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
Very well stated response Wbernys -
Also, as to this:
Epicurus saying that "Knowledge of sin is the beginning of salvation". Philodemus makes the same point in On Frank Criticism where he says "For how is he going to hate the one who errs, though not desperately, when he knows that he himself is not perfect and reminds himself that everyone is accustomed to err? R
Those are quotations we don't see very often. Do you have citations to those that readers can follow to verify them?
For some reason this following verse escaped my attention til now and I thought i would drop it here:
I guess we better be careful about recommending Emily Austin's book to widows! 
As we continue to discuss some of these issues I want to restate what I think are ultimate issues in Epicurean physics from which no retreat makes sense:
The first issue is whether matter is INFINITELY divisible. Epicurus says no in part because of the logical contradictions that would be involved in accepting it. It matters not whether we are talking what we today consider to be "atoms" or "subatomic particles" or "quarks" or whatever term is applied from here to the end of humanity. Logically, at SOME point the divisibility must stop.
Another issue is whether matter is acted on by some OUTSIDE FORCE (other than that which (1) we consider to have real material existence and (2) empty space) to give it organization. That is the issue we are discussing in terms of "weight vs gravity' or other terminology. The question is whether matter requires some OUTSIDE force (not matter and not space, which are the two divisions of all things) to bring about its organization. Epicurus again says no. To accept such an outside force is to open the door to any sort of "divinity" or 'supernatural" that any mystic wants to suggest. It matters not whether what we are referring to as matter or material is hard bodies, energy, fields, or whatever, so long as it is repeatedly detectable and/or "measurable" by the senses and its technological amplifications
As I see it currently this pretty much sets the terms of the "nature of the universe" debate. Anyone here see that differently or able to state it better?
There is also this that Klavan has written on Epicurus:
And here is how Claude summarizes his views:
Here is a detailed account of Spencer Klavan's evaluation of Epicurean philosophy, drawn from his published writings and his recent book.
Klavan has engaged Epicureanism more thoroughly than almost any other contemporary conservative commentator, having edited and introduced a primary-source anthology, written a feature essay for Antigone journal, and discussed the subject on multiple podcasts. His view is a mixture of genuine scholarly respect and sharp philosophical opposition.
Klavan's most striking thesis is that Epicurus is not a historical curiosity but the unacknowledged architect of contemporary secular liberalism. In his introduction to the anthology Gateway to the Epicureans, Klavan argues that Epicurus is "acknowledged or not — the source of secular 'woke' liberalism," and that the overwhelming success of modern science has turned what was once a fringe ancient philosophy into "the governing worldview of nearly everyone." Annie Blooms He quotes John Adams to drive home the point: "Two and a half centuries ago, John Adams complained, 'Our modern philosophers are all the low grovelling disciples of Epicurus.' That's even truer today." Annie Blooms
He identifies a whole constellation of ideas flowing from ancient atomism into the present: along with the new atomism has come "a whole constellation of fashionable Epicurean ideas: that peace and contentment are the most important things in life, that reality is an infinite expanse of multiverses, that divine power has no part to play in human affairs." Annie Blooms
Klavan is careful not to caricature Epicurus. In his Antigone essay, he notes that Epicureanism "was (disappointingly) not the invitation to horny debauchery that has become associated with its name," but rather "a shot across the bow of the Socratic tradition, which agreed with conventional wisdom, at least insofar as it tended to view human life in the context of a divinely governed universe." Antigone
He summarizes the core Epicurean theological argument fairly: the trouble was not with belief in deities but with "the absurd presumption that such deities would ever give a moment's thought to mortals," citing Diogenes Laertius (Lives 10.123–4): "These assertions that people make about the gods are not innate convictions but inaccurate assumptions, which teach them that the gods do harm to bad men and reward good men." Antigone
He traces the argument's modern resonance, showing how Hume and Stephen Hawking are effectively channeling Epicurus, and takes this lineage seriously rather than dismissing it.
