Posts by Cassius

Quote from DaveT

Certainly a person can feel katastematic pleasure over longer periods of time than physical pleasure. Can we agree to that?

And interestingly, no - we can't even agree to that.. The "experts" themselves are all over the board as to what pleasures really fall within katastematic and kinetic in the first place. I have been going through the Kelly Arenson book today and she - who like Emily Austin largely if not fully agrees with the fundamentals of the Gosling & Taylor and Nikolsky position cited in my article - has a very different interpretation than I have seen before.

So no - other than the flat statement that Diogenes Laertius records Epicurus himself having said, there is very little if anything we can agree on with certainty as to anything about the meaning of "katastematic" or "kinetic" or the implications of those terms.

On the other hand, there is much we can agree on about pleasure. And while the katastematic-kinetic debate occupies some for another 2000 years, normal people need a fundamental understanding of Epicurus that focuses on pleasure as the category that defines the goal.

Quote from DaveT

After all, physical pain and discomfort are crucial bodily mechanisms to maintaining good health. So why is it unreasonable to distinguish the two forms of pleasure just within those distinctions?

It is not unreasonable at all to distinguish pleasures in terms of how long they last, what parts of the body they effect, and how intense they are? What is necessary about adding on words like "kinetic" and "katastematic" on top of that which Epicurus himself did not include in PD09?

There are all sorts of things that are reasonable Dave, but prolonged advocacy that Epicurus held that anything other than the word Pleasure is the supreme good is the target of this policy for the reasons stated in the article.

If the policy is unclear in some way please let me know. The goal is to reinforce the ultimate conclusion that appears at the head of this forum (If then even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on Pleasure, whereas Pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that Pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of Pleasure.")

which is the same as stated by Seneca to be posted outside the forum. Here our highest good is PLEASURE.

I think that those outside the forum who advance the argument which is the target of this policy probably understand very well the rhetorical question that is involved. The issue is not fine-tuning types of pleasure so as to reach the best result - that is a primary subject for us all to address. The question is what IS the best result, and as Diogenes of Oinoanda finally had to shout - a life of happiness is a life of pleasure. He did not shout katastematic pleasure, he shouted pleasure.

What is not acceptable here is to adopt the rhetoric of people who want to substitute some other term for pleasure as the description of he supreme good, and who run from use of the term pleasure as if it is embarrassing.

There are many places that people who believe that approach is best can advocate for it - outside this forum.

No doubt this policy will reduce the actual or potential number of participants here. We could become immensely more popular by adopting the rhetoric displayed in my collection of "World's Worst Epicurus Videos." But that's not an acceptble goal for this forum.

This thread is for discussion of the post

Blog Article

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

The Current Establishment View - Which It Is the Editorial Policy Of EpicureanFriends.com to Reject

With only a few notable exceptions, practically every modern account of Epicurean ethics repeats the same claim: Epicurus divided pleasure into two distinct kinds, ranked one above the other. Pleasure, like a house, cannot stand if it is divided against itself — and that is exactly the structure this traditional reading imposes on it. On this traditional view, kinetic pleasure covers everything…

Cassius

July 16, 2026 at 2:06 PM

the Stoic Epicurus - not a word about pleasure except to dismiss it as "mere pleasure"

The original thread included the following paragraph on which I want to make a special comment:

I find some posts here have overly emphasized pleasure. Yes, pleasure, pleasure, I love pleasure. In my younger years I was very much a hedonist. But, some years back I discovered Epicureanism and toned down my pleasure seeking, which is a good thing. Yes, we all want pleasure, but also we need common sense (prudence) both in life and in a marriage. The greatest pleasure, as Epicurus states, is the absence of physical pain (aponia) and mental disturbance (ataraxia), which are the Katastematic, not the kinetic pleasures, which are fleeting,

The above statement as to Epicurus' views is not correct. As Diogenes Laertius wrote, Epiurus embraced both kinetic and katastematic pleasure, and held the Supreme Good to be Pleasure, not katastematic pleasure or any specific type of pleasure. Some people have different views on this matter, but this forum is dedicated to the view that Epicurus taught Pleasure to be the supreme good, as explained in great detail by Gosling & Taylor's The Greeks On Pleasure and as discussed many times elsewhere on this forum.

Cicero, On Ends 1.29 (Rackham)

We are inquiring, then, into what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in Pleasure; Pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, and Pain the Chief Evil.

ADMIN NOTE: The original version of this thread, along with the original first post, has been deleted. The following is a reconstruction from the main part of the posts that were present as of 7/15/26. If anyone's prior post here needs correcting, please let me know and I will adjust it.

SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL POST 7/1/2026

The post asks whether marriage and children are still "worth it" given the financial burden and relational strain they now entail, framing declining birth rates across Europe, Japan, and Korea as people rationally pursuing pleasure by avoiding the anxiety and cost of family life — costs the author pegs at $300k–$1.8M per child depending on replacement-rate assumptions. It traces this to a widening rift between the feminist movement (women pursuing career and independence over homemaking) and MGTOW (men, inspired by Schopenhauer's view of romantic love as nature's trap, opting out of marriage to protect their time and autonomy), arguing both sexes are still chasing pleasure, just no longer through the couple-and-children model. The author draws a historical parallel to Augustus Caesar's responses -- the Lex Iulia and LexPapia Poppaea, which used law to push marriage and reproduction — and asks whether benefits for larger families)should be tried today.

