Good or Questionable Promotion of Epicurus?

Thanks for posting that. Indeed it's a good example. However I'd say it's more a good example of superficial reading rather than something I would emulate. In fact, I'd say it's a good example of how NOT to summarize Epicurus especially on the following point. But again it's a good contribution to post because we can never talk too much about these issues:

Quote

He was born in 341 BC in the island of Samos and he was an Athenian citizen. Still a child, Epicurus got acquainted with the philosophical though of Nausiphanes who lived in the nearby island Teos; as a result, he was closer to Democritus’ theories, rather than any Platonic way of thinking. When he was 18, he went to Athens in order to serve his military duties at the same time as the comedic playwright Menandrus. Not much is known for the next 15 years of his life.

Quite a reach to imply that "as a result" of georgraphy Epicurus's ideas were closer to Democritus than to Plato. In important respects (skepticism and knowledge, which are foundational to everything else) it could be argued that Epicurus was closer to Plato's approach than to Democritus. More and more i see indiscriminate grouping together of Epicurus with Democritus as a major problem in understanding what Epicurus was doing. As we see in Book Two of Academic Questions, the Skeptics made prime use of Democritus in attacking the possibility of any knowledge at all.

Quote

Later, he created his own philosophical circle in Mytilene and Lampsacus. He returned to Athens when he was 34 years old, where he bought an estate to house his philosophical school, the Garden of Epicurus. He taught for 35 years, leading a quiet and simple life. All members of the school, men, women, courtesans and slaves, had an equal contribution. Epicurus died in 270 BC, aged 72.

As if leading a philosophical revolution against every important school of his time constituted a "quiet and simple life"!

And the idea that "all members" of his school "had an equal contribution" is ridiculous.

Quote

During the Hellenistic era, i.e. the period starting with the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC) and ends with the naval battle in Aktio (31 BC), Epicureanism played a central role in philosophy, along with the schools of Stoics, Aristotelians, Skeptics, Cynics etc. Epicurus’ theory revolves around the moral character of philosophy. The main goal is to study the reasons of human misery and the wrong beliefs that cause it, e.g. superstition, so as to understand how to live pleasantly. According to Epicurus, a pleasant life can be achieved with the absence of pain and fear and by leading a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He also said that pleasure and pain are the measure by which we should decide what to prefer and what to avoid. Pleasure is morally acceptable and should be pursued, as long as it ensures that we obtain inner peace. If this is achieved through pain as well, then pain also becomes a positive force. Therefore, choosing among pleasures is no longer a matter of quantity, but quality.

Grossly oversimplified and misleading. The main goal is not to study the reasons for human misery and understand how to live pleasantly. The main goal was to understand the nature of knowledge and the univers, AFTER WHICH you can conclude that pleasure is the guide and goal and reject goals of virtue or piety or reason for their own sakes. And pleasure is not just "morally acceptable" it is what Nature provides as our goal. nor is pleasure conditioned on "inner peace" - inner peace is conditioned on plesaure. Pain is never a "positive force" - it is to be accepted or even pursued but only when it leads to greater pleasure. It is correct to say that quality trumps quantity, but this gives no indication of what 'quality' would mean in this context.

Quote

Moreover, Epicurus discerned between two types of pleasure, katastematic and kinetic. Concerning kinetic pleasure, the person feels discomfort until they achieve it. Katastematic ones are much more powerful. For example, satisfying the sense of hunger is a kinetic pleasure. However, the sense of calmness after someone is no longer hungry is a katastematic pleasure. Therefore, if someone eats too much, they will have achieved the kinetic pleasure of satisfying their hunger, but not the katastematic pleasure of calmness, and they will be miserable.

I reject his analysis totally and we can cite many competent writers who do too, including the recent Kelly Arenson book . This is the most damaging analysis in modern Epicurean writing.

Quote

The Epicurean philosophy has influenced various movements throughout history. Thinkers of the French Revolution, as well as people such as John Locke, were hugely inspired by these teachings. Thomas Jefferson, considering himself an Epicurean, said that “all men are created equal” and have rights, such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

I doubt it's a good idea to associate Epicurus with the rivers of blood entailed by the French revolution, nor did Epicurus view "Reason" in the way some of those did in that period. There are many issues with John Locke's views as well, and of all the things Thomas Jefferson said "all men are created equal" would not be a statement i would include. The "pursuit of happiness" opens up good avenues for discussion, but that also calls immediate for answer to the question "What is happiness?" which this summary fails to address.