1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Site Map
    6. Quizzes
    7. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    8. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Physics Wiki
    5. Canonics Wiki
    6. Ethics Wiki
    7. Search Assistance
    8. Not NeoEpicurean
    9. Foundations
    10. Navigation Outlines
    11. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Uncategorized Forum
    7. Study Resources Forum
    8. Ancient Texts Forum
    9. Shortcuts
    10. Featured
    11. Most Discussed
  4. Latest
    1. New Activity
    2. Latest Threads
    3. Dashboard
    4. Search By Tag
    5. Complete Tag List
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Sayings
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. Calendar
    1. Upcoming Events List
    2. Zoom Meetings
    3. This Month
    4. Sunday Zoom Meetings
    5. First Monday Zoom Meetings
    6. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    7. Twentieth Zoom Meetings
    8. Zoom Meetings
  9. Other
    1. Featured Content
    2. Blog Posts
    3. Files
    4. Logbook
    5. EF ToDo List
    6. Link-Database
  • Login
  • Register
  • Search
Everywhere
  • Everywhere
  • Forum
  • Articles
  • Blog Articles
  • Files
  • Gallery
  • Events
  • Pages
  • Wiki
  • Help
  • FAQ
  • More Options

Welcome To EpicureanFriends.com!

"Remember that you are mortal, and you have a limited time to live, and in devoting yourself to discussion of the nature of time and eternity you have seen things that have been, are now, and are to come."

Sign In Now
or
Register a new account
  1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Site Map
    6. Quizzes
    7. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    8. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Physics Wiki
    5. Canonics Wiki
    6. Ethics Wiki
    7. Search Assistance
    8. Not NeoEpicurean
    9. Foundations
    10. Navigation Outlines
    11. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Uncategorized Forum
    7. Study Resources Forum
    8. Ancient Texts Forum
    9. Shortcuts
    10. Featured
    11. Most Discussed
  4. Latest
    1. New Activity
    2. Latest Threads
    3. Dashboard
    4. Search By Tag
    5. Complete Tag List
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Sayings
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. Calendar
    1. Upcoming Events List
    2. Zoom Meetings
    3. This Month
    4. Sunday Zoom Meetings
    5. First Monday Zoom Meetings
    6. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    7. Twentieth Zoom Meetings
    8. Zoom Meetings
  9. Other
    1. Featured Content
    2. Blog Posts
    3. Files
    4. Logbook
    5. EF ToDo List
    6. Link-Database
  1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Site Map
    6. Quizzes
    7. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    8. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Physics Wiki
    5. Canonics Wiki
    6. Ethics Wiki
    7. Search Assistance
    8. Not NeoEpicurean
    9. Foundations
    10. Navigation Outlines
    11. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Uncategorized Forum
    7. Study Resources Forum
    8. Ancient Texts Forum
    9. Shortcuts
    10. Featured
    11. Most Discussed
  4. Latest
    1. New Activity
    2. Latest Threads
    3. Dashboard
    4. Search By Tag
    5. Complete Tag List
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Sayings
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. Calendar
    1. Upcoming Events List
    2. Zoom Meetings
    3. This Month
    4. Sunday Zoom Meetings
    5. First Monday Zoom Meetings
    6. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    7. Twentieth Zoom Meetings
    8. Zoom Meetings
  9. Other
    1. Featured Content
    2. Blog Posts
    3. Files
    4. Logbook
    5. EF ToDo List
    6. Link-Database
  1. EpicureanFriends - Home of Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  2. Cassius
  • Sidebar
  • Sidebar

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!
  • Welcome Asclepiades !

    • Cassius
    • August 27, 2023 at 4:59 PM
    Quote from Asclepiades

    a research master in philosophy, specializing in Epicurean physics.

    With that background you certainly ought to be able to contribute a lot!! ;)

    Welcome aboard.

  • Episode 189 - "Epicurus And His Philosophy" Part 41 - Chapter 15 - Extension, Submergence, & Revival 04

    • Cassius
    • August 27, 2023 at 12:55 PM

    Thanks for these updates Joshua! Some of these, especially Valla and Raimondi, we need to find the texts and post them in our Texts section. Will work on that.

  • Welcome Asclepiades !

    • Cassius
    • August 26, 2023 at 4:46 PM

    Welcome Asclepiades !

    Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, new registrants must respond here in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their account is subject to deletion. Please introduce yourself -- tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism, a little about yourself, 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.

    1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
    2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
    3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
    4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
    5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
    6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
    7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
    8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
    9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
    10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
    11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
    12. "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.

    Click HERE for a full list of our community standards. 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!


    &thumbnail=medium

    ?thumbnail=medium

    ?thumbnail=medium

  • Comparing "Pleasure = Absence of Pain" to "Body = Absence of Void;" A Cite to Lucretius 1:503

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 8:47 PM

    My thoughts on this are spurred by what I did this afternoon. For years I have been kicking myself that I did not have a better "topical index" or "table of contents" for finding things in Lucretius. I have had a rough outline, but it wasn't keyed to line numbers and was not much help in finding things. And it really bugs me to have to say that "I remember that's in Lucretius but I can't remember where!"

    So to help burn this in my memory and create a better reference for everyone, I am going to go through as quickly as I can an update my existing index with line references and better summaries. Today I completed Book One. I hope to spend this weekend getting as far as possible with the rest.

    Lucretius - Editions And Topical Finding Aid

    From this review of the explanation of how Epicurus derives the existence of matter and void, it's clear that he's using what Dewitt calls "chain reasoning." He's making observations about how things work, such as nothing is seen to come from nothing, and using those observations of what IS visible to make deductions about what IS NOT visible, and then carrying forward the reasoning from there all the way to "no supernatural gods" and "no eternal soul surviving death" and of course many other things. And by the time he reaches those conclusions, he considers them iron-clad and no longer open to doubt, so he asserts them firmly and without equivocation. I would expect that Epicurus saw PD01 as complimentary and supporting of the physics reasoning about no supernatural gods, rather than that PDO1 stands on its own as sufficient proof of the position. Likewise the physics point would not stand alone to establish that there are no higher beings that are capable of meddling in our affairs (like we are meddling in the affairs of the Moon and Mars), but the anticipation/prolepsis point would establish that any beings that do meddle don't merit being considered truly blessed and imperishable beings (regardless of whether they are natural or not).

