-cream).
Movies are clearly not necessary for happiness or survival - countless people have been happy and healthy without them. And yet watching movies is not an inherently harmful or empty desire. In which case, what are movies other than natural but unnecessary desires?
I think that I talked about movies in another thread (but have forgotten exactly what I said, and forgotten what thread that was in). But this is a good time to talk about it again...because I would question whether or not harm might come about to an individual if they were to watch a lot of movies about people who desire and chase after great wealth, status, power, control, perfect beauty, perfect safety, or non-stop sensory variations...but it will depend on the person and the circumstances...so no absolute rules.
I wouldn't call myself ascetic...because I hold to Principal Doctrine 8 as being very important:
PD08: "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."
And yet I see it differently, as "unnecessary for survival" - and you only label something as natural/unnecessary when it is difficult/impossible to get or depleting/reckless to ones resources.
Because if something is necessary for survival, then you would endure pain and struggle for the sake of attaining it.
I don’t know if I agree that natural/unnecessary desires are “difficult or impossible to attain”, or that they should be viewed negatively at all. From what I understand, this category simply refers to things that are pleasurable but not strictly necessary for happiness.
"pleasurable but not strictly necessary for happiness"... maybe the word "optional"?.
And yet I see it differently, as "unnecessary for survival" - and you only label something as natural/unnecessary when it is difficult/impossible to get or depleting/reckless to ones resources.
Something that causes pain would go into the "empty" category (as in empty of pleasure).
Ooops, meant to type in that my "mistaken" idea of just two categories was in post 16.
Okay, regarding my "mistaken" idea in post 22 post 16 above (of only two categories)...now revising back to three, lol:
But do not there remain very many desires that are not easy and not affordable to attain, and which we would go on pursuing forever without limit if we did not identify their nature as such?
The things that are not easy and not affordable are also "empty", such that they come about from a desire for status or control (a futile attempt at controling circumstances to make them "perfect" in some way (perfectly beautiful, perfectly safe).
What about the desires that are natural but not strictly necessary for survival and well-being?
I would now say that it is best in our modern times to not have "natural/unnecessary" as a category. And that also means discarding the labels of "luxury" and "extravagant". Our current civilization makes it easy and affordable to attain many "luxuries" and many "extravagances".
You can eat all the ice cream that you want (but just see what happens, lol...because the stomach can't take unlimited ice-cream and you'll get a tummy-ache). If you can easily find and afford to buy ice-cream and it causes you no pain, then it leads to pleasure. But if you are lactose intolerant or diabetic, then ice-cream would be "empty" of pleasure/well-being for you.
I like this idea of only: "natural, necessary, and empty".
Actually it should just be:
--- natural and necessary = Is it natural? Does it come to us from nature? (We will need to be clear about what exactly are all the desires that nature gives to us). And... Do we need it to survive? Do we need it for our well-being (and to feel blessed/happy).
-vs-
--- empty = Is it actually unnecessary for both survival and well-being? Is it an opinion not from nature but generated by greed for massive riches, non-stop variations of sensation, massive power/control/status (all of which are empty opinions).
it takes back or reclaims that "negative connotation" and turns it on its head. That negative connotation of "extravagant" strikes me as potentially Puritanical.
I personally feel that "extravagant" still ends up keeping the Puritanical connotation, and seems to convey that you "should" only indulge very rarely.
Would you say “natural”, “necessary”, and “empty” are suitable terms to use?
Well, if it was good enough for Epicurus...
PS. Okay, let me add that "Yes, I know Epicurus didn't use “natural”, “necessary”, and “empty” because he spoke Greek." But those translations are about as close to literal as one gets for φυσικαὶ, ἀναγκαῖαι, and κεναί.
I like this idea of only: "natural, necessary, and empty".
We could think about it this way:
Finally, we have the snow sprinkled atop the mountain representing the natural but unnecessary "extravagant" desires. Once we have everything below, we may take joy in these pleasures and allow them to adorn our life, without feeling like we require them.
I personally would end up choosing a word other than "extravagent" (but not sure exactly what word).
Also, I wouldn't see this as a hierarchy, but instead that they can all occur at the same time.
Creating a new thread to move over the topic here
Does Cicero think so, because from a theoretical Stoic point of view he is able to ignore bodily pain but his public standing is beyond his means?
Cicero is a bit of a mix, and even a few parts of the Torquatus section have Stoic elements (for example, the father could have banished his son, rather than killing him).
"Recognition of the environment must come naturally. We are drawn to strive for our own healing alone."
Vatican Saying 64: "The esteem of others is outside our control; we must attend instead to healing ourselves."
1. Good and evil have all but vanished from my vocabulary. I don't know whether it's something related to simply getting older or a societal shift or indeed related to the study of Epicureanism.
As for myself, I still use the word "good" but virtually never use the word "evil". "Evil" has attached to it a flavor of the Christian religion.
Welcome to the forum! DerekC
You've now been added to the private group message which contains the link...looking forward to meeting you! 
It was good to see everyone today at the Zoom.
A further thought:
We don't act "morally" because of virtue, but we act "morally" because of pleasure and pain (and the fear of long- term unpleasant consequences). And acting wisely is a pleasure.
