Post by Robert (May 25, 2025 at 2:46 PM ).
This post was deleted by the author themselves (May 25, 2025 at 2:51 PM ).
Daily life of ancient Epicureans / 21st Century Epicureans
Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
Sunday Weekly Study Zoom. This Sunday, June 1st, at 12:30 PM EDT, we will have another zoom meeting (at a time more convenient for our non-USA participants). This week we will combine general discussion with review of another question from our forum FAQ section. To find out how to attend CLICK HERE.
-
Post by Robert (
-
Display More
Again, reasoning through things, regarding beer...which contains alcohol...and so wouldn't be considered healthy. (see article excerpt below).
But perhaps once a month or less, or according to each person's choice and avoidance, and if you have a strong enough liver (as people age the liver isn't functioning as well.)
I personally have decided that I won't drink alcohol unless it is a very special occasion (such as a wedding).
Plus it's important to be sure to eat some food when drinking alcohol so that the absorption is slowed down.
QuoteAs explained in this article, alcohol metabolism also results in the generation of acetaldehyde, a highly reactive and toxic byproduct that may contribute to tissue damage, the formation ofdamaging molecules known as reactive oxygen species (ROS), and a change in the reduction–oxidation (or redox) state of liver cells. Chronic alcohol consumption and alcohol metabolism are strongly linked to several pathological consequences and tissue damage.
Yes, I think the calculus delivers different results as we age. I'm in my late fifties now and less inclined to bring on a hangover. I also don't take the health of my liver for granted, or assume that I'm immune to diabetes.
None of which means that I won't order a beer at the family event I'm attending this evening.
-
If I'm thirsty, and convince myself that I need to have soda, beer, or whatever, might that also be an example? After all, very often a glass of water will do just fine.
I think that here we're talking about the necessary / unnecessary / etc analysis, which yes addresses the problem that through our own mistake, or through outside conditioning, we end up thinking that we have to have X in order to be satisfied, but in truth Y would produce a better overall pleasure over pain result.
The thing I like to caution against, though, is thinking that what a person should target is "just enough to get by" as if "just enough" is the goal. The goal is choosing the "most pleasant" option, rather than the "just enough" option, and I would argue that there is a very important difference between the two. Sometimes the soda, beer, etc., is in fact the most pleasant option and worthy of being chosen.
As VS 63 is usually translated, "Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess."
Thanks--that's a helpful clarification. FWIW, I had in mind situations in which our pleasure is diminished by not having something we think that we need (e.g. alcohol or coffee). This can happen while traveling, for instance, or when attending a party where booze is not being served. Habitual attachment to an unnecessary pleasure creates mental turmoil (and sometimes unpleasant bodily sensations as well, aka withdrawal symptoms).
-
Habitual attachment to an unnecessary pleasure creates mental turmoil
Good point Robert - sort of an inverse of Menoeceus 131:
“To grow accustomed therefore to simple and not luxurious diet gives us health to the full, and makes a man alert for the needful employments of life, and when after long intervals we approach luxuries disposes us better towards them, and fits us to be fearless of fortune.”
-
Habitual attachment to an unnecessary pleasure creates mental turmoil (and sometimes unpleasant bodily sensations as well, aka withdrawal symptoms).
Coffee...since it is easy to get and make at home, and just one-and-a-half cups a day in the morning feels like it creates mental sharpness for me. The caffeine addiction doesn't cause any mental turmoil.
So it is really depends on whether or not there are any bad consequences, and whether or not it is easy to get (and not expensive so that it does not deplete one's funds).
-
Secondly, I was reading Voula Tsouna's chapter on Epicurean "therapies" (in her book on the ethics of Philodemus), which got me thinking about how we might view Epicureanism as a set of practices, as opposed to (simply) a set of views.