    It seems to me to be super important to observe that he's not starting with a conclusion ("there are no supernatural gods"). Rather, he's starting with evidence from observation from which he makes deductions and then builds those deductions as they naturally flow to a conclusion that is compelled not by desire or arbitrary assumption but by sound reasoning.

    I would expect him to do exactly the same thing as to pleasure and pain. He would not assert that pleasure and pain are mutually exclusive unless he had some kind of framework of reasoning to support the contention. We can observe how we feel about pleasure and pain, but we can't directly observe the mechanism of action any more than we can directly observe the atoms and the void. So we can deduce how pleasure and pain "must" operate, just like we can deduce how the atoms "must" operate, in order to create the world as we live it.

    The same reasoning that would make Epicurus comfortable to state dogmatically that matter and void never mix would make him comfortable stating that pain and pleasure never mix. The experience of the world dictates what we conclude about atoms and void, even though we can't see them directly, and the experience of living dictates what we conclude about pleasure and pain, even though we don't see atoms of pleasure or pain at work. That experience combined with "true reasoning" is the best standard of proof we can hope to obtain.

    So a preliminary way of stating where this might lead would be to say that the same knowledge that tells us all bodies are composed of combinations of atoms and void tells us also that all feelings are composed of combinations of pleasure and pain, with each element always remaining discrete and true to its own nature, but moving and combining in different ways to produce something new. The mix of atoms and void produces bodies, the mix of pleasure and pain produces our overall experience (including happiness or unhappiness).

    But the first point that would seem clear is that if we can use our reasoning to conclude that all of the universe is composed of atoms and void, and of nothing but atoms and void, then we can use similar reasoning to conclude that all of human experience is composed of pleasure and pain, and of nothing but pleasure and pain.

    With the result that we can be dogmatically certain and insistent that just like where there is an atom there is no void and where there is void there is no atom, we can say that where there is pleasure there is no pain, and where there is pain there is no pleasure. And if Torquatus and the Epicureans were approaching the issue that way, then no matter how many ridiculous examples that Chryssippus or Cicero constructed to try to prove that there are more feelings than pleasure or pain, the Epicureans would **never** agree to such a suggestion.

    There are only two components to the universe, atoms and void, and there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain. From basically that starting point, combined with the commitment to following the evidence of the senses/anticipations/feelings, you can deduce the rest of the physics and deduce the rest of the ethics.

    Perhaps a similar analogous transfer of reasoning from one branch of the philosophy to another one in PD28?

    PD28. The same knowledge that makes one confident that nothing dreadful is eternal or long-lasting also recognizes, in the face of these limited evils, the security afforded by friendship.

    And potentially another transfer from physics to ethics in PD09 (the parallel being that in the same way that atoms cannot be unlimited in quantity or size, or else one or more atoms would fill up the universe and nothing could move, individual pleasures must be limited in experience, or else there would be no room for other pleasures to be experienced):

    PD09. If every pleasure could be intensified so that it lasted, and influenced the whole organism or the most essential parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another.

    As another example, could we not compare these two similar statements:

    (1) "Atoms come in numberless varieties, but we have the capacity through our senses to recognize the qualities of the bodies which they come together to form."

    (2) "Experiences come in numberless varieties, but we have the capacity through our feelings of pleasure and pain to recognize the qualities of the lives which they come together to form."

    In both cases, we are accepting the validity of our faculty of perceiving (the senses as to atoms and void and the feelings as to pleasure and pain) because these are the only faculties given to us by nature for use in these areas. (With the anticipations being the faculty which allows us to integrate all this into words, without which we could not be having this discussion.) We aren't claiming to understand every detail about how the five senses or the feelings of pleasure and pain operate, but the atomic theory gives us a framework for understanding how the the things we sense around us (the qualities of the bodies) and the things we feel (pleasure and pain) operate naturally and not supernaturally.

    For now those are almost random thoughts to consider.

    -------

    Here's the summary of Book One. It's pretty long in itself, but I think can be used to construct some ways to make things easier to find across the many translations. Now I need to do the other five.

