Posts by Cassius

Thanks for those comments Bryan. I suppose to nail down another aspect of this discussion, would you or anyone else here advocate for Lucretius taking off in a bold new direction from Epicurus as to the nature of atoms? I suppose an interesting case could be made that Lucretius differed from Epicurus on the advisability of writing poetry, but i bet even there would could find a way to reconcile them.

But before we move past this topic we probably ought to address whether there's a persuasive argument that Lucretius tried to modify any core Epicurean doctrine, which seems to be the point Nail is arguing.

Good topic Matteng but please edit your first line:

Quote from Matteng

In the past I often read/here:

I it looks like you mean to say " read / hear "

because you've included a lot that I don't think you read HERE!

One more comment:

If what Nail is saying is that he sees much more emphasis on motion in Lucretius than he does in Epicurus, and that this is why we should not be overly focused on anything that is static, then I completely agree. I think motion is a critical component of Epicurean thought that deserves emphasis.

But I don't think that Epicurus failed to emphasize motion if he is perceived by some to do so, it is because people are obsessed with the discussion of katastematic vs static pleasure, as Nail discusses in his ethics section. If Nail is making the point that there are more profound implications of motion in ethics than people appreciate due to modern over-focus on ataraxia, then I agree with him.

But as I read the article he is more focused on something else, presumably elated to the universe being something other than discrete particles. (Is he arguing for a "plenum"?) I don't see Lucretius doing that at all nor do I think looking in that direction leads to anything helpful.

Also Eikadistes I just glanced back over your recent article. What you wrote makes perfect sense to me in going over the many different words that were used as apparent synonyms for particles and stressing that we should pay attention to them.

But while I see you making the important point that Epicurus was significantly different from Democritus and Leucippus, I don't see you saying that there are any profound differences between Epicurus and Lucretius.

Your article seems very clear and helpful. This one by Nail strikes me much differently as implying profound differences between Epicurus and Lucretius which are not clearly explained. I have not generally found the contention that Lucretius differs significantly from Epicurus to be helpful or well grounded in persuasive argument, and that's how I react to this article too.

So at this moment my reaction is that I completely endorse anyone taking the time to read your article. On the other hand I doubt that the Nail article is a good use of time for most readers. Please correct me if you think i am off base!

Thread

Epicurus Was Not an Atomist (...sort of)

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/6015/

Greetings, all! I published some thoughts about the limitations in our employment of the word "atomism" as an expression of ancient Epicurean particle physics. I'll admit that I might be splitting hairs here, and exploiting a post-structuralist position about the symbols and their context ... I read a lot of Derrida back in college. I apologize in advance.

In a nutshell:

• The notions of "atomism" and "ancient Epicurean particle physics" can be contrasted

…

Eikadistes

December 22, 2025 at 2:24 PM

I just read the article. I agree with some of Nail's points on ethics (especially his implicit or explicit criticism of too much focus on static / katastematic ideas) but I am not seeing the profound differences between Lucretius and Epicurus that he claims to see as to particles or the resulting nature of the universe.

In fact I don't think his article gives a clear statement of where he is going with his whole argument. He seems to think there are profound implications in Lucretius deviating from Epicurus - but so far as I can tell he is not explaining what significance there is in what he is seeing.

I gather he is focusing on implications of motion but I see no reason why what he talks about as to motion is not already in Epicurus.

The article has lots of energetic argument but at least for me I don't see why he is so worked up.

Eikadistes I know you have written recently on this. What so you see to be the implications of his argument?

Watching a video of a reconstruction of ancient Rome brought my attention to "Fausta Felicitas."

In addition to Virgil's "Felix quit potuit...." passage I presume that the Romans in general would have connected the word "Felicitas" to the happiness described by Epicurus and the other philosophers. Presumably there were Latin translations of the letter to Menoeceus and if so would not felicitas have been the most likely translations of the happiness Epicurus refers to when he said that if we have it we have everything(?)

Felicitas had a temple in Rome as early as the mid-2nd century BC, and during the Republican era was honored at two official festivals of Roman state religion, on July 1 in conjunction with Juno and October 9 as Fausta Felicitas. Felicitas continued to play an important role in Imperial cult, and was frequently portrayed on coins as a symbol of the wealth and prosperity of the Roman Empire. Her primary attributes are the caduceus and cornucopia.^[5] The English word "felicity" derives from felicitas.

In its religious sense, felix means "blessed, under the protection or favour of the gods; happy." That which is felix has achieved the pax divom, a state of harmony or peace with the divine world.^[6] The word derives from Indo-European *dhe(i)l, meaning "happy, fruitful, productive, full of nourishment."