The second half turns more speculative and rhetorical: it lists childless historical figures (Da Vinci, Plato, Kant, Epicurus himself) as a counterpoint before pivoting to civilizational stakes — AI/robot labor replacing workers, mass immigration replacing native populations, and whether "too much pleasure" among a leisured class (the "Otiosi") produces decadence and nihilism, invoking Nietzsche's warning about Western moral decline. It closes by comparing today's turmoil to the chaos after Alexander the Great's death that led Epicurus to found the Garden, implying that whatever the answer to the marriage/children question, the philosophy's real offer is a stable, peaceful community amid social upheaval, now some 2,333 years running.

Cassius - 7/2/26:

Basic analysis of this issue is also going to be related to, or a subset of, the entire question of friendship relationships, and there we have some clear points:
1 - We pursue friendship for pleasure, even though over time the pleasure of our friends becomes as important to us as our own.
2 - We must run risks in order to obtain friendship.
3 - We know going into a friendship that one of us is likely to die first, so if it is the friend then any friendship is going to entail at least that pain, which is very intense. Of course there are other pains as well, but the pain of a friend dying is particularly intense and serves as a good
illustration of the point that friendship or any other relationship among humans is not a rose garden of all pleasures and no pains, and that we choose these relationships, even though there will be a large cost in pain, when we judge that the pleasure will outweigh the pain.

Post by “Noah Calderon” of July 2, 2026 at 9:11 AM

Marriage and children don't seem to have been out of the question for Epicureans, but Epicurus and his followers definitely seemed to place more emphasis on friendship more generally than on pair-bonding, romance, and reproduction. This makes sense because strong friendship and community provide the strongest and most natural sense of security and freedom from worry about not having access to the necessary things in life. It would require a lot of zeroes to already be in one's bank statement or budget to be confident that raising children would be pleasurable enough to justify the cost, as this post points out. Having a good group of friends one is on equal grounds with allows one to spread costs and energy and also just amplifies enjoyment. The same goes for your friendship with the person you are producing the children with or who you are marrying. Lacking respect or equality in gender relations might engender resentment and pain and distort the relationship which should be one of support and mutual pleasure.

Of course, the environment one lives in must also be conducive to raising children, but that veers into how we organize society and therefore politics. If we're looking for just advice for the Epicurean on raising children and marrying, I would s say the philosophy makes it quite clear that you have to have a strong community and strong friendships (especially with the person you are marrying) first. Maybe seeing these things as purely individual or familial is eroding the personal pleasure they produce, and placed in the context of supportive friendships they become more bearable. In any case, that's the reason I am personally not prioritizing them as a young person, and I live in a country with very supportive politics for childrearing.

On this note it would be interesting to hear from anyone on this forum that has researched what the marriage institution in Epicurean communities in ancient times actually looked like, and how it might have differed from today.

Post by “Elli” of July 2, 2026 at 1:40 PM

Ηello to all epicurean friends,

[ADMIN NOTE: THE FOLLOWING REFERS TO THE DELETED POST] Sorry but your whole text is a measurement of turmoil, not pleasure. You count taxes, cost of living, politics, technology, decline, demographics, robots, migration, feminism, MGTOW, Schopenhauer, Augustus, Rome, Nietzsche, the West , but you do not count yourself.

Epicurus says that every desire must be judged by the pleasure it brings and the disturbance it creates. You judge having children in terms of the market, not in terms of the Canon. Physiology (biology) is clear; it has an unforgiving law: children are the future of the city.

Without children, society dies. Lucretius describes how human nature softened when people first saw their children; children created friendship, empathy, cooperation. Biology, anthropology, and history agree: children are not a “cost,” they are a bond. They are the natural root of human sociality.

And here we must see something else: you invoke Schopenhauer - a man who saw the world through his personal trauma. Schopenhauer looked at his relationship with his mother, felt rejection and turmoil, and concluded that “the world is will and representation” and that life is suffering. But this is not the physiology of the world - it is the projection of his own psychological condition onto the world. Epicurus (the physician) would tell him: “If your mother did not love you, that is a condition that cannot be changed now, but it does not mean that nature is evil or that love is a trap. It simply means that you never learned to build the community that would support you.” Trauma is not philosophy; it is an obstacle. And when trauma becomes ideology, philosophy stops healing and starts fortifying. When we say “marriage is a trap,” we no longer need to risk rejection. When we say “everything is decline,” we no longer need to try to build anything. It becomes a convenient empty belief that protects
us from the pain of possible failure.

But the Canon does not impose having children; it measures it. If having children increases your pleasure, have children. If it increases your turmoil, do not. A child is not an economic act; it is a desire. And every desire is judged by the pleasure and the disturbance it brings - not by its cost.

And here lies the real problem: if we are afraid, it is because we are alone. Our turmoil is not biological; it is socially constructed. It is borrowed from a society that supports no one. Epicurus said it clearly: “When the wise man limits himself to what is natural and necessary, he knows more how to give than to receive; such a treasure of self-sufficiency he has found.” Self-sufficiency does not mean isolation; it means friendship. It means community. It means people who share burdens. It means you are not afraid to give, because you are not afraid of being left alone.

You measure having children inside a society that has dissolved into individuals without face and without identity - an amorphous mass. That is why it seems like a burden. When you live in a society where everyone is alone, where there are no communities, no support networks, no stable friendships, no functioning family structures, when everything has become individual and nothing is shared, then every burden feels unbearable. But in Epicurus’ Garden, having children is not a burden; it is an act of pleasure. There, the children of friends are the children of all, the community shares the burden, friendship provides security, and giving creates self-sufficiency.

