1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Website Overview
    6. Site Map
    7. Quizzes
    8. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    9. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Files
    5. Search Assistance
    6. Not NeoEpicurean
    7. Foundations
    8. Navigation Outlines
    9. Reading List
    10. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Forum Shortcuts
    7. Forum Navigation Map
    8. Featured
    9. 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 Collection
    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. More
    1. Featured Content
    2. Calendar
      1. Upcoming Events List
      2. Zooms - General Info
      3. Fourth Sunday Meet-&-Greet
      4. Sunday Weekly Zoom
      5. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    3. Logbook
    4. EF ToDo List
    5. 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. Website Overview
    6. Site Map
    7. Quizzes
    8. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    9. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Files
    5. Search Assistance
    6. Not NeoEpicurean
    7. Foundations
    8. Navigation Outlines
    9. Reading List
    10. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Forum Shortcuts
    7. Forum Navigation Map
    8. Featured
    9. 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 Collection
    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. More
    1. Featured Content
    2. Calendar
      1. Upcoming Events List
      2. Zooms - General Info
      3. Fourth Sunday Meet-&-Greet
      4. Sunday Weekly Zoom
      5. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    3. Logbook
    4. EF ToDo List
    5. Link-Database
  1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Website Overview
    6. Site Map
    7. Quizzes
    8. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    9. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Files
    5. Search Assistance
    6. Not NeoEpicurean
    7. Foundations
    8. Navigation Outlines
    9. Reading List
    10. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Forum Shortcuts
    7. Forum Navigation Map
    8. Featured
    9. 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 Collection
    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. More
    1. Featured Content
    2. Calendar
      1. Upcoming Events List
      2. Zooms - General Info
      3. Fourth Sunday Meet-&-Greet
      4. Sunday Weekly Zoom
      5. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    3. Logbook
    4. EF ToDo List
    5. Link-Database
  1. EpicureanFriends - Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  2. Cassius
  • Sidebar
  • Sidebar

Posts by Cassius

  • Giordano Bruno - Brittanica Reference

    • Cassius
    • August 31, 2023 at 9:35 AM

    The 1911 Public Domain Entry at Gutenberg

    BRUNO, GIORDANO (c. 1548-1600), Italian philosopher of the Renaissance, was born near Nola in the village of Cicala. Little is known of his life. He was christened Filippo, and took the name Giordano only on entering a religious order. In his fifteenth year he entered the order of the Dominicans at Naples, and is said to have composed a treatise on the ark of Noah. Why he submitted to a discipline palpably unsuited to his fiery spirit we cannot tell. In consequence of his views on transubstantiation and the immaculate conception he was accused of impiety, and after enduring persecution for some years, he fled from Rome about 1576, and wandered through various cities, reaching Geneva in 1579. The home of Calvinism was no resting-place for him (T. Dufour, Giordano Bruno à Genève, Geneva, 1884), and he travelled on through Lyons, Toulouse and Montpellier, arriving at Paris in 1581. Everywhere he bent his energies to the exposition of the new thoughts which were beginning to effect a revolution in the thinking world. He had drunk deeply of the spirit of the Renaissance, the determination to see for himself the noble universe, unclouded by the mists of authoritative philosophy and church tradition. The discoveries of Copernicus were eagerly accepted by him, and he used them as the lever by which to push aside the antiquated system that had come down from Aristotle, for whom, indeed, he had a perfect hatred. Like Bacon and Telesio he preferred the older Greek philosophers, who had looked at nature for themselves, and whose speculations had more of reality in them. He had read widely and deeply, and in his own writings we come across many expressions familiar to us in earlier systems. Yet his philosophy is no eclecticism. He owed something to Lucretius, something to the Stoic nature-pantheism, something to Anaxagoras, to Heraclitus, to the Pythagoreans, and to the Neoplatonists, who were partially known to him; above all, he was a profound student of Nicolas of Cusa, who was indeed a speculative Copernicus. But his own system has a distinct unity and originality; it breathes throughout the fiery spirit of Bruno himself.

    Bruno had been well received at Toulouse, where he had lectured on astronomy; even better fortune awaited him at Paris, especially at the hands of Henry III. He was offered a chair of philosophy, provided he would receive the Mass. He at once refused, but was permitted to deliver lectures. These seem to have been altogether devoted to expositions of a certain logical system which Bruno had taken up with great eagerness, the Ars Magna of Raimon Lull. With the exception of a satiric comedy, Il Candelajo, all the works of this period are devoted to this logic—De Umbris Idearum, Ars Memoriae, De compendiosa architectura et complemento artis Lullii, and Cantus Circaeus. To many it has seemed a curious freak of Bruno's that he should have so eagerly adopted a view of thought like that of Lull, but in reality it is in strict accordance with the principles of his philosophy. Like the Arabian logicians, and some of the scholastics, who held that ideas existed in a threefold form—ante res, in rebus and post res—he laid down the principle that the archetypal ideas existed metaphysically in the ultimate unity or intelligence, physically in the world of things, and logically in signs, symbols or notions. These notions were shadows of the ideas, and the Ars Magna furnished him with a general scheme, according to which their relations and correspondences should be exhibited. It supplied not only a memoria technica, but an organon, or method by which the genesis of all ideas from unity might be represented intelligibly and easily. It provided also a substitute for either the Aristotelian or the Ramist logic, which was an additional element in its favour.