Klavan's deepest criticism is not theological but logical. He targets what he calls "Cosmic Insignificance Therapy" — the modern Epicurean-derived self-help claim that our smallness in the universe should be relaxing. He identifies this as "Epicurean, through and through," tracing it back to Democritus' euthymia and Epicurus' ataraxia. Antigone
His objection is that this reasoning is self-undermining: "if small things don't matter, nothing does. There is no philosophically rigorous way to draw the line between things that are big enough to be consequential, and things that are not. Do cities matter, but not individuals? Do planets, but not countries? Quasars, but not quarks?" Antigone
He pushes this further: the physical consequences of Epicurean insignificance extend not just to seminar attendance but to "your marriage and family, your kid's first birthday, your parents' burial, your contributions to science or literature, your ancestry, your entire civilization, your species and your planet. Small, small, small." Antigone
Against Epicurean materialism, Klavan defends the Stoic/Platonic idea that a rational order (logos) governs the cosmos in a way that is attentive to human moral life. He argues that the very existence of the laws of physics "counts as further indication that the structure of our thoughts bears some relation to the structure of the cosmos," citing Einstein's ability to predict stellar phenomena from earthly reasoning as evidence that "some parts of our minds are structured not just in response to our local environment, but in conformity with the scaffolding of all things." Antigone
He closes by invoking William James: the fundamental article of faith is "that there is a truth, and that our minds and it are made for each other" — the very thing Epicurean materialism denies. Antigone
Klavan's position is that Epicureanism is intellectually serious, historically influential, and philosophically important to understand — but ultimately self-defeating. It begins by liberating humanity from superstitious fear and ends by stripping life of all significance. He regards it as the deep philosophical root of modern secular liberalism, which in his view is a civilizational crisis, not a triumph.
Primary sources:
Eikadistes apparently the preface contains commentary - not sure about other parts. In the podcast I linked he's very clear about his evaluation, but I'm not sure how much of that is actually in the book. Sounds like he's written other books that also advocate the "Faith-based" approach so it's likely his opinions about Epicurus are in several places.
Note - In searching my records I see that Bryan brought this book to my attention last year, but I failed to follow up and investigate further. So it's long past time to remedy that.
Branden thanks again for bringing the Klavan book to my attention. This is worth it's own thread so I have split those comments out here:
Thanks again Brandon. I just finished listening to the podcast linked below in which Klavan was interviewed about this book. Worth mentioning first is that Klavan thinks that Epicureanism is something he would like to "demolish" and "eradicate." (Most of his own opinion appears around the 43 minute mark. I also recall him referring to it as garbage but that much be in another section,)
Now having said that, I want to at least recommend this podcast interview as well worth people here taking the time to hear. There is a lot of banter and fluff in the hour-long interview, but it's not Klavan's fault. The "Thinkery" podcasters sound almost as interested in joking around as being serious, but after a few minutes it settles down to being reasonably focused.
Klavan himself comes from a "faith" background (googling indicates father Jewish and mother some form of Christian but that could be wrong). I gather also that he is or was associated with "conservative" institutions such as the Claremont Institute. The interview cites Leo Strauss and others I am familiar with, so I think it's fair to describe him as coming from a "classical liberal" perspective. I don't gather that he is primarily Stoic or a particular religion but from a broad-based Platonic intelligent design perspective.
The interview spends considerable time with Epicurean physics, and here I strongly agree with Klavan's approach: The Epicurean view of the nature of the universe and "physics" is the basis on which everything else, including ethics, is built. If you think that modern science / math / geometry have disproven the core conclusions of Epicurean physics simply because what we can "atoms" are divisible, then you are going to reach Klavan's conclusion: Epicureanism in general is garbage and should be eradicated for all the damage that it does. And it makes no sense to try to defend the ethics if Epicurus' core conclusions about the nature of the universe are so fatally flawed.
Klavan is obviously very smart and well-read and he probably knows the standard view of Epicurus (which most of us here reject) better than most of our participants here. He even cited some Lucretian arguments (regarding the issue of whether sharp or smooth atoms cause bitter or sweet tastes) to explain part of Epicurus' sophisticated reasoning in defense of the senses. These are issues that he thinks are conclusive against Epicurus that we only rarely discuss here.
That's why I recommend anyone here who has the time to at least listen to the interview, if not the book itself. I still need to get my hands on that and see if there are excerpts worth reading.
But again if you can get past the fluff (as I did because I was driving) then Klavan himself knows what issues are important and how to cut to the chase on them. I think his core conclusions and evaluations of Epicurus are across-the-board wrong, but that's not to say that there's not a lot to learn from his commentary, just like we learn from Cicero and Plutarch, who he strongly resembles in the form of his criticisms.
As I understand what Brandenoz has written, the book itself does make an effort to cover at least some of Epicureanism in a balanced fashion, and apparently Brandenoz didn't come away from his contact with the book totally turned off to Epicureanism. That's one of the ways the "We are all Epicureans now" argument (made by John Adams as well) can lull people into complacency and misunderstanding (not referring to Brandenoz) . Probably there are a lot of people who are going to read this book and think that Klavan sounds fair and that his assessment of Epicurean philosophy should be believed.