And here comes something very simple: even if you do not want children, you do not live in a vacuum. Some of your friends will have children. Some of your relatives will have children. Some people around you will carry burdens that you do not carry. And you, says Epicurus - as someone who wants to be wise and self-sufficient - can offer help. Do you know what pleasure you will gain from that? The pleasure of participation, of care, of community. The pleasure Epicurus describes: to give more than you take. Unless you do not want to help either friends or relatives, but then you go against one of the most beautiful Epicurean sayings: LXI.(61)

“Beautiful indeed is our relationship with those around us, and especially with our relatives, who because of this become even more willing.” Friendship and kinship are not burdens; they are sources of pleasure. And offering help to the children of friends and relatives is an act of self-sufficiency, not an act of cost.

Epicurean ethics shows that having children is not a burden when there is community. In his will, Epicurus cared for the children of his friends: he gave them guardianship, financial support, moral support. In the Garden, children are not a private matter; they are a shared responsibility. Friendship reduces the turmoil of having children. Community shares the burden. Community protects children. Community gives security. Community gives pleasure. Community gives a future. Nietzsche said it clearly: “Unhappy marriages do not come from lack of love, but from lack of friendship.” If you find friendship, you find companionship. If you find companionship, you find security. If you find security, having children is not a burden; it is pleasure. Friendship is the foundation of self-sufficiency. Friendship is the foundation of the future.

In short, Epicurean philosophy says: Measure, and have children if it increases your pleasure. Do not have children if it increases your turmoil. And if you do not want children, offer help to the children of your friends and relatives - you will find a treasure of self-sufficiency. And if you want children but are afraid, find a community or create one yourself. Friendship reduces turmoil and creates homeostasis. Community gives security. Security gives pleasure. And pleasure is wealth, because it is the foundation of life - the foundation that gives a future!

Post by “DaveT” of July 2, 2026 at 2:13 PM

Yes, as Cassius said, there are a lot of issues worth discussing. Not the least one being that Epicurus seemed to discourage creating children within the marriage contract except if you were one of the rare Wise Men. But that is not my main point. I think the angst, if I can call what you described with that word, is nearly unknown for most of the world's population. The pleasure/avoidance of pain effects involved in childbearing within marriage are not the most basic. Those who desire pleasure, dare I say unnatural and natural/unnecessary ones that are available within western Industrialized educated, rich societies rather than fulfilling some biblical originating duty to procreate are minorities even among that overall group.

Also, the pleasure urge, expressed as sex leading to babies, of the non Industrialized part of the globe, comes from the basic, human (animalistic based desire) to find pleasure in the sex act. I want to say that sex scratches the urge for pleasure far better than unnatural/unnecessary things. Note that I don't say sex is absolutely necessary, but (fill in the blank) sure is
pleasurable and available to anyone in every station in life.

As a fellow senior citizen, I respectfully suggest that concern over population ebb and flow in the future is not worth the time spent on it. It is for those elite in every society who enormously profit from the labor of the populations who need to worry. For me, relief over these issues comes from to the teaching: Do not fear death. In a sense, we should not fear the future that /will unfold slowly after we are gone, it means nothing to us. And the kids will do fine.

Post by “Elli” of July 2, 2026 at 4:02 PM

Epicurus classifies sex as a desire “natural but not necessary.” He does this for a very precise reason: sex activates two different neurochemical systems in the human organism. One of them is stabilizing; the other is destabilizing.

The stabilizing part is oxytocin - the hormone of bonding, trust, and emotional connection. This is why sex is “natural”: it creates a bond. Oxytocin moves us toward connection, care, and mutual support - all of which are compatible with the Epicurean Physiology, Canon and Ethics.

But this oxytocin bond becomes stable only if it transforms into friendship. If it does not become friendship, the destabilizing systems take over: dopamine (craving and pursuit), noradrenaline (arousal and anxiety), and vasopressin (possessiveness and jealousy). These produce turmoil, not pleasure. They generate instability rather than the “well‑balanced constitution” that Metrodorus praised as eustathia. Today in neurobiology has a synonym word with "eustathia" as Homeostasis.

This is exactly why Epicurus says sex is natural but not necessary. If you do not have it, you do not lose your eudaemonia i.e. the homeostatic balance of body and soul. And if you do have it, it brings pleasure only when the oxytocin bond becomes
friendship: a stable, reliable, fear‑reducing relationship that Epicurus considered the foundation of self‑sufficiency.

Without friendship - the state of security, trust, and mutual reliability - sex by itself activates the destabilizing systems; with friendship, it aligns with the natural ones. And that’s all.

Post by “Elli” of July 3, 2026 at 3:24 AM

Epicurus’ Political Revolution Without Bloodshed

In On the Education of Children, Plutarch begins with a series of “moral” recommendations that Epicurus would immediately classify as empty beliefs. These are external social norms that have nothing to do with human nature, intimacy, or love, but with what society allows you to choose as a life partner. Plutarch says you must not marry a courtesan, must not marry a concubine, must not marry a woman of humble origin, and - most absurd of all - must not marry a short woman if you are a king. The example of Archidamus is telling: “If you are King Archidamus, do not marry a short woman, because you will produce little lizard-kings instead of real kings.” The Spartans fined Archidamus for marrying a short woman, believing her appearance would “pollute” the quality of his offspring. A great expert in DNA, Plutarch… what can we say.