    Under the protection of the French ambassador, Michel de Castelnau, sieur de Mauvissière, Bruno passed over in 1583 to England, where he resided for about two years. He was disgusted with the brutality of English manners, which he paints in no flattering colours, and he found pedantry and superstition as rampant in Oxford as in Geneva. Indeed, there still existed on the statute a provision that "Masters and Bachelors who did not follow Aristotle faithfully were liable to a fine of five shillings for every point of divergence, and for every fault committed against the logic of the Organon." But he indulges in extravagant eulogies of Elizabeth. He is generally said to have formed the acquaintance of Sir Philip Sidney, Fulke Greville and other eminent Englishmen, but there has been much controversy as to the facts of his life in London. It seems probable that he lived in the French embassy in some secretarial or tutorial position. He may conceivably have met Bacon, but it is quite incredible that he met Shakespeare in the printing shop of Thomas Vautrollier. In Oxford he was allowed to hold a disputation with some learned doctors on the rival merits of the Copernican and so-called Aristotelian systems of the universe, and, according to his own report, had an easy victory. The best of his works were written in the freedom of English social life. The Cena de le Ceneri, or Ash Wednesday conversation, devoted to an exposition of the Copernican theory, was printed in 1584. In the same year appeared his two great metaphysical works, De la Causa, Principio, ed Uno, and De l'Infinito, Universo, e Mondi; in the year following the Eroici Furori and Cabala del Cavallo Pegaseo. In 1584 also appeared the strange dialogue, Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante (Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast), an allegory treating chiefly of moral philosophy, but giving the essence of Bruno's philosophy. The gods are represented as resolving to banish from the heavens the constellations, which served to remind them of their evil deeds. In their places are put the moral virtues. The first of the three dialogues contains the substance of the allegory, which, under the disguise of an assault on heathen mythology, is a direct attack on all forms of anthropomorphic religion. But in a philosophical point of view the first part of the second dialogue is the most important. Among the moral virtues which take the place of the beasts are Truth, Prudence, Wisdom, Law and Universal Judgment, and in the explanation of what these mean Bruno unfolds the inner essence of his system. Truth is the unity and substance which underlies all things; Prudence or Providence is the regulating power of truth, and comprehends both liberty and necessity; Wisdom is providence itself in its supersensible aspect—in man it is reason which grasps the truth of things; Law results from wisdom, for no good law is irrational, and its sole end and aim is the good of mankind; Universal Judgment is the principle whereby men are judged according to their deeds, and not according to their belief in this or that catechism. Mingled with his allegorical philosophy are the most vehement attacks upon the established religion. The monks are stigmatized as pedants who would destroy the joy of life on earth, who are avaricious, dissolute and the breeders of eternal dissensions and squabbles. The mysteries of faith are scoffed at. The Jewish records are put on a level with the Greek myths, and miracles are laughed at as magical tricks. Through all this runs the train of thought resulting naturally from Bruno's fundamental principles, and familiar in modern philosophy as Spinozism, the denial of particular providence, the doctrine of the uselessness of prayer, the identification in a sense of liberty and necessity, and the peculiar definition of good and evil.

    [v.04 p.0687]

    In 1585-1586 he returned with Castelnau to Paris, where his anti-Aristotelian views were taken up by the college of Cambrai, but was soon driven from his refuge, and we next find him at Marburg and Wittenberg, the headquarters of Lutheranism. There is a tradition that here or in England he embraced the Protestant faith; nothing in his writings would lead one to suppose so. Several works, chiefly logical, appeared during his stay at Wittenberg (De Lampade combinatoria Lulliana, 1587, and De Progressu et Lampade venatoria logicorum, 1587). In 1588 he went to Prague, then to Helmstadt. In 1591 he was at Frankfort, and published three important metaphysical works, De Triplici Minimo et Mensura; De Monade, Numero, et Figura; De Immenso et Innumerabilibus. He did not stay long at Prague, and we find him next at Zürich, whence he accepted an invitation to Venice from a young patrician, Giovanni Mocenigo. It was a rash step. The emissaries of the Inquisition were on his track; he was thrown into prison, and in 1593 was brought to Rome. Seven years were spent in confinement. On the 9th of February 1600 he was excommunicated, and on the 17th was burned at the stake.

    For more than two centuries Bruno received scarcely the consideration he deserved. On the 9th of June 1889, however, as a result of a strong popular movement, a statue to him was unveiled in Rome in the Campo dei Fiori, the place of his execution.

    To Bruno, as to all great thinkers, philosophy is the search for unity. Amid all the varying and contradictory phenomena of the universe there is something which gives coherence and intelligibility to them. Nor can this unity be something apart from the things; it must contain in itself the universe, which develops from it; it must be at once all and one. This unity is God, the universal substance,—the one and only principle, or causa immanens,—that which is in things and yet is distinct from them as the universal is distinct from the particular. He is the efficient and final cause of all, the beginning, middle, and end, eternal and infinite. By his action the world is produced, and his action is the law of his nature, his necessity is true freedom. He is living, active intelligence, the principle of motion and creation, realizing himself in the infinitely various forms of activity that constitute individual things. To the infinitely actual there is necessary the possible; that which determines involves somewhat in which its determinations can have existence. This other of God, which is in truth one with him, is matter. The universe, then, is a living cosmos, an infinitely animated system, whose end is the perfect realization of the variously graduated forms. The unity which sunders itself into the multiplicity of things may be called the monas monadum, each thing being a monas or self-existent, living being, a universe in itself. Of these monads the number is infinite. The soul of man is a thinking monad, and stands mid-way between the divine intelligence and the world of external things. As a portion of the divine life, the soul is immortal. Its highest function is the contemplation of the divine unity, discoverable under the manifold of objects.

    Such is a brief summary of the principal positions of Bruno's philosophy. It seems quite clear that in the earlier works, particularly the two Italian dialogues, he approached more nearly to the pantheistic view of things than in his later Latin treatises. The unity expounded at first is simply an anima mundi, a living universe, but not intelligent. There is a distinct development traceable towards the later and final form of his doctrine, in which the universe appears as the realization of the divine mind.

    Bruno's writings had been much neglected when Jacobi brought them into notice in his Briefe über die Lehre Spinozas (2nd ed., 1879). Since then many have held that Descartes, Spinoza and Leibnitz were indebted to him for their main principles. So far as Descartes is concerned, it is highly improbable that he had seen any of Bruno's works. Schelling, however, called one of his works after him, Bruno.