    2.1. Book I

    Book One
    • [01] Venus / Nature / Pleasure is the motivating force of all life.
    • [62] Humanity has long been oppressed under the grim weight of religion, but Epicurus was the first man with the force of mind to discover the truth of the way things really are, showing us the limits, boundaries, and benchmarks set by nature; in so doing he broke religion’s oppressive hold over the minds of men, raising us equal to the heavens.
    • [80] The sacrifice of Iphanessa illustrates that it is religion that is the true mother of wickedness in the world.
    • [102] Religion oppresses men by causing them to fear punishment by the gods both in this life and in eternal hell hereafter.
    • [105] The true nature of the soul is not obvious to us, so if we are to free ourselves from religious fears we must study nature and determine whether religion is correct when it alleges that we have eternal souls that are subject to the dictates of god here on earth and to eternal damnation after death.
    • [127] The remedy to the terrors of the spirit manufactured by religion is to study and uncover the true nature of the universe.
    • [146] Our starting point in this study of nature is this primary observation: nothing ever comes from nothing -- neither gods nor any other forces are observed to create anything from nothing. Once we see that nothing comes from nothing, but that all things come into being in accord with their basic nature, we will see that all things occur without any intervention from the gods.
    • [159] The proof that nothing comes from nothing is to look around and see that all things are not born of all things, but from fixed seeds.
    • [174] And things are not only born from fixed seeds, but after they are born they grow at a fixed rate.
    • [199] And not only do they grow at a fix rate but they stop growing according to fixed limits.
    • [208] We also see that it takes working the land to produce specific results; unless we work the land specific crops do not grow.
    • [215] Our second primary observation is that all things pass away and change back into the essential material from which they are made, but nothing is ever absolutely destroyed to nothing.
    • [225] Another reason we know that nothing passes away to nothing is that otherwise in the eternity of time past all things would have passed away and nothing would be left in the universe.
    • [238] Further, if things could be destroyed to nothing, it would be easy to destroy anything by force, but rather we see that many things are hard to break up.
    • [250] We also see that nature nourishes one thing out of the other, and that the living are born from the dead.
    • [265] Do not doubt that matter is indestructible simply because the atoms are too small to see – unseen things like wind are seen to be very powerful and to rival streams of water (which all can see) in their force.
    • [298] You cannot see odors or voices either and yet you know they exist.
    • [305] We know from hanging up wet garments that the water in them is dispersed, as they dry, into tiny particles that no one can see.
    • [311] And we see over the years that rings wear away on fingers, and dripping water hollows stone, even though we cannot see it happening.
    • [322] We therefore conclude that Nature’s work is done by particles so small that they are unseen
    • [329] We also know that these particles are not tight-packed, and that around them is "void”. We know this because we see the particles move, and therefore there must be void within which they can move.
    • [346] No matter how hard things are, they still contain void, which we know from the examples of water seeping through the rocks of caverns, and the roots of trees bringing up water to their branches, and noise travelling through walls.
    • [358] We also know that some things weigh more than others of the same size, and the difference is the amount of void they contain.
    • [370] Fish do not swim because the water compresses to allow them to pass, but because there is void in the water.
    • [384] We also know that when things collide and spring apart the air rushes in to fill the spaces, and that this does not happen instantly but gradually.
    • [398] We know that void exists because otherwise movement would be impossible; but we see that things do move, so we know void exists. The examples we have provided are sufficient for you to deduce for yourself that there is a void, just like a hunting dog can sniff out its prey once it catches the scent, but if you remain unconvinced I can keep talking about this until we both get old.
    • [418] We conclude that all bodies of nature are built from bodies and void. We know that bodies exist because our senses declare to us that bodies exist, and unless we hold firm to what the senses declare to us, there is nothing we can ever prove by reasoning of the mind. And we know that the void exists because bodies must have a place to exist, and through which to move.
    • [430]There is nothing - no third nature - that can exist besides bodies and void, because anything that exists, if it can be touched, must be a body, and if it cannot be touched, then it must be void. Except for the void, nothing can affect something else, or be effected itself, unless it is a body. Nothing else can be sensed or reasoned to exist unless it be body or void.
    • [449] Everything that we can name to exist has attributes that we consider to be properties or events/accidents of that thing. A property is something that cannot be separated from the thing without the thing being destroyed, such as you cannot separate weight from rocks, or heat from fire, or moisture from water, or touch from bodies, or emptiness from void. On the other hand, events/accident can be separated from a thing without destroying it, such as slavery, poverty, riches, freedom, war, and peace can be separated from people without destroying the person himself.
    • [464] Time is an example of an event that does not exist by itself, but from our feelings about the motion or stillness of things. For example, consider the Trojan War, which does not exist in itself, but as an event of things that occurred in the past. The people involved in that war are long dead, and the Trojan War is but an event of the people and things that were involved at the time.
    • [483] Bodies are therefore not only the atoms that compose them, but things that are created when the atoms combine. In the world around us everything is porous, but by reasoning we will see that the atoms themselves are not porous, and from them everything we see is created.
    • [503] Since we have determined that everything is composed of only two things, atoms and void, and that nothing else can exist, we conclude that wherever there is empty space there is no body there, and where any body exists, there is no void, and from this we conclude that the atoms are solid bodies free from any void.
    • [511] By the same reasoning, since all bodies are composed of nothing but atoms and void, it is atoms which hold the void within a body, and nothing can be reasoned to hold void within it but bodies made of atoms. Therefore when any body dissolves, it is the atoms which composed that body remain.
    • [520] If only void existed then the whole universe would be empty; if only atoms existed then the whole universe would be solid. Since this is not the case, bodies must be composed of both atoms and void, and those must be separate from each other. Bodies cannot be destroyed unless they have void in them, and the more void. Only things which have void in them can be destroyed, and since atoms have no void in them, atoms cannot be destroyed.
    • [540] If the atoms were not everlasting, long before now everything would have passed away to nothing, and nothing that we see to have been born could have been born from nothing. This shows us that the atoms are everlasting, as in no other way could the universe have sustained itself through the ages.
    • [551] For the same reason we also conclude that there is a limit to divisibility. For if there were not a limit, nothing could have been generated from the atoms. As we know, things are more easily broken apart than put together, and if there were no limit to divisibility what has broken down in the past could never have been regenerated. But we see that things are regenerated and do grow at their natural rates, so we know there is a limit to divisibility.
    • [565] Another proof that the atoms are solid is that we can show how solid atoms can produce soft bodies by mixing them with void. The reverse is not true - if the atoms were soft, then nothing hard like flint or iron could be created.
    • [577] If there were no limit to the breaking of things, nothing would survive from ages past, but bodies do exist despite their frail nature, and from this we know that it is the the atoms that compose them that are eternal.
    • [584] Since Nature appoints a limit to the growth of all things, and yet the laws of nature hold fast so that birds through their generations show the same markings, and only certain things can come into being, and even the tribes can recall the nature, habits, and manner of life of their parents, it must be through the unchanging substance of the atoms that this continuity occurs.
    • [599] Beyond the limit of our ability to observe there must be a least point which has no parts which exist in everlasting singleness.
    • [615] If there were not a limit then the tiniest bodies would be composed of infinite numbers of parts, as any half could always be divided into another half. If that were the case, what difference would there be in anything, if everything held an infinite number of parts? Since true reasoning cries out against this, and the mind cannot accept it, we must conclude that there is a lower limit to the size of an atom, and at this lowest level that the atoms are solid and everlasting.