In other words, if you were a Spartan or an Athenian and dared to fall in love with a woman your social circle did not approve of …watch out, because you’d get fined and socially bullied! Did you dare to love Aspasia, the courtesan? You will never become a statesman like Pericles, nor will you build a democracy… watch out, because you’ll get bullied! Did you choose the courtesan Leontion as your life partner? You will never become Metrodorus, nor will you teach philosophy in a school named as Garden… watch out, because you’ll get
bullied!

Are you the titan philosopher Epicurus, and you allowed courtesans, and slaves to attend your philosophical school - the Garden - in order to free them from ignorance, fear, and all the things that disturb human life? That’s not a philosophical school - that’s a filthy brothel… and watch out, because you’ll receive brutal and eternal bullying as a philosopher!

These social norms - social class, origin, appearance, “what people will say,” height measurements, class moralizing, Platonic “virtue,” Spartan punishments - are exactly what Epicurus calls empty beliefs. They are external obstacles telling you which woman you are “allowed” to choose as your life partner and which one you are not. They have nothing to do with happiness, friendship, and pleasure. They are social pressures that produce disturbance, not tranquility. And it is astonishing how easily these beliefs reappear in every era, just with new names.

Epicurus sets no such norms. He does not measure height, origin, class, or wealth. He does not say “whom you are allowed to love in order to marry.” On the contrary, we see him offering an exhortation: “your wife must not be afraid of you, because you did not marry her to serve you, but to be your companion in life”. We see that with this exhortation Epicurus does something
deeply radical: he clearly rejects the idea that a relationship - whether marriage or friendship - is a relationship of power. For Epicurus, a relationship is a relationship of friendship. And in ancient Greek, the verb “to love” was the verb “philein” - from which the word philia (friendship) comes. Love is a form of friendship. Friendship is a form of love. And friendship is the highest form of human connection.

Lucretius states it plainly (DRN 4.1278–1287): love is not born from origin, appearance, social class, nor from the mythical “arrows of Aphrodite.” It is born from intimacy and daily interaction, like drops of water falling on a rock and slowly penetrating it over time. This is empiricism, not idealism. This is human nature, not social norm.

And here is the funny part: in the forum, our friend - without realizing it - fell into the same trap as Plutarch. Plutarch measured height, origin, social class. Our friend measures taxes, cost of living, politics, technology, demographic collapse, robots, migration, feminism, MGTOW, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the decline of the West. In other words, modern empty beliefs. The same external obstacles, just with new names. Both forget the Epicurean criterion: love is born from intimacy, not from social norms.

So the real question is - “should you have children or not.” The real question is with which woman (or man) you will have children or not - and not with which social norms allow or forbid you to choose her as your life partner. Plutarch says: “with the one society approves.” Our friend said: “with the one the era, politics, and economy approve.” Epicurus says: “with the one you love.” Lucretius says: “with the one intimacy binds you to.”

From Diogenes Laertius’ description of the wise man: “And indeed, the wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in On Problems and On Nature, but only in accord with the circumstances of his life.”

And now, we ask : What is the main circumstance? That you love her and she loves you, that you are friends - because we choose friendship for its own sake, but its beginning lies in mutual benefit. Today, many people say they cannot find a partner to have children with. But Epicurus would smile gently and say: you cannot find friends. You cannot find philia (friendship). You cannot find the human warmth that makes love possible. What you call “a crisis of relationships” is simply a crisis of friendship - a crisis of intimacy that leads to loneliness, desertion, and depression. This is the weapon of tyrants: where tyranny exists, there is no friendship, no frank
speech, no freedom. But when everything around us collapses, these are the only fortresses that remain standing.

Post by “Elli” of July 3, 2026 at 4:26 AM

Plutarch was not a neutral observer. He was a priest of the Delphic priesthood, an ideological guardian of the Platonic and religious establishment. When he could not refute Epicurus philosophically, he resorted to ad hominem attacks, moralistic slander, and ideological gossip. He even spread the rumor that Epicurus and Metrodorus “shared” Leontion - a claim found nowhere else in antiquity. It was not history; it was propaganda.

And yet, Plutarch himself preserves one of the most extraordinary acts of Epicurean humanity: during a famine in Athens, Epicurus distributed beans one by one to his friends, ensuring that they survived. The irony is striking: the same man who accused the Garden of being a “filthy brothel” records that Epicurus saved human lives with food.

And these were not just any beans. They were the “impure,” “unholy” beans forbidden by Pythagoras - the beans the superstitious feared. Epicurus acted exactly as a wise man would: beans can be stored for a very long time, and because the superstitious considered them impure, no one would raid the Garden to steal them. Epicurus chose a resource that fear and superstition would protect for him. This was not only kindness; it was strategic survival. And with this strategy, he saved his friends.

The irony becomes even sharper: according to certain idealist doctrines, it would be “better” to starve than to eat the supposedly impure beans. Epicurus, guided by Nature and the Canon rather than by ideological taboos, used those very beans to preserve life. This contrast shows how detached idealistic prohibitions can become from human reality, while Epicurean philosophy remains grounded, humane, and life‑preserving.

Post by “Elli” of July 3, 2026 at 4:43 AM

Quote from Cassius
Thank you for that post Elli!
I am sure someone will ask about this:

Quote

Quote from Elli
Epicurus sets no such norms. He does not measure height, origin, class, or
wealth. He does not say “whom you are allowed to love in order to marry.” On
the contrary, we see him offering an exhortation: “your wife must not be afraid
of you, because you did not marry her to serve you, but to be your companion
in life”

Is this an actual quote for which there is a citation, or is this exhortation a paraphrase?

Elli responded:

I have read this quote in a post of a friend, who claimed that said by Epicurus, but this is fake!

