Why pursue unnecessary desires?

At this point in the conversation I would point back to Rolf's original question:

Quote from Rolf

I can acknowledge that I enjoy unnecessary pleasures and wish to pursue them, but logically speaking, why exactly should we not aim to fulfil only our necessary desires?

Titus and Godfrey, in your answers, did you address this question specifically? Do you agree that you can pursue only necessary pleasures and reach 100% pleasure (or happiness)? If you can pursue only necessary pleasures and reach the target, why would you pursue any others than those which are easiest to obtain?

Quote from Titus

I know Cassius' is fighting the image of the minimalist frugal Epicurean who lives on bread and water but I would like to see more sensitivity as to why there is a category of"unnecessary desires" in the first place.

I think that's a good question, and to make it even broader, why does any part of this categorization exist in the first place? Is it a logical part of explaining "the nature of things" like atomism or a position on gods or life after death or that pleasure is the goal of life? Or is it a "tool" question such as the analysis of virtue, to be applied properly only after the others are adequately understood?

I can definitely see that there are many people who are convinced that reckless pursuit of power and fame and riches who need to revise their goals so as to drop those which are most destructive to them. But while we are helping them see the right way to approach that question, we need to avoid stating things in a loose way that is logically confusing to those who are closely trying to follow the logical consistency of the philosophy. We shouldn't fight our way out of claims of supernatural or absolute right and wrong only to turn around and fall victim to interpretations that there is a strict list of "natural" and "necessary" that applies to everyone.

Many of us have observed before that what is "necessary" and "natural" in one time and place is totally unnecessary and (again depending on your definition) unnatural in another.

So I suppose what I am saying ultimately is that the full explanation of the natural and necessary approach must include the observation that natural and necessary are relative to time and place and other circumstances, and are not to be interpretation as a call to absolute frugalism/minimalism. And that's how I read the Torquatus explanation, which points to the "principle of the classification" (some things are harder to get than others) as being the important thing) rather than assigning a specific absolute meaning to any category.

For what it's worth, here's my translation of the pertinent section in the letter to Menoikeus:

127f. Ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί,

• Ἀναλογιστέον "consider..."
• τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν "of the desires, yearnings"
  • "Consider then of the desires, on the one hand, are the φυσικαί "natural ones'
  • φυσικαί (physikai)
    • English physical, physics
  • on the other, the κεναί 'empty, fruitless, vain, void ones."
    • κεναί is also again the word used when Epicurus talks about atoms and void.

127g. καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον·

• "And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessities; on the other hand, the natural ones only."
  • ἀναγκαῖαι "necessary, essential; (if a plural noun as here) necessities"

127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι,

• "then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, there are those necessary for eudaimonia;

Those necessary for eudaimonia are open to interpretation but must be based on Epicurus's philosophy.

127i. αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.

• ἀοχλησία "freedom from disturbance"
• σώματος genitive singular of σῶμᾰ
• σῶμᾰ "the body; one's material body or existence"

“then, those [necessary] for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those [necessary] for life itself.”

There are some translations that interpret αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν to mean only things like clothing and shelter - those things that provide "freedom from disturbance" for the body, that is for one's physical existence. That isn't literally what is written so that is simply one interpretation. Those kinds of things - clothing and shelter - would seem to fall under the final category of those necessary for life. So, this category should catch those between eudaimonia and those necessary for life. This is an interesting category.

I would contend that those "necessary for life itself" are those essentials at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, sleep, air, etc. Again, clothing and shelter would seem to fall into this category.

PS. It's important to remember that this categorization tool deals with desires for something. I realize it's hard to distinguish between desires for specific pleasurable outcomes or activities and the pleasurable outcomes or activities themselves. I find it difficult myself. To provide a different way of reading that section with additional context adding in the word desires instead of just "ones" and "those":

Furthermore, on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain desires.' And of the natural desires, on the one hand, are the necessary desires; on the other, the desires which are only natural; then, of the necessary desires: on the one hand, those desires necessary for eudaimonia; then, those desires necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those desires necessary for life itself.

