Posts by Cassius

Both of these last comments by Kalosyni show to me how much there is to think through on these questions:

1 - *We* might consider that Cicero's choice of Torquatus as spokesman undermines Epicurus, but I would say that would mainly come from the preexisting mindset that we have, based on years of commentators drumming on "absence of pain" without explaining it the way Torquatus did. In the modern world they have created a drumbeat that Epicurus must have been a neoBuddhist, and anyone who says so is wrong -- even if the person who says so was taught by Epicurean teachers, had many Epicurean friends, was writing to a significantly Epicurean audience, and had a greater command of the source materials of Greek philosophy than we today will ever hope to have. Cicero likely felt just the opposite - that by using Torquatus as spokesman he was granting to Epicurean philosophy a vigor that he did not think that it had. These attitudes are a problem that can' be worked through overnight, and getting to the appreciation of how much Cicero knew in relation to how much we know takes a strong dose of humility.

2 - Many of these phrases have multiple meanings from multiple perspectives. What is stated here in (2) could be one of them, especially if you're stuck in a rut from failing to have properly understood and implemented Epicurean philosophy in the past. But if you've failed to the point where you are at such a point of desperation, you probably better question whether your latest insight is any better than the failed insights that got you where you are. Sometimes when you have dug yourself into a ditch of asceticism, the first thing to do might be to stop digging rather than seek justification for what you've already dug!

Quote from Kalosyni

I personally think every person should make their own substack. (I may create one, or may use another platform.) There must be a way to recommend other substack content, with a link.

Yes there are multiple ways to follow and share links, just like on other platforms. I am not sure I see a major difference between Substack and platforms that have come before it like Minds, or Medium, or many others. Maybe its unique strength is that it is set up for people to make money through selling subscriptions if they wish, which seems to be a "thing" nowadays. But substack seems to have a "buzz" around it, and everything I have seen so far indicates it has lots of features beyond that of past blogging platforms, so it's off to a fast start.

Elli's comment to the article at Facebook:

From Epicurus LTM we read (in parentheses are my comments to understand better what Epicurus meant):

"When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates (i.e. the addicted) and those that consist in sensuality (the addicted in sensuality e.g. those that want to make sex with whatever is moving and walking HA ), as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. FOR IT IS NOT THE CONTINUOUS drinkings (alcoholism) and revelings (orgies), nor the satisfaction of lusts (porno videos etc), nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table (a struggling to find the expensive and scarce things i.e. like the chian wine in the era of Philodemus) , (nor the cocaine, LSD and other drugs, nor the reading of books of stoicism ) are those things which produce a pleasant life, BUT SOBER REASONING, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit".

In the above excerpt Epicurus used one greek word that it has to be pointed out, it is the: "συνείροντες" that in english is given with the word "CONTINUOUS".

But really, with the above excerpt of LTM what Epicurus has in mind and what Epicurus had experienced-lived, and who are those that Epicurus photographed as profligates?

Historical facts :

In the same era of Epicurus lived Demetrius called as Poliorcetes = "The Besieger" the son of Antigonus I Monophthalmus and Stratonice. He was a Macedonian Greek military leader, and finally king of Macedon (294–288 BC). He belonged to the Antigonid dynasty and was its first member to rule Macedonia and Athens.

Demetrius the Besieger as the ancient Athenians told was he :

"Who abridged the whole year into a single month,"

and with reference to the quartering of the Parthenon:—

Who took the Acropolis for a caravansary,

And introduced to its virgin goddess (Athena) his courtesans."

Demetrius the Besieger was married five times:

- His first wife was Phila daughter of Regent Antipater by whom he had two children: Stratonice of Syria and Antigonus II Gonatas.

- His second wife was Eurydice of Athens, by whom he is said to have had a son called Corrhabus.

- His third wife was Deidamia, a sister of Pyrrhus of Epirus. Deidamia bore him a son called Alexander who is said by Plutarch to have spent his life in Egypt, probably in an honourable captivity.

- His fourth wife was Lanassa, the former wife of his brother-in-law Pyrrhus of Epirus.

