Posts by Cassius

I just posted an excerpt from something Joshua said in Episode 302 about pleasure ethics from Thomas Moore's Utopia, and another quote comes to mind which is on a related topic and which responds to Cicero's allegation that an Epicurean should not boast about doing everything for his own benefit. (That were it ever so true, that a wise man regards nothing but the body; or, to express myself with more decency, never does anything except what is expedient, and views all things with exclusive reference to his own advantage; as such things are not very commendable, they should confine them to their own breasts, and leave off talking with that parade of them.)

A part of what I would include in responding to that would be to point out how much emphasis Epicurus places on friendship, and placing the interest of our friends as important to us as our own. As Torquatus said about his ancestor, we are strongly motivated to do unpleasant things for the safety and benefit of our friends country as that is our own strongest assurance of safety. I would suggest that this kind of wider concern equates at least roughly with one's friends, at least for someone in public office in the sense of Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears....

The quote that comes to mind to support the view that this kind of concern for our friends is natural, and would be fully sufficient for someone to proclaim to the public, even on taking an office as to the principle on which he would act while in office, is the following from Nietzsche which I've cited before, from The Gay Science. Nietzsche doesn't seem entirely happy about it, but he's making a point I think most of us can very much appreciate:

Quote

How is it possible to keep to one’s own way? Constantly, some clamor or other calls us aside; rarely does our eye behold anything that does not require us to drop our own preoccupation instantly to help. I know, there are a hundred decent and praiseworthy ways of losing my own way, and they are truly highly “moral”! Indeed, those who now preach the morality of pity even take the view that precisely this and only this is moral—to lose one’s own way in order to come to the assistance of a neighbor. I know just as certainly that I only need to expose myself to the sight of some genuine distress and I am lost. And if a suffering friend said to me, “Look, I am about to die; please promise to die with me,” I should promise it; and the sight of a small mountain tribe fighting for its liberty would persuade me to offer it my hand and my life . . . All such arousing of pity and calling for help is secretly seductive, for our “own way” is too hard and demanding and too remote from the love and gratitude of others, and we do not really mind escaping from it . . . while I shall keep silent [verschweigen, i.e., hide, conceal, keep secret] about some points, I do not want to remain silent about my morality which says to me: Live in seclusion [Lebe im Verborgenen, i.e, live secretly, discreetly, in hiding or concealment] so that you can live for yourself. Live in ignorance about what seems most important to your age. Between yourself and today lay the skin of at least three centuries. And the clamor of today, the noise of wars and revolutions should be a mere murmur for you. You will also wish to help – but only those whose distress you understand entirely because they share with you one suffering and one hope – your friends – and only in the manner in which you help yourself."

(GS 338)[37]

(the source from which I originally got this quote appears gone, but i see this link on archive.org.)

So I would argue that Nietzsche is pointing out something that is very natural: that we want to help the people we consider to be our friends, and we are often motivated to do that with more enthusiasm than when we act for our own sake.

I might also combine this with an allusion to the common idea that if we were marooned on an island or another planet with no company at all we would soon either go crazy or lose the will to live or both - sort of how we might feel if we were the only survivor of a nuclear war.

So there are lots of ways to stand up in public and say that because you in fact value your own interest, and that you identify your own happiness with that of your friends, just as Epicurus advised, you are not only as trustworthy as anyone else, you are more trustworthy because you place your actions on a strong practical foundation and not on a make-believe supernatural god or ideal morality.

In this episode, one of the arguments that Joshua raised from Thomas Moore's "Utopia" in defense of Pleasure-based ethics deserves to be remembered. I'm therefore pasting this excerpt from the transcript with the important point underlined so it is easier to find in the future. Talking about Thomas Moore, this is what Joshua said:

Joshua: He's working through this stuff in his own mind, and now he has a safe way to explore these ideas without committing to them. On the subject of the chief Good and on pleasure, Thomas Moore says this. He says,

Quote

The Utopians say that the first dictate of reason is the kindling in us of the love and reverence for the divine Majesty to whom we owe both all that we have and all that we can ever hope for. In the next place, Reason directs us to keep our minds as free from passion and as cheerful as we can, and that we should consider ourselves as bound by the ties of good nature and humanity, to use our utmost endeavors to help forward the happiness of all other persons.

For there has never been a man who was such a morose and severe pursuer of virtue, such an enemy to pleasure, that though he set hard rules for men to undergo much pain, many watchings, and other rigors, yet did not at the same time advise them to do all they could in order to relieve and ease the miserable, and who did not represent gentleness and good nature as amiable dispositions. And from this the Utopians infer that if a man ought to advance the welfare and comfort of the rest of mankind, there being no virtue more proper and peculiar to our nature than to ease the miseries of others, to free from trouble and anxiety, in furnishing them with the comforts of life in which pleasure consists. Nature much more vigorously leads us to do all of these things for ourselves. A life of pleasure is either a real evil, and in that case we ought not to assist others in their pursuit of it, but on the contrary, to keep them from it.