Engaging conversation. At the risk of muddying waters, I'm not sure looking for the "logical" reasons behind Epicurus' categorization of desires is as fruitful as it may sound. My perspective veers more toward seeing Epicurus as an observational researcher of the natural world and synthesizing those observations into workable practical applications for real people. Breaking down desires is a way of making sense of the mental landscape in which we move. Epicurus experimented from time to time in trying to only satisfy his most basic necessary needs, wants, desires, paring down his desires to see what would give him pleasure in the case that all other opportunities were unavailable. "What, at a minimum, do I need?" I categorically dismiss the idea that he lived like this the majority of the time like an ascetic. I see his categorization as a tool for us to assess our own mental landscape and the choices that arise. His categories flow naturally in many ways from just looking at the numerous desires living beings have.

Quote from Cassius

Titus and Godfrey, in your answers, did you address this question specifically? Do you agree that you can pursue only necessary pleasures and reach 100% pleasure (or happiness)? If you can pursue only necessary pleasures and reach the target, why would you pursue any others than those which are easiest to obtain?

This is a very good question! And I have to admit that I probably missread the original question as I am concerned not with unnecessary desires but with with the category of "vain" desires.

I would like to say yes, but this is just a theoretical yes as I consider the classification of desires as a guidance tool for choosing priorities. In this sense, the category of natural and necessary desires is something that has to be of number one priority to us.

Quote from Don

127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι,

"then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, there are those necessary for eudaimonia;

Those necessary for eudaimonia are open to interpretation but must be based on Epicurus's philosophy.

127i. αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.

ἀοχλησία "freedom from disturbance"
σώματος genitive singular of σῶμᾰ
σῶμᾰ "the body; one's material body or existence"

“then, those [necessary] for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those [necessary] for life itself.”

Display More

This is very fundamental. This is the basis on which our house is built on. It is of importance to secure ones existential needs and also to have a proper understanding of the universe and ones position within.

The category of just natural desires adds flavour to our lives and is to be pursued if the desires do not conflict with the necessity these desires are related to. Giving a classical example for a natural but not necessary desire is the decision to drink wine instead of water. This is to be approved as long as one doesn't slip into extensive drunkenness, which conflicts with the maintenance of our health or the undisturbedness of the body.

To remain close to your question, from my personal experience the category of natural desires, both necessary and unnecessary, is the proper basis for anything to stay focused on (for the 100%). Since I regard most of our desires to be related to natural stimuli, this doesn't lead to ascetisicm, at least to my understanding.

The "vain" category includes anything else, anything that isn't related directly to naturally arising desires. These are the desires we have to examine very critical.

Epicurus' classification of desires is a helpful tool, but we also have to recognize that it is quite abstract and has to be applied with caution.

Where do we place the desire to earn more money (and the related steps, e.g. building a business or pursuing a career). It is necessary and natural for our survival to have access to material resources. On the other hand, as I've displayed in my previous post, it can become excessive.

So where to place the desire to learn a specific profession or to follow a career path? I totally agree, that the short formula of the 3 categories of desires can fall short very often.

I think these two statements are important, and I could probably find one from Godfrey and Kalosyni and others to the same effect. There are legitimately several approaches to Epicurus - including at least (1) clinician and another (2) as a "philosopher."

Quote from Don

At the risk of muddying waters, I'm not sure looking for the "logical" reasons behind Epicurus' categorization of desires is as fruitful as it may sound. My perspective veers more toward seeing Epicurus as an observational researcher of the natural world and synthesizing those observations into workable practical applications for real people.

Quote from Titus

I would like to say yes, but this is just a theoretical yes as I consider the classification of desires as a guidance tool for choosing priorities. In this sense, the category of natural and necessary desires is something that has to be of number one priority to us.

Again I think both are valid approaches and they are a large part of what we need to continue to do here at the forum. At the moment I'm thinking that it's important to emphasize both and not leave either unappreciated, similar to how both Menoeceus AND Herodotus are important.

