Posts by Cassius

I think this is a very good topic. Let's be careful and stay away from hot-button modern political issues but I do think it's important to distinguish the type of activity we're talking about feeling guilty about. "Disobeying god" would be a cause of feeling guilt that would be rejectable by an Epicurean out of hand.

On the other hand causing certain kinds of unnecessary pain to someone else whom you value would likely be much more clearly a reason to feel bad oneself in a way that could be labeled "feeling guilty." "Guilt" in the sense of "blame" makes sense to me and "praise and blame" seems to be such a common situation that it is mentioned in the letter to Menoeceus.

Good issue for thought. My first thoughts:

Quote from wbernys

the perhaps downplayed it because "guilt-driven" morality was mostly framed in a religious context like with Stoic and Platonist talk of violating divine reason and "feeling of guilt" not being universal enough for him (obviously psychopaths and masochists exist)

I wouldn't think the universality or lack thereof would have been as central. More central would be - as you mention - the falsity of the religious / divine reason context of "guilt." I don't think Epicurus would embrace something he knew to be false regardless of its alleged practical benefits. And Diogenes of Oinoanda makes pretty much the exact point that the threats of religion do not in fact work out in practice.

I think you and I are on essentially the same wavelength Eikadistes. Epicurus is saying that there is a mechanism going on in the human brain which senses or conceptualizes or recognizes a partter as "divinity." It's as improper to reject the existence of that mechanism as it would be to reject the feelings of pleasure or pain or sight and sound. Epicurus participated in ceremonies (at least in some way) and had a view of a "true piety." But seemingly never once endorsed a specific statement about the actions of an individual god, and the fact that he may have made general references in an allegorical way (as did Lucretius) to a Zeus or a Venus don't conflict with that.

As to whether they were talking past each other in the ancient world I am not sure. However I think we can say that's happening today. It's one thing to specifically reject Allah or Jehovah or some other specific assertion about a particular god. I feel sure that Epicurus would agree with rejecting all those assertions. But "modern atheism" seems to be stuck in the same pattern of dismissing all talk of any kind of "gods" whatsoever as improper. Maybe worse, modern atheists also seem to consider all talk of divinity to be essentially a disease or a sickness. That is the equivalent of seeing pleasure or pain as a disease or a sickness instead of being inherent parts of our nature as human beings to be understood and developed properly.

So I'd say as an analogy that Epicurus would say that it's as insane to reject all discussion of divinity as it would be to reject all discussion of pleasure and pain.

This is an area where Epicurus has a lot to teach many people with whom most of us here agree on many things. In many cases the the modern diagnosis of the problems caused by religion are less advanced than was the diagnosis of Epicurus 2000 years ago.

It's not a matter of protecting oneself from religious zealots by playing along with their fantasies. The more important issue is to work with human nature, rather than against it.

Those who don't dive deeper into understanding Epicurus' precise views of things are likely to be taken aback by the fact (reported by Philodemus) that Epicurus "railed against" and "questioned the very sanity" of atheists. (Quoted by Philodemus, Piet. col. 19, Obbink 1996, 142-143.

Many readers of Epicurus are atheists and don't like this position, and they are even willing to resort to the argument that Epicurus was "playing it safe" so as to avoid the fate of Socrates and Anaxagorus. I categorically reject that explanation and think it's insulting to Epicurus and to anyone who takes Epicurus seriously.

But it's also on its face insufficient to say that Epicurus held that "there are gods because everyone things there are." What is meant by "gods" and what is meant by "everyone thinks there are."

I'm starting this thread so we'll have a prominent place to collect references and arguments as to why, from Epicurus' point of view, those who flatly and totally deny the existence of all gods are essentially insane.

And if they are insane, in what constitutes sanity?

Although it doesn't focus on this issue there is a lot of good background information about this topic in David Sedley's "The Atheist Underground", which is what prompted this thread now.

Of course Epicurus' larger position on the nature of divinity is explained in greatest length by Velleius in Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," so pending further discussion that's the best source of the answer.

KevinC tells us:

Hi, Cassius:

I have a bachelor's degree in Classics and know Latin and Greek. I have been reading Lucretius and Epicurus' letters, kyriai doxai and fragments on and off over the years. Look forward to the exchange on the site! Thanks!

Welcome KevinC

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!

