Posts by Cassius

This point is implicit in many other discussions here on the board, especially those which relate to:

- Epicurus stating that he was happy even in the midst of dying from kidney disease.

- Epicurus saying that the wise man can be happy even while on the rack.

- Torquatus explaining to Cicero that the wise man is always happy because he always has more reason for joy than for vexation.

The reason I wanted to post this is to include a section of "Tusculan Disputations" where Cicero directly addresses the point that some people want to argue that "happiness" requires "completeness" - basically that if you are 99% happy but have 1% of your experience "not happy" then you should not consider yourself to be "happy."

This also falls under discussion of "the perfect is not the enemy of the good."

But here's one place where Cicero brings this up in Tusculan Disputations Part V, and takes the absolutist position:

Quote

VIII.¶

A. I wish that indeed myself; but I want a little information. For I allow, that in what you have stated, the one proposition is the consequence of the other; that as, if what is honourable be the only good, it must follow, that a happy life is the effect of virtue: so that if a happy life consists in virtue, nothing can be good but virtue. But your friend Brutus, on the authority of Aristo and Antiochus, does not see this: for he thinks the case would be the same, even if there were anything good besides virtue.

M. What then? do you imagine that I am going to argue against Brutus?

A. You may do what you please: for it is not for me to prescribe what you shall do.

M. How these things agree together shall be examined somewhere else: for I frequently discussed that point with Antiochus, and lately with Aristo, when, during the period of my command as general, I was lodging with him at Athens. For to me it seemed that no one could possibly be happy under any evil: but a wise man might be afflicted with evil, if there are any things arising from body or fortune, deserving the name of evils. These things were said, which Antiochus has inserted in his books in many places: that virtue itself was sufficient to make life happy, but yet not perfectly happy: and that many things derive their names from the predominant portion of them, though they do not include everything, as strength, health, riches, honor, and glory: which qualities are determined by their kind, not their number: thus a happy life is so called from its being so in a great degree, even though it should fall short in some point. To clear this up, is not absolutely necessary at present, though it seems to be said without any great consistency: for I cannot imagine what is wanting to one that is happy, to make him happier, for if anything be wanting to him he cannot be so much as happy; and as to what they say, that everything is named and estimated from its predominant portion, that may be admitted in some things. But when they allow three kinds of evils; when any one is oppressed with every imaginable evil of two kinds, being afflicted with adverse fortune, and having at the same time his body worn out and harassed with all sorts of pains, shall we say that such a one is but little short of a happy life, to say nothing about the happiest possible life?

I would say that's it's important to recognize that Epicurus is taking the position with which Cicero disagrees, that a happy life is so called from its being so in a great degree, even though it should fall short in some point.

In other words, Epicurus did not hesitate to call his last days happy even though he very definitely felt physical pain - and therefore those days could have been "more happy" without that physical pain during that time.

Yes that's one of the key quotes. There are several paragraphs in that section that are packed with info.

Excellent points.

These issues of recognizing more than one level of reality are discussed in similar manner in Sedley's "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism."

it seems to be difficult for some people (Plato et al) to think about there being a "higher-level" pespective and for others (Democritus) to think about there being an "atomic-level" perspective without ending up denying that our "middle-level" persective also exists and is just as real as the other two. In fact it's not "just as real" but for us it's actually more real because it is the level at which our senses function, and as you say the only way we can be sure of anything about the lower or higher levels is by the way we see impacts in our own level.

So that's why it's so important not to let the sensations be disparaged as untrustworthy. As soon as you stop demanding evidence at our own level of sensation then you've set the stage for all the otherworldiness both of religion and of "weird science" which goes with hope or speculation alone and without grounding in evidence that we can confirm.

I personally equate this too with Epicurus' statement about "outlining" in the letter to Herodotus. We have to keep the various levels of truth in our awareness at all times and be able to go back and forth between them without missing a beat.