Clearly Epicurus thought enough of the natural and necessary distinction to refer to it in both the letter to Menoeceus and the Principle Doctrines. If one wanted to debate priorities, one side could note that this formula comes before even the detailed discussion of pleasure in the letter to Menoeceus, but on the other hand it comes rather late (29) in the Principal Doctrines.

One could also argue that he who focuses only on the logic misses some of the practical usage, while he who focuses only on the practical uses is powerless against the forces of the world which deny him the practice of pleasure.

I think everyone here at the forum does a good job of keeping both in perspective, but I am equally confident that outside the forum, the elevation of the practical application to the preeminent role is a major problem that needs to be tackled. So I'll admit much of what I write tends to be aimed at preparing arguments for external audiences, or those who aren't familiar with Epicurus and who need to know what to prioritize in their initial reading. But in the end, both the focus on practice and the focus on theory are needed as they depend on each other.

Rolf A few thoughts (a little late)...

You would avoid pursuing "unnatural and unnecessary" pleasures such as power, fame, and great wealth because they are very difficult to obtain and the pursuit of them comes with great troubles and pains and the attainment of them also results in great troubles and pains.

As for "natural and necessary" (things which are necessary for survival and living a good and happy life - food, water, shelter, safety, clothing, friends, exercise, study of philosophy etc.) -- these should hopefully come about fairly easily and if they don't we buckle down and put in some effort and tolerate short term discomfort so that these will be satisfied).

And as for "natural and unnecessary" (things which are like "icing on the cake" of life - great variations of sensations and "luxuries") -- we realize that these are not the main focus of life but we do not shun them when they are readily available and easy to get, and knowing that we can best enjoy "luxuries/luxurious sensations" not through continuous enjoyment, but intermittently.

And especially with regard to "natural and unnecessary", this Vatican Saying:

VS 71: "Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?"

And we wouldn't invest a great amount of effort for obtaining the "natural and unnecessary" pleasures especially if it takes away time from friendships and all the necessary things for a good and happy life. (It is important to take note that we see that many people in the modern world put a lot of mental investment into thoughts of pursuing variations of sensation, so it seems like an acceptable thing to do, when in reality they are ignoring other important areas of their life).

***

Edit note, 1:14 pm ET - I am thinking further that another way to think about "natural and unnecessary" is the desire for things which are luxurious AND cost beyond one's means. And the purpose of excluding these is so that you can enjoy the satisfaction of what is easily at hand (you aren't endlessly longing for things beyond your means) and also to support a lifestyle of "self-suffiency" (no need to sell your soul to the "devil" (a king or high ranking person, or in modern times climbing a corporate ladder) in an attempt to get luxurious things.

Kalosyni's post is a good summary of the practical reasons why you would pursue the course advised by Epicurus.

I also want to add another consideration to my posts above. I would argue that people who focus on understanding the philosophy are naturally going to want to proceed to understand and apply the practice, but people who focus on "practice" are far more likely to never proceed any further, and rather quickly drift away, if they do not put equal or greater focus on the philosophy. I would wager that's the largest explanation for the percentage of those who come through the forum and don't hang around very long.

Also, I see the natural and necessary question as very similar to the "pleasure = absence of pain" question. Both are on their face very easy for someone to think they understand, but if you do not know the philosophic background of both then you're going to apply them superficially and never understand the deeper meaning. I'll never accept that anyone can make sense of "pleasure = absence of pain" without the context of knowing that there are only two feelings, and so the equation is a mathematical equivalency. There's absolutely no way to grasp a definite meaning for "absence of pain" without that background, and that's why the Stoics and Buddhists who pay visits to Epicurus love to talk about the formula superficially but never explain it further.

In the case of "pleasure = absence of pain" there is therefore a pretty quick and direct context which can be explained, and someone set on the right path, pretty easily. You tell them that they are equivalent because there are only two possibilities when you are alive, and that means absence of one means the presence of the other.

