Posts by Cassius

I am still in the process of reading this book but I have added it to the "recommended" section along with the DeWitt and Austin books for several reasons:

1. Generally, she takes a modified "Gosling & Taylor" approach and does not read "kinetic pleasure" out off the goal of Epicurean philosophy.

2. More specifically, these two paragraphs quoted below are a compelling argument against anyone who wants to argue that the Epicurean goal is "health" rather than pleasure. This is an excellent point and observation - I'd put it on par in terms of insight with Emily Austin's suggestion in Chapter 22 of Living For Pleasure that Lucretius likely intended to end Book Six of his poem with additional material from Thucydides. In what I am about to quote Arenson raises a point that is of even greater practical importance.

I have added the underlines to emphasize the issue.

Quote from Kelly Arenson - Health and Hedonism In Plato And Epicurus - p 161

Given that the Epicureans stress how important health and the awareness of it is to happiness, one lingering question is why they do not identify health rather than pleasure as our highest and innate good. Why factor hedonism into the equation at all? It seems they could have gone the route of Plato’s Republic and claimed that although the best life is pleasant, our aim should be the internal harmony that engenders the pleasure rather than the pleasure itself. Perhaps this is just a version of Cicero’s objection that the Epicureans seem to propose two distinct goals: pleasure and the absence of pain. If the Epicureans understand the absence of pain in terms of health, then why not say that the end is health rather than pleasure? Perhaps the Epicureans do not stop at health because they are interested in describing the telos in terms of human feelings: that is, even if health were ontologically or epistemologically the best condition for humans, Epicureans would not be interested unless health also felt the best. We get the sense that in Plato’s eyes the just life will still be the best even if it is not the most pleasant: a just soul is always ontologically better than an unjust one. But the goal of Epicureanism is to help people feel better—to lessen their anxiety, help them avoid frustrated desires, and enable them to enjoy their lives. To say that health itself is the goal, divorced from our perceptions of how health feels, would be nonsensical to Epicureans, who would argue that health is worth talking about at all only because of its connection to the feeling of pleasure.

I think this point is related to Epicurus’ rejection of philosophy as an end in itself. For the most part, Epicurus advises us to concern ourselves with philosophy insofar as it will lead to pleasure. Th is position is expressed in an Epicurean work of unknown origin, reported by Porphyry: “Empty is that philosopher’s reasoning by which no human affliction is cured. For just as there is no benefit in the medical art if it does not cure the diseases of bodies, so there is no benefit in philosophy if it does not drive affliction out of the soul.” According to Epicureans, we should learn the truth about the gods, the limits of pain, and our abilities to get what we desire because having this knowledge enables us to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. We will have no use for philosophy if it should fail to bring about painless mental and physical experiences, and we will have no use for health if it should fail to do the same. Th is is not to say that Epicureans envision a contingent connection between health and pleasure; they argue, as I have tried to show in this study, that our experience of health—either in the process toward achieving it or in the condition itself—is intrinsically related to pleasure. Nevertheless, Epicureans would say that were health not linked to pleasure in this way, there would be no reason to care about health’s ontological credentials.

This is very perceptive. It's devastating to the argument that the true goal isn't Pleasure, and to arguments that state or imply that we don't need pleasure - "all we need is health of mind and body." Why did they talk so much about pleasure if all they wanted was "health"???

Amazon description: This book links Plato and Epicurus, two of the most prominent ethicists in the history of philosophy, exploring how Platonic material lays the conceptual groundwork for Epicurean hedonism. It argues that, despite their significant philosophical differences, Plato and Epicurus both conceptualize pleasure in terms of the health and harmony of the human body and soul. It turns to two crucial but underexplored sources for understanding Epicurean pleasure: Plato's treatment of psychological health and pleasure in the Republic, and his physiological account of bodily harmony, pleasure, and pain in the Philebus.