Post by “DaveT” of July 3, 2026 at 9:13 AM

Quote

Quote from Elli
Today, many people say they cannot find a partner to have children with. But Epicurus
would smile gently and say: you cannot find friends. You cannot find philia (friendship).
You cannot find the human warmth that makes love possible. What you call “a crisis of
relationships” is simply a crisis of friendship - a crisis of intimacy that leads to
loneliness, desertion, and depression.

Elli I enjoyed reading your posts. I'm not sure whether friendship is a subset of intimacy, or intimacy is a subset of friendship. But your statement above made me think of the old saying that to have a friend, you must be a friend. And perhaps to have an intimate (or loving?) relationship you have to love and be open to intimacy.

Post by “Elli” of July 3, 2026 at 11:10 AM

DaveT Thank you for your kind words and your thoughtful reflection.

Epicurus would agree with you that intimacy and friendship are deeply intertwined. In fact, in Diogenes Laertius "on the wise man" we read that friendship begins from practical need, but becomes a “community of life” sustained by mutual pleasure. That shared life -that philia -is
exactly what makes intimacy possible.

So when I wrote that modern people cannot find partners because they cannot find friendship, I meant it in this Epicurean sense: intimacy is not something separate from friendship, nor something that appears magically. It grows out of the daily practice of mutual care, openness, and trust. To have a friend, you must be a friend -and to have intimacy, you must cultivate friendship.
Epicurus sees love as the deepening of philia. Without friendship, intimacy cannot arise; without intimacy, love cannot survive. What we call a “crisis of relationships” is, at its root, a crisis of friendship, a crisis of human warmth.

SUMMARY OF DELETED POST 7/4/26

The core argument of this post is that poverty undermines pleasure rather than enabling it: a poor man who has five children will likely raise them hungry and illiterate while shortening his wife's health from repeated childbirth, whereas having only one or two children he can properly feed and educate produces far more actual pleasure and far less pain. The post frames Epicurus himself as evidence for this — not a starry-eyed idealist but a prudent, practical administrator who had to secure real funding to run his school and sustain decades of writing — arguing that marriage and childrearing likewise demand realism, responsibility, and discipline, not just goodwill.

The second half builds a historical case that marriage was traditionally understood as a financial contract (the author traces "wed" to Old English *weddian*, "to pledge/stake"), a partnership of pooled money and land between families that only later got buried under a "romantic" ideal invented by troubadours and artists — an illusion the author says is now supercharged by social media and dating apps, which push men and women toward fantasy partners (the multi-millionaire, the sex goddess) instead of realistic, decent matches like "the apprentice plumber" or "the girl down the street." The author concedes they were once a hedonist but says discovering Epicureanism taught them to balance pleasure with prudence, citing Epicurus's ranking of katastematic pleasure (aponia/ataraxia) over fleeting kinetic pleasure. The piece closes by saying that some financial cushion ("zeroes") is necessary before marrying, so a couple can grow their family only as fast as their means allow — and closes on the Letter to Menoeceus line that "prudence is a more precious thing even than philosophy."

Post by “Elli” of July 6, 2026 at 2:38 PM

It is striking to observe how someone can speak of prudence while repeating the very error Aristotle made when he claimed that women have fewer teeth than men - without ever opening a single mouth to count. He preferred abstraction to reality, assumption to experience, theory to observation. And here, the same gesture reappears: a man theorizing about marriage, children, and prudence without ever examining the living substance of Epicurean philosophy.

He speaks of marriage as a contract of business, reducing an ancient institution of joy, pleasure, and friendship into a commodity for the marketplace. He has not yet understood that this reduction is one of the primary causes of unhappy marriages: two spouses locked in separate rooms, each counting money in a private chest, each guarding his own fear of death instead of sharing a real pleasant life. When marriage becomes an accounting exercise, joy evaporates, friendship collapses, and the household turns into a pair of isolated treasuries. This is not prudence; it is moral decline - the quiet erosion of philia under the weight of economic suspicion. It is the collapse of friendship into accounting, the transformation of human intimacy into a spreadsheet, the replacement of shared life with Excel morality, where the only virtue is the balance of columns.

He speaks of children as liabilities, of prudence as financial foresight, as if human bonds were items on a balance sheet. He measures children by the cost of their upbringing, failing to see that the cost of being alone is the one price he is actually paying. Two private anxieties are elevated into universal laws, as though the entire human condition must conform to the architecture of his fear. This is not prudence; it is projection disguised as philosophy.

Epicurus teaches that prudence and pleasure are inseparable - two movements of the same soul. He separates them. Epicurus teaches that friendship is the highest security - the foundation of a life free from fear. He replaces it with economic caution. Epicurus teaches that desires must be measured by the pleasure and disturbance they bring - not by their cost of money. He measures them by risk and liability. What emerges is not Epicurean prudence but Aristotelian household economics, where human beings are evaluated as units of production and reproduction.

And just as Aristotle never counted the teeth, he never counted the pleasures, the friendships, or the disturbances born from fear itself. He counted only the coins. And a man who counts only coins will always conclude that life is too expensive. Epicurus did not build the Garden on contracts, pledges, or liabilities. He built it on friendship, mutual care, shared burdens, and the courage to live pleasantly. Prudence is not the art of avoiding life; it is the art of choosing the life that frees one from fear.

Anyone who wishes to speak of prudence must first open the mouth of the philosophy he invokes - and count its teeth. Otherwise, he remains a prisoner of his own projections, mistaking the ledger for the landscape, merely theorizing about human nature without ever looking at the human beings in front of him.