In the case of the "natural and necessary desire" formula, I don't think most of us (including me) can easily give a short pithy logical explanation of why - just as "pleasure = absence of pain" doesn't lead to general asceticism and minimalism - the "natural and necessary desire" formula doesn't also lead to general asceticism and minimalism. What Kalosyni and others have give above is a "clinical" reason for the conclusion, but a philosopher is never going to abandon the field of philosophy, and we need the "logical" side too.

Think about PD10 - Epicurus has already said that if the life of a profligate - which presumably embraces all sorts of unnatural and necessary desires - actually brought happiness, we would have no complaint with it. That's an example of embracing the logical conclusions of one's philosophy. Is part of the background that Epicurus has already said that success is the measure of the theory, not any particular tool, so we would never interpret "natural" and "necessary" in an absolute way? Because surely if we were to pursue nothing but unnatural and unnecessary desires, and we were one of those rare success stories, Epicurus would say "I have no complaint with you - you have reached the goal."

So it seems to me we need to think about "What is/are the background premises that explain this saying?" so we can give people the full picture early in their reading.

The best I've come up with is the Torquatus explanation that the whole natural/necessary thing is simply pointing out that exotic pleasures (just as is over-devotion to romance/sex) are difficult or impossible to get without excess pain, while the more ordinary and indeed natural and necessary are generally (not always) easy to get without excess pain.

It's very possible there are other and better ways of explaining it, such as Kalosyni's but for purposes of clarity it needs to be short and hard-hitting, just as is the observation that there are only two feelings.

Remember what Frances Wright has Epicurus say in his debate with Zeno:

‘Tell us not that that is right which admits of evil construction; that that is virtue which leaves an open gate to vice.’ This is the thrust which Zeno now makes at Epicurus; and did it hit, I grant it were a mortal one."

I would say that we should not through lack of logical diligence present the natural and necessary desires formula in a way that leaves an open gate to vice. And I would call excessive frugality/asceticism/minimalism a "vice" - so we shouldn't leave an open door to it.

Quote from Don

My perspective veers more toward seeing Epicurus as an observational researcher of the natural world and synthesizing those observations into workable practical applications for real people.

Don

How do you think this might relate to past discussions on here about the “practical Epicurean” and the “philosophical Epicurean” (my shortcut terms, the latter referring to folks who have the ability and inclination to delve more deeply into the texts and scholarly – which is not to say “academic” – analyses)? My sense of the general sentiment on here is that the former are predicted to fall away from Epicurean practice if not sufficiently philosophically educated.

Or: how to offer a helpful (“therapeutic”) Epicurean practice toward daily life to the former group without undue simplification (my emphasis)? Or is that not possible? (If not, then Epicureanism seems destined to remain an option only for a fairly narrow segment of the general populace.) What can we offer to the factory worker who labors overtime hours, or the farmworker bending her back to harvest our fruits and vegetables, or … ? Anything? If so … how? (If not ... then not.)

Just some questions for thought … (Since you've already risked muddying the waters ... )

I can't help but speculate that the formulation of the categories of desires is a reaction against asceticism and a defense against the enemies of pleasure. To me the categories are an improvement upon the philosophies that seek removal of all desires, which could be the very definition of asceticism.

Quote from Cassius

But it's a key issue to remember that variation is pleasure too, and Epicurus is not saying "and variation is not desirable."

Great questions, Cassius. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you post. I'm currently on the road for work, and your points deserve some thoughtful response. I'll cogitate on the way home and post something later today or tomorrow.

And I have thoughts. Too be continued...

No problem Don I figured you were preoccupied. Rolf has raised some good questions so credit to him for helping us look at this with fresh eyes.

I just noticed that Pacatus was the one who asked me "How do you think this might relate to past discussions on here about the “practical Epicurean” and the “philosophical Epicurean”?" Mea culpa. I thought that was Cassius. Let me address those questions first.