    Bibliography.—The chief edition of the Latin works is that published at the public expense by F. Fiorentino, F. Tocco and H. Vitelli (Naples, 1879-1891), which superseded that of A.F. Gfrörer (Stuttgart, 1834, incomplete). The Italian works were collected by A. Wagner (Leipzig, 1830), and a new edition was published by P. de Lagarde (Göttingen, 1888-1889); also Opere Italiane, ed. Croce and G. Gentile (1907 foll.), with notes by the latter. In Germany, Gesammelte Werke, trans. L. Kuhlenbeck (1904 foll.). English translations:—The Spaccio, by Morehead, not as has been supposed by J. Toland (dated 1713, but probably printed earlier and very rare); of the preface to De l' Infinito (J. Toland in posthumous works); Eroici Furores, L. Williams (1888). There are also French and German translations.

    The chief English work on Giordano Bruno is that of J. Lewis McIntyre (London, 1903), containing life, commentary and bibliography. See also C. Bartholmess, J. Bruno (Paris, 1846-1847); Domenico Berti, Giordano Bruno da Nola (2nd ed., 1889); H. Brunnhofer, Giordano Brunos Weltanschauung (Leipzig, 1883); M. Carrière, Philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, pp. 411-494 (2nd ed., 1887); F.J. Clemens, Giordano Bruno und Nicolaus von Cusa (Bonn, 1847); Miss I. Frith, Life of Giordano Bruno the Nolan (London, 1887); C.E. Plumptre, Life and Works of Giordano Bruno (London, 1884); Chr. Sigwart, in Kleine Schriften, 1st series, pp. 49-124, 293-304; A. Riehl, G. Bruno (1889, ed. 1900; Eng. trans. Agnes Fry, 1905); Landsbeck, Bruno, der Martyrer der neuen Weltanschauung (1890); Owen, in Sceptics of the Italian Renaissance (London, 1893); C.H. von Stein, G. Bruno (1900); R. Adamson, Development of Modern Philosophy (Edinburgh and London, 1903); G. Louis, G. Bruno, seine Weltanschauung und Lebensauffassung (1900); O. Juliusberger, G. Bruno und die Gegenwart (1902); J. Reiner, G. Bruno und seine Weltanschauung (1907). The most important critical works are perhaps those of Felice Tocco, Le Opere Latine di Giordano Bruno (Florence, 1889), Le Opere Inedite di Giordano Bruno (Naples, 1891), Le Fonti piu recenti della filos. del Bruno (Rome, 1892). See also H. Höffding, History of Modern Philosophy (Eng. trans., 1900); J.M. Robertson, Short History of Freethought (London, 1906); G. Gentile, Giordano Bruno nella Storia della cultura (1907). For other works see G. Graziano, Bibliografia Bruniana (1900).

    (R. Ad.; J. M. M.)

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

    • Cassius
    • August 31, 2023 at 7:19 AM

    Joshua you mention in this episode something I do not recall your mentioning before about Bruno.

    You said that in particular he was fascinated by the "many worlds" position (presumably referring to Epicurus?).

    If you have something specific on that I would appreciate your posting on it as that is a subject that fascinates me and I don't think we give it nearly enough attention.

    Perhaps here unless there is a better place:

    The Universe As Eternal In Time: Nothing From Nothing / Nothing To Nothing / Eternality of the Universe

  • Statistics on "supernatural" beliefs (Gallup poll article)

    • Cassius
    • August 30, 2023 at 4:00 PM

    A question that is related to this is whether what we have listed as one of our four defining characteristics of EpicureanFriends ("No Life After Death") is clear enough to serve the purpose.

    It has been suggested to me that "No Immortal Soul" or "The Soul Dies With the Body" would more clearly eliminate some of the more "loose" interpretations that were at one time considered under the label "New Age."'

    I would be curious if anyone thinks that "No Immortal Soul" - which I do think is accurate - is in any way a better way to express the point than "No Life After Death." For most people I would wager those are substantially the same, but it's always good to compare notes.

    [I should also repeat another caveat: That list of four is not intended to be a mandatory requirement for having an account here. It's more of an effort to be considerate to people who aren't yet clear that this is Epicurus' position that if they are looking to Epicurus because they want to be "happy" - but they are committed to the idea of supernatural souls and any kind of life after death - then they should look into the point and think clearly before they decide to devote too much time to Epicurus.]

  • Gassendi's Engish Version of Life of Epicurus - Thomas Stanley Edition

    • Cassius
    • August 30, 2023 at 7:14 AM

    Scanning over this again you have to hand it to Gassendi for what seems like bringing together every surviving source (by no means just Laertius) in compiling the work. Lots of references to the Suidas which we rarely hear spoken of, but which seems to contain a lot, and that would be another source that would be good to investigate further.

  • Gassendi's Engish Version of Life of Epicurus - Thomas Stanley Edition

    • Cassius
    • August 30, 2023 at 6:41 AM

    Yes it took me a long while til I located that Stanley edition in a university library microfilm (I think it was)

    The text is hard to read for numerous reasons, not the least of which was the archaic spellings, / word forms which we decided not to update. I feel sure we have lots of errors from the PDF but the transcription at least makes sections easier to find.

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

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 9:10 PM

    I have set up a sub forum on Gassendi and included a partial transcription of the English edition of his main work on Epicurus:

    Thread

    Gassendi's Engish Version of Life of Epicurus - Thomas Stanley Edition

    Here is a link to Gassendi's work as posted at NewEpicurean.com:

    https://newepicurean.com/epicurus/gassendis-epicurus/

    Direct link to the PDF at Archive.org:

    https://archive.org/details/Stanle…curusByGassendi



    Link to a transcription of this edition here at Epicureanfriends:

    Gassendi's Life of Epicurus (Thomas Stanley) - Partial Transcription
    Cassius
    August 29, 2023 at 9:03 PM
  • Gassendi's Engish Version of Life of Epicurus - Thomas Stanley Edition

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 9:03 PM

    Here is a link to Gassendi's work as posted at NewEpicurean.com:

    Gassendi’s Epicurus – NewEpicurean

    Direct link to the PDF at Archive.org:

    Stanley, Thomas History Of Philosophy Vol 3 Epicurus, By Gassendi : Thomas Stanley : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
    Epicurus, By Peter Gassendi, Translated by Thomas Stanley
    archive.org


    Link to a transcription of this edition here at Epicureanfriends:

    Gassendi's Life of Epicurus (Thomas Stanley) - Partial Transcription

  • Cosma Raimondi's Letter to Ambrogio Tignosi

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 8:02 PM

    One question about this letter to further the discussion:

    I need to check back, but does Raimondi contradict that Diogenes Laertius and/or Cicero have to say about Epicurus' position as to happiness and the bull of Phalaris?

