Epicurus owned two cloaks and subsisted mostly on bread and olives?
Good grief! Where do people get this stuff?
Let's set up a new thread for this podcast and I will move these there!
"Because pleasure... is the small joys that emerge ... in a word... tranquility."
Immediate correction: He says he thinks everyone should replace their reverence for Stoicism with reverence for Epicurus! So i will cut him a lot of slack! 
Welcome ScottW !
Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, all new registrants must respond in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their account is 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.
Welcome to the forum!
I suspect that Don may bear some secret grudge against cows or goats. :-). Due to associating the word with "chewing the cud" I have also generally considered it not the most flattering way to describe applied thinking. I can think of a lot better examples than cows to go by and pick a word. But at worst I've connected it with "idle" or "slowly picking through" something and I have never seen it used in such a negative way as those psychologists have decided to do.
I would suspect if Joshua comes up with any Shakespearean or similar examples, they won't be nearly so negative as this clinical use.
I too would generally look first to "cogitate" or the like.
There's only one person who can settle this: We will have to consult Joshua on how the word is used in poetry!
What? "Rumination" is not generally a negative word, is it?
I guess this is why have an instinctive distrust for "psychology." Why take a perfectly fine word and twist it to pieces?! 
Wow this reminds me of other perfectly fine words -- "tranquility," "calmness," even "ataraxia" or "katastematic" - which are perfectly fine when used by normal people in normal ways, but perfectly pernicious when taken out of context and defined as "the great end of all things to which all else aims!"
Time for another shouting session, and to substitute in the place of "virtue" those other words I just mentioned:
But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end.
I see Kalosyni has crossposted pretty much the same perspective as what I just posted on "anger." Hers is probably even more widely applicable than my comment.
I updated my earlier thread with this clip of the book cover:
There is basically no situation in which anxiety is more useful than a calm presence of mind.
I agree with that but I am not sure something does not need clarifying. "Anxiety" seems to be used by some people to cover a very wide range of things, including "anger."
I think we can say confidently that there are times when "anger," at least of a type, is indeed appropriate in response to certain circumstances. We've had a recent thread I think with some material from Philodemus on that.
So if "anxiety" means fuzzy operation of the brain or something like that then yes that would "always" be something to avoid. But if the situation demands "anger" then that can sometimes be exactly what the doctor ordered.
Seems like we had something more recent than this, but here's one. Maybe life is just moving too fast for me to judge "recent" very well:
Epicurean Views On How To Integrate "Anger" Into A Healthy Life
I have, before, come across the suggestion that repetition found throughout Lucretius' verse lends credence to the proposition that we are only reading a draft of De Rerum Natura and not its author's anticipated final form.
Yes I have seen that stated many times too, but the task of getting a grip on the big picture of what is going on in De Rerum Natura has been such a hurdle for me that in my case I've never had time to absorb these points either.
Thanks for pointing these out because once the haze begins to clear and you see what Lucretius is doing with the poem as a whole, it's much easier to appreciate textual issues like this and think about what they might mean.
Seems to me it's clear that DRN was not left to us in what was intended to be a final form, and that plays into Emily Austin's suggestion about the probably intended ending for Book Six, not to mention how Lucretius he apparently intended to go further into the nature of the Epicurean gods before he got finished. And it calls to mind that mysterious later reference about Cicero "emending" the text.
It seems to me that it is possible that (1) it wasn't finished, but also (2) some of the most controversial material (about the gods) was intentionally deleted by critics, or (3) some combination of the two.
"Epicurus .l. does not offer a universal prescription for the great life. Freedom from anxiety is good, all other things being equal, but many would say that a willingness to do without tranquility is what has enabled them to push themselves and live fuller lives.'
That's a pretty good summary of the common dismissal of Epicurus, but I am confident we can deal with those complaints, and that should be a large part of our ongoing projects here at the forum.
We'll have to explain how a "universal prescription" doesn't mean quite what he thinks it does, but even more clearly we have to continue to work to deal with the 'tranquility is what he is pushing" and "freedom from anxiety is all that matters" issues.
I see it doesn't take the reviewer longer than four paragraphs to give the perennial "BUT" and make the common complaint about tranquility. But the fact that he gives three positive paragraphs first is good!