Post by “Patrikios” of July 7, 2026 at 9:06 PM

This is an interesting thread, to which I’ll post other replies. However, to this opening sentence, I would tell someone today, that I have heard this same refrain of similar “burdens” on married life for decades. It was true in 1970, as it is still true today.

The joys of seeing new life grow is a pleasure that can be treasured in memory to outweigh the pain of these burdens - for most people. But not all family relationships turn out well. Many do lead to painful memories that may be difficult to forget.

And yes, there are those persons who don’t have the desire, capacity or support to pursue raising children in a meaningful marriage. They today may be pressured into raising a family from a variety of sources. More later. This is just an opening perspective on the topic.

Post by “Cassius” of July 13, 2026 at 7:47 PM

I have been delinquent in not spending more time with this thread, especially since I encouraged the posting of it.

Quote

Quote from Elli
So when I wrote that modern people cannot find partners because they cannot find
friendship, I meant it in this Epicurean sense: intimacy is not something separate from
friendship, nor something that appears magically. It grows out of the daily practice of
mutual care, openness, and trust. To have a friend, you must be a friend -and to have
intimacy, you must cultivate friendship.

Yes these are the issues that need discussion to find ways to address them. Another aspect of this is the increasing difficulty of speaking freely to people and letting them know what we actually think about things. Monitoring and censorship and the fact that the
internet seems forever can tend to make people reluctant to say what they really think, and in a time when people rely on meeting others online, you don't have much to go on other than a picture and look in someone's eye, and with AI image creation you certainly can't trust even that anymore.

If you are - like many of us - very opinionated and also not in the "majority' on many of these issues, it becomes very difficult to find people who really "connect" with you.

Max - The extension of the katastematic priority argument to the gods tells me that it's time to call an end to this debate.

Emily Austin was correct in "Living For Pleasure" both when she named her book and when she refused to wade into the katastematic/kinetic issue which has turned into far more of a morass than the texts justify. As she did in endorsing the general Gosling & Taylor position on this issue, this forum too has prioritized that position and I have discouraged the divisions that erupt from it - as they have here. Austin's book was not written for academics, and this forum was not started for academics. We have many more important issues to address.

This forum has been very very clear for many years that we are here to promote classical Epicurean philosophy in which the supreme good is pleasure. There are many people who do not agree with that for many reasons. This forum is not here to provide an endless debate platform for those who think that Epicurus should have constructed his philosophy differently - as a value dualist, as Tranquilist prioritizing katastematic pleasure, or anything else.

Max you have been a pleasure to talk with, but it is time for me to take steps to get this forum back on the track for which it was founded.

Thank you for the lively discussion, but I am now closing your account. To be clear, no other person on this forum has participated in this decision other than myself. All blame that might attach to this action belongs with me and no one else.

I wish you the best in all your future endeavors.

Cassius

As has been stated at the top of this forum from well before Max joined us, this is the formulation of Classical Epicurean philosophy that this forum is here to promote. Not a certain type of pleasure, but Pleasure.

"If then even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on Pleasure, whereas Pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that Pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of Pleasure."

Cicero's Torquatus - On Ends Book 1

Hospes, hic bene manebis; hic summum bonum voluptas est. -- "Stranger, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure."

Seneca, Letters to Lucilius 21.10

Blog Article

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

The Current Establishment View - Which It Is the Editorial Policy Of EpicureanFriends.com to Reject

With only a few notable exceptions, practically every modern account of Epicurean ethics repeats the same claim: Epicurus divided pleasure into two distinct kinds, ranked one above the other. Pleasure, like a house, cannot stand if it is divided against itself — and that is exactly the structure this traditional reading imposes on it. On this traditional view, kinetic pleasure covers everything…

Cassius

July 16, 2026 at 2:06 PM

Episode 342 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Were Our Minds Designed To Be Good At Pursuing Knowledge?"

Quote from Max DuBoff

This generally seems right, but what it misses is that the absence of pain is a pleasure according to Epicurus. So it's pleasure vs. ataraxia for Epicurus; it's a question of how ataraxia fits into the landscape of pleasures.

Since I am among the leaders in typos I get used to recognizing them. Probably this was to be "So it's NOT pleasures vs ataraxia....?

Quote from Max DuBoff

What I do claim is that, for Epicurus, only some pleasures (katastematic ones) determine whether a life is blessed--and that's because the absence of pain is the only pleasure that can be complete.

Yes, the "only some pleasures (katestmetic ones) determine whether a life is blessed" is where we will continue to strongly disagree.

Quote from Max DuBoff

To be clear, though, I think Epicurus absolutely endorsed the claim that a good (i.e., blessed) life is a perfect/complete one. But that was a choice. And it's a choice that fits uncomfortably with hedonism. Personally, I'm very convinced that Epicurus was right about hedonism and right that the absence of pain is a pleasure. I'm less convinced he was right that a blessed life is a perfect/complete life.

Max in my case I like to build up from the earlier premises to the higher ones, so before we even get to the implications of PD3 and PD4 there is PD1 and PD2. Where do you land there? Do you agree or disagree with Epicurus that there are no supernatural gods, that gods do not reward friends and punish enemies, and that there is no existence after death? In my case, it is because I strongly agree with him on those first two doctrines that I find it inconceivable that - despite all his other statements about active pleasures - he would have held katastematic pleasures to be the only ones that contribute to a blessed life, as you are claiming.