Quote from Pacatus

How do you think this might relate to past discussions on here about the “practical Epicurean” and the “philosophical Epicurean”?

I wouldn't use the modifiers "practical" and "philosophical," but I don't want to disparage one group over another. That said, I'd characterize these two groups as "browsers" and "researchers." Or maybe "surface" vs "deep." Or maybe Cliffs Notes vs encyclopedic Epicureans. Or maybe horizontal Epicureans vs vertical Epicureans, those who only need/want a surface understanding as opposed to those who want to delve deeply into one philosophy. Both are (hopefully) looking for practical applications - for a way to more fully live their life; however, the horizontal ones are skimming along the surface. The others not only want the "how" but the "why." Both groups undoubtedly come to Epicurean philosophy with preconceived notions (How can they not?), but the reason the skimmers tend to leave this particular forum is that those expectations and preconceived notions aren't borne out by deeper study. Those who think "I like Epicureanism because it validates my minimalism" or "Epicureanism sounds like Buddhism because he wants me to limit my desires to the bare minimum" don't get reinforced by further study. They retreat to a "surface" understanding of the philosophy because it's a safe place for them and satisfies their desire and basic curiosity. If someone is incurious for deeper understanding and wants a superficial understanding of the philosophy, we can't make them curious or make them study. We are working against a strong cultural headwind. They may just be looking for something to add to their eclectic cafeteria style of personal philosophy and may incorporate some personal understanding of Epicurus and move along to their next interesting philosophical topic.

Quote from Pacatus

how to offer a helpful (“therapeutic”) Epicurean practice toward daily life to the former group without undue simplification (my emphasis)? Or is that not possible? (If not, then Epicureanism seems destined to remain an option only for a fairly narrow segment of the general populace.)

Ah! So, the "former group" (what you called the "practical" Epicureans) has likely gotten what they want and moved on. It seems to me you're asking a bigger question: "What's in it (Epicureanism) for the person 'on the street'?" How can we make Epicureanism attractive to those not necessarily interested in "Philosophy"? Who could benefit from living for pleasure? Epicureanism will never appeal to everyone or maybe not even to a plurality of people. Even in the religion surveys, many people aren't "religious" but they still believe in an afterlife, a "higher power," and other supernatural ideas. They don't want to not believe in them, and Epicureanism is adamant that you can't be a supernatural Epicurean, either horizontal or vertical. So, our potential pool is limited. Now, If someone is genuinely curious and asked us "Why are you an Epicurean?" we should have a readily understood answer, succinct, clear, easy to understand.

Quote from Pacatus

What can we offer to the factory worker who labors overtime hours, or the farmworker bending her back to harvest our fruits and vegetables, or … ? Anything? If so … how? (If not ... then not.)

The factory worker and the farm worker are human beings. They're not special. They just may have never considered Epicureanism as a way of looking at the world. What do we have to offer? A life free from fear of divine wrath and punishment after death, a life focused on being in touch with how they're feeling and acting on that, a life where one's perspective focuses on happiness, satisfaction, being true to one's nature as a living being.

How would you see the factory worker or the farm worker or the body shop mechanic or the waitress or the check-out clerk at the grocery store or... name anyone... living their life differently if we successfully evangelized to them? For me, they would live it like anyone else trying to put Epicurean philosophy into practice. One's occupation doesn't define them as a living breathing human being.

That said, we are not evangelizers. We are not (I hope!) going to be out on street corners with sandwich boards or yelling at people. I've regularly passed people with giant signs and using bullhorns to tell me to "turn from your wicked ways." Maybe Epicureans would be on the street corner handing out leaflets? But where do we point them? It's not like there's a Epicurean Garden three miles down the street. To our forum? To AxA's meet-up in Canada? To the podcast? One big hurdle we as students of Epicurus have is there's no wider in-person support community. We don't have "places of worship." We don't have a pop culture ecosystem like the Stoics.