    The word "happiness" and "happiness" is very tricky, and I get the impression that the drift of Raimondi's position is correct, even if Laertius and Cicero seem to say otherwise, given the subtleties of the word.

    Probably something worth tracking down over time.

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

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 7:47 PM

    As Joshua cited above, one person we need to really turn a spotlight on is COSMA RAIMONDI. See the link below for more on his letter. It may well be that Raimondi is both the first and oldest firm exponent of Epicurus that we have in our records emerging out of the dark ages. As such it would be very very interesting to learn more about him, as he seems to have been active, and discussing Epicurus with others, right around the same time, or possibly even before, the "rediscovery" of Lucretius' poem. I have not been able to find out anything more about him, but his name probably deserves to be right up there on the list of people who most faithfully argued for Epicurus during the extremely long dark spell when he had so few defenders. At present Cosma Raimondi does not even have a Wikipedia entry for his name -- that needs to change! ;)

    Thread

    Cosma Raimondi's Letter to Ambrogio Tignosi

    A Letter to Ambrogio Tignosi in Defence of Epicurus against the Stoics, Academics and Peripatetics

    translated by Martin Davies (from Google Books)



    I have very little leisure at the moment to argue my views on the subject which your letters raise, being taken up with more weighty and much more difficult matters. I do not mind saying that I am very much occupied with my studies in astronomy. But since I have always followed and wholly approved the authority and doctrine of Epicurus, the very…
    Cassius
    August 29, 2023 at 7:42 PM
  • Cosma Raimondi's Letter to Ambrogio Tignosi

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 7:42 PM

    A Letter to Ambrogio Tignosi in Defence of Epicurus against the Stoics, Academics and Peripatetics

    translated by Martin Davies (from Google Books)

    I have very little leisure at the moment to argue my views on the subject which your letters raise, being taken up with more weighty and much more difficult matters. I do not mind saying that I am very much occupied with my studies in astronomy. But since I have always followed and wholly approved the authority and doctrine of Epicurus, the very wisest of men, and now see his standing bitterly attacked, harassed, and distorted by you, I have taken it upon myself to defend him. It is only right that tried and true pupils (as I have proved myself in all fields of learning) should defend their master’s teaching when it is attacked. Otherwise, when teachers are criticized, the pupil’s studies may themselves seem to be under attack. The great pains you have taken to gather material against Epicurus seem directed not so much at refuting him, but me, his follower and disciple. But I shall pay you back as you deserve.

    It is not just a dispute between ourselves, for all the ancient philosophers, principally the three sects of Academics, Stoics and Aristotelians, declared war to the death against this one man who was the master of them all. Their onslaught sought to leave no place for him in philosophy and to declare all his opinions invalid — in my view, because they were envious at seeing so many more pupils taking themselves to the school of Epicurus than to their own. So I shall now set about doing within the limits of a letter what I had meant to do at greater length elsewhere, and defend him as fully as I can. And if the defense appears rather long-winded, it might well seem too short when you consider that debate on this topic could fill not just a longish letter but thick books. The subject—what is the supreme good—is important and difficult; and it requires lengthy exposition: it is an investigation that attracted a good deal of discussion among the ancients, and many books survive on either side of the question.

    To show how unjustly you have attacked Epicurus and to make plain what he thinks is our ultimate goal, I shall therefore begin by treating the topic in some depth. Then I shall answer your letter and explain the whole matter in such a manner that you may actually be glad to return to the Epicurean camp you abandoned. Those who are not involved will say that it would be better first to refute the opponent’s position and then state one’s own. Yet the subject is so complex and obscure that I think it will perhaps be granted that we should first explain it as a whole, so that it becomes clearer what it is we are seeking.

    Epicurus is criticized, then, because he is thought to have taken too effeminate a view on what the supreme good is, by identifying it with pleasure and using that as the standard to measure everything else. But the more closely I consider the proposition, the more right it seems to be, as though it were something decreed not by a man but by Apollo or some sort of higher being. Epicurus scrutinized the force of nature in everything and grasped that nature has made and formed us in such a way that nothing suits us more than having and keeping our bodies sound and whole and remaining free from afflictions of mind or body. And so he laid down that the supreme good was located in pleasure. And how wise he was! What more can be said on the matter? What else can human happiness consist of? A man whose soul is in turmoil cannot be happy, no more than someone whose body is in pain can fail to be miserable. In case anyone thinks I am unaware of the temper of the times in which I discuss such things, I wish it to be understood that I am not now considering that absolute and true philosophy which we call theology. This entire enquiry concerns the human good of humankind and the various competing views of ancient philosophers on the matter.

    Though this was Epicurus’s judgment, the Stoics took a different view, arguing that happiness was to be found in virtue alone. For them the wise man would still be happy even if he were being tortured by the cruelest butchers. This is a position I most emphatically reject. What could be more absurd than to call a man ‘happy’ when he is in fact utterly miserable? What could be sillier than to say that the man being roasted in the bull of Phalaris,1 and subject to the most extreme torment, was not wretched? How again could you be further from any sort of happiness than to lack all or most of the things that themselves make up happiness? The Stoics think that someone who is starving and lame and afflicted with all the other disadvantages of health or external circumstances is nonetheless in a state of perfect felicity as long as he can display his virtue. All their books praise and celebrate the famous Marcus Regulus for his courage under torture.2 For my part I think that Regulus or anyone else, even someone utterly virtuous and constant, of the utmost innocence and integrity, who is being roasted in the bull of Phalaris or who is exiled from his country or afflicted quite undeservedly with misfortunes even more bitter, can be accounted not simply not happy but truly unhappy, and all the more so because the great and prominent virtue that should have led to a happier outcome has instead proved so disastrous for them.