    • [628] Also, if Nature had allowed all things to be dissolved into their least parts, and if those least parts were infinitely divisible, then nothing could be renewed from them, but this is contrary to what we see, as we see things are in fact renewed.
    • [635] Those who allege that everything is made of fire are using faulty reasoning. Heraclitus is the leader of this pack, and he is famous for his hard-to-follow statements among those who are empty-headed and who love twisted sayings that tickle the ear more than they love the truth.
    • [645] Things could not be as diverse as they are if they were created of fire alone, unmixed with anything else.
    • [655] The advocates of fire as the only things making up all things might wish to suggest that void is mixed with fire, but they fear where that would lead, and so they lose the track of true reasoning.
    • [665] The advocates of fire also know that they cannot admit that fire changes into another substance, for that which exceeds its own limits becomes something else again. The truth is that it is atoms that make up fire by changing their positions and movements, and this does not change the nature of the atoms, but explains how we can make fire and heat from the unchanging atoms.
    • [690] Besides, it is crazy to suggest that there is nothing in the universe but fire. In this argument he fights against the senses by which he first came up with the idea that everything is made of fire! For he alleges that yes, the senses can recognize fire, but that they cannot recognize anything else, and this is crazy, for what else can we look to for deciding what is true and what is false except to the senses? Why would anyone choose to pick out fire and deny the existence of everything else? Why not deny the existence of fire but accept everything else? Only madness can explain choosing one over the other.
    • [705] The same errors are committed by those who say that everything is made of air, or of some combination of only a few elements like earth or water. This is the error made by the otherwise majestic Empedocles.
    • [734] Empedocles and the others (who were much less intelligent than he) all failed in understanding the nature of atoms and void. They believed in infinite divisibility of the material that things are made of, and thus they cannot explain what we see in nature to be the truth.
    • [763] All things cannot be produced from only four elements that never lose their own nature, because the union of these four could never retain their character and yet form the things that we see around us - they could never form something of a distinctly new nature, which is what we know that atoms can do when they combine to form things with their own new characteristics.
    • [782] Whenever a thing passes the limits of its own nature, that is the death of the thing that existed before, and that is the problem with those who assert that some combination of earth, air, fire, and water, which they allege to be elemental, change in nature to give rise to what we see around us.
    • [803] If you argue that all things seem to grow from the earth up into the air and towards the fire of the sun and with the water of the rain, and that this means that these are the elements of all things, you should think again, for what is beyond doubt is that the growth of things is determined by nature, and that nature brings many things together to do its work, but it is of the greatest importance to decide what goes into making the earth and the water and the sun and the rain and how their components are combined together.
    • [823] Think about how the words of this poem are composed of letters, and how the meaning of the words changes when the letters are moved around. The atoms have an even greater capacity than this, to make up all things by changing their positions and their motions and combining in different ways.
    • [830] Let's not worry we don't have a Latin word for "homoeomeria" - the theory that all things are made up of smaller pieces of the same thing: that bones are made of tiny particles of bone, and the like.
    • [834] This theory does not accept the existence of void, or that things are not infinitely divisible, so it suffers the same problems we discussed before.
    • [847] In addition, this theory fails because none of these little bones or other miniature things can survive ultimate destruction, so they would all by now have already passed away.
    • [859] Another problem for that theory is that if it were true, everything must be made of things which are alien to their own kind in order to produce what we see when smoke rises from burning logs, or plants grow up out of the earth.
    • [875] Now Anaxagorus tries to save this argument by alleging that all things in miniature are hidden in all things, but this again is false reasoning, because if it were true, we ought to be able to squeeze corn until blood flows out, or blades of grass would give off animal milk. But we see this does not happen, so theory must be false. Instead, it is the atoms and the void that make up all things.
    • [897] Another example is how the tops of trees can rub together in the wind to spark flames. This does not mean that fire is hidden inside trees, but that the movement and positions of the atoms is what creates the fire, just like words change their meaning when their letters are rearranged.
    • [915] In the end, if you maintain that things are composed of miniatures of themselves, then you will eventually conclude that there are no true elemental particles, but instead you will find yourself deciding that you are made of little people who are laughing aloud and wetting their faces with tears at the thought of what you are suggesting.
    • [921] Let's now cover what remains of these difficult questions, inspired by the Muses, and happy to think of the fame that will come in following paths never before tread by poets before us. We are talking about great things that will free the mind and free us from the bondage of religion, and we are acting as healers who, in giving wormwood to children, cover the rim of the medicine cup with honey so that they can drink the bitter medicine, charmed by the honey but not harmed by the taste, and rather be brought to health. That's the way of this philosophy - it seems bitter, and many shrink back from it, but if you stay with me you will come to see the big picture of the whole nature of things.
    • [958] The universe is infinite in extent, and has no boundaries no matter how far you travel in any direction. We know this because the universe has no extreme point beyond which nothing else exists, and it makes no difference where we stand - there is boundlessness on all sides and in all directions.
    • [968] A thought experiment confirms this: Consider that we throw a javelin in any direction. Either something will stop it, or it will keep on going. In neither case is the universe shown to be bounded, because if it hits something, then that something is part of the universe, and you can then move there and throw the javelin again. There is no evidence to suggest a boundary point to the universe as whole in the way that the things we see around us, such as the mountains or the sea, are bounded.
    • [984] In addition, if the universe were bounded, then all the matter in the universe would have flowed from all directions through its weight toward a bottom, and everything would be piled together. But we know that there is no bottom to the universe at all, and thus there can be no final resting place for matter.
    • [1002] Even the thunderbolts, as fast as they travel, could travel on indefinitely, and no matter how far they travel they have no less distance to continue to travel.
    • [1008] The universe could not exist if either atoms or void did not surround each other, were limited, because if either were limited then the other would spread out to dominate the universe, which we see does not happen.
    • [1021] It was not by intelligent design that the elemental particles placed themselves came together as we see them now, but rather by the unceasing movement of the atoms over the ages. Those movements created and sustain this world and all living things, which could not happen if the atoms and void were not as they are.
    • [1037] All things are dissolved when their atomic material ceases to be replaced, and therefore it is necessary for the universe to survive any length of time for there to be limitless matter on all sides.
    • [1052] Be sure not to accept the idea that all things press toward a center, and that this explains how the world stays together, and explains how animals can walk on the other side of the earth without falling off.
    • [1067] The universe in fact infinite and has no center, so all things do not fall down toward the center of the earth. There is no place for anything to rest and stand still in the universe, and it is foolish to believe otherwise.
    • [1083] Those who advocate for the earth being the center of the universe are not consistent, because they think this applies only to earth and liquid but not to air and fire, which fly upward. Instead, the truth is that there is an infinite supply of matter, and this restrains both the matter of the earth from flying outward, and the matter of the skies from crushing us down from above. Remember: on whatever side you argue that there is a limited supply of matter, that side will be the gate of death for things, because in that direction all of matter will throw itself.
    • [1107] These basic lessons lead to all the rest that follows. Each spark of knowledge will lead to more knowledge, and from these you will see the truth of nature and kindle a light for others.
  • Comparing "Pleasure = Absence of Pain" to "Body = Absence of Void;" A Cite to Lucretius 1:503

