Posts by Cassius

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.

Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!

  • Protocols and Etiquette For Attendance At EpicureanFriends Zoom Meetings

    It has been suggested that we post a public list of "protocols" or "etiquette" so that people who attend our EpicureanFriends zoom meeting will know what to expect. We've received a number of comments about how appearing live on camera can be intimidating for new people on a first time visit, so this document will allow us to explain the ground rules and hopefully lessen any anxiety that might hold back someone from participating. This will likely be revised over time, but for now the list is as follows. Please feel free to comment in the thread below if you have any comments or questions about this.

    Protocols and Etiquette For Attendance At EpicureanFriends Zoom Meetings

    1. Eligibility For Attendance: As explained in various rules below, we restrict participation in our Zoom meetings to those who have a good faith interest in Epicurus and general agreement with the Rules of the EpicureanFriends forum as included in our About page. Those who wish to attend who have not previously participate should message Cassius or one of the other Moderators for information on attending. Requirements for attending our Wednesday meetings are more relaxed than those for attending our "Twentieth" meetings, which we generally reserve for regular participants on the forum. New participants in the forum are encouraged to attend a "First Monday" meeting where we especially address the welcoming of recent participants on the forum.
    2. Unless stated otherwise, all of our Zoom meetings are largely informal. We will have an agenda and a general understanding of topics to be covered, but all of our meetings are intended to be relaxed discussions. We generally have from five to ten participants, with some meetings considerably larger. Special programs which are primarily lectures or presentations could be larger, but these rules apply primarily to our regular informal meetings.
    3. Our meetings generally last about an hour, but they have been known to go as long as an hour and a half. Feel free to leave meetings early, and if you choose to do so it is not necessary to announce that you are leaving. However a text message in the meeting chat that you are about to exit would be appreciated.
    4. At the beginning of each meeting we will start with a welcome, and we will introduce anyone who is new to the Zoom sessions. While we don't want to consume each meeting with a re-introduction at length of all participants, we find that it is interesting and helpful even for our regular members to summarize who they are and why they are participating, so if a meeting has new participants please expect to say a short hello about your background and interest in Epicurus. We do not seek or encourage the exchange of personally identifying information, especially as to specific geographic location, but we do encourage you to let us know about your region of the world (we have participants from across the globe) and at least a little about your level of education and interest in Epicurus. Please select a screen name that does not reveal personal information. If you have not previously attended a Zoom session, it would be desirable to let the moderators know the Zoom name you intend to use. We use the "waiting room" feature of Zoom, and so as to avoid "Zoom bombing," user names which are not recognized may not be admitted into the meeting.
    5. It is not required that you turn on your camera and participate in the video feed. We encourage those who wish to do so to use video, as that helps with the flow of conversation and helps to build friendships more quickly. However while most of our participants do generally use video, some do not. We would prefer to have you without video than not have you participate at all.
    6. Especially if you do not use video, please use the "raise hand" feature, and or type into the meeting chat, to let us know that you wish to speak. We have a very diplomatic and considerate group and do not generally have too many issues with people trying to speak over each other. We try to allow everyone to participate and to say what is on their minds about a topic.
    7. Please understand that because we are in many cases using video, and in all cases we have a live audio feed, we must use caution to ensure that everyone who participates is doing so in good faith. For that reason we do not distribute the link to the session to anyone who has not previously registered on EpicureanFriends and given us at least a short summary of their background and interest in Epicurus. Zoom links can and do change over time, so we generally use a forum "conversation" to distribute the meeting link on the day of each meeting. If you do not have the current Zoom link for the meeting that you wish to attend, please message one of the moderators, and they will get back to you as appropriate.
    8. Our Zoom sessions are not debates. We encourage the expression of differing opinions, but as with all aspects of EpicureanFriends, we expect participants to be at least somewhat familiar with and supportive of core Epicurean ideas. All regular rules of participation at EpicureanFriends, especially as to avoidance of discussion of contemporary partison politics, remain in effect during our Zooms. If you disagree substantively with opinions that are being expressed you should do so considerately and without unduly negative and extensive commentary. If your find yourself in fundamental disagreement with a core aspect of Epicurean philosophy you should be considerate in the way that you express that disagreement, keeping in mind that the purpose of EpicureanFriends and its Zoom meetings is to allow for the exchange of ideas among those who are supportive of Epicurean philosophy. If you find an opinion that is a significant part of Epicurean philosophy to be offensive or intolerable to you, you are probably not in the right place to attend the EpicureanFriends zoom meetings (or for that matter, to participate on the Forum). There are many other opportunities to discuss opposing philosophic views on the internet, and to pursue eclectic blends, and if you are regularly inconsiderate of this rule then your invitation to attend will eventually be revoked.
    9. Almost every Zoom meeting is preceded by a meeting announcement posted at least several days in advance. If you have suggestions for items that you would like to see discussed, please add a message to that thread and let us know so we can update the agenda beforehand.
    10. Given that our main goal in our regular Zoom meetings is to participate in the study of Epicurus in a supportive environment, please remember that a tone of supportiveness and considerateness should be maintained at all times. One of our moderators will act as facilitator of the meeting and attempt to both keep things on track and allow everyone to speak, but please be considerate of others in avoiding monopolizing the conversation and avoiding getting too far off topic.
    11. If you have distracting background noises, please mute yourself until it is appropriate for you to speak. If you are falling asleep or working on something else, please consider closing your camera for the duration of that distraction.
    12. All meetings will be conducted primarily in English. We will regularly discuss the translation of Latin and Greek words, but the majority of our participants are primarily or fluently English-speakers, so efficiency and consideration requires that we communicate primarily in English.
    13. It is not necessary to attend every session in order to attend any sessions. Participants are welcome to attend as their schedules allow. Participants should, however, familiarize themselves with the published agenda of the meeting they attend so that they can interact appropriately and on topic with other participants.