Kelly Arenson shows first that, by means of his mildly hedonistic and sometimes overtly anti-hedonist approaches, Plato sets the agenda for future discussions in antiquity of the nature of pleasure and its role in the good life. She then sets Epicurus' hedonism against the backdrop of Plato's ontological and ethical assessments of pleasure, revealing a trend in antiquity to understand pleasure and pain in terms of the replenishment and maintenance of an organism's healthy functioning.

They just keep coming....

Last week's transcript, on which we'll build this week

I think someone is trolling me - or the world is just getting dumber - or both!

But whoever is producing this is doing a great job showing how NOT to approach Epicurus.

Randres61 tells us -

Good afternoon,

I hold a degree in Biology, although I spent my entire professional career working in software development, designing and building computer applications. If you wish, you can find my profile on LinkedIn. As you can see, my professional background is, at first sight, quite different from the main focus of your forum.

I retired two years ago, and since I have always had a strong interest in philosophy—especially ethics—I now devote a significant part of my time to studying it on my own.

A few years ago I discovered Epicurus' ethical philosophy, and I began searching for and reading books about his thought, first in Spanish and later in English. During that search for reliable sources of information, I came across your forum through a ChatGPT recommendation while looking for high-quality resources on Epicureanism.

Although my initial interest was centered on Epicurus' ethics and his reflections on death, the more I have studied his work, the more I have come to understand that his philosophy should be viewed as a coherent and integrated whole, encompassing physics, canonics, theology, and, of course, ethics.

What I find particularly compelling is that Epicurus' philosophy is not merely an abstract intellectual system. On the contrary, I believe it offers practical guidance for dealing with many aspects of everyday life, which makes it both deeply meaningful and highly relevant.

I have registered on your forum because I hope to learn from its members and to deepen my understanding of Epicurean philosophy.

As a further indication of my interest in the subject, this year I will begin a two-year university program for senior students focusing on the history of philosophy, ethics, and political philosophy.

I look forward to your response. Before closing, I would also like to apologize for any limitations in my English, as I am still working to improve it.

Kind regards,

Premià de Mar - Barcelona - (Spain)

Welcome randres61

There is one last step to complete your registration: All new registrants must email Cassius so that this Welcome Thread can contain basic information about your background and interest in Epicurus. In that email, please 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. All posting here is subject to our Community Standards, Participation Levels, and Posting Policies -- please read that page; it explains our ground rules and will save everyone time and friction.

ALSO - the Forum has an editorial policy as to the advocacy of anything other than Pleasure as what Epicurus taught to be the supreme good. All prospective members must read this post before proceeding with an account at Epicureanfriends.coom:

Against Katastematic Supremacy - Pleasure Is A Unified Good, Not A House Divided Against Itself - INCLUDES FORUM EDITORIAL POLICY

If you have not done so already, please be sure you have read Torquatus' Presentation of Epicurean Ethics (also available in a more compact side-by-side format at EpicurusToday.com). That is the clearest, most complete statement of Epicurean ethics to survive from antiquity, and reading it early will save you -- and us -- a great deal of confusion. Most people arrive with a version of "Epicureanism" assembled from the Tetrapharmakon, the Letter to Menoeceus, or scattered quotations of questionable reliability -- and of the three, the Tetrapharmakon is the least reliable foundation of all. It is many times more compressed even than the Letter, and terse enough that it has been read in sharply different, sometimes incompatible ways by different interpreters; at best it serves as a reminder of Epicurus's four main topics for someone who already knows their content, not as a source of that content. The Letter to Menoeceus is a real summary, but it too is compressed and was written for students who already understood the foundations of Epicurean ethics. Torquatus is the best surviving example of how Epicurus's own well-educated students understood and presented that foundation themselves. It is the fastest and most reliable way to find out whether what you already believe about Epicurus matches what he and his school actually taught.