Epicurus’s distinctive feature is his insistence that pleasure is the source of all happiness and is the only truly good thing. Hence the modern use of “epicurean” to mean gourmand. But Epicurus was no debauched hedonist. He thought the greatest pleasure was ataraxia: a state of tranquility in which we are free from anxiety. This raises the suspicion of false advertising – freedom from anxiety may be nice, but few would say it is positively pleasurable.
The conclusion is high praise for the book, even if the writer of the article sells Epicurus short:
The clarity and concision of Austin’s prose means that she covers many more of the details of Epicurean thought in her 24 short chapters. Anyone seduced by the recent fashion for Stoicism should read her book to see why their biggest contemporary rival offers a better model for living. The Stoics tell us that the only thing that matters is virtue, we should be indifferent when loved ones die, and that the universe works providentially, so ultimately nothing in it is bad. Epicurus was realistic enough to accept that external circumstances can make life intolerable, grief is natural and real, and shit happens.He speaks to us all, but does not offer a universal prescription for the great life. Freedom from anxiety is good, all other things being equal, but many would say that a willingness to do without tranquility is what has enabled them to push themselves and live fuller lives. Austin ultimately shows that Epicurus is a pretty good guide on the journey of life, but you should let some other thinkers show you around too.
Seems to me that the Guardian has lots of readers so it is great to see this review! And generally I think the article is as positive as we have the right to expect given current attitudes.
Sagan definitely doesn't pull any punches on Plato! Bravo! It lays out the "case against" Plato and his "ideas are better than the natural world" fallacy.
I am reminded of what Todd wrote yesterday about having this to validate what we talk about regularly. It's almost as if Carl Sagan had read many of the passages in Norman DeWitt making almost exactly the same point about Plato.
It's interesting that it seems kind of jarring: First we have this "obscure" teacher from Canada making these points about Plato that almost no one ever mentions in common conversation about Epicurus. A few of us end up almost alone considering this to be significant, while the rest of the world ignores it in favor of dwelling on the subtleties of "absence of pain." Then we find this "god of modern science," who is known for his astronomy more than anything associated with philosophy, coming from out of nowhere making exactly the same points made by DeWitt, and it becomes easier to see as if for the first time how much of Epicurus is a direct rejection of Platonic idealism.
And we shouldn't forget either that the Epicureans point out for us also, in the passage of Diogenes of Oinoanda about the flux, that Aristotle too is guilty of much the same fundamental error as Plato. And here comes Carl Sagan to second the indictment against Aristotle, a point that even fewer people today are willing to make!
Where there is smoke there is fire. And where we have found two significant figures making the same point, we will find others in history too making the same points, if we look long enough.
Welcome MaxImpala, and great avatar!
What irritates me most about the Leonard passage, actually, is the 'yet.' (Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.) Like, what, but it might start happening soon?
I can't believe that I missed that! You are right! The "yet" GUTS the whole meaning of the passage, and in fact I would say the whole meaning of the canonics and the philosophy itself! Yes i understand that it's a deep issue as to how many times we have to see the same thing over and over without exception, and when we are justified in claiming that we "know" something, but that question is exactly what Epicurus is wrestling with, and Leonard totally pulls the rug out from under it before Book One is even getting started!
You've managed to multiply my sourness toward Leonard, but this is now a great illustration of one of how to go wrong on one of the biggest issues in the philosophy. Even Bailey - who I distrust too - doesn't go nearly so far!
Do you have a source for the pig icon in case someone wants to modify or use as is?
Does not have quite the same "militant" edge but that's great too!
Very well thought out and it looks good full size, but maybe the icon-shaped leaping pig would be more recognizable as an icon.
I think the "militant look" combined with the leaping pig has some definite flair to it
Welcome MaxImpala !
Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, all new registrants must respond in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their account is 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.
Welcome to the forum!
I am inquiring to find out where Kalosnyi got the new fighting pig icon. I can't really tell what is presently on the hat but it is possible that modifying it to add the leaping pig might make an excellent icon - maybe one of the best on the forum!
Elli's Facebook comment on this Episode and on Emily Austin:
Yep when I read through it I would have to agree. Useful mainly for those at a very basic level -- perhaps even as far back as high school or before. The emphasis in my title needs to be on "Basic."
