Posts by Cassius

Feline is not related to Latin felix ("happy, fortunate, blessed").
It comes from a completely different Latin word: fēlēs (genitive: fēlis), which means "cat" or "wildcat."Etymology Comparison

Key Points

• The similarity in spelling (feli- vs feli-) is purely coincidental — a case of false cognate or folk etymology.
• Fēlēs (cat) is an ancient Latin word with no known connection to happiness or blessing. Its origins are uncertain, possibly onomatopoeic or from an Indo-European root related to "wild animal."
• Felix (happy) is thought to derive from an earlier root meaning "fertile" or "productive" (related to fēcundus "fertile" and fēcundus "fruitful"), which aligns with ideas of good fortune or blessing.

Seems like I recall some variation of felicity being used by Jefferson but I'll have to look further (these two charts are chatgpt):

Episode 312 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: " Word Games Are No Substitute For Reality."

Also in this thread as to the proper interpretation of words like "happiness" let's not forget another famous example of a Latin word used in similar meaning: felix.

Presumably Virgil understood Epicurus very well, so it's interesting that his famous line used felix in this context:

Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas - Wikipedia

Given modern association of felix with "feline" or cats I am not sure that helps much, but "Felicitations" appears to retain much of the same meaning, so it would be interesting to examine the Latin roots.

Welcome to Episode 313 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
   
We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week at Section 40 of Part 5.

Last week one of the points made last week was that while a lot of philosophy can be viewed by non-specialists as a word game, there are deep differences in the foundations of the different schools that lead to dramatically different conclusions about how to live. The words can begin to blur together, and the definition-games can become tedious, but it is extremely important to know what is behind the analysis of any viewpoint in order to judge the ultimate result.

This issue of whether virtue is the only good, or whether virtue is sufficient for happiness, has tremendous practical implications. Who or what gets to decide what "good" is? Who or what gets to decide what "virtue" is? Who or what gets to decide what "happiness" is? Behind the Stoic / Platonic / non-Epicurean viewpoint is this idea that there are supernatural gods, or supernatural ideal forms, to which we should look to tell us what to do rather than the sense of pleasure and pain which Nature gives to each of us individually. The choice of school you choose to follow is therefore going to have tremendous implications on your life individually, socially, religiously, politically, and in probably every way imaginable.

Let's also in this context go back and quote the way Cicero quotes Epicurus as to the sorites syllogism we used last night and the full context of it.

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.41—42 (Usener 67, 69)

[Epicurus On The End] 'For my part I cannot conceive of anything as the good if I remove the pleasures perceived by means of taste and sex and listening to music, and the pleasant motions felt by the eyes through beautiful sights, or any other pleasures which some sensation generates in a man as a whole. Certainly it is impossible to say that mental delight is the only good. For a delighted mind, as I understand it, consists in the expectation of all the things I just mentioned - to be of a nature able to acquire them without pain... ' A little later he adds: 'I have often asked men who were called wise what they could retain as the content of goods if they removed those things, unless they wanted to pour out empty words. I could learn nothing from them; and if they want to babble on about virtues and wisdoms, they will be speaking of nothing except the way in which those pleasures I mentioned are produced.' (Long & Sedley - Hellenistic Philosophers)

We might want to repeat the "color gradient chart" to illustrate this.

When you playing with these Platonists and Stoics you're playing word games in which the dice are loaded and the games are stacked against you as much as any casino in Los Vegas or Atlantic City.

At some point we need to compare this to Rand's (Aristotle's) A = A A think is itself.

And let's also cite what Joshua mentioned from Lorenzo Valla:

Post

RE: Happy Twentieth of December 2025!

Here is that passage from Lorenzo Valla's De Voluptate:

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/6012/

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/6013/

Joshua

December 20, 2025 at 8:31 PM

I thought we already had a thread on this in the forum but it looks like I was remembering an old exchange I had back on Facebook in 2015 as to Freyr and his sidekick Gullenbursti. I'll set up this thread mainly as a placeholder to start.