The moderators here are well aware that many fans of Epicurus hold sincerely-held views about what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with this forum's purpose. This forum exists specifically for people committed to classical Epicurean positions, not for reconciling those positions with modern "eclectic" reinterpretations that borrow Epicurus's name while rejecting his actual conclusions. Reading Torquatus first is the quickest way to see where that line falls, before investing time in posts that argue against the very foundations this forum exists to defend.

All of us here arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies. We don't demand of others what we weren't able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is different enough from most other philosophies that understanding how deep those differences run simply takes time. That's why we have participation levels that give new members room to learn, but it's also why we have standards that can mean arguments being limited, or participants removed, when the purpose of the community requires it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, isn't committed to unlimited free speech within its own meetings, and isn't organized around anything except the pursuit of truth and a happy life through pleasure as Epicurus explained it.

Please tell us a little about your background reading Epicurean texts, how you found this forum, and what particularly interests you -- that context helps us help you. Our Getting Started page also has ideas for using the site.

Beyond Torquatus, two books will do the most to deepen your understanding quickly. Norman DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy is the single best book-length treatment available. DeWitt treats Epicurus as a coherent system rather than filtering him through later Stoic, Platonic, or modern secular assumptions. If you read one book beyond the ancient sources, make it this one.

Emily Austin's Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life is a clear, engaging modern introduction that many of our members have found a useful on-ramp. Read it, but read it alongside Torquatus and DeWitt rather than in their place, since like most modern treatments it makes no attempt to give the full picture that DeWitt provides.

From there, Epicurus's own surviving letters -- to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus -- and Lucretius's On The Nature of Things are also on the essential reading list. Our Recommended Reading page has a fuller list for when you're ready to go further. None of this is required before you participate, but the more of it you've read -- starting with Torquatus -- the more you'll get out of being here.

Welcome to the forum!

Unfortunately I've never received any info on the first program but I did just receive this as a reminder for today

The Hellenic American Women's Council – HAWC Great Lakes Region – under the auspices of the Consulate General of Greece in Chicago -cordially invite you to commemorate the 250^th anniversary of American Independence in a two-session online program on

Thomas Jefferson and the Art of Happiness in Epicurean Philosophy

Our two speakers Mr. Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos and Dr. Christos Yapijakis – Co-Founders of the "Society of Epicurus" – Garden of Athens – http://www.epicuros.gr/ will present to us how the Epicurean Philosophy inspired and influenced Thomas Jefferson – one of the Founders of the United States of America, Author of the Declaration of Independence, and 3^rd President.

The 1^st session was presented by Author Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos on Saturday, June 27^th, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. C.T. (9:00 p.m. Greek Time)

2^nd session: Saturday, July 25^th, 2026

at 10:00 a.m. Central Time U.S. and Canada (6:00 p.m. Greek Time)

"I too am an Epicurean "

Thomas Jefferson

The pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence

and Epicurean Philosophy

by Dr. Christos Yapijakis

Register at https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/regist…QSA6dpwAXGQJw1A

We would like to thank Cosmos Press / Dina Ress for her generous support in the preparation of the program.

You may register and share the attached program with family and friends.

All the best,

Dr. Christina Georgakis

HAWC Director Educational / Cultural programs

I know that PD06 has translation issues, but In this discussion of deception both it (especially in Bailey's preferred reading) and other statements about the result being what matters probably has a bearing on Epicurus' attitude toward deception and other actions that some presume to be "always" bad.

PD06. In order that men might not fear one another, there was a natural benefit to be had from government and kingship, provided that they are able to bring about this result. PD06: The translation given is by Mensch. Formerly we used Eugene O’Connor from “The Essential Epicurus": "Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.” Bailey: “To secure protection from men anything is a natural good by which you may be able to attain this end.” New Greek Version: “In order to obtain security from other people, there was (always) the natural good of sovereignty and kingship, through which (someone) once could have accomplished this.” This version is up for review given that the Greek for sovereignty and kingship clearly appears in the text but is emended out by Usener and others. See the discussion of PD06 for further detail.