    If we were indeed composed solely of a mind, I should be inclined to call Regulus `happy’ and entertain the Stoic view that we should find happiness in virtue alone. But since we are composed of a mind and a body, why do they leave out of this account of human happiness something that is part of mankind and properly pertains to it? Why do they consider only the mind and neglect the body, when the body houses the mind and is the other half of what man is? If you are seeking the totality of something made up of various parts, and yet some part is missing, I cannot think it perfect and complete. We use the term ‘human’, I take it, to refer to a being with both a mind and a body. And in the same way that the body is not to be thought healthy when some part of it is sick, so man himself cannot be thought happy if he is suffering in some part of himself. As for their assigning happiness to the mind alone on the grounds that it is in some sense the master and ruler of man’s body, it is quite absurd to disregard the body when the mind itself often depends on the state and condition of the body and indeed can do nothing without it. Should we not deride someone we saw sitting on a throne and calling himself a king when he had no courtiers or servants? Should we think someone a fine prince whose servants were slovenly and misshapen? Yet those who would separate the mind from the body in defining human happiness and think that someone whose body is being savaged and tortured may still be happy are just as ludicrous.

    I find it surprising that these clever Stoics did not remember when investigating the subject that they themselves were men. Their conclusions came not from what human nature demanded but from what they could contrive in argument. Some of them, in my view, placed so much reliance on their ingenuity and facility in debate that they did not concern themselves with what was actually relevant to the enquiry. They were carried away instead by their enthusiasm for intellectual display, and tended to write what was merely novel and surprising — things we might aspire to, but not ones we should spend any effort in attaining. Then there were some rather cantankerous individuals who thought that we should only aim for what they themselves could imitate or lay claim to. Nature had produced some boorish and inhuman philosophers whose senses had been dulled or cut off altogether, ones who took no pleasure in anything; and these people laid down that the rest of mankind should avoid what their own natural severity and austerity shrank from. Others subsequently entered the debate, men of great and various intellectual abilities, who all delivered a view on what constituted the supreme good according to their own individual disposition. But in the middle of all this error and confusion, Epicurus finally appeared to correct and amend the mistakes of the older philosophers and put forward his own true and certain teaching on happiness.

    Now that the Stoics have, I hope, been comprehensively refuted, I shall set about confirming his views as clearly as I can, which will at the same time rebut those of the Peripatetics and of the Academics too. On these last, though, I shall not need to dwell at length, as for them everything is uncertain. What sort of philosophy is it that denies that anything is certain? I do not think that even the Academics themselves understood what they were saying. If the Stoics are madmen, the Academics seem to me quite insane.3

    There remain the Peripatetics, and they are more difficult to refute. Not only do they have a standard of certainty, but they argue in such a way that there seems to be some substance to what they are saying. But these philosophers too have in my judgment gone wholly astray. That will be more clearly grasped later on, once I have explained the main points of Epicurean doctrine. It will then be apparent to everyone that any others who lay claim to supremacy in philosophy and try to dislodge Epicurus from that position are utterly wrong, and that Epicurus’s teaching on happiness is entirely correct.

    To show that this is so, there is no better place to begin than with nature herself, the sole mistress and teacher of everyone, whose judgment on each and every matter we must take to be absolutely true. When she was fashioning man, she polished her creation with so many little touches that he seems to have been made purely for enjoyment and to take advantage of every sort of pleasure. She endowed him with senses so distinct, varied and useful that though there were many different types of pleasure, there was none in which he could not share. First she gave him eyes, whose outstanding characteristic is that they shrink from looking on anything ugly or disgusting. We love to look at things of beauty, and not by any conscious or rational decision but because nature impels us to do so. Which of us, ever, if we are hurrying off elsewhere, does not stop to look if we catch a glimpse of some attractive sight? This effect is so marked that I think man would have been a poor thing indeed if nature had taken away from him the ability to gaze on all the many lovely and beautiful objects she had created. Is there anyone, again, who does not thoroughly enjoy hearing singing and the sweet sounds of music? The lyre and other such instruments seem to have been invented for the specific purpose of charming our souls. The same can be said of smell and the other senses, which the mind uses as its servants in sensing and grasping pleasure. I do not see what sort of pleasure can be found without the aid of the senses, unless perhaps it lies in study of the deep mysteries of the universe, which I do not deny can be a source of great mental delight. Of all the pleasures that there are, in fact, this is the greatest; and this is where the Peripatetics see true felicity, in examining and contemplating those hidden things which are most worth knowing. But our enquiry is into man as a whole, and not just a part of him: the Peripatetic thinker, no matter how profound, cannot be happy without external and bodily goods.

    Epicurus was right, then, to call pleasure the supreme good, since we are so constituted as almost to seem designed for that purpose. We also have a certain inherent mental disposition to seek and attain pleasure: as far as we can, we try to be happy and not sad. No one who ponders how much nature has produced for the sake of man alone, the quantity and copiousness and variety of her bounty, can doubt that pleasure is the greatest of all goods and that it should direct all our aims. We see a vast array of fine things on land and sea. Many of them are necessary to support life, but most are simply pleasurable— they are of such a sort that nothing but pleasure is to be gained from them. Nature would certainly not have created such objects of pleasure had it not intended man to enjoy them and concern himself with them.

    The passions and activities of mankind themselves make plain that everything is done for the sake of pleasure. Why on earth should we spend anxious nights and days involved in such great struggles to find and keep what we need for daily life unless we were sustained by the hope that some day we should be able to live a life of pleasure and enjoyment? If that hope were gone, our minds would be decidedly less inclined to take those pains and less keen and steadfast in enduring them. Why are scholarship and the disciplines of arts and letters thought so desirable unless there is some special natural enjoyment in acquiring them, besides the help they afford in gaining the wherewithal to pass our lives in pleasure? Nor should we be so keen on honours and glory, on kingdoms and empires, to acquire and defend which great battles and disputes often arise, if these were not objects of the utmost delight. Decisions on war and peace alike are taken on the basis of keeping, protecting and increasing those things by which we live and in which we take pleasure.