Here is a slightly edited note from Luzveraz telling us this:

Dear Cassius,

I am grateful to the founder and moderators of this website for promoting Epicureanism.

I used to be a PhD candidate in China majoring in theoretical quantum information science.

What prompted my interest in Epicureanism:

I think the difference between people is largely caused by environments where they grow up, and during my days on earth, I have a strong desire to be a good person, which rooted in the experience that I do not feel popular among my peers during my journey of study, perhaps due to lack of social skills and physical strength, thus I used to be unhappy and feel bad for myself. However, one day when I watched the anime movie Nobita and the New Steel Troops: ~Winged Angels~ as a teenager, combined with my observation of my joyful and inspiring peers, I begin to realize the feeling of true happiness and warmness in my heart is the judge of good and bad. I begin to be committed to the idea to "find and create true happiness", and I become happy with my life and unafraid of the future. I was so happy with my idea, that I wrote a lot about it in my diary. Guided by this idea, I studied math and had fitness in body, and as a child I wished to spread the idea to the world. But only two year later, I went through hardness which is beyond my endurance, my freedom was completely deprived and I was forced to participate foolish rat race for years, which continued to make me doubt my old idea. Now I figured that the ability to "find and create true happiness" is difficult to achieved in certain environments, which I used to believe can stand any trial.

If one had the patience to read my past, it is easy to see why Epicureanism appeals to me when I first read

For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good. – Letter to Menoeceus

Then I learned that Epiucureanism treated the definition of true pleasure with great care and attention, and the more I read the more aspired I am to the wisdom within the lines. The brave attitude toward religion and death just add to my admiration to Epicurean teachings. I wished the flowers in the kepos is always blooming, for the people here outwitted the evil and spread the teaching of true wisdom.

I am a beginner in philosophy. I am most interested in Epicurean ethics and working-examples in concrete affairs. I am also interested in Epicurean view of the universe and physics. I know that Einstein wrote a forward for Lucretius' DRN in the 1923 version translated by Hermann Diels, and am reading DRN recently.

....

Quote from Don

Jack Gedney has struck a blow for Epicurus in two comments to that Robertson article! Huzzah!

Am I reading this below correctly? Donald Robertson asserts directly to Jack Gedney that the supreme goal of Epicureanism is freedom from physical and mental pain and Jack does not respond by disagreeing with him and correcting him to say that the Supreme Goal is pleasure??? And Jack responds without even mentioning the word pleasure?

Quote

Donald J. Robertson

The supreme goal of Epicureanism is freedom from both physical and mental pain (ataraxia and aponia) so I would say that goes quite far beyond what you describe here. It's certainly true that the Epicureans avoided unnecessary pain but that alone is potentially a very extensive definition.

Jack GedneyUntroubled7h

I'm happy to admit that avoiding pain encompasses a great deal of therapeutic territory in Epicureanism. All the things I mentioned can be placed under that broad umbrella: eliminating unwarranted fears (about death and the gods, for instance), practical prudence (frugal living, cultivating friendship), training of one's habits (by temporary dietary restriction, for instance), and avoiding unfulfillable desires (as for wealth and fame) are all ways of reducing pain.

I don't see how any of that qualifies as the kind of "experiential avoidance" that modern psychotherapists would warn against, however. If someone has a fear of driving or crowds, then avoiding driving and crowds for the rest of your life is certainly a poor way of developing emotional resilience. I think Epicureans and Stoics would be in perfect agreement about that. But no one goes to a therapist to be cured of their measured decision not to pursue great wealth and political power, so Epicurean "avoidance" does not seem parallel to this kind of psychological tendency to me. Since the only direct textual evidence the article supplies for Epicurean "unfeelingness" is the mistranslated passage from Seneca, I'm unclear where you're deriving that impression from.

Maybe I'm missing something! Bonus admoneri gaudet, as Seneca says.

Display More

Welcome Luzveraz

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.

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!

Welcome to Episode 342 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 start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues.

We are now in Section 10 of Book 2

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here:

• Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

As we move into section ten, Lucullus (from the Stoic perspective) attacks those who imply that the mind - a creation of nature - is useless for obtaining knowledge, which has the result of overturning the whole of life.

He then moves to address those who argue that there is a difference between saying everything is uncertain and that nothing can be perceived, and this takes him toward the discussion of Cicero's own position - that it makes sense to say that some things are probable and some are not.

Then as we move into eleven the talk turns more and more to discussing "signs" - and that is the beginning of the point we are looking for - so that we can eventually tackle Philodemus' "On Signs"

Matt - In case you have not seen it, I have just updated my long-standing summary on the issue behind what Robertson is saying, which I believe needs to be taken in context of Plato's Philebus. This contains my most complete list of citations on the topic.

Quote from Pacatus

But that is so egregiously wrong. He clearly did not do his due diligence on that

Unfortunately, it's equally if not more probable than he's got a sheet-full of citations from modern writers supporting him on that. Wrong, but they are legion.

Quote from Pacatus

But “blessedness” is not one that works for me either way. Perhaps I just don't understand it the way that those for whom it is helpful do. So, I just let it go (past tense there) – along with the gods.

Exactly - what meaning can "blessed -" possibly carry to a normal ear today other than "blessed by the gods" which Epicurus explicitly rejected. It's a word that appears and has to be incorporated in reviewing texts, but I see no reason to focus on it in normal conversation today rather than "happiness" or "well being" or "the best life."

I may have more to say later but this is why you don't listen to stoics - or anyone who advoccates relief from pain rather than pleasure - as what Epicurus taught as the Supreme Good.