  • "Kepos" - Epicurus' Garden Name, Location, History

    I suspect we will never have much data on what I am about to mention, but the reference to Epicurus' house being in ruins at the time of Memmius raises questions as to whether the successor leaders of the Epicurean school failed to make proper use of their inheritance from Epicurus, or whether perhaps the house was destroyed in a war, or whatever led to it (and/or the garden property) not being maintained over that period.

    One of the subtexts that anyone who is interested in a revitalized Epicurean school, as opposed to simply personal self-help, is the question of whether the organization of the ancient Epicurean school failed in some way, or whether its demise was entirely the fault of outside pressures, or some combination of both. Presumably a combination is more likely, but that leaves the question for future discussion of what steps might have been taken then, or should be taken now, to enhance the survivability of Epicurean organizations.

  • Creation Out of Nothing is Postbiblical Doctrine

    I can imagine a couple of questions here:

    1. Do the terms "good" and "evil" even apply to elements/ atoms / void / matter, or are those things "neutral" in some way?

    2. Does that answer differ among the Platonic, Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean Schools?

    3. Do we have specific quotes where this issue is specifically addressed?


    It seems to me it's not necessarily obvious even in Epicurean terms how "good" and "evil" should be used. Pretty clearly Epicurus said that nature gives us only pleasure and pain in order to know what to choose and what to avoid, so are "good" and "evil" only "abstractions added on to the pleasure / pain base? Do we have specific quotes that show Epicurus talking about how pleasure and pain relate to good and evil?

    In terms of the Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics, who are into "virtue" as an end in itself, then the terms "good" and "evil" seem much more natural and easy to apply. It seems to me that all three of them are essentially equating their god/prime mover/ divine fire as the ultimate source of "good," so they can slap that label onto something without all the contextual evaluation (evaluation in terms of pleasure and pain) that is involved in Epicurean philosophy.

    i tend to question, along with the tile of Nietzsche's book "Beyond Good and Evil," whether Epicurus was not either (1) rejecting the whole "good vs evil" paradigm that was common to the other schools, or (2) redefining those words (good and evil) in terms of pleasure and pain just as he was redefining "gods" and the meaning of "pleasure."

    Precision here is probably of particular importance since the Stoics were apparently trying to rehabilitate matter themselves, and perhaps considered matter to be part of divine fire and perhaps therefore "good" in a way that may have distinguished them from Platonics/Peripatetics(?)

  • New Article Attacking Epicurean Physics: "Science Versus the Oldest Anti-Intelligent Design Argument "

    This is probably too deep in the weeds to be of immediate use, but since I found it, here is a philosophy professor's attack on a book which is apparently well-thought-of by the website that published the attack on Epicurus:

    https://fitelson.org/dembski.pdf

    What is of immediate relevance is being articulate with the allegation that Epicurus' views of the nature of the universe have been refuted by modern physics and no longer serve as a sound basis for arguing against intelligent design.