@Eikadistes, I'm reminded of this distinction when you write that Epicurean teachings aren't "passing curiosities" but "practical guidance so we can confidently respond to the obstacles that characterize daily life." Also, your comments on memorization/recitation dovetail with what I just read in Sorabji's chapter (in Emotion and Peace of Mind) on Hellenistic spiritual exercises, as well as Hadot's discussion of same (in Philosophy as a Way of Life). Both authors point to memorization as a characteristic Epicurean practice.
Robert , have you read Voula Tsouna's paper on epibole, where she talks about the process of how we should study and pay attention to the words and meanings of Epicurus writings.
https://www.bsa.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Tsouna_310321_ABSTRACT-HANDOUT.pdfIn her paper on prolepsis, she emphasizes the role of mental focus in learning Epicurean concepts.
“For what I label the Lockean view typically involves the idea that preconceptions are formed passively, without any movement of thought, whereas what I call the Kantian view is accompanied by the contention that epibolē, a mental focusing, is an integral component of the formation of basic concepts.”Epicurean PreconceptionsThis paper provides a comprehensive study of the Epicurean theory of 'preconception'. It addresses what a preconception is; how our preconception of…www.academia.edu
I find that understanding these concepts of prolepsis and epibole are key to better understanding how to integrate the simple, but powerful, practices of living prudently, pleasurably, and pleasantly. -
“For what I label the Lockean view typically involves the idea that preconceptions are formed passively, without any movement of thought, whereas what I call the Kantian view is accompanied by the contention that epibolē, a mental focusing, is an integral component of the formation of basic concepts.”
According to Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus (37-38), students were instructed to actively focus their minds (epibolē) on the "indemonstrable starting points" (the core doctrines) so they could properly apply these principles in daily life. This mental focusing helped reinforce the preconceptions (prolēpsis) that developed naturally through experience.
What is fascinating is that Epicurus understood the functioning of our brain's reticular activating system (RAS). The RAS does indeed function similarly to how Epicureans described epibolē working. The RAS acts as a filtering system that brings relevant information to consciousness based on what we've programmed ourselves to consider important.
I find this comparison aligns remarkably well with Epicurean teaching methods.
1. The RAS, like epibolē, actively filters incoming information based on what we've trained ourselves to consider significant
2. When we consciously focus on Epicurean principles through epibolē, we're essentially programming the RAS to notice related patterns
3. The brain's "predictive mind" function works similarly to how Epicureans described the interaction between epibolē and prolepsis.Do others here have a similar understanding of how to apply the principles of epibolē and prolēpsis to create a more pleasurable Epicurean practice?
-
I'm late to the game here, but I'd offer that philosophy - as conceived of in the ancient schools - was always meant to be lived. One chose a school (or took a more eclectic approach as I'd argue Cicero does in certain ways), and lived one's life in accordance with what one learned from one's teacher and one's school: Stoic, Peripatetic, Platonic, Skeptic, Epicurean, etc. As time went on, "religion" moved into that sphere - I'm thinking especially of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism (although some call that a philosophy - depends on the flavor I suppose), especially when those major religions got the imprimatur of government authority... like when the Roman emperor decided it would behoove him to have one emperor, one religion, one empire kind of thing. Later, philosophy became (in the popular and academic mind) a "subject" one studied apart from living one's life. In more recent time, the ancient schools - I'd argue spearheaded by "Stoics" (and, yes, I'm putting it deliberately in quotes) - have seen a revival of sorts, including philosophical counseling. Our little corner of the internet is one of the ways Epicurus' philosophy is part of that renewal, revival, and renaissance.
Yes, it's the applied aspect that's been on my mind. Perhaps because we most often encounter philosophy as an academic subject, the province of scholars and historians, it can seem more like intellectual entertainment than an approach to living. And, as you point out, when folks today are interested in the question "how should I live?," religion is the go-to.
Just curious--could you elaborate further on your view of modern-day Stoics? I haven't delved into that corner of the philosophical world too much, other than listening to a few podcasts, but I'm interested to know where you see the divergences (from actual Stoicism). How well do you think modern-day Epicureans navigate the relationship with tradition--given that Epicureanism in classical times was said to value orthodoxy (to the point of not disagreeing with or criticizing the Hegemon), and yet there are obviously a few areas where rethinking is necessary, as in some parts of the physics.