That's a hazard of reading a book from someone who thinks that Epicurean philosophy is "garbage" and should be "demolished" and "eradicated." It's a shame he thinks that way, but this book and podcast give us an excellent opportunity to improve our own game in defending Epicurean philosophy.
This is very timely so thank you again for the book reference. I am working on two articles now and I am going to at least briefly review this so I can address some of what apparently appears here.
I see that Klavan appeared on a podcast last year discussing this and I am about to set that up for listening.
I see this about that book at Barnes and Noble (underline added)
In this convenient volume, the classicist Spencer A. Klavan presents core selections from Epicurus’ own writings and those of his most famous ancient disciple, the poet Lucretius. Listen in as the teacher outlines for his students how his system of physics, logic, and ethics works. Read the elegant presentations of these Epicurean ideas aimed at the Roman upper crust. And consider with Klavan how this philosophy has gripped the modern mind, why it is falling apart, and why it leaves confusion in its wake
Hmmm that is interesting. Never heard of that and see that it is new... From Regnery the "conservative" publisher who also published Josh Hawleys book attacking Epicurus. And I am not familiar with Spencer Klavan either....
Was the book mostly positive about Epicurus? That introductory tagline might lead someone to think otherwise.
Excellent questions Patrikios. Thanks for asking them and it seems to me thought experiment is a useful way to approach the problem.
It's possible "modern physics" might have one answer, but even if it's different -- and I'm not sure it would be -- it would be helpful to think about that from Epicurus' perspective. Would the atom require interaction with another atom to move, or would it simply move due to the available space around it?
Welcome Branden - You path here from Stoicism is not a lot different from my own, though I preferred Cicero to Seneca. As to the Buddhist question we have several here who know much more about that than I do, so I'll let them chime in.
Glad to have you with us!
BrandenOz tells us:
Hi Cassius,
I got into philosophy through Ryan Holiday's lighter works on Stoicism. Then from there, I read the three Roman Stoics he talks about, Marcus, Epictetus, and Seneca. I knew right away that I liked Seneca and through his letters, I was introduced to Epicureanism. I recently have read a few works of Epicureanism and I think it was "Epicurus of Samos: His Philosophy and Life: All the Principal Source Texts" that mentioned that a great deal of what Seneca says is a requoting of Epicurus's ideas. I found that what I liked most about Seneca was the Epicurean parts I had almost memorized. I also appreciated Seneca's cleverness and depiction of an intellectual life, but I found I didn't care much for Stoicism. I am an atheist as well and really like David Fitsgerald's work and I find that Stoicism seems to me to strengthen the claims in Christianity for most, rather than give the freedom that Epicureanism seems to give. I've been listening to the Lucretius Today podcast episodes linked on the homepage, specifically the 5 for physics, logic, and ethics and I find this model seems to be the best way to explain the real world I experience. I've studied philosophy at the undergraduate level for a few semesters for fun and have a bachelor's in education and a master's in business administration.
A topic I am really interested in learning more about, and maybe this is a separate topic, is if secular mindfulness meditation as derived from Buddhism, specifically including the body scan and labeling which seems to remove pain, and the thinking of the 5 hindrances, which seems to eliminate fear is incompatible with Epicurus. What would Epicurus likely say about that specific, secular meditation? I am an atheist and don't see meditation as anything more than a therapeutic act that affects only the physical and mental dimensions of the human being. I don't believe in a soul, spirit, or any mystical aspects that are often associated with meditation. I use no apps and simply set a time for 10 minutes to complete the whole activity, sometimes 20. Would Epicurus see a fallacy or improved alternative in this? It seems that things are dealt with in a direct, logical and conscious manner and possibly this form of meditation is helpful but overly complicated. I am new to Epicureanism comparatively but this question comes up for me as a student of philosophy, but a practitioner of meditation. I am not looking for approval necessarily either, but understanding if there is a better way to do what I seem to be doing with my meditation practice. The main benefits I experience from it are certain emotional awareness. I understand from Episode 262 of the Lucretius Today Podcast: "He Who Says 'Nothing Can Be Known' Knows Nothing." that Skepticism may be in many ways the western philosophical equivalent to Buddhism and Epicurus finds logical inconsistency in it. Therefore, would he find the same in even a specific form of meditation and why? Any materials you can recommend or answers you can give I would be very happy with.
