We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Beyond Stoicism: A Guide to the Good Life with Stoics, Skeptics, Epicureans, and Other Ancient Philosophers
By Massimo Pigliucci, Gregory Lopez, Meredith Alexander Kunz · 2025
(Preview)
Same old, same old regurgitated nonsense regarding the Garden. "Beautiful obscurity" 
If you go to the Google link, you can click the link in the table of contents to the Epicurean section. The "living like an Epicurean" is teeth-clenchingly bad
Well thank you for starting my day with a reminder of all that is wrong with modern Epicurean philosophy! 
I will check out the background of what you posted there and have much more to say.
But first I will say:
For those of us who have read extensively into the background of what the texts really say, we can grit our teeth and remember that ataraxia and aponia in now way exclude the active pleasures of life nor make us want to go live in an ascetic commune where "religion" and controversial subjects are never discussed.
But the opening you have posted there is calculated to exactly produce the kind of "beautiful obscurity" that it does produce -- a vision of total resignation from active pleasures and withdrawal from society and minimalism that is truly indistinguishable from asceticism.
All you have to do in life is negative:
Again, many of the things covered here have a grain of truth to them that can be saved from the wrong construction by knowing the subtleties of Epicurus' terminology. But the real problem I have with this approach is that 98% of normal healthy vigorous people reading this will read this and see it is the philosophy of undertakers giving seminars at nursing homes, and they will run as far and as fast as they can in the opposite direction. And even though i am no longer in my most healthy and vigorous years I will do all i can to keep up with them and get as far as I can from this brand of "Epicurean" philosophy.
I may understand completely that it is not necessary to live forever in order to experience the fulness of pleasure, but that doesn't mean I am going to live like an ascetic in a stupor during the years that I do have.
I failed to notice the tag line at the top of the front cover. This pretty much says it all, and it carries the implication that the reader is not going to discard his Stoicism, just recharge it. I'd predict the Stoic reader will find plenty of ways to make his Stoicism even worse in the neo-Epicureanism of the material referenced in the first posts above.
And I see that to prevent there being any ambiguity, the authors kindly spelled out in the final words before the chapter on Epicurus that the best kind of pleasure is absence of pain, particularly of the mental variety - so no need to worry about focusing any attention on bodily pleasures!!!
Interesting choice of words that I find very telling, whether chosen consciously or subconsciously.
Don't approach pain in life as something to be overcome through reasoned effort, through realization that pleasure is the guide and goal of life, and even through the judicious use of pain for the production of greater pleasure.
No, don't approach pain with vigor and determination to keep pain in its place.
Just FLEE from pain with as much speed and abandon as you can!
That's the message of Epicurus as the Stoics and other enemies of Epicurus want you to see it.
This strikes me as being particularly poorly stated (or well stated if your goal is to misrepresent Epicurus).
Epicurus does not distrust our reasoning abilities. Epicurus insists on reason, Epicurus uses reason vigorously and thoroughly, Epicurus establishes the existence of atoms and his entire physics based on reason, Lucretius describes Epicurean philosophy as true reason.
What Epicurus is distrustful of is Stoics and others who claim for reason things that reason (in the form of dialectical logic) cannot do. Words are useful, but they are not reality, and you cannot find truth by looking to syllogisms rather than by using the senses, anticipations, and feelings along with reason.
It's not reason that is to be distrusted, but Stoicism.
Just FLEE from pain with as much speed and abandon as you can!
Well, they're word choice is correct but in the wrong place. The old "choice and avoidance" is better translated as "choose and flee" but we aren't encouraged to flee from pain. We're instructed to choose the path that leads to the most pleasure, and sometimes that means experiencing some pain.
The whole chapter is a trainwreck from beginning to end.
It's not reason that is to be distrusted, but Stoicism.
I would even say that it's not even "but Stoicism" it is" but reliance on reason alone separate from the physical material world experienced by your senses."
Also Don, I think an effective counterpoint to the modern implications of "flee" (that you are running away in fear, even panic, as if someone had yelled "fire" in a theatre) I would use what you have cited from the last day of Epicurus as to arraying pleasure against pain, as in a battle.
To me a battle or opposition analogy is much more indicative of the real meaning. The word isn't by any means wide enough to cover your actions toward pain pain in every instance, because sometimes you are actually choosing pain.
So I can see why the translators might use choose and avoid, as avoid doesn't have the fear and panic associations. "Avoid" has other negative connotations of its own, however, such as a certain lack of "seriousness" as if your action is a matter of mild preference as opposed to something important.
In the end just like in so many cases words have many connotations, some accurate and intended and some not, so it's always a matter of taking care to explain when there is ambiguity.