And yes we'll go back over this in detail in the Sunday Zooms on Lucretius and then when we get back to Lucretius after the current review of the bigger-picture issues Cicero has summarized for us .

That's where I see us at currently. Most all of us need additional grounding in both the details and in the bigger picture. Cicero can show us where Epicurus stacks up (revolts) against the majority consensus. At the same time Lucretius shows us how Epicurus reasoned to his conclusions.

Cicero (On Ends / Tusculan Disputations / Academic Questions) gives us the big picture questions which everyone was asking and to which Epicurus was reacting, but Cicero doesn't give us the backup details of how Epicurus reached his conclusions. Lucretius gives us the backup details that explain how Epicurus reached his conclusions, but Lucetius often doesn't give us the big picture questions which everyone in 50 BC understood.

We need both in order to understand the full picture and what it means for us today.

Everyone should feel free to suggest addition of new "Cards" or rearrangements of items on existing cards. It won't be possible to accommodate all requests, but if you think something should be arranged differently then it's very possible others think the same, and we might not pick it up if someone doesn't suggest the possibility.

One of the main purposes of this format is to help those who access the site on cell phones in a narrow portrait mode. Drop-down menus and sidebars don't work very well on that format, but different people use different formats so if you see something that can be improved let us know.

The sorites question is going to come up again in upcoming podcast episodes so I am posting this as a refresher (Edited from Grok). I suspect there are a lot of people like me who aren't very familiar with this question or its unusual name. However the question it frames (especially in terms o "emergent properties" of atoms coming together into bodies) is very important in understanding how Epicurus differs from Democritus and other Greek philosophers.

The sorites problem (from Greek σωρός, sōros = “heap”) is a famous paradox in philosophy and logic that exposes how vague concepts break down when we try to apply sharp, precise boundaries to them.

Classic formulation (the heap paradox):

1. 1 grain of sand is not a heap.
2. Adding just 1 grain of sand to something that is not a heap can never turn it into a heap.
3. Therefore, even 1,000,000 grains of sand are not a heap.

The reasoning looks perfectly logical, but the conclusion is absurd — we all know a million grains of sand piled up is a heap.Same paradox with other vague concepts:

• Baldness: A man with 100,000 hairs is not bald. Removing one hair can’t make him bald. So removing hairs one by one means even a completely hairless man is not bald.
• Tallness: If 5′0″ is not tall, and adding 1 mm can’t make someone suddenly tall, then no one — not even 7′5″ basketball players — is tall.
• Forest: One tree is not a forest. Adding one tree can’t create a forest. Therefore a million trees do not make a forest. (← this ties directly to your earlier question)

Why it’s a problem

The sorites paradox reveals that many everyday concepts (heap, forest, tall, red, old, rich, conscious, alive, etc.) are vague — they have borderline cases and no precise cutoff point. Classical logic assumes everything is either true or false with a sharp boundary, but vague concepts don’t work that way.

Main attempted solutions (very brief)

1. Deny the premise – There actually is a precise number where it flips from “not a heap” to “heap” … we just don’t know it. (Most people find this unsatisfying.)
2. Fuzzy logic / degree theory – Truth comes in degrees. 1 grain = 0% heap, 10,000 grains = 47% heap, 1,000,000 grains = 99.9% heap, etc.
3. Epistemicism – There is a sharp boundary (e.g., exactly 42,687 grains = the first heap), but it’s unknowable to humans.
4. Supervaluationism – “It is a heap” is true when it’s true in all reasonable ways of making the term precise, false when false in all, and undefined in borderline cases.
5. Reject the concept entirely – Some philosophers say vague terms like “heap” or “forest” are fundamentally defective and shouldn’t be used in serious reasoning.

Bottom line

The sorites paradox shows that the world is full of genuinely fuzzy boundaries, and our crisp yes/no logic isn’t always equipped to handle them cleanly. It’s why the question — “Does a forest exist apart from its trees?” — is so slippery: there’s no single tree whose addition magically creates “a forest,” yet somehow the forest is undeniably real once enough trees are present.In short: the sorites problem is the philosophical land-mine hiding inside every vague word we use every day.

