I wasn't able to reply earlier but here is another angle on the question that goes along with what Kalosyni wrote:

As I see it, the core of Epicurean philosophy that gives life to all the rest of it is the "worldview" of how the world operates without supernatural forces, how there is no life after death, and so on. Those are things that don't change no matter what circumstances you may be in.

The ethics, while it is what we use to make day to day decisions, is much more -- totally in fact -- contextual, and how to apply it is based on the circumstances you are in.

What I think waterholic is correctly noting is that social relationships have changed dramatically in 2000 years. The people we live right next door, even in the same building, are often not our closest friends or even known to us in many cases.

So when we talk about "the importance of friendship" it is natural that how we interact with the people who we consider to be our closest friends is going to be a lot different than the way people related in the past. The benefits we get from friendship may be the same, but the way we interact has changed dramatically.

My point in this short post is that this should not be seen as a limitation of Epicurean philosophy as it is part of its flexibility -- the goal is PLEASURE - of which tranquility is hopefully a large part, but which we may have to dispense with for long periods if our circumstances require change.

So to echo Waterholic, how I choose and interact with my friends may be entirely different than the way it was done 20 years or 200 years or 2000 years ago. But the insight is Epicurus is that the goal is pleasure in a life that is all too short, and in which there are no divine gods or fate or ideal absolute virtues. If we start with that - which is the heart - then we can adapt Epicurus' suggestions as to how to live prudently to fit our own circumstances.

Thank you Kasolsyni!

Welcome Randall Moose

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.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "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.

Welcome to the forum!

Waterholic thanks for the very interesting post. (Just FYI I edited it only to remove the color attribute from the Russell quote so it would be readable on a dark theme.)

It's 2am for me as I type this so I will respond further later when I think more!

Given the references at wikipedia include Aldous Huxley and other pretty recognizable names which makes it sound like this is a term in more common use than those of us here (me anyway!) seem to realize, sounds like Kalosyni wins the educational post prize for the day!

As to "perennial philosophy" - a term new to me - Yikes!!!

I just woke up and had to insert my normal sourness for Buddhism. :-). I knew you were fine yourself. Carry on! (But not necessarily calmly)

I think I recently quipped that just because the Stoics say it doesn't make it necessarily wrong. And the same would go for the Buddhists. But:

Quote from Don

The last 4 paragraphs are great! I think Buddhists would say "to want less, to control and tamp down our desires" is the right track

The right track to what?

It begins to become more apparent how phrasing things in terms of "frugal hedonism" and "abundance" - rather than unmodified "pleasure" or the absence of reference to supernatural forces or life after death can end up leading to both very divergent goals and paths. It's very easy to place modifier words on pleasure that change the focus entirely. I could easily imagine "responsible pleasure" or "noble pleasure" would suit the Stoics.

I think Diogenes of Oinoanda would have shouted at least as much at the Buddhists as he would at the Stoics, and very possibly more loudly.

Sounds like the book has food for thought for living more self-sufficiently but contains much peril for those who are not clear about why they might want to do so.

And as used by Thomas Jefferson -

The Earth Belongs in Usufruct to the Living | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

Prudent YOLO I guess! It's strictly true that we only live once, so that isn't the issue.

And I think it's just clearly wrong to say the "longest life" per the letter to Menoeceus.

So we're left with "the most pleasant in subjective terms" i guess!

So maybe even prudent YOLO does not get to the heart of it quickly - I best we can get more suggestions on the right modifier if we get creative - but it needs to be something about the "most pleasant"

Strictly speaking I don't have any problem with "you only live once" but I gather the connotations of recklessness are top in everyone's minds.