Happy Birthday to Hyakinthos! Learn more about Hyakinthos and say happy birthday on Hyakinthos's timeline: Hyakinthos

Is there more to this idea of dichotomy of control that we ought to include here? Separating those things that are "within our control" from those that are "not in our control" is one thing. But after you have the two categories, what are you supposed to do with them?

In going through Cicero's arguments about virtue it's clearly important to separate out virtue (as being under our control) vs other "goods" (which really don't even deserve the name as "good"). But to me the term "dichotomy of control" seems to omit some essential aspects without which it rings to me like "hammer" or "screwdriver."

What are we supposed to do with it and why?

Happy Birthday to D Campbell! Learn more about D Campbell and say happy birthday on D Campbell's timeline: D Campbell

Quote from Don

Which in a sense is everyone who's on the forum. Well played!

In a very strong sense. The purpose and benefit of the forum is to allow us to communicate with and be inspired by like-minded people. There are many other regular contributors who could have been listed, and I would name Kochiekoch and Patrikios and DaveT and Eikadistes and Pacatus and Raphael Raul among them.

Further, there are those who do not post regularly in public, but who either by private conversation or simply by showing up regularly on our recent visitors list let us know that they are interested in what the forum is doing. In this last group I won't try to name names but they know who they are.

But I do want to single out Eikadistes for special mention. Among all of us who pursue Epicurean philosophy, Eikadistes is the one who has set up his own website, prepared very substantive original materials, published them, and generally become and independent source of Epicurean learning. There are many different approaches among those of us who are really "into" the study of Epicurus. What Eikadistes has done in pursuing an independent path without unnecessary negativity about the path of others is an example that deserves special consideration for what all of us might do in our own ways.

Great catches Bryan. That's a clear explanation of what was going through the minds of a lot of people - and not just Epicurus. We don't tend to think that way today, but i can certainly see the logic of it. I would not want to bet my life that there is not an element of truth to the concept, even if we might today explain the affects of objects on each other in a different way.

Thank you for preparing that Kalosyni and thank you for all the work YOU did in 2025 as well!

This week we resume our focus on Lucretius starting at line 102 of Book One.

Quote from Lucretius Book One (Bailey)

You yourself sometime vanquished by the fearsome threats of the seer’s sayings, will seek to desert from us. Nay indeed, how many a dream may they even now conjure up before you, which might avail to overthrow your schemes of life, and confound in fear all your fortunes.

And justly so: for if men could see that there is a fixed limit to their sorrows, then with some reason they might have the strength to stand against the scruples of religion, and the threats of seers. As it is there is no means, no power to withstand, since everlasting is the punishment they must fear in death. For they know not what is the nature of the soul, whether it is born or else finds its way into them at their birth, and again whether it is torn apart by death and perishes with us, or goes to see the shades of Orcus and his waste pools, or by the gods’ will implants itself in other breasts, as our own Ennius sang, who first bore down from pleasant Helicon the wreath of deathless leaves, to win bright fame among the tribes of Italian peoples. And yet despite this, Ennius sets forth in the discourse of his immortal verse that there is besides a realm of Acheron, where neither our souls nor bodies endure, but as it were images pale in wondrous wise; and thence he tells that the form of Homer, ever green and fresh, rose to him, and began to shed salt tears, and in converse to reveal the nature of things.

I've only gotten through only the first 5 or so minutes so far but I definitely agree with you so far Matteng. What he's describing in what I am seeing is definitely reflective of this Epicurean / anti-Epicurean split. Thanks for posting this. He's calling it emotivist but it's basically just pleasure and pain in other words.

However I also have to say this: I personally find this method of presentation to be the kind of "academic" / intellectualist approach on which the British have an eternal and unchallengeable trademark. I personally find it to be a major turnoff, and I've built up the ability to tolerate it in small doses only after many years.

Watch the first five minutes, and if you can tolerate it there's a lot of good information here. But the tone reminds me of why so many "normal" people detest most philosophy, so be careful!

I have to apologize to @claire46 because I set up the account but did not finish approving it. That's now done so I'm tagging @claire46 to be sure a notification goes out. Glad to have you and welcome!

In this week's text Cicero is going to say "For I am persuaded that we are prepared and fortified sufficiently, by the disputations of the foregoing days, against our own death, or that of our friends, against grief and the other perturbations of the mind. But pain seems to be the sharpest adversary of virtue..."