Example: Does a forest exist apart from its trees?

Yes — but only in certain ways, and no in others. It depends on what you mean by “exist.”

1. The forest exists as a real, emergent thing that is more than the sum of its trees.
   • It has properties none of the individual trees have: a microclimate, a canopy layer, a soil ecosystem, migratory bird corridors, wildfire behavior, carbon sequestration at scale, a distinct smell and soundscape, an aesthetic impact that makes you feel small.
   • Remove one tree? Still a forest.
   • Remove every tree one by one? At some point the forest objectively ceases to exist, even if the last tree is still standing.
     So the forest is real, but it is not a separate material object floating above the trees. It’s an emergent pattern that arises from the trees + their relationships + time + space.
2. The forest also exists as a concept in your mind.
   • You can burn every tree to the ground and the idea of “Black Forest” or “Amazon Rainforest” still exists in culture, maps, satellite photos, memories, legal codes, and carbon-credit markets.
   • In that sense, the forest can outlive its trees entirely.
3. But if you’re a strict reductionist (“only atoms and the void”), then no, the forest does not “exist apart” from its trees — it’s just a convenient label we slap on a large collection of trees that happen to be near each other.

Most useful answer:

The forest is real the same way a marriage is real, or a city is real, or a song is real.
It cannot be reduced to the individual components without losing something essential, yet it has no existence completely independent of them either.So:
A forest both is, and is not, its trees — depending on whether you’re wearing the hat of a poet, an ecologist, a philosopher, or a chainsaw salesman.

PD26. Of desires, all that do not lead to a sense of pain, if they are not satisfied, are not necessary, but involve a craving which is easily dispelled when the object is hard to procure, or they seem likely to produce harm.

Joshua is right to point to this one, which is relatively clear. And I think he's right to say that the test is not limited to "bodily" - unless someone is speaking in the sense that everything is "bodily" in the end - but that's not the sense being discussed as far as I can tell.

I think Torquatus makes clear and there's no reason to doubt him that mental pains and pleasures can often be more significant to us that bodily pains and pleasures. Dying for a friend would be an extreme decision but one that seems to clearly involve mental over bodily considerations.

And in the end I don't think that's even a close issue. While maintenance of the body is necessary in order for us to do anything, most of the biggest decisions that have the most affect our course of life are not primarily for the sake of the "body" at all.

Quote from Joshua

You have to do the math yourself, for yourself!

.... because only YOU can measure the pain or pleasure that results from any action.

It is exactly wrong to do what the Benthamites tried to do and reduce the calculation purely to mathemetics.

However, so long as you realize that the mathematics is only an aid, and cannot be applied as the final factor, I would say that lining things up statistically does make some sense as a tool of analysis.

So I'd still maintain that in any difficult decision it probably does make sense to sit down and try to enumerate the options as a spreadsheet. If you don't, you're not making your best effort to think things though. But you have to remember that the assignment of units of pain and pleasure is entirely relative to you.

Therefore I would not say "don't even try to add them up because it can't be done."

i would say "plotting out the possibilities in detail is the only rational way to proceed, but you have to remember that there is no "necessity" in ethical decisionmaking. You can't treat your projection as applicable to anyone else or even to yourself at a later time. A moment by moment analysis is all that is possible,

Post

A Draft Epicurean Pleasure Maximization Worksheet

Feelings cannot be reduced to numbers, and there are important limitations in the use of a "worksheet" as an aid in evaluating choices and avoidances. However it may be helpful to some people to visualize an illustration of the weighing process that some term the "hedonic calculus." Here is a draft example for your consideration and comment. Scores included here are of course fictional and for example only. A version of the spreadsheet in xlsx format is attached for downloading.