--
Welcome Brandenoz
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!
Martin what is the understanding of gravity today?
Is it held to exist independently as its own entity separate from all other things?
Is gravity itself "uncaused"?
Given that it appears to take a moon-sized or planet-sized body to generate much gravity, I am still thinking that it is something that is associated with "matter" even today (?)
Edit: Do you agree with this from Grok?
Does an atom generate gravity?
Yes, a single atom generates gravity. According to both Newtonian gravity and Einstein’s General Relativity (our best current theory), any object with mass (or energy) produces a gravitational field and curves spacetime. An atom has mass—mostly from its protons and neutrons in the nucleus, plus a tiny contribution from electrons and binding energies—so it sources gravity just like a planet or star does, only vastly weaker.
I'll talk to the others and look into that. Thanks
Good thoughts Bryan. I would not want to use a word not closely related to something actually used.
Do you have any thoughts on the Greek or Latin words used in any of the places you have seen this discussed? I don't gather that "weight" is a direct transliteration of either Greek or Latin.
I see βαρύς (barys), meaning heavy, but that goes to barometer or "barium" rather than our english word.
And I see Lucretius uses both pondus which gives us "ponderous," "pound," and related English words and also gravis (heavy)
Is it as Eikadistes quoted earlier perhaps better to use the term gravity if Lucretius is using gravitas? Did the Greeks have separate word for "gravitas"?
In english gravity to me implies a force, which is really more what we are looking for.
i am finding no academic articles, but I see citation to the following place (On Fate 24) where Cicero apparently used BOTH pondus and gravitas in the same sentence, arguably implying that he considered them to be separate things (perhaps having weight BECAUSE of the gravitational force within it):
Cicero, De Fato 11.23–24
De Fato 23: "si semper atomus gravitate ferretur naturali ac necessaria" — "if the atom were always carried along by natural and necessary gravitas"
De Fato 24 (repeated): "per inane moveatur gravitate et pondere" — "moved through the void by gravitas and pondus" — and then immediately: "ipsius individui hanc esse naturam, ut pondere et gravitate moveatur" — "it is the nature of the atom itself to be moved by pondus and gravitas"
[23] Hanc Epicurus rationem induxit ob eam rem, quod veritus est, ne, si semper atomus gravitate ferretur naturali ac necessaria, nihil liberum nobis esset, cum ita moveretur animus, ut atomorum motu cogeretur. 11. Id Democritus, auctor atomorum, accipere maluit, necessitate omnia fieri, quam a corporibus individuis naturalis motus avellere. Acutius Carneades, qui docebat posse Epicureos suam causam sine hac commenticia declinatione defendere. Nam cum docerent esse posse quendam animi motum voluntarium, id fuit defendi melius quam introducere declinationem, cuius praesertim [p. 261] causam reperire non possent; quo defenso facile Chrysippo possent resistere. Cum enim concessissent motum nullum esse sine causa, non concederent omnia, quae fierent, fieri causis antecedentibus; voluntatis enim nostrae non esse causas externas et antecedentis.
24] Communi igitur consuetudine sermonis abutimur, cum ita dicimus, velle aliquid quempiam aut nolle sine causa; ita enim dicimus “sine causa”, ut dicamus: sine externa et antecedente causa, non sine aliqua; ut, cum vas inane dicimus, non ita loquimur, ut physici, quibus inane esse nihil placet, sed ita, ut verbi causa sine aqua, sine vino, sine oleo vas esse dicamus, sic, cum sine causa animum dicimus moveri, sine antecedente et externa causa moveri, non omnino sine causa dicimus. De ipsa atomo dici potest, cum per inane moveatur gravitate et pondere, sine causa moveri, quia nulla causa accedat extrinsecus.
And solving the problem of terminology doesn't require that we wait for some kind of explicit physics rechnology explanation, any more than Epicurus waiting before taking about uncuttable atoms or the swerve. The issue is that the atoms possess within themselves the power of movement and don't wait on gods or outside forces of any kind to bestow it on them.
The sole external requirement is space to move within.
"Weight" carries modern connotations that obscure that original intent of independent capacity, and also makes it harder to see how the swerve is equally uncaused.
Yes I presume Goodwin is struggling with the same issue we are discussing. Epicurus is apparently using the word to designate a capacity for self-generated motion (as in the swerve) and in English "weight" does not give us that self-moving capacity. We need to figure out how to convey this better.