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 5:54 PM

    One implication of this:

    We know due to the extending reasoning in Lucretius how Epicurus came to the conclusion that only atoms and void have an ultimate unchanging existence, that nothing has ultimate unchanging existence other than atoms and void, and that everything is made of atoms and void and only atoms and void.

    That reasoning tells us how he "defined" atoms and void and how he deduced their existence and how he reached his "nothing but atoms and void" perspective.

    Do we have a similar understanding of the chain of reasoning by which Epicurus concluded that Nature gives us only Pleasure and Pain by which to choose and avoid (Torquatus, Diogenes Laertius) and why the two do not mix and one cannot exist where the other is present (PD03)?

    In other words, are we confident why Cicero was wrong to insist that most people are experiencing neither pleasure nor pain?

    Are we confident why Chrysippus was wrong in asserting that the outstretched hand in a normal condition -- in which it is apparently not feeling a specific stimulus of pleasure) is not feeling pain or a lack of pleasure in that condition? (Simply saying "pleasure is the absence of pain" just begs the question - *Why* must we consider pleasure to be the absence of pain?)

    And last of all, why are we confident that the host pouring the wine can be considered to be in the greatest of pleasure when the guest drinking it may not be?

    It seems to me that these issues are all closely interrelated with the reasoning about atoms and void.

  • Comparing "Pleasure = Absence of Pain" to "Body = Absence of Void;" A Cite to Lucretius 1:503

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 4:58 PM

    In preparing an outline of Lucretius Book One it appears to me that the following is a reasonable summary of Book One line 503:

    Summary:

    Since we have determined that everything is composed of only two things, atoms and void, and that nothing else can exist, we conclude that wherever there is empty space there is no body there, and where any body exists, there is no void, and from this we conclude that the atoms are solid bodies free from any void.

    Here is Bailey:

    [503] First, since we have found existing a twofold nature of things far differing, the nature of body and of space, in which all things take place, it must needs be that each exists alone by itself and unmixed. For wherever space lies empty, which we call the void, body is not there; moreover, wherever body has its station, there is by no means empty void. Therefore the first bodies are solid and free from void.

    I would like to compare Munro and others on this point, but presuming that Bailey has it correct, it seems that this might be an example of reasoning similar to the distinctions that Epicurus draws between pleasure and pain and that where one exists the other is absence.

    I make note of this because I would expect that if reasoning like this is embedded so closely into the Physics as to the nature of atoms, it is easy to suspect that the Epicureans became comfortable with such "black and white" logical division, and that this attitude of reasoning carries over from "bodies and void" into "pleasure and pain."

    The parallel is pretty clear:

    We are not able to observe the atoms or the void directly, but we are confident that they are there based on the impact that their combinations make on our senses. We are not able to observe the ultimate mechanisms of pleasure or pain either, but we are confident of our conclusions about them based on their impact on our feelings.

    This method of argument is not going to impress a skeptic who argues that nothing can be known, but it works great for those who are willing to take confidence in reasoning based on repeated evidence, and who are willing to conclude that the results of repeated experience are reliable as a basis for knowledge.

  • References from Lucretius For Proposition That All That Is Formed of Atoms Returns To Atoms

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 2:40 PM

    Book One:

    [215] Then follows this, that nature breaks up each thing again into its own first-bodies, nor does she destroy ought into nothing. For if anything were mortal in all its parts, each thing would on a sudden be snatched from our eyes, and pass away. For there would be no need of any force, such as might cause disunion in its parts and unloose its fastenings. But as it is, because all things are put together of everlasting seeds, until some force has met them to batter things asunder with its blow, or to make its way inward through the empty voids and break things up, nature suffers not the destruction of anything to be seen.

    Book Five:

    [235] First of all, since the body of earth and moisture, and the light breath of the winds and burning heat, of which this sum of things is seen to be made up, are all created of a body that has birth and death, of such, too, must we think that the whole nature of the world is fashioned. For verily things whose parts and limbs we see to be of a body that has birth and of mortal shapes, themselves too we perceive always to have death and birth likewise. Wherefore, when we see the mighty members and parts of the world consumed away and brought to birth again, we may know that sky too likewise and earth had some time of first-beginning, and will suffer destruction.

  • Let's Make a List of 1) Major Causes of the Decline of Epicurean Philosophy after Lucretius and 2) The Obstacles to its Revival Through Today

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 2:20 PM

    Adding this one to the list:

    • Possibility that if the focus of Epicurean philosophy becomes "having a good time" or even "helping people" then the proponents of the school lose the intensity of Epicurus or Lucretius in wanting to live according to the "truth" - the "way things are" -- as they believed the Physics and Canonics establish to be true. When you lose the zeal to pursue this "truth" for yourself and then to communicate this "truth" to others, then it becomes very tempting to compromise and go along with the submergence of the key doctrines for the sake of "getting along" and living for the pleasure of the moment, and slighting the mental pleasure involved in wishing to know and follow "the truth."
  • My struggle with Norman DeWitt

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 1:59 PM

    From Diogenes Laertius: "When once a man has attained wisdom, he no longer has any tendency contrary to it or willingly pretends that he has. ... He will give lectures in public, but never unless asked; he will give definite teaching and not profess doubt."

    Quote from waterholic

    From Epicurus' point of view, I see two reasons: 1. to help people (as that's the ultimate goal of the philosophy), 2. build a community of friends - safety in numbers. My impression is that the intensity of this effort in DeWitt's book comes across a little greater than would be warranted by the nature of the school.