-His fifth wife was Ptolemais, daughter of Ptolemy I Soter and Eurydice of Egypt, by whom he had a son called Demetrius the Fair.

- He also had an affair with a celebrated courtesan called Lamia of Athens, by whom he had a daughter called Phila. He demanded 250 talants from the Athenians, which he then gave to Lamia and other courtesans to buy soap and cosmetics.

From the Parallel Lives -The Life of Demetrius the Besieger, by Plutarch, we read :

<<So he (Demetrius) crossed the sea in safety with a great fleet, but as he was sailing along the coast of Attica he encountered a storm in which most of his ships were lost and a great number of men perished with them. He himself, however, escaped alive, and began a petty war against the Athenians. But since he could accomplish nothing, he sent men to collect another fleet for him, while he himself passed on into Peloponnesus and laid siege to Messene. Here, in an attack upon the walls, he came near losing his life; for a missile from a catapult struck him in the face and passed through his jaw into his mouth. But he recovered, and after restoring to their allegiance certain cities which had revolted from him, he invaded Attica again, got Eleusis and Rhamnus into his power, and ravaged the country. He also seized a ship laden with grain for Athens, and hung its supercargo and its master.

All other ships were thus frightened into turning back, and famine became acute in the city (of Athens), where, besides lack of food, there was dearth also of other things. At any rate, a bushel of salt sold there for forty drachmas, and a peck of wheat was worth three hundred. A slight respite was afforded the Athenians by the appearance off Aegina of a hundred and fifty ships which Ptolemy sent to assist them. Then numerous ships came to Demetrius from Peloponnesus, and many from Cyprus, so that his entire assemblage numbered three hundred, in consequence of which the ships of Ptolemy put off to sea in flight, and Lachares the tyrant abandoned the city and ran away.

Then the Athenians, although they had decreed death to anyone who should so much as mention peace and reconciliation with Demetrius, straightway threw open the nearest gates and sent ambassadors to him. They did not expect any kindly treatment from him, but were driven to the step by their destitution, in which, among many other grievous things, the following also is said to have occurred. A father and a son were sitting in a room and had abandoned all hope. Then a dead mouse fell from the ceiling, and the two, when they saw it, sprang up and fought with one another for it. 𝐀𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨, 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.>>.

As for Cicero... he was one of the most viciously and doggedly hunted among the proscribed. He was viewed with sympathy by a large segment of the public and many people refused to report that they had seen him. He was caught on 7 December 43 BC leaving his villa in Formiae in a litter heading to the seaside, where he hoped to embark on a ship destined for Macedonia.] When his killers – Herennius (a Centurion) and Popilius (a Tribune) – arrived, Cicero's own slaves said they had not seen him, but he was given away by Philologus, a freedman of his brother Quintus Cicero. Cicero about age 60, from a marble bust

As reported by Seneca the Elder, according to the historian Aufidius Bassus, Cicero's last words are said to have been:

Ego vero consisto. Accede, veterane, et, si hoc saltim potes recte facere, incide cervicem.

I go no further: approach, veteran soldier, and, if you can at least do so much properly, sever this neck.

He bowed to his captors, leaning his head out of the litter in a gladiatorial gesture to ease the task. By baring his neck and throat to the soldiers, he was indicating that he would not resist. According to Plutarch, Herennius first slew him, then cut off his head. On Antony's instructions his hands, which had penned the Philippics against Antony, were cut off as well; these were nailed along with his head on the Rostra in the Forum Romanum according to the tradition of Marius and Sulla, both of whom had displayed the heads of their enemies in the Forum. Cicero was the only victim of the proscriptions who was displayed in that manner. According to Cassius Dio, in a story often mistakenly attributed to Plutarch, Antony's wife Fulvia took Cicero's head, pulled out his tongue, and jabbed it repeatedly with her hairpin in final revenge against Cicero's power of speech.

Cicero's career as a statesman was marked by inconsistencies and a tendency to shift his position in response to changes in the political climate. His indecision may be attributed to his sensitive and impressionable personality; he was prone to overreaction in the face of political and private change.

