New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
We will move this to a aubforum but for now:
You're welcome. Nikolsky himself credits Gosling and Taylor in their "Greeks on Pleasure" for his inspiration, and I see that Emily Austin in "Living for Pleasure" footnotes that she sides with Gosling and Taylor as well. So other than DeWitt, who mentions the issue but does so mostly in passing, credit probably goes to Gosling and Taylor for blazing the modern trail on this.
G&T marshal the evidence for why the Ciceronian / modern interpretation that elevates katastematic pleasure / tranquility as the true end is wrong, and Nikolsky advances the case of how the problem got accentuated due to the editing choices of Diogenes Laertius in organizing his comments along the division of Carneades (if I recall correctly).
Thanks for those excerpts Joshua. Both are great, and I bet can tease more meaning out of Horace if we eventually figure out exactly the context in which Horace was making his point.
I probably will have to apologize for a second week for my conduct on the podcast. Last week I was congested and painful to listen to; this week I had read too much Cicero from book two and the last book of Tusculan Disputations, and I got carried away wanting to argue with him.
We missed Don in this episode but are hoping to have him back next week.
That doesn't make them "better" just more readily available.
Yes, and having a type of pleasure that is "readily available" is essential to Epicurus being able to maintain that the wise man who pursues pleasure can always find it and thus be able to say that he is happy.
I wish you good health and quick writing with all those books in the hopper! Please don't save Epicurus for last! 
Thank you Peter. I don't have nearly the reading background (or processing power)in Rand that you have, but I see that your article is largely based on the widely held premise that Epicurus values katastematic pleasures higher than kinetic ones. If I thought that was correct I would have a major problem with Epicurus, and I would probably have dropped him long ago. I perceive this to be similar to why Nietzsche ultimately backed away.
But for me, this problem is overcome by arguments stated at length by Boris Nikolsky and Gosling and Taylor, who allege that this widely held premise is not correct, and that Epicurus did not hold katatastemic as higher than kinetic, or place "tranquility" at the center of his philosophy rather than pleasure, as is attributed to him.
I doubt this thread is the place to elaborate on that for the moment, but I wanted to note that I think there is a lot to be gained in comparing and contrasting Rand with Epicurus, just as we do the Stoics and the others. It has been so long since I read those Shelton articles that I hardly remember them, but tracing out the reasons why Rand does not ultimately land on "pleasure" but on some version of "reason" (at least in common perception) is to me a fascinating subject.
Good finds. I have a modern print of the Bailey three volume set and there's tons of detail in his notes and commentary - but so long since i glanced through it that I hardly remember any of it.
I was just about ready to post a cautionary warning about referencing Greg Sadler (as he is a leader in modern Stoicism) but then:
1 - I checked the artice linked, and yes it is indeed a good comprehensive list of the surviving texts, and
2 - How can I criticize someone who writes?
So yes Greg Sadler's article is a good list of sources - I just don't recommend you follow him too closely on his views on Stoicism. 
And our participants here who would like to know more about st peter could do a lot worse than look here, which is the site I myself came across many years ago:
I see the smiley face and I would expect nothing less than a book on Aristotle from someone who has written so eloquently about Howard Roark!
Good to have you Peter! Just to clarify the "edit" in the post, I removed the "color" attribute in the text so that it would be readable on dark themes.
Gosh this seems otherworldly! Welcome ST. PETER!
But all of us here know him as the owner of one of the best set of translations of Epicurus on the internet!
Welcome stpeter !
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 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourself -- tell us a little about yourself and what prompted your interest in Epicureanism -- and/or post a question.
This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.
In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
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!
I agree that there is a distinction to be made between desire and choice and avoidance and pleasure and it's probably time to go back into that subject, because I am not sure we ever clarified it, and I agree that would help. How does "desire" differ from "choose to pursue" or even just "choose?"
... Yes, but some pleasures are not choiceworthy.
I would say yes, but that is a subsidiary point, and should never be used to dilute the effect of the prior more fundamental statement that "no pleasure is a bad thing in itself." Just as Epicurus did, you start with the basic that no pleasure is bad in itself, and then state that sometimes some pleasures bring more pain than pleasure, and that *for that reason alone* some pleasures are not choiceworthy. You lead with the theorem and then give an application of it, but to me it's essential to hammer home the theorem since that is what everyone wants to fight about, and it chokes in the mouth of the Platonists and Stoics.
Let's make them choke again: "Choiceworthiness" means ONLY that it brings more pain than pleasure.
As usual I think we are in agreement
Important caveat to post 59:
While I am comfortable dogmatically stating that the absence of pain is pleasure, and the total absence of pain is the greatest pleasure, and that there is nothing bad in any pleasure or virtue in itself except the *unlimited* pursuit of that activity, I would never walk up to the man on the street or stand on the street corner and shout that out like a street preacher.
To me it is necessary to always say - except when we are certain to be speaking to people who know what we mean - that "Yes I believe that pleasure is the absence of pain, and yes I believe that no pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but let me explain to you now *why* I believe that.
I think Epicurus gave his explanations in his other writings besides Menoeceus, and I think that Torquatus would have given a much longer explanation if Cicero had allowed him.
As someone totally ignorant of Greek I will just interject here that in my view, since no pleasure is bad in itself, the emphasis should always be on the "limitless" or "without limit" aspect in a discussion of why a particular pursuit at a particular time might be ill advised. I personally do not think the words fame, power, money, or any of the similar types of pleasures where it is tempting to pursue them as ends in themselves would ever be labeled as negative in and of themselves by Epicurus.
I would expect him *always* to say that the issue in any pursuit is whether that pleasure is pursued as an end in itself, without limit. The reason (and only reason) that the unlimited pursuit of an activity, even virtue, is the problem, is that when we do so we take our eye off of pleasure itself and therefore suffer pain or less pleasure than we would otherwise.
ANY activity in human life is to be praised if it indeed leads to more pleasure than pain. So I personally would judge my confidence in any translation as whether it reinforces that view, and if a translation tends to indicate that there is a "type" or category"of pleasure that is to be avoided in itself, I would say that is wrong. The issue seems to me to always be in the "unlimited" pursuit of that pleasure.
And I would say this with the same confidence (even dogmatism) as I would say "the absence of pain is pleasure" or "the total absence of pain is the greatest pleasure" without a thought as to the specific activities involved, because I know from the premises with which we started out that "true reason" compels this to be the case, and therefore I do not *need* to know the particular desires or circumstances involved. And yes I know that Cicero will say that, like Velleius, I sound like I just visited the intermundia.
Here is a version with some of the letter read in Greek.
I seem to remember that there might be a typo in one of these videos -- apologies for that, but I posted anyway because the audio is the important part.
I thought we had this posted somewhere but perhaps not, and I am thinking that some might find it interesting to hear the letter Menoeceus read by someone with a modern accent. Thanks to Elli for doing this several years ago. I think I have one of her reading the opening (at least) in Greek, so I will look for that too.
Right to all. I am using "logic" loosely for dialectic or just generally these elaborate and abstract constructions that we get into as we go back and forth dealing with the assorted traps and diversions that people like Plato or Paul or Plotinus create.