As oters have mentioned, Epicurus took part in commemorations (rituals) of his own birthday, his family's, his friends, and took part in the large city festivals regularly. I think you can also incorporate an Epicurean mindset when taking part in holidays - even if you attend church services as pro forma with family. Epicurus and the early Epicureans took part in rituals and processions and other civic affairs that paid homage and sacrifice to the gods; but I'm convinced they were not (mentally) taking part the way most in the crowds were participating. They saw the gods differently, but could take pleasure in the festivities and even the sacrifices which were a part of every civic festival. So, enjoy our (American) secular festivities like Thanksgiving, or "religious/secular" events like Christmas.. but feel free to put your own Epicurean spin on things even its only to yourself.
I'm reminded of an interview I heard recently with a British actress who had grown up Catholic. She had lost her faith many years ago, but still loved the ceremonial aspects of Catholicism--indeed, she said it was her first introduction to theater.
-
Just curious--could you elaborate further on your view of modern-day Stoics?
I will be honest to say I haven't delved too deeply into Stoicism. I flirted briefly with it, read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations (where I discovered this guy named Epicurus), read some articles on Stoicism, learned about Epictetus and his Enchiridion, discovered some more of their doctrines, then read The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain De Botton which led me to decide to dig into this Epicurean stuff. And I haven't looked back. I've read more about the Stoics after leaning more into Epicureanism.
When this topic comes up, I usually first point to Dr. Emily Austin's article Are the Modern Stoics Really Epicureans? In it, she makes the point that modern "Stoics" are closer to Epicureans than they are really to ancient students of the school. For example...
Quote from Emily AustinMarcus [Aurelius] objected to Epicurus’ natural science and his advocacy of hedonism, the view that humans achieve tranquility through strategic pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. That sounds like two objections—natural science and hedonism—but it’s really one. The Epicureans were intellectually-refined hedonists because of their science. ... Marcus rejected these Epicurean views whole-heartedly because he considered the divine creation of a providential universe essential to the Stoic project, as did other Roman Stoics like Epictetus and their Greek predecessors. For the Stoics, human rationality is a manifestation of God’s generosity to humans, not a sophisticated animal capacity. Marcus insists that “the whole divine economy is pervaded by Providence.” When he writes, “If not a wise Providence, then a jumble of atoms,” he means to offer two options: “If not Stoicism, then Epicureanism.” In fact, Marcus admits that if Epicurean natural science were right, he would fall into despair. Without providence, he asks, “Why care about anything?”
The ancient Stoics believed in Providence, that every person's fate was already cast. Whatever happens to you if fated to happen. As Dr. Austin points out, the ancient Stoics believed that the universe was imbued with a divine providence. We face our suffering because it's part of a bigger plan, we were meant to suffer this pain we are undergoing. It's the classic "Everything happens for a reason." Which, I fervently believe, it does not.
Modern "Stoics," from what I have read, tend to downplay this idea of Providence, of divine will, directing their lives. But you can't have your muscular Stoic fortitude without the Providence. That's not Stoicism, at least not in the classical, ancient sense. There are some classical Stoics nowadays that keep their Providential underpinnings, but they appear to be a minority.
Another thing that turned me off Stoicism was the idea that even if your child dies, you should treat that loss no different than you would the loss of a drinking cup. There are nuances, but, that's basically what they're saying. Epictetus writes:
Do not attach yourself to them and they will not be necessary: do not say to yourself that they are necessary, and then they are not necessary.
