Posts by Cassius

Thanks Kalosyni, and just FYI and FWIW we usually plan our meetings to last no more than an hour. If you can only make part of the meeting that's fine too, and that goes for both any new people and our regulars.

i've completed another companion to the other side-by-side text versions. Today i am setting up the Velleius section from CIcero's On the Nature of the Gods. it will contain the Latin along with translations by Charles Yong, Frances Brook, and Harris Rackham. it can be found here.

I am still processing most of DaveT's post but I have to first comment on this part, because it may indicate a part of the reason I am still working on trying to know exactly where you are going DaveT.

Because when you say this ....

Quote from DaveT

To paraphrase physicist Brian Greene’s statement: he is content to know that he is composed of particles of matter formed by natural processes from star formation. Since matter can only be converted to energy and vice versa, his atoms exist forever. Can’t be more Epicurean than that!

... I see an immediate warning flag. As far as "atoms existing forever" goes, both Democritus and Epicurus agreed on that, but you definitely CAN get "more Epicurean than that, because despite this common ground Epicurus diverged sharply from Democritus on skepticism and determinism and therefore presumably on many other ethical issues. I suspect that this observation plays into the problem we're confronting about terminology. I have no clue about any other aspects of Brian Greene's thinking or who he is, but I would not generally conclude say that anyone "can't be more Epicurean than that" simply because he thinks things are ultimately made of atoms and void. The role of pleasure and pain in the canonical test of "truth" still remains to be resolved.

And maybe the reason I point this out is that for all we know Brian Greene or any average atomist may be completely against the ethical conclusions that Epicurus reached. Epicurus factors in many additional canonical and physics-based conclusions that are not yet resolved simply by saying that everything is composed of atoms and void. So we have sort of a parallel here in terms of the need to be very clear in our definitions of pleasure, life, virtue, gods, etc.

That last post from Don sounds like a chapter out of a work by DeWitt himself

And yes I think this is exactly right -

Quote from Don

I get the feeling Epicurus wanted to be provocative, to make people question their common wisdom, their acculturation, which is what using pleasure / ηδονη / voluptas obviously did.

Along the same lines as saying that the sun - or anything else - is what it "appears" to be. Because if "appearance" is taken to mean a reference to the senses, anticipations, and feelings, then yes *everything* is understandable to us only from "appearances" - and that is a point well worth being a provocateur over.

You're raising lots of good points for discussion DaveT. At this point I'll insert these thoughts into the record as we take it further:

1. DeWitt's point as to the true goal being "life" in my personal opinion has a lot of merit, BUT, we have a lot of disagreement here about whether that is in fact the case, and I would myself say that this formulation suffers from much the same problem as other formulations. The whole issue is that the way people think about life and pleasure is too narrow and/or erroneous, and whatever words you end up focusing on have their own problems to unwind. Clearly the word "life" itself is insufficient standing on its own, because Epicurus makes clear that we sometimes give our lives for our friends, and even more generally, we will "leave the theatre when the play ceases to please us," as I think probably Epicurus and certainly Atticus and probably others chose to do to accelerate their impending deaths. So "Life Alone" isn't logically sufficient, and you'd have to explain that what you mean is "a life in which you can expect to experience more pleasure than pain" to be more precise. This point number one i am writing here is one of many separate issues that's involved in the discussion you are raising.

2. As for this ...

Quote from DaveT

not for the purpose of evangelizing this philosophy to the masses, it is for an alternate approach to answering the new inquirer's question of what's it all about,

... I see your distinction and agree that it's valid, though the issues do bleed together. Both "the masses" and "the new inquirer" need clarity as quickly as possible, but I think you are right that "the inquirer" probably comes to the discussion with a more positive and open mind than does "the masses."

3. This seems to be ultimately the concern that a lot of people have:

Quote from DaveT

his followers leaves the modern sensitivities at the mercy of modern language.

And that seems to me almost EXACTLY what Cicero's own complaint was -- that Epicurus was doing violence to common language.

And yes I'd say that that is true - Epicurus made the decision as Don / Joshua quoted above that he would prefer to be misunderstood rather than not speak the precise truth. I'd say that there is room for lots of different approaches, and that we should encourage people to develop alternative websites, or (given to whom i am speaking) write alternative books, produce alternative arguments, etc., to explore new ways to cut across the existing mental barriers. All I can say for what I think "this" website needs to be is a place where the people who are most dedicated to exploring Epicurus can speak about it in most clear and precise terms regardless of what the rest of the world likes to hear. But as you can tell, I hope, I am all in favor of producing videos and other forms of messaging that explore new ways to get the message across.