And I would say that to take the full modern understanding of "fleeing" from pain at face value would be a huge misreading. Epicurus didn't "flee" from the gods, he stood up to them, worked to understand them, and actually embraced certain aspects of them. And as a generalization that kind of face-up-to-it -and-overcome-it where-necessary attitude is a lot more accurate picture of the correct attitude toward pain than the single word "fleeing" can convey.
flee
verb [ I or T, never passive ]
us /fliː/ uk /fliː/present participle fleeing | past tense and past participle fled
Add to word list
C1
to escape by running away, especially because of danger or fear:
flee from She fled from the room in tears.
flee to In order to escape capture, he fled to the mountains.
Wow, what a mess. I’d struggle to write a more misleading and inaccurate description of Epicureanism if I tried. It’s a real shame that some people will read this and think they have an accurate impression of the philosophy.
I follow the issue discussed here, but my perspective is a bit different. First, not too many people are going to read this book. On Amazon, it has 27 reader reviews, and it’s been out since last January. Second, it is a self-help book as much as any other content, to help people deal with the 21st century. Third, his market is an overwhelmingly Christianized western world, which is dominated by the belief in an Abrahamic divinity’s providential influence as trials and tribulations upon mankind. (Whew!)
To me, the earlier Austin reference by Don. It cuts to the perhaps largest issue when comparing the similarities and distinctions in the Stoic vs Epicurean debate. And this debate is essentially the same one that mental health counselors, psychiatrists and many other professions that focus on helping people cope with the struggle to live better in our modern western world (without regard to religion). I don't see how one wins or loses in this philosophical battle over a book that only partially addresses Epicurus’ truths. I think perhaps any discussion of Epicurus is a good one. Kind of like the cynical quip, “I don’t care too much what you write about me, just spell my name correctly in the newspaper.”
Wow, what a mess. I’d struggle to write a more misleading and inaccurate description of Epicureanism if I tried. It’s a real shame that some people will read this and think they have an accurate impression of the philosophy.
Yes it is a mess.
And everyone needs to be aware that other than Emily Austin's book, DeWitt's book and probably a few others that don't come to mind at the moment, what is being presented in this article is by far the majority and mainstream version of what is taught about Epicurus today.
In fact you have to really work hard to find something OTHER than this interpretation.
So right from the start I like to warn people to be prepared. For this purpose I arbitrarily divide the world into two categories of people:
If you're a "Category 1" person who thinks the most important thing in life is to be calm and tranquil and avoid conflict and disagreement at any cost (which is what many people who claim to love Epicurus want you to accept was what Epicurus taught) then you've come to the wrong place in visiting EpicureanFriends! 
On the other hand, if you're a "Category 2" person willing to stand up against a crowd, be independent, and read the texts for yourself, then there's nothing more rewarding than studying the ancient texts for yourself. That's the only real way to get to the bottom of what Epicurus was really saying, and that's what we are doing at Epicureanfriends - some of us in the original languages and some of us in translations.
I'd like to think it is possible to change someone from being a Category 1 person into a Category 2 person, and indeed I do think we have seen some of that over ten years at EpicureanFriends. But it is an extremely hard thing to do, and the longer and more deeply someone has accepted Stoicism or Buddhism or something similar in the past, the harder it is to do.
VS52. Friendship dances around the world, bidding us all to awaken to the recognition of happiness.
VS41. We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.
Well said. Even if this particular book is fairly inconsequential, as Dave mentioned, it’s a shame because it represents the vast majority of discourse around Epicurus.
the most important thing in life is to be calm and tranquil and avoid conflict and disagreement at any cost
Hmm, I definitely have a little category 1 in me. 😅 But I will fight valiantly for pleasure and to defend my tranquil life against BS (religious or otherwise). I see what you’re saying though. Epicureanism is far less compatible with Buddhism and Stoicism than many people seem to think.
DeWitt's book
Just received it today.
First, not too many people are going to read this book. On Amazon, it has 27 reader reviews, and it’s been out since last January.
Good perspective... albeit still aggravating they get away with it. Discussing in a wider forum could just call more attention to it.
it’s a shame because it represents the vast majority of discourse around Epicurus.
Agreed.
DeWitt's book
Just received it today.
I recently completed DeWitt’s book. It is comprehensive and helpful. I keep finding Christian overtones seeping through in some of his later chapters. But a review of that book by DeWitt may be a discussion in another thread.
But a review of that book by DeWitt may be a discussion in another thread.
Epicurus And His Philosophy - Norman DeWitt
I've made a number of posts here:
In addition to the texts here on the website, I've just started reading "The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia" by Brad Inwood and L.P.Gerson. I find it easier to read than DeWitt. In addition to the usual texts, I am anticipating getting to the part containing extensive short fragments and testimonia from other various ancient sources. It's about 100 pages in total. DeWitt's argumentative and old fashioned professorial style is a chore for me.