I'll also see if I can reconstruct more of the past discusion but I see it referenced in a NewEpicurean post from 2015 with this:

Today’s post is brought to you in part by Freyr, the Nordic god of pleasure AND peace, and especially his sidekick golden boar, Gullenbursti, to whose contemplation today I owe to Jason Baker! Jason has also provided these links for further research on possible Freyr – Epicurean connections:

Freyr - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…lse&h=PAQEDR7J2

Old Norse Religion in Long-term Perspectives

http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…%2F&h=1AQEgTZCC

Roman Riches in Iron Age Denmark – Ancient History et cetera

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…lse&h=uAQG8cseL

http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…%2F&h=DAQHxEuI_

A tentative comparison of Greek, Roman, and Norse myths by…

It's possible that this is the main thread I remember from Facebook:

Epicurean Philosophy | I have always wondered why the pig is the symbol for Epicureanism | Facebook

I have always wondered why the pig is the symbol for Epicureanism. Wouldn't a symbol like the American Eagle be more dignified and expressive of the…

www.facebook.com

Hmmmm I just noticed in posting that last link that that thread is "closed."

Not sure what happened there - probably the thread and the reason for closing it needs a revisit at some point!

Ok I just scanned over that thread and now I expect that my subconsciously remembering it i part of the reason I responded to Daniel's initial post the way I did.

I'd put the Seneca quotation in a category similar to what I think Don (?) has cited in the past about Cicero exploring techniques for improving memory such as the "walk-through-the-house" (?) method. Nothing wrong with posting about that kind of thing at all.

If I'm remembering correctly most of the "concern' would probably be about pursuing certain specific "meditation" techniques such as are associated with eastern/buddhist ideas. I think Kalosyni and others know a lot more about issues there than do I.

At the moment however that doesn't seem to be the topic so we can defer those issues to another place and time unless/until someone wants us to open another thread on them.

i haven't closely studied issues involving meditation, but this discussion reminds me of that. I seem to recall we have one or maybe more threads with people talking about hazards of meditation at least in certain circumstances, so I will see if I can link one or more of those comments.

I'm probably thinking about this one from three years ago:

Thread

Meditation and Epicurean Philosophy (?)

Admin Note: This thread is currently closed.

There is no evidence that Epicurus or Epicureans practiced meditation. There are many forum members who have studied Buddhism in the past, and this thread remains here as a reminder to focus on Epicurean goals for how choices of what to do are based on the pleasure that they bring, or the relief from stress that they bring (and not as a kind of virtue/religious discipline to develop as it often becomes for Buddhists). -- October 17, 2024

…

Matt

January 9, 2022 at 8:01 PM

"Self-awareness" however is certainly something I agree is desirable, and I also know that I identify "lack of self awareness" as a huge problem.

Quote from Don

An interesting and worthwhile discussion. Welcome aboard, Daniel188 !

Yes Don is right there are all many aspects of this discussion worth pursuing, so thank you Daniel for starting the topic!

Quote from Daniel188

I apologize if I sounded arrogant. My intention was simply to try to convey something that helps me personally and can be adapted for various purposes. I find such a suggestion rather harmless. As for the issue of Seneca himself and his philosophical views, I assume that most people here understand the errors of Stoicism. I think this is an appropriate post for "Epicurean Life Strategies for Modern Times." Critiques of Platonic absolutes and providential order would fit into other categories.

No need for concern and I want to stress I did not intend to be harsh either. Your responses were excellent! I am constantly fine-tuning the tone and approach of the front page of the forum and our vetting process. I want to be sure that we are being clear about the differences between Stoics and Epicurus, and as we move into 2026 I am working towards making some of these differences even more prominent.

Again, welcome to the forum. Your answers show just the kind of awareness that we need in the type people who post here!

To elaborate on my post a little further, I note that D. tells us that he is "relatively new to Epicurean philosophy but am very eager to learn more and your site appears to have an amazing wealth of materials."

It's definitely possible to answer the question posed by the post in a positive way without implying that Pythagoras or Seneca have any merit in terms of any advice they might offer to Epicurean philosophy. However the elephant in the room is that Pythagoras was an awful influence on Greek philosophy, and the life of Seneca displays the worst aspects of adopting Stoicism as a guide, leading to the hypocrisy which Thomas Jefferson and Nietzsche and many others have condemned.