In that regard I want us to return to Cicero's statement in the preceding section "for I do not apprehend how past pleasures can allay present evils"

As I mentioned in the thread to last week's episode, this is a direct challenge for us to give our best reasoning to support the use of pleasures (of the past, present, or future) to "offset" or "array against" current pains.

• Quote

  Nor did he take any trouble to provide himself with those remedies which might have enabled him to bear pain; such as firmness of mind, a shame of doing anything base, exercise, and the habit of patience, precepts of courage, and a manly hardiness: but he says that he supports himself on the single recollection of past pleasures, as if any one, when the weather was so hot as that he was scarcely able to bear it, should comfort himself by recollecting that he was once in my country Arpinum, where he was surrounded on every side by cooling streams: for I do not apprehend how past pleasures can allay present evils. But when he says that a wise man is always happy, who would have no right to say so if he were consistent with himself, what may they not do, who allow nothing to be desirable, nothing to be looked on as good but what is honourable? Let, then, the Peripatetics and old Academics follow my example, and at length leave off muttering to themselves; and openly and with a clear voice let them be bold to say, that a happy life may not be inconsistent with the agonies of Phalaris's bull.

Welcome to Episode 315 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, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
   
We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week after Section 27 of Part 5.

Quote

XXVII.

But to dismiss the subtleties of the Stoics, which I am sensible I have employed more than was necessary, let us admit of three kinds of goods: and let them really be kinds of goods, provided no regard is had to the body, and to external circumstances, as entitled to the appellation of good in any other sense than because we are obliged to use them: but let those other divine goods spread themselves far in every direction, and reach the very heavens. Why, then, may I not call him happy, nay, the happiest of men, who has attained them? Shall a wise man be afraid of pain? which is, indeed, the greatest enemy to our opinion. For I am persuaded that we are prepared and fortified sufficiently, by the disputations of the foregoing days, against our own death, or that of our friends, against grief and the other perturbations of the mind. But pain seems to be the sharpest adversary of virtue: that it is which menaces us with burning torches; that it is which threatens to crush our fortitude, and greatness of mind, and patience. Shall virtue then yield to this? Shall the happy life of a wise and consistent man succumb to this? Good Gods! how base would this be! Spartan boys will bear to have their bodies torn by rods without uttering a groan. I myself have seen at Lacedæmon, troops of young men, with incredible earnestness contending together with their hands and feet, with their teeth and nails, nay even ready to expire, rather than own themselves conquered. Is any country of barbarians more uncivilized or desolate than India? Yet they have amongst them some that are held for wise men, who never wear any clothes all their life long, and who bear the snow of Caucasus, and the piercing cold of winter, without any pain: and who if they come in contact with fire endure being burned without a groan. The women too, in India, on the death of their husbands have a regular contest, and apply to the judge to have it determined which of them was best beloved by him; for it is customary there for one man to have many wives. She in whose favour it is determined exults greatly, and being attended by her relations is laid on the funeral pile with her husband: the others, who are postponed, walk away very much dejected. Custom can never be superior to nature: for nature is never to be got the better of. But our minds are infected by sloth and idleness, and luxury, and languor, and indolence: we have enervated them by opinions, and bad customs. Who is there who is unacquainted with the customs of the Egyptians? Their minds being tainted by pernicious opinions, they are ready to bear any torture, rather than hurt an ibis, a snake, a cat, a dog, or a crocodile: and should any one inadvertently have hurt any of these animals, he will submit to any punishment. I am speaking of men only. As to the beasts, do they not bear cold and hunger, running about in woods, and on mountains and deserts? will they not fight for their young ones till they are wounded? Are they afraid of any attacks or blows? I mention not what the ambitious will suffer for honour’s sake, or those who are desirous of praise on account of glory, or lovers to gratify their lust. Life is full of such instances.

Which I presume takes you back to needing to identify a list of core commonalities between you and the other prospective participants in a local society. unfortunately "we all just want to be happy" as a goal doesn't produce enough specificity when the meaning of "happy" and the path to get there have so many variations.

Is what you are talking about not basically a "Rotary" or "Lions" or "Kiwanis" or other "men's club?" And if so they have existing infrastructure that would help you get started?

Happy Birthday to AUtC! Learn more about AUtC and say happy birthday on AUtC's timeline: AUtC