    Virtue, finally, is both the cause and guide of pleasure: it constrains us and warns us that we should pursue each thing within those same limits by which virtue itself is circumscribed. Why then should virtue be desired if not to allow us to lead an enjoyable life by avoiding those pleasures we should not seek and seeking those should? If virtue brings no pleasure or delight, why should we want it or make so much of it? But if it does, why not concede that the greatest of all goods — what should seek above all — is that for the sake of which virtue itself is desirable? We see that man’s whole constitution is geared towards the perception of pleasure, that nature carries us towards it, that a great many important things exist for the sake of pleasure, that all our actions are measured against its standard so that in the end lives may be free of care, in short that everything is desired purely on account of pleasure it will give us. In these circumstances, now that Epicurus’s case has conclusively proved by these rigorous and convincing arguments, who could still so hostile to him as not to assent to his doctrine and admit that the highest felicity will be found in pleasure?

    But the Peripatetics do deny his doctrine and cannot bear the thought that pleasure is the supreme good, placing it rather in virtue. I should like to ask them: if virtue itself is going to bring in its train sadness, grief, pain and fear, is it still to be desired? That, I think, they will not agree to. Since, then, virtue is sought for the tranquility it brings to life (in which, under the name of pleasure, Epicurus identified the supreme good), again I ask the Peripatetics why they are unwilling to place the greatest good in pleasure. If perhaps some think that by this Epicurus meant that we should spend our days wallowing in feasting and drinking, in gambling, games and the pleasures of sex, such a wastrel Epicurus would hardly deserve our praise. His teaching would indeed be lamentable if he wanted us to be gluttonous, drunken, debauched, boastful and promiscuous. But that is not what Epicurus in his wisdom said or recommended. In fact, so far was he from wanting us to live without virtue that virtue is actually essential for living up to his teaching, since it constrains and directs, as it were, all the bodily senses (as we argued already) and does not permit us to make use of them except when needed. Epicurus does not slide into pleasure in the manner of animals, without the exercise of judgment and when necessity does not require it, but rather enjoys it with restraint when it is right to do so. His theories, therefore, should not be neglected, nor should they be treated as condemned; and it is clear that the Peripatetics have not sufficiently understood what it is they are saying.

    I have run through these matters briefly and cursorily even though I do not suppose they necessarily respond to your letter directly. The discussion here will have answered it in full measure, or very largely. Yet I should still like to complete this refutation by touching on each single point you raise. You think that we should not let pleasure direct all our aims. That, I think, has been demolished at length, and with some elegance, by what I have said: it has been shown that pleasure is the standard to which everything must be referred. As for your adding that Epicurus likened us to animals,5 in that you seem to be not merely not attacking him but actually supporting his case. Since pleasure is endowed with such power that it is sought even by animals — brutes bereft of reason whose impulses are entirely guided by nature —Epicurus could draw from that fact the very firm conclusion that what all beings seek is the greatest of all goods. When I wrote that the severe Catos of old would on occasion take ample refreshment of wine, and you thought that a matter for criticism, it is in fact wholly admirable if a sage (as the Catos were taken to be)6 sometimes engages in conviviality of a rather exuberant sort. Your following remarks, whose drift is that if we embrace Epicurus we should be obliged to live like beasts, have, I think, been dealt with by what I said before: since Epicurus does not suppose that life should be lived without virtue, I do not think he leads the life of animals. So he is not to be shunned like some traitor who would overthrow or pervert human society. He does not corrupt public morals; his whole doctrine is instead directed at making us as happy as we can be.

    You must at length give up your attacks on Epicurus, then: reform yourself and return to the camp in which you once fought with distinction. You have now turned against him, under the spell of Stoic subtlety of argument and seduced by the majesty and splendor of the Academics and Peripatetics. But you may be forgiven for that, since you are a younger man not yet of an age to form a proper judgment on these very difficult matters, with the indulgence granted to youth. But now that you have been fully instructed in the arguments of Epicurus, if you persevere in your hostility towards him, you will be thought intolerably arrogant, and not a little stupid.

    Turn then to embrace Epicurus, whose teaching I shall perhaps expound at more length if ever I have greater leisure (this letter took me just two days to write, though I fear it may still be rather prolix). Shortage of time did not allow me to pursue all those aspects of the controversy which I feel could still benefit from clear exposition and discussion. I have had to leave many important points untouched, which someone who wanted to take an opposing view could seize upon to rebut my arguments, either-from disinterested love of truth or as an intellectual exercise. And that is not some thing which I should find unwelcome: I encourage any one who wants to contribute to the debate to enter the fray.

    You have had a pretty long letter which sets out the whole truth about Epicurus; You must either find it convincing or refute it by contrary arguments, so that if you come up with something better, I in turn may be persuaded by that.

    Farewell.

  • Episode 190 - Cicero's On Ends - Book One - Part 01

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 2:58 PM

    Yes that's a good question. I tend to think that some degree of reading of what we are talking about is helpful, but we did not do that with DeWitt primarily because his book was most commentary. When we are targeting the analysis of a particular text like we did with Lucretius or the letters to Epicurus, it makes sense to read them. This Cicero material is somewhere in between.

  • Sept 4, 2023 - Monday Night Epicurean Philosophy Hour

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 2:55 PM

    I will be there!

  • Episode 190 - Cicero's On Ends - Book One - Part 01

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 1:12 PM
    Quote from Joshua

    Ha! We should communicate better, that was about as far as I get in my transcription on Saturday.

    Thinking about this further, we really should start at the beginning for the sake of continuity, but I don't think there's an awful lot that will occupy us for very long other than the sort of background points you are making.