Listening to the first part of that reminds me that PENELOPE is also using deception to put off the suitors - but of course only an extreme Stoic would fault her for that?

The role of deception here and how to evaluate it is clearly critical --- and I'd presume that Epicurus would NOT take the position that deception (or any other vice the Stoics would presume to be bad) is "always" bad.

Quote from Lowri834

n case anyone wants some background on The Odyssey, also mentions the lying…

That British accent really adds a lot - and the humor too!

This below is going to be far from authoritative but the citations give a place to start answering the question: How did the ancient Greeks view Odysseus? Hero, or deceiver? Give me ancient quotations with citations to back up your answer.

As to the Stoics in particular:

Quote from Bryan

Homer’s Odysseus is, first and foremost, a liar. His truth is whatever benefits him.

Yes this is very fascinating to me and the reason that I've never been certain what is really going on here.

That gets at specifically the issues I want to know about:

Did the ANCIENT GREEKS see Odysseus as first and foremost a liar? Or did they approve of his willingness to use deception against enemies? I suspect that the Stoics would have disapproved due to their absolutist approach to morality, but they came much later, and I don't know that for a fact as to the Greeks as a whole, who I suspect would not have shared that view. Were the Greeks in general embarrassed by the use of the Trojan horse? I don't get that impression.

I have this general impression that the ancient Greeks considered Odysseus in general to be a hero. In fact I can't believe I'm writing that that might NOT be the case. Yes, like the gods, subject to making mistakes or being arbitrary and capricious - but still a hero.

I don't think we can get to the bottom of that without knowing what the ancient authorities had to say about Odysseus. Did they condemn him or praise him or both?

But the way you phrased that Bryan is key -- did they see him as FIRST AND FOREMOST a liar?

I have updated this thread title and added Youtube links (into post 1 above) to the TV Miniseries production starring Armand Assante, Isabella Rossellini, Vanessa Williams, and many others.

We can certainly discuss the differences between this and the new Christopher Nolan version as well, as that too would be interesting.

But this older version gives us probably a more "standard" version of the story for those of us who have not read Homer in decades - if at all.

Another issue would be considering Epicurus' view of Homer's writing and plot from Epicurus' view of a character like Odysseus. What aspects of Odysseus' character would Epicurus find admirable, and which not?

I just finished watching the Miniseries version for the first time and I have a couple of preliminary comments:

1. This story gives us a lot of material to understand what Epicurus was fighting against in terms of the majority Greek view of the gods and their intervention in human life.
2. It also gives us a picture of a Greek hero who might have understood that the gods were powerful and needed to be humored to a degree, but who also took whatever steps he could to fight back against their intereference in his life.
3. Seems like half or more of the story is Odysseus being confronted with goddesses or kings who offered him immortality and a life of relaxed total pleasure, but that Odysseus rejected this time and time again because he loved his home and family more. Rather than calling this attitude "duty over pleasure" I would say it is more fair to say that he chose specific mental pleasures of devotion to his own country and family over other bodily/sensual sensual pleasures that were not particularly his own. And he was choosing them not because the gods told him to -- in fact often in opposition to them - but because he himself chose them. These episodes speak volumes about Greek attitudes toward pleasure -- not that pleasure is to be rejected in general, but that some pleasures are more pleasurable than others. The idea that the Greeks of Epicurus; time would have perceived "tranquility" or "calmness" INSTEAD OF or OVER pleasure as the best way of life is ridiculous.

Much more likely is that the majority of Greeks and Romans shared Cicero's formulation -- "a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures."

Cicero, In defense of Publius Sestius, 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures. But those who said that men should aim at an honorable position, should consult the public interest, should think of duty throughout life not of self-interest, should face danger for their country, receive wounds, welcome death – these he called visionaries and madmen.” Note: Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.