…

Cassius

July 11, 2019 at 10:25 PM

Meeting Summary (AI - Not Proofed - May Be Inaccurate!)

This meeting focused on discussing Lucretius' poem "On the Nature of Things" (De Rerum Natura) and its relationship to Epicurean philosophy. Participants explored the opening passages of the poem, particularly the invocation to Venus, and debated its symbolic meaning within Epicurean thought. The group also discussed approaches to studying Epicurean philosophy, the relationship between Lucretius and Epicurus, and plans for systematically working through the text in future meetings.

Key Concepts or Theories:

• Lucretius as a faithful transmitter of Epicurean philosophy rather than an innovator
• The symbolic interpretation of Venus in the opening of De Rerum Natura
• The relationship between Empedocles' concepts of love and strife and Lucretius' Venus and Mars
• The distinction between popular religious understanding and philosophical interpretations of deities
• The importance of primary sources in understanding Epicurean philosophy

Important Questions Raised:

• Why does Lucretius begin his Epicurean poem with an invocation to Venus when Epicureans rejected traditional religious beliefs?
• Is Venus meant to symbolize nature, pleasure, or something else in the poem's opening?
• How did Epicureans reconcile their theological views with participation in religious ceremonies?
• What is the best approach for newcomers to begin studying Epicurean philosophy?

Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives

• Lucretius' poem "On the Nature of Things" represents a faithful attempt to communicate Epicurean philosophy rather than an extension or modification of it
• The opening invocation to Venus can be understood as a literary device, a form of flattery to Memmius (the poem's dedicatee), and a symbolic representation of natural forces
• The group plans to systematically work through Lucretius' text in future meetings, focusing on both content and the significance of its presentation order
• Different readers approach Epicurean philosophy from different starting points, with varying opinions on which introductory texts are most appropriate

Topic 1: The Venus Invocation in Lucretius

The meeting began with an extensive discussion about why Lucretius opens his Epicurean poem with an invocation to Venus, which seems contradictory to Epicurean theology. Several interpretations were offered. Tau suggested it serves dual purposes: as a poetic device and as flattery toward Memmius (the poem's dedicatee), who claimed descent from a hero in Aeneas' army. By addressing Venus as "mother of Aeneas' sons," Lucretius creates an ancestral connection that would appeal to Memmius. Raphael proposed that Venus represents a symbol of natural forces rather than a literal deity, suggesting educated Romans would understand this symbolism. Cassius noted that the specific attributes described in the opening passage might more precisely represent pleasure rather than nature in general, as there's no mention of pain or fear. Joshua contributed that Lucretius was heavily influenced by Empedocles, who described forces of love and strife in nature, which Lucretius transformed into Venus and Mars.

Relevant Q&A

Dave: Who was Lucretius writing to? Who was this Memmius pointed to?

Joshua: He dedicates the poem to Gaius Memmius, a Roman politician who was exiled to Athens and bought the derelict house that belonged to Epicurus. Cicero wrote to Memmius asking him not to tear down the house, as it was a pilgrimage site for Epicureans. The poem may have been part of a campaign to convince Memmius to preserve this important Epicurean landmark.

Dave: I thought the Greeks really considered their gods to be individuals residing somewhere.

Raphael: The educated Greeks and Romans knew that these stories (mythos) were conjured up by poets. They understood them as symbolic personifications of forces of nature.

Topic 2: Approaches to Epicurean Philosophy

The group discussed various approaches to studying and understanding Epicurean philosophy. Dave observed that most new members of the forum mention reading DeWitt as their introduction to Epicureanism, wondering why this particular text seems to be the common starting point. Tau shared that he came to Epicureanism through other sources and only read DeWitt later, expressing criticism that DeWitt "takes too many liberties" and presents speculation as fact. Patrikios agreed that DeWitt might not be the best starting point for newcomers, suggesting that more accessible modern works might serve better as introductions. Raphael emphasized the importance of primary sources, arguing that readers should begin with Epicurus' own words before moving to interpretations. The discussion highlighted the challenge of finding appropriate entry points for people at different stages of understanding.