    And we have to decide what if anything to read, and if we do read anything, I suspect we should start with section V

  • Episode 190 - Cicero's On Ends - Book One - Part 01

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 12:47 PM

    Yes very good point. And it's sort of related to the point I was thinking about yesterday that that Lucretius makes over and over and over that it's not just "daylight" (which presumably means something like clear evidence) that brings the key insight, but by what must be something like "understanding" that comes from the study of nature. You can't "understand" if you can't read the arguments yourself, and "seeing" alone isn't enough.

    Book One

    [146] This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.

    Book Two

    50 For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.


    Book Three

    74 For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered, not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.

    Bpok Six

    40 For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature. Wherefore I will hasten the more to weave the thread of my task in my discourse.

  • The Temple of Venus Genetrix

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 10:06 AM

    Note -- see this thread I set up on Posidonius

    Post

    Posidonius - The Stoic Astrologer

    Joshua's reference to DeWitt's article on the history of Roman Epicureanism leads to this, on Posidonius, the Stoic of Roman period (died 51 BC) who embraced astrology. This is of course relevant to Epicurean philosophy's rejection of all sorts of divination, traceable to Epicurus himself, but which position would have been more relevant if promoted by Stoics like Posidonius.

    DeWitt Says:

    […]

    From Wikipedia on Posidonius:

    Physics[edit]

    […]

    The Wikipedia article includes that David Sedley also…
    Cassius
    August 29, 2023 at 10:02 AM

    It sure would be nice some day to set up a full graphical timeline of people and their positions (both friendly and unfriendly) who are particularly relevant to core Epicurean philosophy positions.

  • Posidonius - The Stoic Astrologer

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 10:02 AM

    Joshua's reference to DeWitt's article on the history of Roman Epicureanism leads to this, on Posidonius, the Stoic of Roman period (died 51 BC) who embraced astrology. This is of course relevant to Epicurean philosophy's rejection of all sorts of divination, traceable to Epicurus himself, but which position would have been more relevant if promoted by Stoics like Posidonius.

    DeWitt Says:

    Quote

    It was not the multiplication of its rivals, however, nor their combination, nor sumptuary laws, nor even the disorder of civil wars, that finally destroyed Roman Epicureanism as a distinctive movement. These were hostile influences, of course, but the real solvent was the irresistible Roman tendency to syncretism, which is much preferable to the term eclecticism. The latter distinctly implies the act of choosing, which is falsely assumed. For example, Posidonius did not choose out the Stoic belief in fate as an element of the Stoic creed which might be combined with astrology. The process was quite different. Practice preceded synthesis. The Stoic belief in fate had been held in certain Roman circles for a century. The practice of astrology grew up alongside of it. Syncretism took place in spite of the philosophers, and all they could do was to acknowledge it. Philosophy, like theology, often pretends to lead the procession, when in reality it follows it.

    From Wikipedia on Posidonius:

    Physics[edit]

    Quote

    The philosophical grand vision of Posidonius was that the universe itself was interconnected as an organic whole, providential and organised in all respects, from the development of the physical world to the behaviour of living creatures.[34] Panaetius had doubted both the reality of divination and the Stoic doctrine of the future conflagration (ekpyrosis), but Posidonius wrote in favour of these ideas.[31] As a Stoic, Posidonius was an advocate of cosmic "sympathy" (συμπάθεια, sympatheia)—the organic interrelation of all appearances in the world, from the sky to the Earth, as part of a rational design uniting humanity and all things in the universe. He believed valid predictions could be made from signs in nature—whether through astrology or prophetic dreams—as a kind of scientific prediction.[35]

    The Wikipedia article includes that David Sedley also says Posidonius drew on Plato and Artistotle:

    He [Posidonius] followed not only the earlier Stoics, but made use of the writings of Plato and Aristotle.[28] Posidonius studied Plato's Timaeus, and seems to have written a commentary on it emphasizing its Pythagorean features.[29] As a creative philosopher, Posidonius would however be expected to create innovations within the tradition of the philosophical school to which he belonged.[30] David Sedley remarks:[31]

    Quote
    On the vast majority of philosophical issues, what we know of both Panaetius and Posidonius places them firmly within the main current of Stoic debate. Their innovatively hospitable attitude to Plato and Aristotle enables them to enrich and, to a limited extent, reorientate their inherited Stoicism, but, for all that, they remain palpably Stoics, working within the established tradition.


    So Roman Epicureans at the time Cicero was writing his Torquatus material in both "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods" would have reason to have been recently confronting claims by at least some Stoics of the validity of astrology.

  • The Temple of Venus Genetrix

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 7:32 AM

    One other thing to follow up on at some point as to Horace:

    To these indications of a general attitude a score of examples might easily be added to demonstrate his familiarity

    with minor Epicurean topics. An outstanding example of this class is his exhortation not to postpone the decision to save oneself.33 The identification of this topic as Epicurean depends upon a letter of the younger Seneca, who, unlike his immediate predecessors, dares to mention Epicurus by name, but apologizes for doing so.34

    33 Ep. , 2, 37-43.

    34 Ib. III, 1, 5-6; I, 12, 11 (Hense).

  • The Temple of Venus Genetrix

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 7:26 AM

    Here's the key point on syncretism:

    This drift towards fatalistic beliefs was augmented by the growing practice of consulting astrologers, and received a smart fillip when Posidonius arrived to propose a syncretism of Stoic determinism and astral fatalism. The rivals of Epicureanism were swiftly combining to crush it. Its denial of the possibility of divination was being negatived by a manifold practice yearly growing more universal. Its capacity for self-defense was simultaneously destroyed by the increase of gross hedonism under the same name. Between the Epicurean voluptuary and the Epicurean ascetic neither popular opinion nor serious legislation was likely to make a distinction. Julius Caesar enacted laws against both riotous living and new collegia.25 It is likely that both of these resulted in the dispersal of the Epicureans. Vergil's teacher Siro certainly withdrew from the city, and his pupils probably followed him.26

    It was not the multiplication of its rivals, however, nor their combination, nor sumptuary laws, nor even the disorder of civil wars, that finally destroyed Roman Epicureanism as a distinctive movement. These were hostile influences, of course, but the real solvent was the irresistible Roman tendency to syncretism, which is much preferable to the term eclecticism. The latter distinctly implies the act of choosing, which is falsely assumed. For example, Posidonius did not choose out the Stoic belief in fate as an element of the Stoic creed which might be combined with astrology. The process was quite different. Practice preceded synthesis. The Stoic belief in fate had been held in certain Roman circles for a century. The practice of astrology grew up alongside of it. Syncretism took place in spite of the philosophers, and all they could do was to acknowledge it. Philosophy, like theology, often pretends to lead the procession, when in reality it follows it.