"Would that he had been able to endure prosperity with greater self-control, and adversity with more fortitude!" wrote C. Asinius Pollio, a contemporary Roman statesman and historian.

--------------------------------

Finally for Cicero and any Cicero, Epicurus adds: To live well and die well is the same issue. Would that he (Cicero) had been able to study better the Epicurean philosophy for understanding perfectly when we (epicureans) speak for pleasure what we really mean... as well as to see clearly the causes of the details on the phenomena of his era, and where was the deepest causes of the decline of Roman Empire: 𝐢𝐧 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐬' 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐲-𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐒, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐬' 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞.

My view is that all of us who are motivated to do so should pursue each and every outlet that we can, so yes i would encourage everyone to open their own substack and blog and twitter and other social media accounts and publish their own work. Creative production like that is the best way I have found to internalize the philosophy.

Realistically though, not everyone is going to be willing or able to do that. It's easy enough to post here in a friendly environment without a lot of friction, and that will probably always make the most sense for the most people. But just the same, some of us will have the time and motivation to work on occasional longer articles, and if we bundle them together through an Epicureanfriends substack (and maybe similar venues, as they arise) then they can get more exposure than they would otherwise.

I doubt that most postings on substack will be as long and involved one as this first one on absence of pain, so they don't have to be novels, just stand-alone substantive pieces that fit the theme of what we're doing here.

First, I am glad I posted this on Super Bowl night - hopefully only a few people read it before I went through and made some more edits.

Second, ABSOLUTELY I would consider some "guest" articles, both at Substack and here as a backup.

I am going to try to work on producing one substantive article at least every week or two, and the best way to do that is likely to comment on what we're discussing here at the forum.

I seem to remember you (Don) had a list of projects in the hopper and it would be great to get them on substack. I am thinking that the relationship that makes the most sense is that we will always continue the primary ongoing discussion here at the forum in "forum" format, but as we talk through subjects we develop them into summaries that look more like "articles" which we can feature here and there.

Both formats have their uses, and of course that's what my first substack article was - a sort of master summary of ideas we've been talking about for months as we have gone through "On Ends."

I would welcome anyone here who is regular enough to be a level 3 or above to consider tacking "article-length" projects that we can publish outside the forum. Many of our regular posts are good enough already, and we just need to curate them and "push" them outside into the world of substack and beyond.

Of course it's easy for anyone to post their own articles at substack, but hopefully we will end up with some number of subscribers who find the "Epicureanfriends" stack, and we can certainly post there anyone's Epicurean articles that fit the format.

Oh I should be very clear! It is set to be a free account so there is no fee for the subscription required!

For quite a while I have wanted to explore the use of Substack, so I have opened a new account and written a longer-form article as my first post there. I have also posted the same article here, as this forum will always remain the primary place where I think we can make progress on understanding the philosophy of Epicurus.

For those of you using substack, the address of the new article is here:

A Gate To Be Burst: "Absence of Pain"

It is interesting to think about what Lucretius had in mind in Book One of “On The Nature of Things” when he spoke about Epicurus "yearning to be the first to…

epicureanfriends.substack.com

For those who would like to access it here, the link is:

Blog Article

A Gate To Be Burst: "Absence of Pain"

It is interesting to think about what Lucretius had in mind in Book One of “On The Nature of Things” when he spoke about Epicurus "yearning to be the first to burst through the close-set bolts upon the gates of nature." What kind of gates was he talking about? Who bolted them? How do those gates keep us from Nature?

I can't be sure which gates Lucretius had in mind, but I can suggest one "gate" that is particularly in need of bursting, as it stands directly in the way of a better understanding…

Cassius

February 11, 2024 at 6:20 AM

It's rather lengthy and though I have revised it several times already, it certainly could be improved. However I think it's ready to add to our efforts outside this forum, so it's going up now.

Thanks for reading!

Here is something that I think is closely related to this topic:

Nothing irritates me more than reading academics accuse Epicurus of hypocrisy in writing a last will and testament when supposedly death should have been "nothing" to him.