Relevant Q&A

Dave: I usually look at the About section of anyone that joins. It seems like every single person says their reading is DeWitt. Nobody comes in from some other material or reading background. I wonder why that is.

Cassius: People probably pick up the emphasis we place on it on the forum. They likely lurk for a while before setting up an account, see the reading list, and notice that book is included.

Tau: I joined the forum after I studied Epicureanism for some time. I only read DeWitt's book much later, and I was never impressed with it because he takes too many liberties and presents stuff as fact when he has absolutely no ground to do that.

Cassius: There are many different opinions about many different things, and that's part of what we discuss.

Topic 3: Lucretius as Transmitter of Epicurean Philosophy

Cassius established his position that Lucretius was attempting to faithfully and accurately represent Epicurus rather than extend or modify Epicurean philosophy. He suggested that Lucretius likely had Epicurus' books "On Nature" in front of him and was following not only the content but also the sequence of Epicurus' presentation. Tau agreed, noting that this would explain the heavy emphasis on physics in Lucretius' poem, as Epicurus' "On Nature" primarily dealt with physics. The group discussed the value of Lucretius as a well-preserved, extensive text from someone attempting to explain Epicureanism about 200 years after Epicurus, at a time when there had been sufficient opportunity to process and develop the philosophy. Joshua mentioned David Sedley's book "Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom," which attempts to reconstruct Epicurus' "On Nature" using Lucretius as a guide.

Relevant Q&A

Cassius: I'm coming to this with a position that Lucretius is doing everything he can to faithfully and accurately represent Epicurus. I do not think that Lucretius is trying to extend anything, or change anything, or improvise, or improve anything in Epicurus. Not everybody takes that position, and there are some articles out there that imply that Lucretius, for example, on the swerve, was improvising.

Tau: Lucretius was not really a philosopher himself, he was a brilliant poet, but he didn't try to philosophize or push Epicureanism further. He didn't try to develop the philosophy. He just tried to put the philosophy in the most beautiful words he could.

Actionable Next Steps / Assignments

• Continue reading the opening sections of Lucretius' "On the Nature of Things" for next week's discussion
• Post in the thread if you have comments or suggestions about how to better organize future discussions
• Consider reading George Santayana's essay "Three Philosophical Poets" which includes analysis of Lucretius
• Explore David Sedley's "Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom" for scholarly perspective

Supplemental Resources and Readings

• George Santayana's essay "Three Philosophical Poets" (examining Lucretius, Dante, and Goethe)
• David Sedley's "Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom"
• The Oxford Handbook chapter on Epicurean theology
• Side-by-side translations of Lucretius created by Cassius
• Multiple translations of Lucretius available on Cassius's webpage (Latin, Cyril Bailey, Samuel Dunster, H.A.J. Monroe)

I will post more before tomorrow but we will do this in book review format. We will go over the topics covered in this section and discuss their significance. I will point out the major topics in the text at the beginning and then I will ask for comments from everyone, with the goal of asking sure that when we produce a podcast episode and or self-teaching study guide that we have a list of points to include and consider.

Also we will refer to the outline for these lines that is present in the Lucretius side-by side version here.

The goal here is going to be to increase our own understanding by making sure we have prepared the raw material to explain the system to others. We are tracking exactly what Lucretius was doing for Memmius, which Lucretius himself has copied from Epicurus.

Markdown Side-by-Side

Welcome to Episode 310 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'll pick up this week at Section 14 of Part 5 of Tusculan Disputations, continuing to look at how the Stoic/Platonic philosophers use logic to deduce that since only virtue is within our control, happiness comes from exclusively relying on virtue, excluding all else from being considered to be truly good.