The whole premise of the article is built on a false conception that Epicurus advocated tranquility ABOVE pleasure. If you want that, you should indeed be a Stoic.

This has been a very long thread but I think we got to this point without including the argument that meets Max's concern about why Epicurus was concerned about "perfect" or the limit of pleasure: He needed a response to the argument that Plato had made (repeated by Seneca later, which is evidence of its concern) that that which is not perfect cannot be the highest good.

Plato's Philebus

The Platonic argument against pleasure based on “limits” is important enough that it needs to be referenced immediately. Unfortunately this topic would consume a long discussion in itself, but here is an excerpt from Philebus as a finding aid to the full discussion where the argument can be researched:

SOCRATES: I omit ten thousand other things, such as beauty and health and strength, and the many beauties and high perfections of the soul: O my beautiful Philebus, the goddess, methinks, seeing the universal wantonness and wickedness of all things, and that there was in them no limit to pleasures and self-indulgence, devised the limit of law and order, whereby, as you say, Philebus, she torments, or as I maintain, delivers the soul. — What think you, Protarchus?
…

SOCRATES: Have pleasure and pain a limit, or do they belong to the class which admits of more and less?

PHILEBUS: They belong to the class which admits of more, Socrates; for pleasure would not be perfectly good if she were not infinite in quantity and degree.

SOCRATES: Nor would pain, Philebus, be perfectly evil. And therefore the infinite cannot be that element which imparts to pleasure some degree of good. But now — admitting, if you like, that pleasure is of the nature of the infinite — in which of the aforesaid classes, O Protarchus and Philebus, can we without irreverence place wisdom and knowledge and mind? And let us be careful, for I think that the danger will be very serious if we err on this point.

PHILEBUS: You magnify, Socrates, the importance of your favourite god.

SOCRATES: And you, my friend, are also magnifying your favourite goddess; but still I must beg you to answer the question.
…

SOCRATES: And whence comes that soul, my dear Protarchus, unless the body of the universe, which contains elements like those in our bodies but in every way fairer, had also a soul? Can there be another source?

PROTARCHUS: Clearly, Socrates, that is the only source.

SOCRATES: Why, yes, Protarchus; for surely we cannot imagine that of the four classes, the finite, the infinite, the composition of the two, and the cause, the fourth, which enters into all things, giving to our bodies souls, and the art of self-management, and of healing disease, and operating in other ways to heal and organize, having too all the attributes of wisdom; — we cannot, I say, imagine that whereas the self-same elements exist, both in the entire heaven and in great provinces of the heaven, only fairer and purer, this last should not also in that higher sphere have designed the noblest and fairest things?

PROTARCHUS: Such a supposition is quite unreasonable.

SOCRATES: Then if this be denied, should we not be wise in adopting the other view and maintaining that there is in the universe a mighty infinite and an adequate limit, of which we have often spoken, as well as a presiding cause of no mean power, which orders and arranges years and seasons and months, and may be justly called wisdom and mind?

PROTARCHUS: Most justly.

Seneca's Quotations

We can find the same point made by Seneca in the following letters:

Quote

Quote Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XVI: This also is a saying of Epicurus: “If you live according to nature, you will never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich.” Nature’s wants are slight; the demands of opinion are boundless. Suppose that the property of many millionaires is heaped up in your possession. Assume that fortune carries you far beyond the limits of a private income, decks you with gold, clothes you in purple, and brings you to such a degree of luxury and wealth that you can bury the earth under your marble floors; that you may not only possess, but tread upon, riches. Add statues, paintings, and whatever any art has devised for the luxury; you will only learn from such things to crave still greater. Natural desires are limited; but those which spring from false opinion can have no stopping point. The false has no limits.

Quote

Quote Seneca’s Letters – To Lucilius – 66.45: “What can be added to that which is perfect? Nothing otherwise that was not perfect to which something has been added. Nor can anything be added to virtue, either, for if anything can be added thereto, it must have contained a defect. Honour, also, permits of no addition; for it is honourable because of the very qualities which I have mentioned.[5] What then? Do you think that propriety, justice, lawfulness, do not also belong to the same type, and that they are kept within fixed limits? The ability to increase is proof that a thing is still imperfect.”“THE ABILITY TO INCREASE IS PROOF THAT A THING IS IMPERFECT.”

Additional citations here:

Episode 341 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Is It True That No One Dies For A Lie?

Quote from wbernys

First of all, it is likely Plutarch is being typically unfair here, as i imagine right after this Epicurus may have mentioned examples like helping a friend, or acquiring food in need. But Plutarch uses this to suggest unfairly Epicurus would be okay with things like murder or sexual assault. Notice how Plutarch conveniently doesn't mention what the "anything the law forbids" actually is.

I agree that this is an important consideration. It would have been obvious to Plutarch and Epicurus that the law sometimes forbids in ways that are unjust, and Epicurus' views of justice clearly show that circumstances can change and agreements can and should be broken when they are no longer just to those concerned. I would suspect that those circumstances (when a law becomes unjust) were of as much concern then as they are today, and that prompted Epicurus' examination of the issue in detail in the Principal Doctrines.

So the fact that indeed punishment may come from breaking a law is true in many circucumstances, and one would hope that laws are generally beneficial. But there are many cases when breaking the law is not only the just thing to do, but also in fact brings much more pleasure and beneficial results from and to the community than complying.

So while "murder and sexual assault" are going to always be wrong, there are many ways to break unjust laws that are not wrong in themselves just because a law is involved, and you have to account for both situations in one's analysis.