So maybe the first step in deeloping our skills in "self-awareness" includes being aware of who should and should not be cited and followed as being beneficial authorities and influencers.

Thanks for posting Daniel and welcome to the forum.

Quote from Daniel188

What do you think about all this?

Quote from Daniel188

Today I'd like to present a method for developing self-awareness that I originally learned from the Stoics. I believe this method can be used to pursue the Epicurean telos.

First of all in suggesting this, have you thought about what the Epicurean telos is and how it relates to setting a goal of developing self-awareness?

How would you explain that to someone who came across this post on the forum and thought to themselves: I thought this was an Epicurean forum, not a Stoic forum?

Since you are new here and others don't know "where you're coming from" in suggesting this, before we go too far with it there are fundamentals to examine. First, we should examine the thought process in how and when we can look to Seneca or to any other Stoic for anything other than gross philosophical malpractice and perpetuating the wrong approach to the nature of the universe and to living.

Very possibly you're much more advanced and better read than me or others here. However since there's no way for us at this point to know that, please explain your thought process in asking the question.

I've always been fascinated by thls chicken-or-egg line of reasoning:

Quote from Lucretius 5:181

Further, how was there first implanted in the gods a pattern for the begetting of things, yea, and the concept of man, so that they might know and see in their mind what they wished to do, or in what way was the power of the first-beginnings ever learnt, or what they could do when they shifted their order one with the other, if nature did not herself give a model of creation? For so many first-beginnings of things in many ways, driven on by blows from time everlasting until now, and moved by their own weight, have been wont to be borne on, and to unite in every way, and essay everything that they might create, meeting one with another, that it is no wonder if they have fallen also into such arrangements, and have passed into such movements, as those whereby this present sum of things is carried on, ever and again replenished.

I interpret the meaning of this to be that there was never a necessity for gods to have a pattern because the universe and it's process have always existed.

As for intelligence and concepts, paraphrasing the deWitt quote Joshua likes to cite, a universe with no design or intention or concepts of its own naturally produced beings who do have concepts and designs and intentions.

Sextus can argue that:

Hence in order to grasp human happiness we must first have the idea of god and deity, but in order to have the idea of god we must first have a conception of a happy man. Therefore each, by presupposing the idea of the other, is unthinkable for us.

But there's no reason to think that there was ever a "first" example of such a being, given that the universe's processes have been operating eternally. So the issue isn't "unthinkable" as Sextus alleges. In fact it's the contrary. What is unthinkable is that the processes we observe today of biological beings developing over time to produce intelligence and concepts and designs ever had a beginning. These processes are natural and therefore the "conceptions" we are talking about have always existed at innumerable places and times in the past, and will continue to do so eternally into the future.

It's Sextus and the intelligent designers who are starting from an unthinkable premise -- divine creation from nothing.

D Campell tells me that he is "relatively new to Epicurean philosophy but am very eager to learn more and your site appears to have an amazing wealth of materials. Thanks very much"

Welcome D Campbell !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Don The following is from Long and Sedley Hellenistic Philosophers. I emphasized the last part with italics. I don't know that Sextus is correct that the entire issue is circular, but it's interesting that he is connecting these two issues (the meaning of happiness and the meaning of blessedness) and maybe the fact that he is doing so means that Epicurus did as well. The view might be unthinkable for skeptics like Sextus, but Epicurus was taking the view that there is apparently an innate aspect to knowledge of the gods.