    I think there is a third reason that was actually more important to Epicurus than these two, and comes through especially through the intensity of Lucretius, which does come through in DeWitt. That reason is the earnest desire to be confident in knowing the "Truth" about the way things are, so as to then live according to those conclusions. Epicurus doesn't start out simply deciding he wants to be happy -- he starts out - from his first questioning of "Chaos" - wanting to know what "the truth" is about the universe, so as to then live accordingly. Had Epicurus determined from his search for truth that theism could be confidently established, I would argue that Epicurus would then have turned his energetic and determined mind -- see the opening of Lucretius Book I - to being "more catholic than the pope." He would have engaged his powers of persuasion to whatever course he deemed to be correct, and if living per the instructions of supernatural gods could be proven to be the correct course, then Epicurus would have led the way.

    Of course that theistic conclusion cannot be proved to be correct, and in fact the non-theistic conclusion is established by such weight that we can have great confidence in it, and thus we have the confident Epicurus (and Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda) that comes through in the texts. These are personalities that will be mocked by such as Cicero, alleging that they talk as if they just came down from the intermundia, and that they want to avoid nothing so much as seeming to be in doubt, but we all have to make our own decisions about how to evaluate the evidence and then act accordingly.


    So accordingly I would definitely not agree that "to help people" is the ultimate goal of Epicurean philosophy. It is a very important aspect of the conclusion, but it is not the starting point or the end point.

  • My struggle with Norman DeWitt

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 11:32 AM
    Quote from Joshua

    I presume his endless perceived connections between Christianity and Epicureanism were an attempt to get his Christian contemporaries to take another look at Epicurus.

    I think that is definitely the central motivation. Again, DeWitt never (to my recollection) comes out and says that he is a Christian, or that we should accept Christian dogmas. In fact the more I think about it the more I see him doing what Gibbon did -- talking about the history of Christianity as a means of luring in the conventional Christian thinkers before setting the bait that catches them onto the truth.

    Don't forget that DeWitt mentions more than once (and seems to enjoy repeating it) how Augustine would have "given the palm" to Epicurus were it not for (apparently) the immortality / life after death issue. In my mind DeWitt does much the same thing that Gibbon does -- he rims the cup with honey for the Christian with all the historical parallels, while he dispenses the medicine of true philosophy to the patient.

    DeWitt wasn't in a position himself (and we don't really know whether he wanted to be or not) of writing an anti-Christian philosophy book. We don't know his motives, but I would say that what he in fact did was to provide the most sweeping and sympathetic overview available of a philosophy that makes holding the Christian viewpoint impossible. I doubt very much that he was blind to the natural result of what he had written.

  • My struggle with Norman DeWitt

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 11:27 AM
    Quote from burninglights

    Something tells me that if Epicurus was alive today, and he posited a belief that was contradicted by good science tomorrow, he would consider the results and modify his view the make way for the new information.

    I think it's certain he would do that. However, there is a deeper issue at work too that is addressed by Philodemus and goes to the heart of Epicurean canonics regarding "when" it is appropriate to take a position and when it is not, and that question can't be settled by counting numbers of "scientists" or taking the position that a consensus of some number of people at any moment proves a point. The issue of when skepticism is appropriate and when it is not is very subtle, and Epicurus clearly thought that "radical skepticism" of the "nothing is knowable" type is clearly wrong.

    If you agree with Epicurus that radical skepticism is clearly wrong, then the issue always comes back to that of "how much evidence is needed and how do you process it." You don't flatly throw up your hands - as many people do - and decide to simply stop thinking about super-important issues like whether there are supernatural gods or life after death.

  • My struggle with Norman DeWitt

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 11:22 AM
    Quote from Kalosyni

    The origin of this is from Martha Nussbaum?

    No I would not at all say that she originates the attack, she's just a well-known repeater of it.

  • My struggle with Norman DeWitt

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 11:20 AM

    It appears that I can't find a video of Elena Nicoli's presentation re Nussbaum. Here is another video that is also good, but if anyone knows of a video that goes with the Nussbaum material please post:

    Post

    Elena Nicoli - An Excellent Presentation On Epicurean Pleasure

    I urge everyone in this group to watch Elena Nicoli's excellent presentation on Epicurean pleasure, which the Dutch Research School of Philosophy has humorously mis-titled as "Atoms in the Rennaisance." As quickly as I can I am going to prepare an outline of the major points of her talk and attach that to this thread for discussion and reference in the future. I think you will find that this talk is easy to follow, very clearly presented, and does a very good job of presenting the "standard"…
    Cassius
    April 16, 2018 at 4:18 PM
  • My struggle with Norman DeWitt

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 11:14 AM

    I had not visited this issue in a while and now I see Elena Nicoli collected some of the best/worst Nussbaum quotes:

  • My struggle with Norman DeWitt

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 11:05 AM

    This is one place in Nussbaum's "Therapy of Desire" where she makes similar assertions about Epicurus being authoritarian, which I think are simply not a fair reading of the texts, and far too pro-Stoic. Comments like these (and for many other reasons where I think she gets Epicurus wrong) are why I don't recommend her book, no matter how well regarded it is in other quarters.

    :


    Elena Nicoli has written against Nussbaum's interpretation as per here:

    Thread

    Responses to Nussbaum's Criticism That Epicureanism Is Not A Real Philosophy; That Epicureanism Numbs Intellect And Critical Thinking

    This is a thread to discuss the presentation material posted by Jason Baker entitled "The Pleasure of Knowledge: Reassessing Nussbaum’s Interpretation of Epicurean Therapy" by Dr. Elena Nicoli, Radboud University, subtitled "A Contested Influence. Hellenistic Philosophy and Modern Thought from Nietzsche to Nussbaum." This is not the full lecture, but summarizes the main points with some excellent citations to Epicurean literature.