This study you ought to practice from morning to evening, beginning with the smallest things and those most liable to damage, with an earthen pot, with a cup. Then proceed in this way to a tunic, to a little dog, to a horse, to a small estate in land: then to yourself, to your body, to the parts of your body, to your children, to your wife, to your brothers. Look all round and throw these things from you (which are not yours). Purge your opinions, so that nothing cleave to you of the things which are not your own, that nothing grow to you, that nothing give you pain when it is torn from you
Basically, be unattached to everything external to yourself, from a cup to your children, wife, brothers. Be completely unattached to all of them so that "nothing can give you pain when it is torn from you." That is, if your cup is broken or your wife dies. That doesn't even sound human to me.
Epicurus and other Epicurean writers write that we will feel grief when someone dies. They also write that we shouldn't let grief overcome us, but grief will sting and be painful. We should focus on the memories of our dead friends and family and take pleasure in the time you had together. That seems a much more human response to loss.
That's a taste of why I'm not a Stoic and where I think most modern Stoics paper over the actual tenets of their philosophy to make it more palatable to a modern audience. There's also the issues brought up in Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age by Donna Zuckerberg but that's for another post.
I'll address your other question in the next post.
-
How well do you think modern-day Epicureans navigate the relationship with tradition--given that Epicureanism in classical times was said to value orthodoxy (to the point of not disagreeing with or criticizing the Hegemon), and yet there are obviously a few areas where rethinking is necessary, as in some parts of the physics.
As you may be able to tell from my last post, I think the modern-day Epicureans don't have nearly the level of problems the modern-day Stoics have in keeping closer to the ancient school. I've read the complaints about the Epicurean school having to do with their being dogmatic or not disagreeing with the teacher. I'd have to look up where those came from, so I won't discuss specifics. Part of this from modern commentators it seems to me has to do with being hung up on the word "dogmatic" itself. "Epicureans were dogmatic," as in Diogenes Laertius 10.120: "He will be a dogmatist but not a mere sceptic." I addressed this on my site: https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…remain-in-doubt Dogmatic doesn't mean keeping to strict orthodoxy, it means being willing to take a position as opposed to remaining skeptical of everything, or as the word used means, "to be at a loss, be in doubt, be puzzled."
When it comes to the physics, I'm not overly concerned about the specifics. The Lucretius Today podcast did a great job of working through the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles and mining those for some great practical insights! The specifics don't matter. What matters is that Epicurus taught that we live in a material universe, governed by understandable laws that can be known; where we lack sufficient evidence for a conclusion, we withhold judgement and accept that there's a material cause until sufficient evidence is available. We are not ruled by Providence as the Stoics would have us believe. If you read the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles or sections of Lucretius, Epicurus and Lucretius are constantly writing "it could be this way, or this way, or this way..." and accept that there's a physical cause for the phenomenon they're discussing. Lucian in "Alexander the Oracle-Monger" writes that an Epicurean could find the physical mechanism behind the Snake-Oracle even if wasn't readily apparent.
That unswerving commitment that we live in a physical world, not under the thumb of capricious gods, is what makes it possible to be a modern-day Epicurean.
-
Robert , have you read Voula Tsouna's paper on epibole, where she talks about the process of how we should study and pay attention to the words and meanings of Epicurus writings.
https://www.bsa.ac.uk/wp-content/upl…ACT-HANDOUT.pdfIn her paper on prolepsis, she emphasizes the role of mental focus in learning Epicurean concepts.
“For what I label the Lockean view typically involves the idea that preconceptions are formed passively, without any movement of thought, whereas what I call the Kantian view is accompanied by the contention that epibolē, a mental focusing, is an integral component of the formation of basic concepts.”
https://www.academia.edu/32563844/Epicurean_Preconceptions
I find that understanding these concepts of prolepsis and epibole are key to better understanding how to integrate the simple, but powerful, practices of living prudently, pleasurably, and pleasantly.Hi, Patrikios--I just finished reading the paper on epibole--thank you for suggesting it! A quick reaction (assuming I understood Tsouna's line of argument) is that it sheds some light on why memorization of the teachings is important. It seems to form part of a mental training that leads first to epibole about specific topics and ultimately to the cosmic-level view that Lucretius and Philodemus both attribute to the the Epicurean sage. Does this seem correct to you?