Quote

#### Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors 9.43—7

The same reply can be made to Epicurus' belief that the idea of gods arose from dream impressions of human-shaped images. For why should these have given rise to the idea of gods, rather than of outsized men? And in general it will be possible to reply to all the doctrines we have listed that men's idea of god is not based on mere largeness in a human-shaped animal, but includes his being blessed and imperishable and wielding the greatest power in the world. But from what origin, or how, these thoughts occurred among the first men to draw a conception of god, is not explained by those who attribute the cause to dream impressions and to the orderly motion of the heavenly bodies. To this they reply that the idea of god's existence originated from appearances in dreams, or from the world's phenomena, but that the idea of god's being everlasting and imperishable and perfect in happiness arose through a process of transition from men. For just as we acquired the idea of a Cyclops by enlarging the common man in our impression of him, so too we have started with the idea of a happy man, blessed with his full complement of goods, then intensified these features into the idea of god, their supreme fulfillment. And again, having formed an impression of a long-lived man, the men of old increased the time-span to infinity by combining the past and future with the present; and then, having thus arrived at the conception of the everlasting, they said that god was everlasting too. Those who say this are championing a plausible doctrine. But they easily slip into that most puzzling trap, circularity.

For in order first to get the idea of a happy man, and then that of god by transition, we must have an idea of what happiness is, since the idea of the happy man is of one who shares in happiness. But according to them happiness (eudaimonia) was a divine (daimonia) and godly nature, and the word 'happy' (eudaimon) was applied to someone who had his deity (daimon) disposed well (eu). Hence in order to grasp human happiness we must first have the idea of god and deity, but in order to have the idea of god we must first have a conception of a happy man. Therefore each, by presupposing the idea of the other, is unthinkable for us.

We have not as yet in our podcast gone through Cicero's On Fate. If we do, here is one passage we will want to focus on. Here, Cicero criticizes Epicurus' view of the swerve as unnecessary. But Cicero also explains the importance of the question, and in contrast to what we might expect, Cicero takes the side of Carneades. Carneades (an Academic Skeptic) joins with Epicurus in result (but not in reasoning). He attacks the Stoic view of hard determinism/fate based on non-swerve grounds.

This is the Long & Sedley translation from The Hellenistic Philosophers:

Quote

Cicero, On Fate 21-25

At this initial stage, if I were disposed to agree with Epicurus and to deny that every proposition is either true or false, I would rather accept that blow than allow that all things happen through fate. For the former view is at least arguable, whereas the latter is truly intolerable. Chrysippus, then, strains every nerve to persuade us that every axioma (proposition) is either true or false. For just as Epicurus is afraid that if he admits this he will have to admit that all events happen through fate — for if one of the two has been true from all eternity it is certain, and if certain then necessary too, which he considers enough to prove both necessity and fate - so too Chrysippus fears that if he fails to secure the result that every proposition is either true or false he cannot maintain that everything happens through fate and from eternal causes of future events. But Epicurus thinks that the necessity of fate is avoided by the swerve of atoms. Thus a third type of motion arises in addition to weight and impact, when the atom swerves by a minimal interval, or elachiston as he terms it.

That this swerve occurs without a cause he is forced to admit in practice, even if not in so many words. For it is not through the impact of another atom that an atom swerves. How, after all, can one be struck by another if atomic bodies travel perpendicularly in straight lines through their own weight, as Epicurus holds? For it follows that one is never driven from its course by another, if one is not even touched by another. The consequence is that, even supposing that the atom does exist and that it swerves, it swerves without a cause. Epicurus' reason for introducing this theory was his fear that, if the atom's motion was always the result of natural and necessary weight, we would have no freedom, since the mind would be moved in whatever way it was compelled by the motion of atoms. Democritus, the originator of atoms, preferred to accept this consequence that everything happens through necessity than to rob the atomic bodies of their natural motions. A more penetrating line was taken by Carneades, who showed that the Epicureans could defend their case without this fictitious swerve. For since they taught that a certain voluntary motion of the mind was possible, a defence of that doctrine was preferable to introducing the swerve, especially as they could not discover its cause.