No community which does not provide for continuity, reproduction, rearing, and education of children and the institutions that support that (such as marriage and families and similar long-term extension of 'friendship') can possibly be self-sustaining over any length of time. It is simply not true that "everyone" does or can ever love everyone indiscriminately such as the monotheistic religions preach everyone as children of the same god. People naturally associate with people of similar disposition to themselves, and there are many different types of dispositions, and those of similar disposition can sustain themselves only by working together to do so.

It seems to me that Epicurus' will clearly establishes that he was well aware of these issues, and those who respect his example ought to be doing similar things.

As I see it there is far too much "consumerism" in Epicurean philosophy as well, which results in treating it as a sort of happiness pill that can be taken once or periodically and then go about your normal modern-world business as if what you have learned has no practical applications.

Ideas go hand in hand with action and one is useless without the other. Most of what would come under an "Epicurean religion" in my mind is just the practical application of Epicurean viewpoints to real life. Not smoke and mirrors and incantations and white gowns and untranslated words and incense and bowing and asceticism and minimization and zeroed-out minds and transcendental meditation, but clear-sighted active use of the time one has to make one's life the most emotionally satisfying (which means pleasing) it can be.

Such people are strong and independent and self-sufficient, but still recognize that there are things that bind them together with their friends that they cannot live happily without cultivating and working to ensure their continuity. If "res-ligio" is taken as a reference to things that bind, then our lives and societies require habits and practices and institutions to bind them together just like our bodies require ligaments to bind our bones and muscles and keep the body functioning. "Ideas" can't do that without action.

Quote from Godfrey

For me, reclaiming words such as "spiritual" is a valuable exercise.

Quote from Bryan

"which instead of ignoring or doubting it, I now think I see vividly.

Let me too try to engage on the precise issue, which I see as something like "describing the valid uses and meanings of the word 'spirituality'"

I see "spirituality" as validly describing a the experience of a very strong and clear feeling of respect and reverence and affection for something. I see it as validly describing an experience that at times is a strong feeling of respect and reverence is directed at other life forms, or at the stars or other "majestic" appearances of nature or other aspects of reality.

I see "spirituality" as invalidly used to describe an attitude of considering something as supernatural, or un-real, or wishfui thinking about things that do not exist.

A smell, for instance can trigger legitimate connections of memory with past good experiences or with particular people or places. Smells can also be used to induce reactions that are close to be psychotic.

A lot of this turns on the issue of whether the feeling being experienced heightens the senses and the thought processes in a realistic way toward greater effectiveness, or whether it deadens the senses and induces feelings of mechanical obedience and suppression of one's own mental activity in favor of some wished-for but not real un-real or un-worldly state of existence.

Experience of a deep and effective mental clarity and appreciation for the immensity of existence and the workings of nature, and of one's connectedness and appreciation for other living beings which enhances one's ability to participate in this universe is a very good thing, Experience of deadening and suspension of mental clarity and appreciation for reality for the purposes of inducing obedience and submission is a very bad thing.

I base all of this on the starting point that it is a core Epicurean perspective to see life as desirable and pleasure as "good," combined with the realization that life is short and for an eternity before our birth we did not exist, and for an eternity after death we exist no more. Further, there is no wishful thinking 'supernatural" justification for our existence - our existence needs no justification more than the sun or the moon need. If one keeps those kinds of perspective in mind then you don't fall into nihilism and you develop close and emotionally strong ties to the things that are most important in sustaining your existence and happiness.

And among the most important things that help you in sustaining that happy life are those who have taught you and supported you in sustaining that experience, among whom it is legitimate to consider both historic leaders such as Epicurus, such real people as you yourself have come into contact, and such mental expectations of reality that you experience in at least mental form in your ability to visualize a beings who are able to sustain this kind of existence in perpetuity while overcoming any obstacles it may encounter.

(In that last case I wrote plural "beings" because there is good evidence to believe that it was a core observation that "nature never makes only a single thing of a kind," and thus it would not be expected that there is a single "god" but instead numberless "gods" throughout the eternal and infinite universe.)