    This process of syncretism, which in practice had been going on for a century, was abruptly and effectually, though somewhat prematurely perhaps, consummated by the philosophical writings of Cicero. The cessation of public life, which to him had been as bread and meat, threw him back upon the rich resources of his memory, and the death of Tullia spurred his mind and his pen alike to preternatural activity. In the two years and a half of life that remained he turned himself away from the immediate audience and synthesized the intellectual life of Rome for posterity. He hastened the syncretism that was all the while going on, and he absorbed the doctrines of all the schools into a composite fabric, not of true philosophy but of general culture.

  • The Temple of Venus Genetrix

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 7:21 AM

    Thanks for pointing again to that Dewitt article -- it contains what I consider to be very good analysis, and even sheds some light on our recent discussions about DeWitt's on views.

    It is interesting that he labels the "Great Commission" as "trite," and that he says about Lucretius;

    The wish is father to the thought, as Julius Caesar once remarked, and out of our great love and admiration for

    Lucretius we are tempted to magnify his influence, but if his works had perished there is no denying that we should know little more than his name.

    This is also an interesting statement about Lucretius, who he says "seems to have withdrawn within himself and to have become an unsocial socialist, dreaming of redeeming the common run of mankind by a work of reason fit only for the few."

    More comments of interest:

    "Somewhere about this date the Aetna was composed, the only poem that is composed entirely in the Lucretian

    manner." (I realize he refers to manner and not to content, but still might be interesting to review "Aetna" at some point.)

    "The lack of Stoic professors in the capital was remedied by the arrival of Posidonius in 51, who healed the quarrel between Stoic and astrological determinism, which had been necessary to the purer teaching of Panaetius." (That's an issue and a development of which I am unaware.)

  • Episode 190 - Cicero's On Ends - Book One - Part 01

    • Cassius
    • August 29, 2023 at 6:58 AM

    We can talk about the earlier part before that too, if you've reviewed it, but it was so generic I was concerned that it some of our podcast fans who are less interested in Roman history might revolt ;) . But good to know that you read it because we definitely need to set some background before we get to the main Epicurean part.

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

Here is a list of suggested search strategies:

  • Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
  • Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
  • Search Tool - icon is located on 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."
  • Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
  • Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.

Resources

  1. Getting Started At EpicureanFriends
  2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
  3. The Major Doctrines of Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  4. Introductory Videos
  5. Wiki
  6. Lucretius Today Podcast
    1. Podcast Episode Guide
  7. Key Epicurean Texts
    1. Side-By-Side Diogenes Laertius X (Bio And All Key Writings of Epicurus)
    2. Side-By-Side Lucretius - On The Nature Of Things
    3. Side-By-Side Torquatus On Ethics
    4. Side-By-Side Velleius on Divinity
    5. Lucretius Topical Outline
    6. Usener Fragment Collection
  8. Frequently Asked Questions
    1. FAQ Discussions
  9. Full List of Forums
    1. Physics Discussions
    2. Canonics Discussions
    3. Ethics Discussions
    4. All Recent Forum Activities
  10. Image Gallery
  11. Featured Articles
  12. Featured Blog Posts
  13. Quiz Section
  14. Activities Calendar
  15. Special Resource Pages
  16. File Database
  17. Site Map
    1. Home

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

  • Inferential Foundations of Epicurean Ethics - Article By David Sedley

    Cassius January 22, 2026 at 8:34 PM
  • "The Summum Bonum Fallacy" - General Discussion of DeWitt's Article

    Joshua January 22, 2026 at 8:34 PM
  • The "Suggested Further Reading" in "Living for Pleasure"

    Joshua January 22, 2026 at 8:26 PM
  • What Is The Relationship Between "Hedonic Calculus" Analysis" and "Natural and Necessary Desire" Analysis?

    Kalosyni January 22, 2026 at 6:47 PM
  • Would Epicurus approve of Biblical or Quranic studies in order to confident in disproving it?

    wbernys January 22, 2026 at 3:57 PM
  • Fourth Sunday Zoom - Jan. 25, 2026 - Epicurean Philosophy Discussion Via Zoom - Agenda

    Kalosyni January 22, 2026 at 2:50 PM
  • “WE GOT BEEF! (A Disembowelment of the Dialectic…)”

    Matteng January 22, 2026 at 1:20 PM
  • Video on "Confidence"

    Cassius January 21, 2026 at 4:44 PM
  • Episode 317 - TD43 - The Epicurean "System Of Counterbalancing" In Pursuit Of Pleasure

    Cassius January 21, 2026 at 4:40 PM
  • New "TWENTIERS" Website

    Eikadistes January 20, 2026 at 2:34 PM

Frequently Used Tags

In addition to posting in the appropriate forums, participants are encouraged to reference the following tags in their posts:

  • #Physics
    • #Atomism
    • #Gods
    • #Images
    • #Infinity
    • #Eternity
    • #Life
    • #Death
  • #Canonics
    • #Knowledge
    • #Scepticism
  • #Ethics

    • #Pleasure
    • #Pain
    • #Engagement
    • #EpicureanLiving
    • #Happiness
    • #Virtue
      • #Wisdom
      • #Temperance
      • #Courage
      • #Justice
      • #Honesty
      • #Faith (Confidence)
      • #Suavity
      • #Consideration
      • #Hope
      • #Gratitude
      • #Friendship



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