Update On This Thread -- I have split this quotation and subsequent responses so we can focus on it with greater focus.

Clearly Diogenes Laertius and Torquatus make statements to the effect that "the wise man is always happy."

Nevertheless Epicurus did not eliminate his kidney pains by arraying against those of his friends and his philosophy. And Torquatus said that the wise man will have more cause for joy than for vexation -- meaning that even though we have more pleasure than pain we still have pain.

So does calling someone "happy" mean that he takes no action to further reduce or eliminate the remaining pains. Is there some better label than "happy" for someone who has more pleasures than pain but is nevertheless focused on taking action to eliminate remaining pains - and even angry about it?

I think those questions are entailed in the original quote and deserve special attention.

Note - the last several posts in this thread are not as focused on the original point as the earlier ones. However they are still relevant: because if "tranquility" is your absolute priority, and you have 51% pleasure 49% pains, why would you take any further action to eliminate them; why be angry and be motivated to fix about the remaining pains? How does the rhetoric of "the wise man always have more reason for joy than for vexation" interplay with not being reconciled to a sick society?

Dehorting -- that's a new one for me, but traces right back to the latin as opposite of exhort - which isn't so archaic!

Dehorting is the present participle/gerund of the rare/archaic verb "dehort".MeaningTo dehort = to strongly advise against something, to dissuade, or to urge someone not to do a particular action.

merriam-webster.com

It is essentially the opposite of "exhort" (which means to strongly encourage or urge someone to do something).Examples

• "His friends tried to dehort him from quitting his job impulsively."
• "The coach was dehorting the team from using risky plays."
• "Parents often dehort their children from dangerous habits."

Notes

• It's a formal, literary, or somewhat obsolete word derived from Latin dehortārī ("to dissuade").
• You won't see it in everyday modern English very often — "dissuade," "discourage," or "advise against" are the common replacements.
• It occasionally appears in older literature, philosophical texts (e.g., Hobbes), or as a deliberate stylistic choice for its precision.

So this is from Metrodorus and not Epicurus himself? Seems to me I hear this attributed to Epicurus so if it is not that is a misunderstanding that needs correcting.

TO PYTHOCLES:
Sent. Vat. LI (= Pap. Berol. 16369, col. II) [20]
You tell me that the stimulus of the flesh makes you too prone to the pleasures of love. Provided that you do not break the laws or good customs and do not distress any of your neighbours or do harm to your body or squander your pittance, you may indulge your inclination as you please. Yet it is impossible not to come up against one or other of these barriers: for the pleasures of love never profited a man and he is lucky if they do him no harm.

From Tau Phi's collection of works of Metrodorus:

PHILODEMUS, On Anger, col. XLV [7]

In fact, Epicurus makes clear in his First Appellations both that the sage “will experience rage” and (will experience it) “in moderation,” and Metrodorus, if he says “the rage of the wise man” in its proper sense, shows also that he feels it “very briefly.”

Tau Phi I have a question here - is this "dehorting" a typo?

PLUTARCH, Against Colotes, 34, 1127 d [5]
If those who abolish laws, governments, and polices of men subvert
and destroy human life, and if Metrodorus and Epicurus do this, by
dehorting and withdrawing their friends from concerning themselves
in public affairs, by hating those who intermeddle in them, by reviling
the first most wise lawgivers, and by advising contempt of the laws
provided there is no fear and danger of the whip punishment.

The following quote from Tau Phi's recent collection of quotations by or about Metrodorus is relevant to this topic of whether all things that have a beginning must have an end. It's also relevant to DeWitt's point that for Epicurus the gods are not supernaturally immortal, but as they too are compounded of atoms and therefore void they must act to maintain their existence.

PHILODEMUS, On Piety, fr. 122 [17]

Metrodorus too finds a defence in saying in On Gods and further in On Change that that which has no share of the void endures, but that every compound is destructible.