I agree that we DO need an "elevator pitch" for the philosophy. The Tetrapharmakos is too inside baseball. A good, solid reminder for students of the philosophy with some depth of understanding, but not an evangelizing tool. I'll try my hand from my perspective. Your mileage may vary...

Why are you an Epicurean? What does that even mean?

For me, the philosophy reinforces my conviction that we live in a material world and are not under the thumb or watchful eye of some god.

I take responsibility for my life and the choices I make. There are two choices I can make: I can choose to act in ways that are good for me in the long run, or I can act in ways that are going to be painful now or later.

From all available evidence, I believe this is the only life I'll have: from when I was born to the day I die. That's it. Any "afterlife" is only the memory of me that will live on in those that knew me.

Good post Don.

Quote from Don

Maybe Epicureans would be on the street corner handing out leaflets? But where do we point them?

I wonder what the pamphlets that Cicero referred to in his day said at the end to address "Do You Want To Know More?"

Quote from Cassius

I wonder what the pamphlets that Cicero referred to in his day said at the end to address "Do You Want To Know More?"

I can never remember where that comes up in Cicero. Where is that?

As Eikadistes has shown, there were Epicurean communities throughout the ancient world. And those are just the attested ones in the surviving texts and archeological record. Chances are, from my understanding, if you were reading an Epicurean "pamphlet," you had known Epicureans in your city or town.

Quote

I always have trouble with DeWitt's footnotes since they are in such small text, but it's on page 30 of his book:

For this ambitious program of expansion the school was prepared as no Greek school had ever been or ever would be. Not only was every convert obligated to become a missionary; he was also a colporteur who had available a pamphlet for every need. "Are you bloated with love of praise? There are infallible rites," wrote Horace, "which can restore your health if only you will read a pamphlet three times with open mind," "Send him a pamphlet," cried Cicero in the senate-house, taunting the Epicurean Piso about the ambition of his son·in·law Julius Caesar. Could better evidence be cited to prove that Epicureans were pamphleteers?

Quote

Could better evidence be cited to prove that Epicureans were pamphleteers?

Uh, yeah. That's the "evidence" for Epicureans being "pamphleteers"?

Here's the context of the Horace quote:

Quote

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE EPISTLES OF HORACE.
EPISTLE I.

TO MAECENAS.

The poet renounces all verses of a ludicrous turn, and resolves to apply himself wholly to the study of philosophy, which teaches to bridle the desires, and to postpone every thing to virtue.

Maecenas, the subject of my earliest song, justly entitled to my latest, dost thou seek to engage me again in the old lists, having been tried sufficiently, and now presented with the foils? My age is not the same, nor is my genius. Veianius, his arms consecrated on a pillar of Hercules' temple, lives snugly retired in the country, that he may not from the extremity of the sandy amphitheater so often supplicate the people's favor. Some one seems frequently to ring in my purified ear: "Wisely in time dismiss the aged courser, lest, an object of derision, he miscarry at last, and break his wind." Now therefore I lay aside both verses, and all other sportive matters; my study and inquiry is after what is true and fitting, and I am wholly engaged in this: I lay up, and collect rules which I may be able hereafter to bring into use. And lest you should perchance ask under what leader, in what house [of philosophy], I enter myself a pupil: addicted to swear implicitly to the ipse-dixits of no particular master, wherever the weather drives me, I am carried a guest. One while I become active, and am plunged in the waves of state affairs, a maintainer and a rigid partisan of strict virtue; then again I relapse insensibly into Aristippus' maxims, and endeavor to adapt circumstances to myself, not myself to circumstances. As the night seems long to those with whom a mistress has broken her appointment, and the day slow to those who owe their labor; as the year moves lazy with minors, whom the harsh guardianship of their mothers confines; so all that time to me flows tedious and distasteful, which delays my hope and design of strenuously executing that which is of equal benefit to the poor and to the rich, which neglected will be of equal detriment to young and to old. It remains, that I conduct and comfort myself by these principles; your sight is not so piercing as that of Lynceus; you will not however therefore despise being anointed, if you are sore-eyed: nor because you despair of the muscles of the invincible Glycon, will you be careless of preserving your body from the knotty gout. There is some point to which we may reach, if we can go no further. Does your heart burn with avarice, and a wretched desire of more? Spells there are, and incantations, with which you may mitigate this pain, and rid yourself of a great part of the distemper. Do you swell with the love of praise? There are certain purgations which can restore you, a certain treatise, being perused thrice with purity of mind. The envious, the choleric, the indolent, the slave to wine, to women—none is so savage that he can not be tamed, if he will only lend a patient ear to discipline.