Also, (and this is interesting to me because Bryan recently made me aware that the Memmius to whom Lucretius addressed his poem was married to Sulla's daughter): Sulla identified himself so closely with the quality of felicitcas that he adopted the agnomen (nickname) Felix. His domination as dictator resulted from civil war and unprecedented military violence within the city of Rome itself, but he legitimated his authority by claiming that the mere fact of his victory was proof he was felix and enjoyed the divine favor of the gods.

Felicitas was a watchword used by Julius Caesar's troops at the Battle of Thapsus,^[45] the names of deities and divine personifications being often recorded for this purpose in the late Republic.^[46] Felicitas Iulia ("Julian Felicitas") was the name of a colony in Hispania that was refounded under Caesar and known also as Olisipo, present-day Lisbon, Portugal.^[47]

Felicitas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also: https://grokipedia.com/page/Felicitas

jlpendall tells us:

Hi Cassius!

I learned a little bit about Epicurus decades ago, but it was only after basically a lifetime of practicing various philosophies that his take on things started to click.

At 39, I’m starting the classic struggle of coping with the ravages of age. 2025 was full of different health concerns, culminating in sciatica that knocked me flat from Christmas Eve to New Year’s Eve.

Once the pain faded, I realized that its absence was a pleasure in itself. Since then, I’ve been trying to make mindfulness of absence part of my daily life. I’m focusing on the body, but there are many pains that I’ve been in that are absent at the moment, and that’s something to appreciate.

I’m still struggling with unhealthy habits from my more negligent hedonism. I’d like to find enough joy in ordinary painlessness that I don’t feel the need to dope myself with carbs and fanciful daydreams anymore.

Most of all, I’ve always sought a community.

Welcome jlpendall

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!

Quote from Kalosyni

Just for fun I asked Google AI: In 2026, what are the odds that an astronaut will die?

The odds an astronaut will die are 100% - just like anyone else.

We all die, but some of us want the maximum pleasure we can get out of life before we do!

And for some of us, the life of an astronaut would lead to maximizing pleasure.

The texts are very clear - the Epicurean goal of life is "pleasure," not "tranquility" or "the avoidance of all pain at any cost."

That latter is Hieronymus, not Epicurus.

Reading ahead, there is a lot of useful information about Epicurus, and by no means is all of it criticism. We'll take as much time as we need to go through it, because this is some of the most authoritative summary material that survives from the ancient world. It is simply ridiculous to summarize the ultimate goal of life as "tranquility" or "absence of pain" when over an over it is clear that Epicurus said that the calculation is that of comparing pleasure to pain, and that we will absolutely choose pains that lead to pleasure that is greater than that pain.

Quote

So that a wise man will always adopt such a system of counterbalancing as to do himself the justice to avoid pleasure, should pain ensue from it in too great a proportion; and will submit to pain, provided the effects of it are to produce a greater pleasure: so that all pleasurable things, though the corporeal senses are the judges of them, are still to be referred to the mind, on which account the body rejoices, whilst it perceives a present pleasure; but that the mind not only perceives the present as well as the body, but foresees it, while it is coming, and even when it is past will not let it quite slip away. So that a wise man enjoys a continual series of pleasures, uniting the expectation of future pleasure to the recollection of what he has already tasted.

This paragraph is important for many reasons, not the least of which is that (1) Epicurus held that there is "nothing good but pleasure," (2) that it was not Epicurus but Hieronymous who held the good to be "absence of pain," and (3) that the Stoics held nothing to be good but virtue / "moral worth." For that reason I've spliced together the English and the Latin from the King / Loeb edition as a supplement to the Yonge version from which we generally read.

It's interesting to see how the translations are all over the board over words like "finibus" (here "limits") and "honestum" (here "moral worth") but maybe the most important of all for us is that the single word chosen for Epicurus' goal is "voluptatem" which is clearly understandable as "pleasure" rather than anything indicating "tranquility" or "calmness."

And of course all through the list we have "bonum" for "good," and it seems to me that the way Cicero is speaking he is clearly tightly relating, or even equating, "good" and "finibus."

It's very interesting also to see what alternatives are suggested by Carneades, presumably representing the Academic Skeptics, and the Peripatetics/Aristotelians.

Welcome to Episode 316 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
   
We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week after Section 30 of Part 5.

Thanks to Joshua for reminding us that this episode will mark our sixth year anniversary of podcasting about Epicurus!