    The original post is here:

    …
    Cassius
    April 12, 2018 at 6:18 AM

    More criticism of Nussbaum's interpretations here:

    Thread

    Nussbaum (Martha) - "Therapy of Desire"

    Martha Nussbaum's "Therapy of Desire" is a widely known book with much commentary on the implications of Epicurean philosophy for psychology. These comments are not a review of the book and I do not intend them too be taken too negatively. However I think that a reader can more fairly assess the claims Nussbaum makes about Epicurean philosophy earlier in the book if the reader is aware of the ultimate negative conclusions she draws at the end. Here are several excerpts, mostly from the final…
    Cassius
    February 1, 2018 at 9:13 PM
  • My struggle with Norman DeWitt

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 10:38 AM

    Thanks for the post Waterholic because it raises important points. Just a few comments on point 1, because I think point 2 first is likely the much more significant one.

    DeWitt's comparisons of Epicureanism to Christianity are pretty much neutral in terms of what they say about Epicurus, and I see them as much more reflective of DeWitt's own speculations about how they compare. In fact I was thinking about this point the other day and I believe it deserves to be emphasized when we discuss this topic: As frequent as DeWitt's comparisons are in the book, ask yourself: "Do those comparisons really state that Christianity is correct or did anything other than borrow procedures from Epicurus?" Yes he goes overboard in his parallels, but to what result? It's not like he is saying that Christianity is right, just that they were perceptive enough to borrow certain perspectives from Epicurus. If he goes overboard, and I think he does, it's on a topic that really doesn't touch Epicurus himself, and just shows that DeWitt's parallels are stretched too thin, because what he's saying they picked up from Epicurus they could have picked up anywhere, because the friendliness and charity and honesty etc are just largely common sense.

    Compare DeWitt's comments to Gibbon's in his "Fall of the Roman Empire." Gibbon uses sarcasm and false-sounding praise of Christianity to make his derogatory points about the influence of Christianity. DeWitt's comments seem sincere, but thenever to my memory rise to a level of saying "the Christians were right!" He's basically just drawing attention to parellels that some will find - and do find - extremely interesting, while others won't.

    On point 2 I think the issue is much more important. When you say " Is this a problematic tangent of NDW or am I missing something?" I don't think this is something specific with DeWitt.

    The characterization you use does remind me of what Martha Nussbaum says in her "Therapy of Desire," but I don't recall DeWitt being nearly so negative about it. Epicurus clearly thought it was important to combat skepticism, and he thought it important to state firmly what he thought was correct, and there is plenty of evidence in the texts to support that being an accurate characterization. But as far as being "a despotic figure with a strong will to dominate feeble minded and expand his influence by any means necessary, including missionary work," I would say yes he had strong will but never tried to "dominate feeble minded" people or expand his influence by "any means necessary." I do think that the term "missionary work" is probably a fair characterization, though it's hard to say how organized it really was.

    I see I've already written a lot and only really set the stage for this, with my main points being (1) that the Christianity parallels are a tangent of Dewitt that some find interesting and some don't, but no reason for worry, and (2) the issue of "dogmatism" vs "skepticism" in Epicurus is definitely there, and dedicated skeptics are definitely going to have a problem with Epicurus. Given that I believe Epicurus' position on skepticism is a correct one, that doesn't personally cause me any problem at all, and makes him more valuable to me. But that's the issue that we will want to discuss in much more detail and I feel sure others will weigh in on as well.

    On the parallels with Christianity you're indeed struggling with DeWitt. On the issue with "dogmatism," you're struggling directly with Epicurus, though I think you'll eventually decide that your wording of Epicurus' position is significantly too strong.

  • Upcoming Series: The Lucretius Today Podcast Reviews And Responds To Books One And Two of Cicero's On Ends

    • Cassius
    • August 25, 2023 at 8:11 AM

    As soon as we wrap up the series on DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy," the next project the podcast will tackle will be the full sections of Cicero's "On Ends" devoted to discussing (attacking) Epicurean philosophy - Books One and Two. In this work Cicero has summarized and preserved what are probably the most important objections to Epicurus collected from across the ancient world in the prior two hundred years, so this work gives us both a wealth of knowledge about Epicurus combined with extremely intelligent criticisms. Cicero skimps on the time he gives the Epicurean Torquatus to respond, so we can formulate for ourselves what we think are the best full responses.

    We have previously discussed the Torquatus Narrative in Episodes 93-111 (Torquatus narrative of Epicurean Philosophy). As a result we will review that section only briefly, and in only enough detail to keep the flow of the full discussion of Book One.

    The text we are covering can be found in three editions at Archive.org:

    • Cicero - On Ends - Reid - 1883 Link At Archive.org
    • Cicero - On Ends - Rackham - Link At Archive.org
    • Cicero - On Ends - Parker - Link At Archive.org

    As before when we went through Torquatus in detail, we will use the Reid version as our main text, but compare frequently with Rackham. We favor Reid because he seems to be both more readable and more literal than Rackham. However many of us are more familiar with the more recent wording of Rackham, so we will often use both on important passages.

    We will therefore suggest that those who are following along grab a copy of the Reid version at the link above, and then you will be able to follow any references we make to page or line numbers.

    We expect to start this series as soon as September 3, 2023, so if you have comments, suggestions, or questions, please let us know!

  • Episode 188 - "Epicurus And His Philosophy" Part 40 - Chapter 15 - Extension, Submergence, & Revival 03

    • Cassius
    • August 24, 2023 at 8:06 PM

    It is interesting to me to see that Julian was also happy to see the works of Pyrrho to be hard to find. I would almost agree with him on that point, as it seems that Julian was aware of the problems with skepticism. I'd definitely like to spend some time reading what's left of Julian's work.

  • Episode 188 - "Epicurus And His Philosophy" Part 40 - Chapter 15 - Extension, Submergence, & Revival 03

    • Cassius
    • August 24, 2023 at 10:56 AM

    Episode 188 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!

  • New ebook text of "Marius the Epicurean" by Walter Pater

    • Cassius
    • August 24, 2023 at 9:28 AM

    In my unreletenting quest to be positive and upbeat I always encourage everyone to read everything they can. It's been a long while since I first read "Marius the Epicurean" but I think I recall being profoundly disappointed in it. :) I hope the experience of others is more positive, but I better throw this into the mix - I will see if I can find my prior posting and perhaps link it here. But by all means I do encourage everyone to read whatever strikes their attention, because it will add to the fullness of your perspective whatever conclusion you reach about it! ;)

    Here's the earlier thread with some of my comments. It seems I remember being much more negative, either on Facebook or in private discussions.