It's my own observation that most of the "compromisers" however don't accomplish very much. Even going back to Gassendi and others who tried to mash together Epicurus and Christianity or Deism, I don't think they really got very far. All those efforts probably helped to preserve some mention of Epicurus during very hostile periods, but in the end I personally think they just added to the confusion rather than resolving it.

Right now we have what may be a brief period in history where at least we in the USA, and to some degree other countries, can speak more freely than usual to a wider audience than usual, and we can choose from being extremely direct on the one hand or be "diplomatic" on the other. I don't want to see us on this forum discourage anyone from taking initiatives in new ways, but the flip side of that is that while some of us explore certain ways of arguments I don't want to let those ways squelch others who like different approaches.

My hopes for this forum is that we will always focus on accuracy, clarity, and directness, so we can provide a place for the most "hard-core" of Epicureans to collaborate together. But at the same time I want to see us encourage in every way we can other approaches. It's likely going to be appropriate that the different approaches keep some distance from each other to maximize their respective chances of success, but I don't see a problem with that, and it actually seems to me to be more consistent with the "atomistic" nature of the universe.

I'd particularly cite Eikadistes as an example of someone who's doing exactly what in my own personal view they should be doing. He (and others including some here on the forum but I won't go down a list) are putting a lot of time and effort into their own websites/blogs/etc while still collaborating here, and I think that's really the optimum approach.

I'll wrap this up by referring back to your DeWitt comment. I think what we're talking about here now is what DeWitt himself did. He broke from the pack and cut his own path. Some of it was more successful than others, but if he had not broken from the path I'd probably never have gotten as interested in Epicurus as I became, and this website wouldn't be here. I don't like that he spent so much time drawing parallels with Christianity, and some of his formulations are probably too speculative, but many of Dewitt's insights, even the "life is the goal" formulation, I think are definitely in the right direction. And to the extent that DeWitt made some mistakes, some of them ( e.g. life as the goal) were because he didn't carry his ideas far enough.

Latest version updated to main page and posted to Facebook with this intro:

Here is a new audio-with-text version of Torquatus' Defense of Epicurus from Cicero's "On Ends," delivered by the Roman Senator and Praetor (military commander) Lucius Manlius Torquatus. For two thousand years this has been one of the most clear, concise, and compelling explanations of Epicurean Philosophy available anywhere. As many people know, portions of Torquatus' speech were coded into the "Res Ipsum" jumble of Latin that publishers use for "dummy" text. It seems likely that the decision to choose this text, even in jumbled form, reflects an understanding of the desirability of preserving the memory of this text forever. Over time we will continue to work to improve the quality of rendering of this voice and media. In the meantime this present version can be shared and referenced whenever you need access to the strongest and most unapologetic defense of the Epicurean way of life that has been delivered since the days of the original Garden.

Log into Facebook

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

To accompany the new Torquatus audio version I have now completed a side-by-side Latin and English version of the main Torquatus narrative. This version contains the Latin alongside the Yonge, Reid, and Rackham versions, followed by the modified Rackham which is the basis for the Text-To-Speech version. This will assist in helping us check to be sure that current and future text-to-speech versions stay compatible with the older public domain translations even as we convert it into more-widely-usable modern American English.

Here's the main link, and it can also be found in the right-hand navigation column alongside the side by side versions of Lucretius and Diogenes Laertius:

EpicureanFriends Side-By-Side Torquatus

I do my best to keep these as accurate as possible while still getting them out in a reasonable time frame, but I am sure there are some typos so always feel free to point those out when convenient.

Glad to have you MarkJW!

Here is a request for the topic for 11/2 submitted by DaveT. I think this is an excellent suggestion and it's also something we can discuss during the week before we have the live discussion. Let's use this thread to discuss it where it can be found in the future rather than continuing in the private conversation. Thanks!

Quote

Cassius, do you think we might continue the topic you selected for the Zoom today and revisit it on Nov. 2nd? The way Joshua contrasted the primacy of Pleasure over necessity rather than the reverse really caught my attention.

Might we take more time to consider your question on ways to respond to newcomers to Epicurus, considering our discussion today about Pleasure and its connotation with shamefulness? I think it is important not just for newcomers to Epicurus, but also for students like me who are digging into the pleasure/pain concept.

For example, Pleasure is such a loaded word! When Joshua said it should not be associated with shame, it resonated with me a lot. I think the common understanding in the English language is that pleasure is associated with shame, or sin, or antisocial behavior, at least in America. As someone said today about the Stoics, we seek pleasure, but don’t like to admit it.