    We ought to be able to state Epicurus' position clearly and show that it is neither refuted nor no longer relevant to the "creationist" argument.

    And in that respect I think the monkeys and typewriters will serve to illustrate the proper (and improper) way of looking at "randomness" as an aspect of Epicurean physics.

  • New Article Attacking Epicurean Physics: "Science Versus the Oldest Anti-Intelligent Design Argument "

    Quote

    But new discoveries seem to have finished what the Big Bang theory started. It is becoming increasingly undeniable that the building blocks of life are far too unlikely to emerge by chance even in a universe as large and old as ours.

    For a long time, Epicurus’ version of the universe seemed probable to many. After natural philosophers realized how vast the universe really was, and again after the existence of atoms was confirmed, Epicurus seemed to be vindicated. But now, we have discovered that however vast the universe may be, it is finite, and its size does not hold a candle to the vast improbability of the miracle that is life. After more than 2,000 years, the original foundation of materialist naturalism in Western thought seems to be crumbling. The question is: how long will it take for the worldview built on that foundation to crumble too?


    So what IS this guy's point? Is he arguing for intelligent design? A quick scan of the website "about" section does not make clear the site's orientation.


    OK I guess the site does contain clues:


    This link originally came up through a Google search, so that's how I found it.

  • New Article Attacking Epicurean Physics: "Science Versus the Oldest Anti-Intelligent Design Argument "

    Quote from TauPhi

    In our universe we don't have infinity of possible creations. As far as matter is concerned, the variety of atoms is strictly limited by universal laws governing the universe. Since we have limited building blocks types and constrains in the form of universal laws which have to be obeyed, the universe is not a place where anything goes.

    I think that is an excellent point and it is where I (intuitively) think Epicurus is coming from.

    In addition, we have no reason to think, and therefore we should not think, that there are "other universes" in which there are an infinitely larger number of infinite types of atoms that do in fact create an "anything goes" environment.

    I *think* that takes us back to the article, and what I perceive to be a point of the article, which I read as asserting that Epicurus was advocating for an "anything goes" universe, when in fact he was not.

    Now maybe this sentence does not say that .....

    "Since the universe is infinite, there are enough opportunities for every possible arrangement of atoms to occur eventually, even the most unlikely. Our world, and the life on it, is one of those unlikely (but eventually inevitable) arrangements."

    .. but I would say it comes awfully close to saying that, and that it would be better to be clear that Epicurus's argument against intelligent design does not end up being an "anything goes" universe.

  • New Article Attacking Epicurean Physics: "Science Versus the Oldest Anti-Intelligent Design Argument "

    One of the sections of the letter to Herodotus that has always seemed to me of closest relevance to issues like this is the following (Bailey translation). I've highlighted a couple of phrases that seem particularly of note.

    [74] And further we must believe that these worlds were neither created all of necessity with one configuration nor yet with every kind of shape. Furthermore, we must believe that in all worlds there are living creatures and plants and other things we see in this world; for indeed no one could prove that in a world of one kind there might or might not have been included the kinds of seeds from which living things and plants and all the rest of the things we see are composed, and that in a world of another kind they could not have been.

    [75] Moreover, we must suppose that human nature too was taught and constrained to do many things of every kind merely by circumstances; and that later on reasoning elaborated what had been suggested by nature and made further inventions, in some matters quickly, in others slowly, at some epochs and times making great advances, and lesser again at others. And so names too were not at first deliberately given to things, but men’s natures according to their different nationalities had their own peculiar feelings and received their peculiar impressions, and so each in their own way emitted air formed into shape by each of these feelings and impressions, according to the differences made in the different nations by the places of their abode as well.

    [76] And then later on by common consent in each nationality special names were deliberately given in order to make their meanings less ambiguous to one another and more briefly demonstrated. And sometimes those who were acquainted with them brought in things hitherto unknown and introduced sounds for them, on some occasions being naturally constrained to utter them, and on others choosing them by reasoning in accordance with the prevailing mode of formation, and thus making their meaning clear.