    Thread

    Pater (Walter) - "Marius the Epicurean"

    https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4057?fb…0VaOv6GVZTgDNQk

    I believe I looked into this some years ago but came away very disappointed. Hopefully my memory is faulty. If you get a chance to post any kind of commentary on it that would be much appreciated.

    However I just did a word search in the Gutenberg edition for "Epicurus" and came up with exactly ONE results. On the other hand, a search for AURELIUS comes up with FIFTY-SIX results. Maybe my memory is not so bad after all.

    If it is just a rehash…
    Cassius
    May 13, 2019 at 9:10 AM


    What I seem to remember most today is that I believe I came across this about the time that I came across Francis Wright's "A Few Days In Athens." I read Frances Wright first and was blown away by the depth of her presentation of Epicurus. Then I read Marius, and the contrast was - to say the least - striking. And in the balance of the two, "A Few Days In Athens" is by far the better quality work for understanding Epicurus. But that's just the balance of the two, and reading Marius produced very beneficial results for me -- in making me realize how disappointing something can be even though it has "Epicurean" in the title.

    Your mileage may vary!!!

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply
    1. A Question About Hobbes From Facebook

      • Cassius
      • August 24, 2025 at 9:11 AM
      • Uncategorized Discussion (General)
      • Cassius
      • August 24, 2025 at 9:11 AM
    2. Replies
      0
      Views
      403
    1. Anti-Natalism: The Opposite of Epicureanism 8

      • Like 1
      • Don
      • August 20, 2025 at 7:41 AM
      • Comparing Epicurus With Other Philosophers - General Discussion
      • Don
      • August 23, 2025 at 11:26 AM
    2. Replies
      8
      Views
      880
      8
    3. Kalosyni

      August 23, 2025 at 11:26 AM
    1. Ecclesiastes what insights can we gleam from it? 4

      • Like 4
      • Eoghan Gardiner
      • December 2, 2023 at 6:11 AM
      • Epicurus vs Abraham (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)
      • Eoghan Gardiner
      • August 18, 2025 at 7:54 AM
    2. Replies
      4
      Views
      2.2k
      4
    3. Kalosyni

      August 18, 2025 at 7:54 AM
    1. Grumphism? LOL

      • Haha 3
      • Don
      • August 16, 2025 at 3:17 PM
      • Uncategorized Discussion (General)
      • Don
      • August 16, 2025 at 3:17 PM
    2. Replies
      0
      Views
      450
    1. Beyond Stoicism (2025) 20

      • Thanks 1
      • Don
      • August 12, 2025 at 5:54 AM
      • Epicurus vs. the Stoics (Zeno, Chrysippus, Cleanthes, Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius)
      • Don
      • August 15, 2025 at 4:28 PM
    2. Replies
      20
      Views
      1.6k
      20
    3. Don

      August 15, 2025 at 4:28 PM

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.

Frequently Used Forums

  • Frequently Asked / Introductory Questions
  • News And Announcements
  • Lucretius Today Podcast
  • Physics (The Nature of the Universe)
  • Canonics (The Tests Of Truth)
  • Ethics (How To Live)
  • Against Determinism
  • Against Skepticism
  • The "Meaning of Life" Question
  • Uncategorized Discussion
  • Comparisons With Other Philosophies
  • Historical Figures
  • Ancient Texts
  • Decline of The Ancient Epicurean Age
  • Unsolved Questions of Epicurean History
  • Welcome New Participants
  • Events - Activism - Outreach
  • Full Forum List

Latest Posts

  • A Lucretius Today AI Experiment: AI Summaries Of Two Lucretius Today Podcast Episodes

    Don August 26, 2025 at 7:23 PM
  • Episode 295 - TD25 - Plutarch's Absurd Interpretation of Epicurean Absence of Pain

    Bryan August 26, 2025 at 4:30 PM
  • Tsouna's On Choices and Avoidances

    Cassius August 26, 2025 at 2:56 PM
  • What is Virtue and what aspects of Virtue does an Epicurean cultivate?

    Cassius August 26, 2025 at 1:55 PM
  • "Artificial Intelligence And Epicurean Philosophy" Subforum

    Cassius August 26, 2025 at 10:35 AM
  • EpicureanFriends Provisional AI Posting Policies

    Cassius August 26, 2025 at 10:31 AM
  • Alexa in the Garden of Epicurus

    Rolf August 26, 2025 at 9:02 AM
  • Did Democritus Think That Atoms Can Be Alive?

    TauPhi August 25, 2025 at 7:08 PM
  • VS 47 - Thoughts and Application

    Bryan August 24, 2025 at 6:40 PM
  • A Question About Hobbes From Facebook

    Cassius August 24, 2025 at 9:11 AM

Key Tags By Topic

  • #Canonics
  • #Death
  • #Emotions
  • #Engagement
  • #EpicureanLiving
  • #Ethics
  • #FreeWill
  • #Friendship
  • #Gods
  • #Happiness
  • #HighestGood
  • #Images
  • #Infinity
  • #Justice
  • #Knowledge
  • #Physics
  • #Pleasure
  • #Soul
  • #Twentieth
  • #Virtue


Click Here To Search All Tags

To Suggest Additions To This List Click Here

EpicureanFriends - Classical Epicurean Philosophy

  1. Home
    1. About Us
    2. Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  2. Wiki
    1. Getting Started
  3. Frequently Asked Questions
    1. Site Map
  4. Forum
    1. Latest Threads
    2. Featured Threads
    3. Unread Posts
  5. Texts
    1. Core Texts
    2. Biography of Epicurus
    3. Lucretius
  6. Articles
    1. Latest Articles
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured Images
  8. Calendar
    1. This Month At EpicureanFriends
Powered by WoltLab Suite™ 6.0.22
Style: Inspire by cls-design
Stylename
Inspire
Manufacturer
cls-design
Licence
Commercial styles
Help
Supportforum
Visit cls-design