"Epicurus taught YOLO but not the YOLO That You Are Familiar With." -- added per suggestion from Don - thanks

This list probably deserves a thread of its own so it can be extended and potentially reused on occasion in the future, rather than to buried in the middle of, and hijacking, the "Frugal Hedonism" thread. I wrote it as part of arguing the point that this method does *not* seem to me to be the best approach to explaining Epicurus, but it certainly has its uses. I bet others can think of corrections and even better examples:

1. Epicurus was a hedonist in that he believed pleasure to be the greatest good BUT he did not always pursue every choice that might produce pleasure.
2. Epicurus held that tranquility is a great pleasure BUT not that tranquility is the goal toward which all else aims.
3. Epicurus taught that pain was "evil" BUT he did not teach that pain should always be avoided.
4. Epicurus was an atheist BUT not the kind you think - he believed that gods do exist.
5. Epicurus believed that gods exist BUT not the kind of gods you think.
6. Epicurus was an empiricist of a sort BUT many of his most important conclusions were based on deductive reasoning about things he never personally experienced himself.
7. Epicurus held many positions that will strike you as Utilitarian BUT he did not believe in "the greatest good for the greatest number."
8. Epicurus was highly skeptical of claims of authority BUT he took strong positions himself about things that he believed to be provably true.
9. Epicurus was in many ways a frugalist BUT not always and it's important to know the exceptions.
10. Epicurus believed in virtue BUT not that it is an end in itself.
11. Epicurus held that "all sensations are true" BUT not that every sensation is accurate to all the facts.
12. Epicurus held that death is nothing to us BUT not that the manner and time of death is not significant.
13. Epicurus held that friendship is tremendously important for our happiness BUT Epicurus was not an "altruist" as that word is generally understood.
14. Epicurus taught YOLO BUT the YOLO That You Are Familiar With. (Don)

The "but" in many cases totally overrides the initial point, BUT this format can be a good way of starting off in some circumstances.

Thank you Plantpierogi and yes please extend the existing conversation on the book anytime you are ready!

Quote from Little Rocker

I'll be curious, Don, to find out whether 'frugal hedonism' ends up weighing in on the other stuff--like, you could be a frugal hedonist and still await your heavenly reward or be a frugal hedonist and still think the death of a child is part of a well-ordered cosmos.

Yesterday was busy for me and this sentence took a while to sink in.

Thinking further about it, I realize the implication:. The book title could have been the result of a phenomena that Norman Dewitt specifically mentions, that Epicurus is doomed to be anonymous when praised but named when condemned.

In other words, is the book a "conformist" approach in which someone decided to take everything they could from Epicurus that "sounds good" and strip from it everything that Lucretius' describes as "bitter?"

Given how important the "bitter" part is - in my view it is the real heart of the philosophy - if I woke up in a bad mood (which I didn't) I might be tempted to take a decidedly less charitable view of the book and its title.

Is the book attempting to do for Epicurus what the Modern Stoics do to Stoicism - strip it of integrity and add it to the modern list of anesthesia alternatives?

(Ha that last sentence sounds more harsh than I mean it to be. But the phenomena is a real one, and in the end it *isn't* one to be encouraged in either the Stoic or Epicurean worlds.)

We are considering some changes to the layout of the home page here at Epicureanfriends.com, and I'd like to solicit your comments.

I am expecting that most of us who are regulars simply come to the page and look for the red dot on notifications, then use that drop-down menu to make sure they have seen the latest postings.

That's one of my key presumptions behind how the site is set up, so let me know if that's a questionable presumption!

As to newer people, I don't think we want them having to hunt through the menus to find important topics, and that's why the home page has such a large selection from so many different areas of the forum.

On the other hand, I am sure that some people find the amount of information on the home page overwhelming. What we have here is a tradeoff between those who don't often see so much information in one place vs those who want to use their first visit as the test of whether they come back again, so they want to see what the site offers in one place rather than clicking around. I tend to think that people motivated enough to come to a site on Epicurus are of the latter camp who won't be scared away by too much text. But in fact I know some will, and that's one reason why over the years the number of websites we are affiliated with here has mushroomed from the original http://www.newepicurean.com to many more (most of which are listed here - many of which don't get much use).

Anyway it is time for a spring cleaning and any comments on how you use the site, what you might like to see changed in the way it looks, etc - are welcome. Can't promise we will implement them but it would be very helpful to hear your comments no matter how "off the wall" they might be.