And by defending it they could easily stand up to Chrysippus, for by conceding that there is no motion without cause they would not be conceding that all events were the result of antecedent causes. For our volition has no external antecedent causes. Hence when we say that someone wants or does not want something without a cause, we are taking advantage of a common linguistic convention: by 'without a cause' we mean without an external antecedent cause, not without some kind of cause, just as, when we call a jar 'empty', we are not speaking like natural philosophers who hold the empty (void) to be absolute nothing, but in such a way as to say that the jar is, for example, without water, without wine or without oil, so too when we say that the mind moves 'without a cause' we mean without an external antecedent cause, not entirely without a cause. Of the atom itself it can be said that, when it moves through the void as a result of its heaviness and weight, it moves without a cause, in as much as there is no additional cause from outside. But here too, if we don't all want to incur the scorn of the natural philosophers for saying that something happens without a cause, we must make a distinction and say as follows: that it is the atom's own nature to move as a result of weight and heaviness, and that that nature is itself the cause of its moving in that way. Similarly for voluntary motions of the mind there is no need to seek an external cause. For a voluntary motion itself has it as its own intrinsic nature that it should be in our power to obey us. And this fact is not without a cause: for the cause is that thing's own nature.

I came across the statement quoted above in Book 4 of Lucretius which is relevant to the way we discuss the role of reason in relation to the senses. At least in my own case I need to emphasize this point more during our discussions:

Quote

Lucretius 4.379—86

Nor in this [shadow illusions] do we admit that the eyes are in any way deceived. For their function is to see where light and shade are. But whether or not it is the same light, and whether the shadow that was here is the same one as is passing over there, or whether rather it happens in the way we said a moment ago, this falls to the mind's reason to discern. The eyes cannot discover the nature of things. So do not trump up this charge against the eyes for a fault which belongs to the mind.

(Long and Sedley The Hellenistic Philosophers)

I frequently comment on Lucretius' repeated use of the statement made first in 1:146 that: "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."

I would presume that the point being made in both locations is approximately the same. it's not by observation alone, but by proper processing of observations through the mind, that we learn the true nature of things.

Quote from Kalosyni

Perhaps one way to deal with this could be similar to how in our time we have legal documents which often have a long list of word definitions given before the main part of the legal explanation.

So what you are exploring are 'formats" such as timeline vs spreadsheet vs venn diagram -- methods of presenting or visualizing data?

Just working on some other material today and came across this line in book five of Lucretius. I think the underlined part is something I would add to any list of quotations to support the view that life is desirable and that it is pleasure that makes it so:

Quote

Lucretius 5:170

Did our life lie in darkness and misery until the world's beginning dawned? Although anyone who has been born must wish to remain in life so long as the caresses of pleasure hold him there, if someone has really never tasted the passion for life and has never been an individual, what harm does it do him not to have been created? (L&S-THP)

Admin note: Comments made in the Blog, Gallery, and Calendar don't always get picked up in notifications or web searches, so we sometimes cross-post significant comments like this one into appropriate the forum section.

Quote from Eikadistes in the Files Section

These are great finds! Thank you, in particular for including the texts from Maimonides, which provides important, critical commentary. The Epicurean hagiographies (so to speak) really color-in the lines of ancient history, especially when it comes to critical observations with regards to culture and belief. Given the continued conflicts we observe today, which intersect with some of the propositions made herein, I appreciate that you present the topic with a variety of sources.

In attempting to re-create a general biography of Philódēmos' life, I tried to fill-in the gaps of his early life by cross-referencing his timeline against political conflict in his home. I found that the opinions of Gadarans must have been heavily colored by the fact that the Hasmonean dynasty kept trying to conquer them ... for decades. From my understanding, this activity became so threatening that the Nabateans, a nomadic, ancient Arab group helped repel the dynasty out of the area that corresponds with modern-day Jordan. Anyway, in this case, latter Epicureans (as so against neo-Platonists, and others) were already highly critical of the propositions made in ancient Hebrew texts. The organized violence waged by the Hasmonean dynasty against Greek-speaking towns in ancient Syria (as I imagine) must have reinforced that criticism, perhaps to the extent of reinforcing prejudice. (I mean to make no moral evaluation here. It's sensitive enough as it is).

I am particularly fascinated by the excerpt that describes Epiphanes entering the Holy of Holies. Most other mentions of it occur within sympathetic texts that glorify it as something other than a simple "stone statue of a long-bearded man, seated on a donkey, holding a document in his hand". Shit ... courthouses in Florida had similar statues in them a few years back. We're still depicting statues reflecting that original one in municipal buildings (as of this year).