It is virtue, to fly vice; and the highest wisdom, to have lived free from folly. You see with what toil of mind and body you avoid those things which you believe to be the greatest evils, a small fortune and a shameful repulse. An active merchant, you run to the remotest Indies, fleeing poverty through sea, through rocks, through flames. And will you not learn, and hear, and be advised by one who is wiser, that you may no longer regard those things which you foolishly admire and wish for? What little champion of the villages and of the streets would scorn being crowned at the great Olympic games, who had the hopes and happy opportunity of victory without toil? Silver is less valuable than gold, gold than virtue. "O citizens, citizens, money is to be sought first; virtue after riches:" this the highest Janus from the lowest inculcates; young men and old repeat these maxims, having their bags and account-books hung on the left arm. You have soul, have breeding, have eloquence and honor: yet if six or seven thousand sesterces be wanting to complete your four hundred thousand, you shall be a plebeian. But boys at play cry, "You shall be king, if you will do right." Let this be a [man's] thus his forms? What does the poor man? Laugh [at him too]: is he not forever changing his garrets, beds, baths, barbers? He is as much surfeited in a hired boat, as the rich man is, whom his own galley conveys.

If I meet you with my hair cut by an uneven barber, you laugh [at me]: if I chance to have a ragged shirt under a handsome coat, or if my disproportioned gown fits me ill, you laugh. What [do you do], when my judgment contradicts itself? it despises what it before desired; seeks for that which lately it neglected; is all in a ferment, and is inconsistent in the whole tenor of life; pulls down, builds up, changes square to round. In this case, you think I am mad in the common way, and you do not laugh, nor believe that I stand in need of a physician, or of a guardian assigned by the praetor; though you are the patron of my affairs, and are disgusted at the ill-pared nail of a friend that depends upon you, that reveres you.

In a word, the wise man is inferior to Jupiter alone, is rich, free, honorable, handsome, lastly, king of kings; above all, he is sound, unless when phlegm is troublesome.

Display More

I didn't see any indication here of the "certain treatise" being an Epicurean one.

As for Cicero:

Cicero: In Pisonem (2)

[25.] L [59] But, since we cannot alter the past, why does not this mannikin, this Epicurus of mud and clay, hasten to instil these sublime and philosophical doctrines into that great and illustrious commander his son-in-law **? Believe me, it is fame that bids that great man soar; he burns, he is ablaze with desire for a splendid and a well-earned triumph. He has not learnt the lessons that you have learnt. Send him a tract ; nay, if at this stage you can contrive to meet him in person, meditate what phrases you can use to quench and stifle the flames of his desire....

"Send him a tract (libellum)"? That's it? That could easily refer to Principal Doctrines or a section of On Nature.

lĭbellus., a little book, pamphlet, esp. a book written in pages, and not in long rolls

Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, lĭbellus

It is of paramount importance to remember that the ancient world didn't have printing presses and didn't distribute broadsheets like in Colonial America. All texts were manuscripts. Copying existed, of course, often copied by skilled enslaved people. But they weren't using bulk mail to blanket a community with flyers or pamphlets.

Quote from Don

Uh, yeah. That's the "evidence" for Epicureans being "pamphleteers"?

Clearly. On top of that, better evidence couldn't by cited to prove that Epicureans were also the inventors of laserjet printers.

Here is a graphic that I made some time ago.

Thinking to soon make one regarding "natural and necessary/unnecessary" and "unnatural/unnecessary".