I'm going to dive into the paper on prolepsis next, as this is a concept I've had trouble grasping. It's interesting that epibole and prolepsis are both so integral to your Epicurean practice(s)--interesting because they're both a bit difficult, and are part of the canon rather than the ethics (which seems to be the most accessible part of the philosophy). -
How well do you think modern-day Epicureans navigate the relationship with tradition--given that Epicureanism in classical times was said to value orthodoxy (to the point of not disagreeing with or criticizing the Hegemon), and yet there are obviously a few areas where rethinking is necessary, as in some parts of the physics.
As you may be able to tell from my last post, I think the modern-day Epicureans don't have nearly the level of problems the modern-day Stoics have in keeping closer to the ancient school. I've read the complaints about the Epicurean school having to do with their being dogmatic or not disagreeing with the teacher. I'd have to look up where those came from, so I won't discuss specifics. Part of this from modern commentators it seems to me has to do with being hung up on the word "dogmatic" itself. "Epicureans were dogmatic," as in Diogenes Laertius 10.120: "He will be a dogmatist but not a mere sceptic." I addressed this on my site: https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…remain-in-doubt Dogmatic doesn't mean keeping to strict orthodoxy, it means being willing to take a position as opposed to remaining skeptical of everything, or as the word used means, "to be at a loss, be in doubt, be puzzled."
When it comes to the physics, I'm not overly concerned about the specifics. The Lucretius Today podcast did a great job of working through the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles and mining those for some great practical insights! The specifics don't matter. What matters is that Epicurus taught that we live in a material universe, governed by understandable laws that can be known; where we lack sufficient evidence for a conclusion, we withhold judgement and accept that there's a material cause until sufficient evidence is available. We are not ruled by Providence as the Stoics would have us believe. If you read the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles or sections of Lucretius, Epicurus and Lucretius are constantly writing "it could be this way, or this way, or this way..." and accept that there's a physical cause for the phenomenon they're discussing. Lucian in "Alexander the Oracle-Monger" writes that an Epicurean could find the physical mechanism behind the Snake-Oracle even if wasn't readily apparent.
That unswerving commitment that we live in a physical world, not under the thumb of capricious gods, is what makes it possible to be a modern-day Epicurean.
Hi, Don,
The Stoic reliance of Providence was a turn-off for me as well--probably the main issue that drew me away from it, after some initial interest. More specifically, I don't think the Stoics handled theodicy very convincingly. They actually seem to me even less plausible than the Abrahamic religions in that regard. Plus, if one's going to accept a notion like Providence, why not go a step further and personalize it--make it a God you can talk to?
Since, as Emily Austin suggests, modern-day Stoics are closer to Epicureanism, I wonder why they self-describe as the former. Something to do with Marcus Aurelius? Or maybe--at least in the U.S.--the concept of "pleasure" conflicts too much with the Protestant work ethic?
Regarding Epicurean physics, I did hear this covered in the Lucretius Today episodes dealing with relevant sections of De Rerum Natura. I'm very interested in listening to the other episodes that you mention.
-
I've read the complaints about the Epicurean school having to do with their being dogmatic or not disagreeing with the teacher.
I'd have to look back too to really be sure, but I am thinking that some of this criticism is included in Nussbaum's pro-Stoic "Therapy of Desire." I'm not a fan of that book but if someone were looking for that criticism, which I think is totally unfounded, that's one place I would look.
As to Stoicism, other issues in addition to divine order, plus a belief in life after death (so you start off violating Epicurus' first two doctrines right there) are their emphasis on logic over feeling/sensation and their dismissal of pleasure.
In my case I got interested in Stoicism due to high school and college courses in Latin, and my general impression (which I now see to be false) that Cicero was a Stoic. Aside from Cicero's willingness to enlist the Stoics in his defense of Virtue, Cicero delivers a strong take-down of Stoicism in one of the latter chapters of his "On Ends."