I would stress that many of these back and forths are to me hypotheticals. I can easily imagine a presentation on Epicurus that would be entirely appropriate and go like this:

1. Epicurus was a hedonist in that he believed pleasure to be the greatest good BUT he did not always seek every choice that might produce pleasure.
2. Epicurus held that tranquility is a great pleasure BUT not that tranquility is the goal toward which all else aims.
3. Epicurus taught that pain was "evil" BUT he did not teach that pain should always be avoided.
4. Epicurus was an atheist BUT not the kind you think - he believed that gods do exist.
5. Epicurus believed that gods exist BUT not the kind of gods you think.
6. Epicurus was an empiricist of a sort BUT many of his most important conclusions were based on deductive reasoning about things he never personally experienced himself.
7. Epicurus held many positions that will strike you as Utilitarian BUT he did not believe in "the greatest good for the greatest number."
8. Epicurus was highly skeptical of claims of authority BUT he took strong positions himself about things that he believed to be provably true.
9. Epicurus was in many ways a frugalist BUT not always and it's important to know the exceptions.
10. Epicurus believed in virtue BUT not that it is an end in itself.
11. Epicurus held that "all sensations are true" BUT not that every sensation is accurate to all the facts.
12. Epicurus held that death is nothing to us BUT not that the manner and time of death is not significant.
13. Epicurus held that friendship is tremendously important for our happiness BUT Epicurus was not an "altruist" as that word is generally understood.

And I bet we could go on and on and on, and in the right circumstances, this is a probably a good way to introduce the topics. But is it the only way? Certainly not. Is it the best way? Well, in some circumstances yes, but it isn't the way (for example) that Epicurus himself or Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda organized their presentations, and in a better world (?) we shouldn't have to and won't have to do that either.

Yes good point Don. I really don't think we are very much apart on any of this. If I had to summarize why we frequently put different spins on things it is because I think it is interesting to find ways to push the envelope on discussions, and there are almost always going to be multiple ways to do that.

If someone asks me to go into detail about what Epicurus taught I would almost certainly say that he thought generally being frugal is a good idea, and I would say that the Greek word for pleasure is hedone and technicians like to call that "hedonism." Same effect could be gained by calling it "Voluptatism" but that's not in use even in the technical camps

My general pushback not at you but at the world is that I think it is a big problem to try to force Epicurus into boxes recognizable in modern ordinary terms, when I think the core points and thus implications of the philosophy go far beyond modern ordinary terms.

So I am fine with using frugality and hedonism in proper contexts, but I sense that the contexts in which words like "hedonism" are understandable are not really the audience that I personally am most concerned about. If someone is comfortable talking about "hedonism" then odds are (not always!) but I would have to guesstimate that such a person is probably philosophically aware already and probably has already accumulated an eclectic sum that will keep Epicurus in that box in their minds, and they will move on to something else. Most of what I personally would like to be doing isn't targeted at people like that, but at developing a way to express how fundamentally deep and outside-the-box Epicurus really was.

There are lots of directions to go and people to talk to so it's all good and mainly dependent on context.

And remember, you're talking to someone who's here largely because he was roped in by DeWitt's "Philosophy for the Millions."

Wow great and thanks for posting all that Nate!

Several of us talked last night that we really need to develop a list of alternative theories so we can be sure to cover them when we record this session. I have started such a list below - please feel free to make suggestions. I intend to at least include the major quotes under each source, but I have not had time to get started. Once this is fleshed out we will be able to post it somewhere it is regularly findable:

Notes Re Anticipations / Preconceptions / Prolepsis

Alternative Sources:

1. Diogenes Laertius
2. Velleius from On The Nature of the Gods
3. References in Epicurus Letters and/or Principal Doctrines
4. Lucretius

Alternative Theories:

1. The faculty of Anticipations is what happens when we see multiple oxes, create a word-picture of an ox, and then use that word-picture as a reference in labeling things as "oxen" when we see new ones. (Diogenes Laertius)
2. The faculty of Anticipations arises because of things which are engraved in our minds at birth (Velleius)
3. Anticipations involve justice, notions about the gods, and time (references in the letters of Epicurus but no real explanation)
4. Anticipations involve the repeated inflow of images into our minds and creating what amounts to an established path by which we are disposed to route new images.
5. Anticipations is a faculty that disposes us to recognize patterns - "Pattern recognition" (These patterns are simply in the objects themselves and are not ideal forms or essences or divinely created.)

Alternative Positions By Commentators:

1. DeWitt
2. Bailey
3. Voula Tsouna
4. David Sedley
5. Others?