    [77] Furthermore, the motions of the heavenly bodies and their turnings and eclipses and risings and settings, and kindred phenomena to these, must not be thought to be due to any being who controls and ordains or has ordained them and at the same time enjoys perfect bliss together with immortality (for trouble and care and anger and kindness are not consistent with a life of blessedness, but these things come to pass where there is weakness and fear and dependence on neighbors). Nor again must we believe that they, which are but fire agglomerated in a mass, possess blessedness, and voluntarily take upon themselves these movements. But we must preserve their full majestic significance in all expressions which we apply to such conceptions, in order that there may not arise out of them opinions contrary to this notion of majesty. Otherwise this very contradiction will cause the greatest disturbance in men’s souls. Therefore we must believe that it is due to the original inclusion of matter in such agglomerations during the birth-process of the world that this law of regular succession is also brought about.


    (This last highlighted section being referenced, if I recall correctly from the AA Long article on Chance and Natural law, as indicating that as to non-intelligent beings there is in fact a major aspect of necessity/determinism, in that the atoms can only combine in ways that are consistent with their natures, and that while there are an infinite NUMBER of atoms, there are not infinite TYPES of atoms, but in fact a limited number of types, as indicated in the first highlighted area.)

  • Episode 229 - Cicero's OTNOTG - 04 - Velleius Continues His Attack On Intelligent Design

    Ok Joshua and others, we now have an intersection of two discussions: (1) On the Nature of the Gods, and (2) The Monkey Typewriter Theorem! We'll work to answer this by next Sunday!

    Quote from Wikipedia

    One of the earliest instances of the use of the "monkey metaphor" is that of French mathematician Émile Borel in 1913,[1] but the first instance may have been even earlier. Jorge Luis Borges traced the history of this idea from Aristotle's On Generation and Corruption and Cicero's De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods), through Blaise Pascal and Jonathan Swift, up to modern statements with their iconic simians and typewriters.[2] In the early 20th century, Borel and Arthur Eddington used the theorem to illustrate the timescales implicit in the foundations of statistical mechanics.

    Looks to me like we're making good progress and will be able to unwind this question here:

  • Episode 229 - Cicero's OTNOTG - 04 - Velleius Continues His Attack On Intelligent Design

    Welcome to Episode 229 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

    Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a a self-taught Epicurean.

    For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.

    First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, which is often not the same as presented by many modern commentators. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and one of the best places to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

    Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.

    Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

    Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.

    For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here. The text which we include in these posts is the Yonge version, the full version of which is here at Epicureanfriends. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.

    Additional versions can be found here:

    A list of Velleius' arguments against the existence of supernatural gods will be here.


    Today's Text

    These are your doctrines, Lucilius; but what those of others are I will endeavor to ascertain by tracing them back from the earliest of ancient philosophers. Thales the Milesian, who first inquired after such subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things, and that God was that mind which formed all things from water. If the Gods can exist without corporeal sense, and if there can be a mind without a body, why did he annex a mind to water?

    It was Anaximander’s opinion that the Gods were born; that after a great length of time they died; and that they are innumerable worlds. But what conception can we possibly have of a Deity who is not eternal?

    Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject to mortality?

    XI. Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.

    Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.

    Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?

    Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.

    Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.


  • New Article Attacking Epicurean Physics: "Science Versus the Oldest Anti-Intelligent Design Argument "

    Quote from Martin

    The formation of life on Earth had similar odds.

    Since we're setting up all sorts of good questions to ask, I am not sure that I would intuitively agree with this either. The whole idea that the universe consists of "truly random" events seems to me to be very questionable, and that the better alternative view is (as I interpret Epicurus, maybe incorrectly) that the world is the result of natural un-designed combinations of atoms with fixed natures (suitable seeds) (but not truly "random" in the sense of all combinations being possible) which therefore limits the possibilities and disposes toward some results more than others.

    Given that life exists on Earth, we know that the possible combinations leading to life are non-zero (out of "nine" planets, in fact, one has life). So I would think that the "chances" of repetition of things that we know to exist is far greater than the chance of occurrence of things that we intuitively grasp have never existed in our experience (monkeys have never in our past duplicated Shakespeare).

    I'll be the first to admit that these questions are not easy to answer, but almost certainly they were grappled with by the ancient Epicureans, so we should grapple with them too.