If a person does not take steps to develop habits and regular activities to exercise the mind in these directions, it is too easy to fall prey to discouragement and nihilism, just like it is too easy to start imagining that there are supernatural gods if one looks up at the night sky but dues not apply wisdom to start with "nothing comes from nothing" and to process in one's own mind the issues of beginnings and eternality and infinity. This is not dry "science" but the emotional appreciation of what it means to you as a person to be a part of this.

I would then project based on the above that Epicurus would have seen a proper "religion" as a set of institutions and habits and activities which reinforce the practical ability to keep strong one's experience of these perspectives.

Quote from Pacatus

Kudos to those who are still fighting the good fight over such things outside that Christian context, with other words. Kudos to you on that score (and others, like Don). But sometimes, my own baggage is such that I don’t feel the need. Better for me to move on.

It seems to me it is perfectly legitimate to have a "division of labor" and to recognize that some people are more comfortable with some approaches than others. But just because "some people" are uncomfortable does not mean that everyone has to do things the same way. These differences have to be respected and no one forced into anything they re not ready to agree to, but on the other hand there is plenty of room for those who want to go their own way to do so.

It's a fact that the Epicurean "movement" of 2000 years ago did not survive, and some part of the responsibility for that lack of survival has to be laid at their feet for failing to find ways to adapt to less favorable situations. I am not blaming them and I am sure they did what they thought was best, but the bottom line is that they failed to maintain an unbroken organizational trail, so those who pick up after them have to adapt to current circumstances, and also consider what might have been done differently in the past that might have contributed to the problems that occurred.

The decline and fall of the ancient world took a very long time and was not inevitable, nor was it brought about by supernatural powers.

OK I may have to moderate some of these comments but I don't think any offense was meant on any side so for now I am not. You guys are on the same path so let's work together for the greater goal of what I think we're all seeing are the benefits of working through the reconstruction of these ideas! We all need to be slow to anger when we are dealing with friends. Rather than promoting artificial ideas of universal brotherly love, I think Epicurus would approve the "no better friend, no worse enemy" way of looking at things. Certainly in life there comes a time when some people actually are enemies, and we have to realize that, as clearly stated in the principal doctines and a number of other places about people being well-constituted/disposed toward us. The people in this forum who have been promoted to level three are all on the same team or they wouldn't be level three (or remain for very long!) And just like friends don't hold money in communist form as that is not the way friends work, friends need to cut each other a lot of slack and be slow to anger and to take offense.

It seems to me that while Epicurus was willing to repurpose words with mixed definitions, he was not (or could not) have been unaware of the likelihood of confusion. I would think this is where we suffer from the missing of texts and we have to recreate what "must" have been there, which is the means of explaining the differences in the terms.

Given the way that Cicero was framing the dispute in 50BC I admit the possibility that maybe the ancient Epicureans did not pay sufficient attention to this, but I cannot conceive that they were unaware of the need to communicate clearly, given what Epicurus said in the letter to Herodotus and the presumption that Epicurus and the other Epicureans were considerate people and used good common sense.

We are going to need to recreate what "must have" existed to explain these issues.

Quote from Cyrano

But for the problem you produced for me I have a simple solution. I need only make the minutest change in my article: I'll merely add a question mark to the title

I was thinking of asking you to do that and I appreciate you did it without asking! :-). Your good humor is very welcome!

Quote from Martin

Materialism and monism should be compatible. According to Epicurus, the soul is closely associated with the body. This is monism, too, in my understanding. There may be other aspects of monism which are not directly related to Epicurus' philosophy.

Yes it would be useful to get a clear fix on Epicurus and monism. While Epicurus would appear to clearly hold that the soul/spirit is physical, this group of "monists" below is far from Epicurean. It is tempting to say that while both have materialism in common, Atomism is the OPPOSITE of monism, with many and varied implications of that difference. Might it be possible that an equal or better case could be made that Spinoza was among the greatest STOICS of them all?