Happy Birthday to Tgonzalez3790! Learn more about Tgonzalez3790 and say happy birthday on Tgonzalez3790's timeline: Tgonzalez3790

Thank you Kalosyni and thanks to others such as Raphael Raul who have suggested navigation revisions.

There's always going to be a tradeoff due to vastly different screen sizes. We're currently a little more heavily weighted towards larger screens given our use of the top dropdown menus and the sidebars. Those aren't nearly as useful on a phone or portrait size screen, so this card view look will make it much easier for mobile users to get an overview of the site.

A second draft of how this may look is here:

Navigation - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

This seems like a very close issue as raised in Lucretius Book 3 when he points out that even if our atoms were rearranged later due to the effects of infinite time and space, that would still not be "us" because of the absence of continuous memory.

However I am not sure as I reread that whether Lucretius is making a specific assertion that continued memory is somehow necessarily impossible. He may be relying solely on the objection that we don't remember any past lives, which I gather he is taking as sufficient proof that these rearrangements have already happened. He may well be inferring from the fact that we have no such memories that this is sufficient proof that the break is a matter of fact regardless of the cause.

I tend to think that that is his reasoning and that given the implications of infinite universe/eternal time that the inference is sound.

3-843

And even if the nature of mind and the power of soul has feeling, after it has been rent asunder from our body, yet it is naught to us, who are made one by the mating and marriage of body and soul. Nor, if time should gather together our substance after our decease and bring it back again as it is now placed, if once more the light of life should be vouchsafed to us, yet, even were that done, it would not concern us at all, when once the remembrance of our former selves were snapped in twain. And even now we care not at all for the selves that we once were, not at all are we touched by any torturing pain for them. For when you look back over all the lapse of immeasurable time that now is gone, and think how manifold are the motions of matter, you could easily believe this too, that these same seeds, whereof we now are made, have often been placed in the same order as they are now; and yet we cannot recall that in our mind’s memory; for in between lies a break in life, and all the motions have wandered everywhere far astray from sense.

Quote from Patrikios

I agree with Martin and others that uploading your brain is not a viable alternative. At what age do you upload, before [brain cells start dying ar age 25?)?

I interpret the original question (and most hypotheticals like this) not to refer to now ("...IS a viable alternative") but to whether such a thing will be possible in the future with more advanced technology.

Is there is some theoretical barrier or insuperable obstacle that will always be impossible to overcome no matter what the technology?

"Clinamen Vitae - The swerve toward lived experience, where life is worthy of being lived"

Blog Article

Clinamen Vitae - The swerve toward lived experience, where life is worthy of being lived.

Between night and day lie twilight and dawn - moments that belong neither to light nor to darkness, yet honor both as complementary shades of our natural, tangible, and shared reality. These moments transcend - or rather, refute- the Aristotelian logic of the excluded middle, which leads to dilemmas and false necessities. Nature does not operate this way; it does not exclude, does not oppose. It discerns, measures, and allows - and it is best described through Epicurean philosophy when that…

Elli

October 27, 2025 at 10:31 AM

When Science Returns to the Hellenic Worldview: Empathy and Consciousness Redeemed

Blog Article

Duty, Evolution, Neuroscience, Attic Tragedy, and Epicurean Philosophy

An Analysis of a Father’s Death Sentence Against His Own Son - Torquatus and the Roman Recasting of Epicurean Philosophy.

Titus Manlius Torquatus, as portrayed in Cicero’s De Finibus, appears as a defender of Epicurean philosophy. Although many of his arguments echo core Epicurean principles, his rhetorical strategy and moral framework reveal a distinctly Roman reinterpretation - shaped by the ethos of duty, authority, and military discipline.