So, back to the question of responding to initial inquiries about Epicureanism, might another tack be considered? I see a larger question that we might consider. Why must even a knowledgeable Epicurean always have to explain the pleasure-pain principle as limited by prudence as soon as that emotion-laden word Pleasure surfaces?

Robert wondered if “re-branding” our word choice would be useful. I think that is an important enough question for us to discuss collectively. Maybe we can discover a different way for both new and old followers to avoid the common ridicule that tends to shame not just the timid, but the courageous person who says, they follow Epicurus’ ethics about Pleasure.

Am I suggesting we consider another English word for Epicurus’ wording for Pleasure as a concept? No, but I think it might be appropriate to consider new ways of dealing with Epicurus’ concept of Pleasure.

Can I ask our eminent ancient Greek linguists in the Forum for help with the following questions?

I wonder how the most highly regarded English translations render Epicurus’s use of the word Pleasure. Are they agreed? Is any one of them considered above the others?

Does Epicurus’ ancient Greek word have a singular meaning or multiple meanings within the context of mental vs physical?

Is his use of the word always consistent without his explaining the distinction between mental and physical meanings?

I wonder if his followers in the varied parts of the eastern Mediterranean all deduced the same meaning(s) he intended with his usage of the Greek word for Pleasure?

I’m looking forward to responses from one and all.

• Dave Tamanini

  Harrisburg, PA, USA

Display More

This is to start a thread for us to discuss preparation of the discussion for this meeting. DaveT has suggested a focus which sounds good, and it will be helpful if we talk through some of the details here in this thread beforehand.

Thanks for the suggestion, but unfortunately individual voice contributions will not help much, for a couple of reasons:

• The material that I am trying to make use of now is generally an hour or more long. including such things as the Velleius section of On the Nature of the Gods, and long sections of Cicero's other works where Epicurus is mentioned, and even the entire Lucretius poem, so those are also going to be long.
• I want to target long term constant improvement, meaning constantly improving both the audio and video with better voices and eventually illustrations and moving pictures to stay on top of the latest technology.
• I've been thinking about what "we" bring to the table in this kind of project, and it seems to me that what no one else is likely to duplicate is to prepare modern American English versions of these based on the public domain translations. There are many people who can do this kind of technology, but IMHO not many who are well equipped to judge what the texts "should" say in modern American english, just as you've done with Menoeceus. We CANNOT let the perfect be the enemy of the good because we'll never reach perfection, but we can produce reasonably accurate modern English versions that will be useable for people who will simply never be willing to read Bailey or the others. And in truth there's no reason to use 18th or 19th century phrasing in these renderings anyway.
• And our goal ougt to be something that can be TOTALLY freely distributed, both as to the text and to the final media form. As to the text, posting it on github makes clear that anyone can use the text as a base, even if they don't want to cooperate with us.
• I am also going to post this following paragraph in the first post to document the public domain engine that I'm using now. Hopefully we will have some techies who know how to do this better than I do, and they can help us improve the voice rendering faster. But at the moment, the current engine works well enough to allow us to run the texts through them and proof the results. The renderings will get better and better as the technology improves, but the texts won't improve unless we take the time to have people who "understand" them supervise the texts that are input.
• Even the current Coqui TTS engine can no doubt be better in more competent hands than mine. I feel sure I am not optimizing my settings correctly , as some of the text sounds fine while in other sections the model goes wild with emotion. To some extent i am addressing those problems with word choice and order, but there are technical issues too that I don't understand yet.

Quote

This project employs the Coqui TTS open-source text-to-speech engine, specifically the multilingual, multi-speaker “XTTS-v2” model. XTTS-v2 is a transformer-based neural network designed for expressive, natural-sounding speech generation across many languages and voices. It reproduces human intonation and rhythm by processing text at the sentence level and synthesizing waveforms directly from the model’s internal acoustic representations. The implementation uses the Python Coqui-TTS library, running locally in CPU mode for portability and stability, with customized parameters to control pace and clarity—such as a sampling rate of 22.05 kHz, a pause duration of 0.25 seconds between segments, and a neutral male speaker profile known as “Craig Gutsy.” Audio segments are generated sequentially, merged into continuous narration, and paired with synchronized subtitles and a video overlay produced through FFmpeg. The entire process is fully open-source, requiring no external API calls, and emphasizes reproducibility, offline privacy, and fine control over both narration and presentation.

The Coqui TTS engine and its included models are distributed under the Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL-2.0), a permissive open-source license that allows free use, modification, and redistribution of the software, provided that source-code changes remain publicly available under the same terms. This ensures that all derivative works remain part of the open research ecosystem while allowing commercial and non-commercial use alike.