Monistic philosophers

Pre-Socratic[edit]

While the lack of information makes it difficult in some cases to be sure of the details, the following pre-Socratic philosophers thought in monistic terms:^[25]

• Thales: Water
• Anaximander: Apeiron (meaning 'the undefined infinite'). Reality is some, one thing, but we cannot know what.
• Anaximenes of Miletus: Air
• Heraclitus: Change, symbolized by fire (in that everything is in constant flux).
• Parmenides: Being or Reality is an unmoving perfect sphere, unchanging, undivided.^[26]

Post-Socrates[edit]

• Neopythagorians such as Apollonius of Tyana centered their cosmologies on the Monad or One.
• Stoics taught that there is only one substance, identified as God.^[27]
• Middle Platonism under such works as those by Numenius taught that the Universe emanates from the Monad or One.
• Neoplatonism is monistic. Plotinus taught that there was an ineffable transcendent god, 'The One,' of which subsequent realities were emanations. From The One emanates the Divine Mind (Nous), the Cosmic Soul (Psyche), and the World (Cosmos).

I will have to check into Vardoulakis so thank you. In the meantime I skimmed through Wikipedia, and rather than saying that Spinoza was among the greatest Epicureans of all, I have to begin to question whether Spinoza should be considered an Epicurean at all. Before I go further, nothing I am about to write takes away from my praise of your writing or the benefit that discussing this brings to us here in the forum. Distinguishing others who did not claim forthrightly to be Epicurean from those who did helps us understand the differences in ideas much better. Right now I don't know what Spinoza said himself about Epicurus, but the best way to attack these questions is to lay out the ideas of Epicurus and see how many of them and to what extent Spinoza (or anyone else) agreed. Here's a start:

I will work on updating this when I have more time to go through some of the source materials, but if Spinoza's main resemblance to Epicurus was that he was a "materialist" (and a monist, not an atomist, at that) then I am inclined to think at the moment that a good case could be made that on most core issues of philosophy, Spinoza may not have been an Epicurean at all.

We'll see, but I want to repeat that going through philosophers like this and examining how they compare to Epicurus on points of doctrine is a very helpful exercise.

I am sure the first drafts of this chart will need massive revision as my background in Spinoza is close to zero other than being aware of his name. I will update the chart as I have time and as others may provide cites.

Welcome, and can we look forward to reading your thesis at some point?

As always your writing is excellent Cyrano, and that was very enjoyable to read!

Do we have specific commentary by Spinoza about Epicurus? Not every materialist qualifies as an Epicurean, as the Epicureans displayed in the criticism of Democritus. Where would Spinoza fit in relation to Democritus in terms of skepticism and determinsim, two anathemas to Epicurus? I am certainly aware of Spinoza's reputation but have never studied him closely.

Welcome ataraktosalexandros

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 72 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 / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

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 some 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 other viewpoints, 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 by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal 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 have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard 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!

Pacatus and others -

Let me talk to the other moderators about this and until then please conduct the investigative part of this discussion in private conversations or email or the SofE website or Facebook page. If we get too far into comparing the details of the organizations then we are bound to end up with some negativity one way or the other that won't advance the goals of our discussion forum. Perhaps at some point the moderators can get together and talk about how to present this, but til then let's hold off the public comparisons.

It has seemed to me for a long time - and still does - that the differences between the two approaches are very obvious. All one really has to do is review that 2019 thread as we linked above, and read our FAQ entry, or glance through Hiram's "Tending the Epicurean Garden." Some people will find themselves more comfortable with the eclectic and Humanist/Buddhist-friendly approach they find at Society of Epicurus, and some will reject that and be more comfortable with the approach we spell out very clearly here. Perhaps at some point the FAQ will bear a little more expansion to make the differences easier to find, but negativity from either side is unlikely to be helpful to anyone.

One thing that might change my mind is if I heard someone say "Gee I wasted a lot of time that you could have saved me." But that hasn't been raised as an issue yet, and in fact being confronted with the differences oneself is a very educational experience in sifting through the nuances of what Epicurus really taught.

Pacatus it would not be appropriate for me to speak for her or about Elayne's reasons for leaving other than to say that she posted about pursuing her own initiatives, and to say that she would always be welcome back. You are right to point out that her positions in that thread to which you pointed (which is linked in our FAQ on the Society of Epicurus) were very well made.