  • New Article Attacking Epicurean Physics: "Science Versus the Oldest Anti-Intelligent Design Argument "

    My first reaction to this new article is that the view ascribed to Epicurus ("Since the universe is infinite, there are enough opportunities for every possible arrangement of atoms to occur eventually, even the most unlikely. Our world, and the life on it, is one of those unlikely (but eventually inevitable) arrangements.") is not what Epicurus really said. That quoted sentence does include the word "possible," but I don't gather that he is using "possible" in the same way as did Epicurus or Lucretius.

    While the lead-in that there was no intelligent design for the entire universe is certainly true, it appears to me that this is going to be one of those examples of not scrutinizing the meaning of "random" closely enough, and winding up with an "anything is possible given enough time and space" which is not what Epicurus or Lucretius said.

    Rather, as Lucretius said, "[62] When human life to view lay foully prostrate upon earth crushed down under the weight of religion, who showed her head from the quarters of heaven with hideous aspect lowering upon mortals, a man of Greece ventured first to lift up his mortal eyes to her face and first to withstand her to her face. Him neither story of gods nor thunderbolts nor heaven with threatening roar could quell: they only chafed the more the eager courage of his soul, filling him with desire to be the first to burst the fast bars of nature’s portals. Therefore the living force of his soul gained the day: on he passed far beyond the flaming walls of the world and traversed throughout in mind and spirit the immeasurable universe; whence he returns a conqueror to tell us what can, what cannot come into being; in short on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deep-set boundary mark."

    So as I understand this issue in Epicurean terms, certain things are possible, and others are impossible, no matter how much time or space are involved. Donating an infinitely large number of typewriters to an infinitely large number monkeys for an infinite time will NEVER produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

    Probably lots to discuss here over time - this writer is far to eager to "bench" Epicurus.

    Science Versus the Oldest Anti-Design Argument | Evolution News
    Translation: Everything that exists was made not by intelligent design, but rather by the random arrangement and rearrangement of atoms.
    evolutionnews.org

    While I don't know that this article addresses the question directly, my go-to article on chance and randomness in Epicurean theory is:


    And this quote below (as well as the title "Science" vs.....) is why I reject the blanket benediction of the word "science" (without reference to the specific who and how and why and explanation of the "science") as well as the idea that the "big bang" answers anything. As Epicurus asked his teachers, What existed before the "big bang? Where did the big bang come from? And what about the space beyond that which is currently observeable?"

    Quote from "A Crumbling Foundation" (?)

    But the old fallback is not as reliable as it once seemed. The first crack was the discovery of cosmic expansion, just a few decades after Darwin proposed his theory. After more than two thousand years of Epicurean influence, and contrary to the assurances of mainstream physicists at the time, it turned out that the universe was not eternal, and probably not infinite. That meant it was no longer a given that any improbability could be explained by the sheer size and age of the universe.

  • Opening of SETI / Space Exploration Forum

    I'm now getting concerned that Don won't live long enough to see the Moon and/or Mars colonized, so I better keep up my posts in this forum so that we keep track of the technology and coax it along!

    You’ve Probably Never Considered Taking An Airship To Orbit
    There have been all kinds of wild ideas to get spacecraft into orbit. Everything from firing huge cannons to spinning craft at rapid speed has been posited,…
    hackaday.com

  • What Determines That Which Is Possible And That Which is Impossible?

    I don't want that last comment of mine to sound snippy. I got interrupted in writing it and meant to add reference to the fact that this issue happens over and over and as much in the ethics and canonics as in the physics. Epicurus' enemies were only too happy to take his comments out of context and make them appear ridiculous, so we always need to be on the lookout for alternate explanations of things that appear incorrect, to see if the error is really in Epicurus or in the interpretation.

    Sometimes of course Epicurus is definitely wrong, but generally any errors are in precise application due to lack of information and technology, while the general reasoning behind the scenes is (and remains) valid.

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

What's the best strategy for finding things on EpicureanFriends.com? Here's a suggested search strategy:

  • First, familiarize yourself with the list of forums. The best way to find threads related to a particular topic is to look in the relevant forum. Over the years most people have tried to start threads according to forum topic, and we regularly move threads from our "general discussion" area over to forums with more descriptive titles.
  • Use the "Search" facility at the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere." Also check the "Search Assistance" page.
  • Use the "Tag" facility, starting with the "Key Tags By Topic" in the right hand navigation pane, or using the "Search By Tag" page, or the "Tag Overview" page which contains a list of all tags alphabetically. We curate the available tags to keep them to a manageable number that is descriptive of frequently-searched topics.