XXX.

These then are the opinions, as I think, that are held and defended: the first four are simple ones; “that nothing is good but what is honest,” according to the Stoics: “nothing good but pleasure,” as Epicurus maintains: “nothing good but a freedom from pain,” as Hieronymus asserts: “nothing good but an enjoyment of the principal, or all, or the greatest goods of nature,” as Carneades maintained against the Stoics:—these are simple, the others are mixed propositions. Then there are three kinds of goods; the greatest being those of the mind, the next best those of the body, the third are external goods, as the Peripatetics call them, and the old Academics differ very little from them. Dinomachus and Callipho have coupled pleasure with honesty: but Diodorus, the Peripatetic, has joined indolence to honesty. These are the opinions that have some footing; for those of Aristo, Pyrrho, Herillus, and of some others, are quite out of date. Now let us see what weight these men have in them, excepting the Stoics, whose opinion I think I have sufficiently defended; and indeed I have explained what the Peripatetics have to say; excepting that Theophrastus, and those who followed him, dread and abhor pain in too weak a manner. The others may go on to exaggerate the gravity and dignity of virtue, as usual; and then, after they have extolled it to the skies, with the usual extravagance of good orators, it is easy to reduce the other topics to nothing by comparison, and to hold them up to contempt. They who think that praise deserves to be sought after, even at the expense of pain, are not at liberty to deny those men to be happy, who have obtained it. Though they may be under some evils, yet this name of happy has a very wide application.

Quote from Bryan

On a side note, I love young Epicurus in a spacesuit -- and it really is a fully appropriate image. THANK YOU!!!

It's certainly not the only way - but it is one way - to emphasize that Epicurean philosophy applies to everyone, that each of us gets old and eventually dies, and that we want the pleasure while we are alive of thinking that we are helping those who will come thereafter.

We write wills and do many other things to make sure that happens:

Fr. 3

Quote

Having already reached the sunset of my life (being almost on the verge of departure from the world on account of old age), I wanted, before being overtaken by death, to compose a [fine] anthem [to celebrate the] fullness [of pleasure] and so to help now those who are well-constituted. Now, if only one person or two or three or four or five or six or any larger number you choose, sir, provided that it is not very large, were in a bad predicament, I should address them individually and do all in my power to give them the best advice. But, as I have said before, the majority of people suffer from a common disease, as in a plague, with their false notions about things, and their number is increasing (for in mutual emulation they catch the disease from one another, like sheep) moreover, [it is] right to help [also] generations to come (for they too belong to us, though they are still unborn) and, besides, love of humanity prompts us to aid also the foreigners who come here. Now, since the remedies of the inscription reach a larger number of people, I wished to use this stoa to advertise publicly the [medicines] that bring salvation. These medicines we have put [fully] to the test; for we have dispelled the fears [that grip] us without justification, and, as for pains, those that are groundless we have completely excised, while those that are natural we have reduced to an absolute minimum, making their magnitude minute.

Thanks Joshua. I have more work to do on that so I will incorporate that as I revise the outline. It's difficult getting it working right on all screen sizes so if someone runs into a problem please let me know and Claude and I will adjust it!

As many of you know I have been working to consolidate many of the materials referenced here at EpicureanFriends.com which are currently scattered over a number of URLs.

I have revamped the existing EpicurusToday.com website to serve as a clearinghouse for those. EpicurusToday is a flat-file static website which is much easier to backup and restore in the event of hosting issues. Curating these materials there should serve as a good backup (and not at all a replacement) for EpicureanFriends.com.

Many broken links and half-written pages remain, but the new structure should already be useful in its current state. Please note that over time EpicurusToday.com will become the main URL for host for the side-by-side editions of Diogenes Laertius, Lucretius, Torquatus, and Velleius. Earlier "handbook" URLs will ultimately be retired, but they will remain online for the foreseeable future:

• Side By Side Lucretius
• Side By Side Diogenes Laertius X
• Side By Side Torquatus
• Side By Side Velleius

Of equal importance is the new "Topical Outline of Quotations." There is much more work to do on that, but it's already useful:

• Topical Concept Outline

Please comment in this thread with any bug reports of broken links or other issues. I do not plan to implement a comment system at EpicurusToday but I will link heavily to EpicureanFriends where we can collaborate on site improvements.

Episode 315 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Preventing Pain From Destroying Happiness"

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

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

Good issue for thought. My first thoughts:

Quote from wbernys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if they are insane, in what constitutes sanity?

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

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