The latest revision is up. The text of this version will be on github in just a few minutes. While the voice still needs much improvement, I think most of the major audio bugs have been swatted. I just discovered one at 30:47 - please report others if you come across them. I am thinking that the text is coming together and most if not all obvious typos are completed, so it will soon be time to move from focusing on the text to focusing on the voice. I will post details on how this is being generated so anyone with technical aptitude can perhaps contribute to that side.

Improving the test accuracy and wording will continue to be desirable, so don't hesitate to make suggestions there.

Thanks to Matteng for being with us today! Glad to have you and please join us whenever you can! Also good to see sanantoniogardenagain! We had a total of 12 people today so thanks to everyone who was able to be with us.

Welcome mamart14 !

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!

A poster at the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group wrote as follows:

I understand that Epicurus was ahead of his time with his physics, and I understand how it connects. But I'll tell you right now I skimmed it once I got the understanding that he focuses on the material and that you don't have to fear gods. For the third time, my interest is more in the ethics. That's where I spent more time reading and focusing.

So I have no clue that authors view on the swerve because I don't really care to be honest. It doesn't affect me. I'm not too worried about being free from fear of gods because I haven't been afraid of divine punishment in 8 years. Already worked through that one.

---------------

Elli Pensa, one of our admins there and here, wrote the following response (which is why I am posting this:

Elli Pensa

Admin

First of all, best greetings!

I speak with Epicurean frankness and friendship, because friendship is ethics in action, and Epicurus placed it at the very heart of the pleasant and eudaemonic life.

When you say you're not interested in Epicurus' physics and epistemology, and prefer to focus only on ethics, it sounds - even if unintentionally- like you're saying: “The study of nature is over. There's nothing more to learn. I already know how to live.”

But Epicurean ethics isn’t a set of ready-made answers engraved in marble stone. It’s a practice of phronesis - practical wisdom - and phronesis is rooted in how nature works and how knowledge evolves.

Epicurus didn’t want people who simply followed him. He wanted friends who think - who engage critically, deepen their grasp of reality, dig deep to uncover the roots, and refine their understanding through shared inquiry.

In other words: don’t wait for someone to hand you the fruit, already chewed and sweetened. Epicurus wanted companions who cultivate the tree.

If you dismiss physics, how will you set limits to pleasure or pain? How will you distinguish fantasy from reality, falsehood from truth? How will you judge the phenomena as they unfold? How will you judge the books you’re asking for, if you haven’t studied the sources - like Epicurus’ letters or Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things etc?

Perhaps what you’re seeking isn’t phronesis, but ready-made knowledge - an authority to tell you how to live.

Epicurus didn’t say, as Socrates did, “look only at ethics and search only within yourself.” He said: “Study nature continuously - and through that, enjoy calm in your life.”

Even the Epicurean Colotes, responding to Socratic views, warned against the ego-centered idea that ethics can stand alone. Ethics without physics and epistemology becomes self-centered opinion, not liberating insight.

And one more thing - when we enter a space of dialogue, like this one, and ask “what books should I read?”, maybe it’s kind and respectful - not just for you, but for all of us - to greet those who respond. A small gesture of friendship - that’s ethics in practice.

After all, in the ethics you’re seeking, Epicurus gave the highest value to friendship.

That’s how we overcome the chaos of anonymity, the blur of online “infinity” - and through Epicurus’ physics and epistemology, we find real security in ethics.

With care and epicurean friendship

Welcome MarkJW!

For anyone who might be thinking of reviewing the video and making note of issues to report, I will have a revised copy up by about 3pm at latest which will correct the issues current l known to me. Especially after that I will appreciate all issue reports.

Welcome to Episode 305 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.

This week we continue covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean perspective. Today we begin our discussion of Part 5 and examine whether virtue alone is sufficient for happiness.

I am aware of several audio glitches and at least one error in the text that I am in the process of correcting. I will maintain updated copies of the text here:

GitHub - cassiusamicus/torquatus: Torquatus' Defense of Epicurus

Torquatus' Defense of Epicurus. Contribute to cassiusamicus/torquatus development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

And I will upload updated copies of the video to Youtube as changes are made.

Feel free to use this thread to make suggestions for corrections or improvements. If possible, include with your comment the time of the section of the video to which the change would apply. Alternately, the line number of the text is available here:

torquatus/torquatus.txt at main · cassiusamicus/torquatus

Torquatus' Defense of Epicurus. Contribute to cassiusamicus/torquatus development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com