Welcome Phscha

Welcome phscha !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Pscha confirms their account request this way:

Quote

This is to confirm my request for a new account.

I hold interest in Epicurian philosophy and its revival. Looking for exchange with like-minded individuals

Quote from phscha

Why shall we keep repeating the epicurian cosmology, if we know so much more about nature now?!

Welcome Phscha! However given you have made a very specific point in regard to physics, and I better address it immediately.

This forum is dedicated to the pursuit of Epicurean philosophy, which is not tied to the terminology of 300 BC, but is tied to the fundamental conclusions that were and are valid today:

• The universe was not created by supernatural forces. As such there was no "before" or "outside" the universe, which translates into a philosophically consistent understanding that the universe as a whole is eternal and infinite.
• Human life is tied to "material" existence which may refer to matter, fields, energy, or whatever terminology is popular, but which is not supernatural in any way and is not infinitely divisible. There is therefore no life after death other than what technology may be able to extend but there is certainly no "eternal" soul.
• There are no "eternal forms" or "eternal ideas" and therefore morality and ethics are relative to circumstance. The goal of nature is the pursuit of happiness through pleasure, with the term pleasure broadly understood to mean all living existence which is not painful. Which pleasures we choose to pursue will be individual in nature, but there are no external supernatural ideal forms of the best way of life.

The remainder of Epicurean physics has always been a matter of fitting our conclusions to the observations that we make, and that's an ongoing process. We welcome all who are willing and able to realize that Epicurus was correct that the evidence provided us by nature leads to these conclusions. Modern technology and science can be used to deepen that understanding for normal people, who thereby benefit from Epicurean philosophy. On the other hand, there are those who prefer to use modern technology and science in opposition to Epicurean philosophy, most frequently in the service of some form of radical skepticism or deference to self-appointed "experts." This forum is limited to those who are in the first category.

I presume that you'll be ok with this general framework, but if you're not then you'll be better off posting somewhere else.

I regret if this post seems overly frank, but I hope you and others here will appreciate it. We get all sorts of people who come here with all sorts of agendas. The agenda of THIS forum is to better understand Epicurus' philosophy and how we might apply it ourselves. Our objective is not to free-lance on physics or any other aspect related to Epicurean philosophy.

I think most everyone who spends time reading closely into Epicurus and following our discussions here comes to understand that this is the best approach.

Thanks for your reply and you raise excellent points which are valuable to debate.

Neither I nor anyone else here (to my knowledge) is a professional philosopher, so I am sure there are more intellectual ways to respond to the Hume's razor question than what I am about to say. With that said, I believe Epicurus took the position that it is logically determinable based on the evidence available to us that the universe was not created supernaturally and that humans do not have supernatural souls. Those are "is" components of life. Given the truth of those conclusions, they have huge implications as to how to live life, which include the rejection of claims of supernatural authority, or claims that we should live our lives based on expectations of a life after death.

Now whether that violates the contention that the "ought" cannot be derived from what "is" is something that might be debated, but I believe based on my reading of Epicurus that he held these conclusions to be persuasive, and I find them convincing as well.

Quote from phscha

But if new evidence contradicts the conclusion, the theory needs to be revised and improved. That's the only way to develop and flourish

Of course we change our opinions when facts change. However the fundamental facts that support Epicurus' reasoning on the basic issues we are discussing have not changed in recorded history, and there is absolutely no reason to expect that those facts are going to change. It therefore makes no sense whatsoever to hold open the possibility (and thereby doubt and worry) over possibilities which have absolutely no foundation.

I believe I and everyone who is a regular participant here also hold to the view that we are honest. Epicurus claimed that for himself as a major aspect of his philosophy. But being "honest" means stating the conclusion that something is settled beyond a reasonable doubt - beyond the need to debate it endlessly among friends - when the evidence and reasoning support reaching such a conclusion.

We try to make it very clear here that this forum is not a general philosophy forum, nor is it open for anyone and everyone to come here and pursue philosophical argument that is obviously in opposition to Epicurean philosophy. I hasten to add that I am not suggesting that you are doing that. In fact, it is very good for our forum for us to confront issues such as you have brought up on a regular basis. I'm hopeful that you will look around the forum, and when you do you'll see that the general tone of discussion here is probably well within your expectations.

The issue of knowledge and whether conclusions about anything are possible is fundamental to Epicurean philosophy. You've been astute enough to immediately sense that question and bring it up, so that's a good thing. Since you're obviously very sharp - and i say that without a hint of sarcasm! - I doubt you'll have any problem coming to an appropriate decision as to what type of posting will be welcomed and which would not.

In fact by confronting this issue head on you're probably well ahead of 95% of the new people who come here!

Quote from phscha

however hard people like Sam Harris are trying to make you believe it's possible.

Glad to hear that you are (like me) not a fan of Sam Harris...

Quote from phscha

For my understanding, it also means that one cannot derive the Principle of Pleasure from physics, but I'm not sure whether Epicurean philosophy actually attempts that.

I don't know that anywhere on our website anyone has ever used the term "the Principal of Pleasure." Nor would I say that Epicurus would use the term either.

What I think Epicurus would say is that in a universe that is conclusively not supernatural and in which there are conclusively no "ideal forms" or standards for absolute morality, that leaves us with what Nature gives us - pleasure and pain - as the basis for our actions.

Now Epicurus also had a lot to say about how widely the word pleasure should be construed, and how we on occasion do chose pleasure when that choice leads ultimately to greater pleasure. But I would definitely say that the physics of Epicurus does feed directly into the conclusion that pleasure and pain are the touchstones of action. That is because a supernatural or idealistic basis of an absolutely morality does not in fact exist. If supernatural rewards in the hereafter or in this life were in fact available, that would totally change the pleasure/pain analysis.

As an aside to this conversation i would add (not referring to anyone here!) that a lot of people want to hedge on basic aspects of Epicurean physics such as to universe as a whole being natural and eternal, or as to the non-existence of the supernatural or of life after death.

On the other hand, not nearly so many people want to hedge on whether Epicurus was right to say that pleasure is in fact desirable and pain is in fact undesirable.

It strikes me as kind of funny that commitment to radical skepticism seems to be not nearly so strong when one's own personal pleasure and pain are involved!

If you aren't satisfied with Epicurus' physics arguments, and you aren't satisfied with his moral arguments, probably this is a good time to ask: exactly what brings you to this forum?