This portrayal seems to serve Cicero’s rhetorical…

Elli

November 18, 2025 at 2:34 PM

“When Science Returns to the Hellenic Worldview: Empathy and Consciousness Redeemed”

Blog Article

“When Science Returns to the Hellenic Worldview: Empathy and Consciousness Redeemed”

Friedrich Nietzsche, in his work The Antichrist, denounces Paul as the inventor of Christianity and an enemy of Rome’s grandeur. But perhaps Nietzsche himself misunderstood what Paul truly fought against. Rome may have been the aching tooth, but Greece was its root. And Paul - not as a scientific dentist (for he knew nothing of science, of course) - but more like the last illiterate barber in the neighborhood, he grabbed the pliers and performed a full extraction on the tooth that tormented…

Elli

November 18, 2025 at 2:39 PM

For those that might have missed them, Elli has posted several lengthy articles in recent weeks. I'm making this point and also setting up discussion threads for each because sometimes it appears our existing users who often rely on the red "update" markers, don't see when blog entries are added. Thanks to Elli for these articles!

“When Science Returns to the Hellenic Worldview: Empathy and Consciousness Redeemed”

Blog Article

“When Science Returns to the Hellenic Worldview: Empathy and Consciousness Redeemed”

Friedrich Nietzsche, in his work The Antichrist, denounces Paul as the inventor of Christianity and an enemy of Rome’s grandeur. But perhaps Nietzsche himself misunderstood what Paul truly fought against. Rome may have been the aching tooth, but Greece was its root. And Paul - not as a scientific dentist (for he knew nothing of science, of course) - but more like the last illiterate barber in the neighborhood, he grabbed the pliers and performed a full extraction on the tooth that tormented…

Elli

November 18, 2025 at 2:39 PM

Duty, Evolution, Neuroscience, Attic Tragedy, and Epicurean Philosophy

Blog Article

Duty, Evolution, Neuroscience, Attic Tragedy, and Epicurean Philosophy

An Analysis of a Father’s Death Sentence Against His Own Son - Torquatus and the Roman Recasting of Epicurean Philosophy.

Titus Manlius Torquatus, as portrayed in Cicero’s De Finibus, appears as a defender of Epicurean philosophy. Although many of his arguments echo core Epicurean principles, his rhetorical strategy and moral framework reveal a distinctly Roman reinterpretation - shaped by the ethos of duty, authority, and military discipline.

This portrayal seems to serve Cicero’s rhetorical…

Elli

November 18, 2025 at 2:34 PM

Clinamen Vitae - The swerve toward lived experience, where life is worthy of being lived, by Elli Pensa

Blog Article

Clinamen Vitae - The swerve toward lived experience, where life is worthy of being lived.

Between night and day lie twilight and dawn - moments that belong neither to light nor to darkness, yet honor both as complementary shades of our natural, tangible, and shared reality. These moments transcend - or rather, refute- the Aristotelian logic of the excluded middle, which leads to dilemmas and false necessities. Nature does not operate this way; it does not exclude, does not oppose. It discerns, measures, and allows - and it is best described through Epicurean philosophy when that…

Elli

October 27, 2025 at 10:31 AM

Happy Thanksgiving Don!

I'll modify this post after I get it set up, but this is to set up a placeholder that starting this coming weekend we will begin a series going through the major topics of Lucretius. There's a lot to explain about this but here are initial thoughts:

1 - Lucretius is the gold standard of Epicurean Philosophy. It is the most complete summary of the philosophy left to us from the ancient world, and it was written by a fervent supporter of Epicurus. Where it speaks it can be trusted, and there is much more to be dug out even on areas such as prolepsis where it does not speak as explicity as we would like.

2 - Lucretius gives us a model of how to explain Epicurean philosophy to a person who is not familiar with it. That is exactly what we ourselves need to do much more of.

3 - We have a good public domain selection in our side-by-side page so it will be easy to follow along and organize the topics.

4 - After we finish Tusculan Disputations and other Cicero mop-up on the Lucretius Today podcast, we will turn our attention back to going through Lucretius in the same way. This will allow us to prepare an edited "professional" presentation of the major points which will be reusable basically forever. Going through the same topics ahead of time on Sunday will allow us to build a notebook of important topics that we want to be sure to cover.