-
Robert I am working on this week's podcast and included within the section we read is this from Cicero attacking the Stoics in Part2 Section XII of Tusculan Disputations:
Here's the intro:
QuoteTherefore, you allowed enough when you admitted that infamy appeared to you to be a greater evil than pain. And if you abide by this admission, you will see how far pain should be resisted: and that our inquiry should be not so much whether pain be an evil; as how the mind may be fortified for resisting it.
And here's Cicero's attack that I wanted to cite. This quote is useful in many contexts to show the difference between the Stoics and Epicurus, or between the Stoics and anyone who uses common sense rather than word games.
QuoteThe Stoics infer from some petty quibbling arguments, that it is no evil, as if the dispute was about a word, and not about the thing itself. Why do you impose upon me, Zeno? for when you deny what appears very dreadful to me to be an evil; I am deceived, and am at a loss to know why that which appears to me to be a most miserable thing, should be no evil. The answer is, that nothing is an evil but what is base and vicious. You return to your trifling, for you do not remove what made me uneasy. I know that pain is not vice,—you need not inform me of that: but show me, that it makes no difference to me whether I am in pain or not. It has never anything to do, say you, with a happy life, for that depends upon virtue alone; but yet pain is to be avoided. If I ask, why? it is disagreeable, against nature, hard to bear, woful and afflicting.Here are many words to express that by so many different forms, which we call by the single word, evil. You are defining pain, instead of removing it, when you say, it is disagreeable, unnatural, scarcely possible to be endured or borne: nor are you wrong in saying so; but the man who vaunts himself in such a manner should not give way in his conduct, if it be true that nothing is good but what is honest, and nothing evil but what is disgraceful. This would be wishing, not proving.
-
Hi, Patrikios--I just finished reading the paper on epibole--thank you for suggesting it! A quick reaction (assuming I understood Tsouna's line of argument) is that it sheds some light on why memorization of the teachings is important. It seems to form part of a mental training that leads first to epibole about specific topics and ultimately to the cosmic-level view that Lucretius and Philodemus both attribute to the the Epicurean sage. Does this seem correct to you?
Robert , yes, you summarized my current understanding of the practical applications of epibole and prolapses to the Epicurean education process. After reading those papers by Voula Tsouna, I found that studying the Key Doctrines in short groups of 3 or 4 related doctrines was more beneficial to focus on a key topic. But I was having trouble just memorizing each KD, so I found by also reading different translations and when I allowed the words to generate feelings, those sensations brought up images or recollections related to the doctrine. In this way, we are programming our unconscious (the RAS, etc.) by employing the epibole to begin focusing the full mind which then correlates the words with feelings and images that are meaningful from your personal experience.
Would you call this immersive or whole-brain learning that was being taught in Epicurean schools?
-
I found that studying the Key Doctrines in short groups of 3 or 4 related doctrines was more beneficial to focus on a key topic.
Don do we or you have a page or listing somewhere that breaks the PDs down not by number but by related paragraph and/or topic? I know we've discussed this many times but i am not sure I have seen a polished and formatted version. I am sure that there are many possible divisions but we might as well be helpful to people and suggest one or two.
-
I found that studying the Key Doctrines in short groups of 3 or 4 related doctrines was more beneficial to focus on a key topic.
Don do we or you have a page or listing somewhere that breaks the PDs down not by number but by related paragraph and/or topic? I know we've discussed this many times but i am not sure I have seen a polished and formatted version. I am sure that there are many possible divisions but we might as well be helpful to people and suggest one or two.
Good question. Surely somewhere on this forum.
Try this thread:
-
Ok so I see this post is perhaps closest but we don't really have one.
Some of them clearly belong together (on canonics, on justice, for example) but others are more flexible or the topics are shorter. If anyone has re-divided them already and wants to suggest an arrangement I can put up a page, but I'll label it clearly that we're just doing our best and there doesn't seem to be anything in the Greek to which we can point as definitive way to divide them