All we can as from that which is most hurtful and deadly. Or if for life of pleasure is a good thing, so that we not only may, but ought to help others to it, why then ought not a man to begin with himself? So we have that question first of all. If virtue means, at least in part, easing the misery and pain of others, why is it not virtuous to ease our own misery and pain?

This is in Thomas Moore's Utopia. This is how they get to pleasure, and he expresses it even more clearly than this. He says:

Quote

Since no man can be more bound to look after the good of another than after his own. For nature cannot direct us to be good and kind to others and yet at the same time to be unmerciful and cruel to ourselves. Thus, as the Utopians define virtue to be living according to nature, so they imagine that nature prompts all people on to seek after pleasure as the end of all they do.

Joshua: Now, that is not at all a bad starting place if you're interested in identifying the chief good And you could imagine reading some of this directly out of Torquatus or something that virtue means living according to nature, and nature prompts all people on to seek after. Pleasure is the end of all they do. That's why pleasure is the chief good. And moreover, since virtue means to ease the pain and hardship of others, it's also must be virtuous to ease our own pain and hardship.

Excellent thank you Joshua and Kalosyni! For anyone glancing through this thread, the link to Kalosynis post is an important one to follow.

Also, Patrikios , I see maybe our most exhaustive discussion of this is here:

Thread

Episode 253 - How The "Riddle Of Epicurus" FIts Into the Epicurean View of The Gods - Cicero's OTNOTG 28

Welcome to Episode 253 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 have a thread to discuss this…

Cassius

October 27, 2024 at 11:13 AM

But Joshua I do not see that it mentions Sextus Empiricus. Do you have something on that?

This is not exactly what i was remembering -- apparently Gassendi predates Hume in the chain. There are some links here which might be helpful:

Derivation of the “Riddle of Epicurus” – NewEpicurean

Yes and and Joshua says it also comes to us through Hume. I have a link on that somewhere that I will look for. And just to be clear I thought your post was fine - I mainly wanted to head off anyone who might be newer and might be tempted to expand the topic.

We just recorded this podcast several hours ago so the final product won't be out until later in the week, but the exercise prompted me to generate this post which we can discuss in a separate thread:

Thread

Shall We Put Together An Essay Contest With A PrIze Of An Annual "Torquatus Award For Excellence In Epicurean Advocacy"?

I realized something in recording the Lucretius Today podcast today. Our topic was Cicero's challenge that it is impossible to advocate for the Epicurean in public - that in Cicero's words we "dare not plead for either in the senate, or before the assembly of the people, or before the army, or the censors." (Tusculan Disputations 3:21)

As far as I am aware there are essentially TWO examples of Epicurean advocacy in existence which - with only slight modification, if any - would be suitable for…

Cassius

October 12, 2025 at 4:22 PM

I realized something in recording the Lucretius Today podcast today. Our topic was Cicero's challenge that it is impossible to advocate for the Epicurean in public - that in Cicero's words we "dare not plead for either in the senate, or before the assembly of the people, or before the army, or the censors." (Tusculan Disputations 3:21)

As far as I am aware there are essentially TWO examples of Epicurean advocacy in existence which - with only slight modification, if any - would be suitable for delivery to a public assembly:

1. The first is the delivery by Torquatus of his defense of Epicurus in On Ends Book 1, which we have here. This is probably far and away the all-time preeminent piece of Epicurean advocacy in existence.

2. The second is the letter of Cosma Raimondi here. This would require slight modification as in its current form it is addressed to a single person, but the changes necessary to format it for delivery to a larger audience would be minimal.

Am i missing something that fits the same description? Something that with minimal changes could be delivered by an advocate such as a lawyer to a jury or a senator to the senate, especially in a context in which it is seen as a response to an attack on the Epicurean school?

Hopefully there are other examples, but asking the question brings up the obvious point that there need to be more. Many more.

At this point it's just an idea but it makes perfect sense to me so sponsor the equivalent of the old "Essay Contest" style of event in which we offered a prize for the best submission over a specified period of time.

Starting simple might involve just an essay, but let's face it we are in 2025 and with AI audio and video generation, and good written submission can be brought to life rather easily audio-visually , with text to speech and at least slideshow accompaniment. We should probably also require that the final product be dedicated to the public domain and therefore be shareable by anyone on any social media or other location.

I'll probably start thinking about setting this up as a future project, but before I do does anyone have any ideas about how we might fine-tune the idea? if so I'll work to incorporate that in a competition "prospectus" that would describe the required format, goal of the competition, and any style guidelines that might be appropriate.

Thank you Pacatus! That last post as it is a perfect example of the best way to pursue the topic Patrikios has raised while staying within the forum rules!

Admin Note: I scanned over the article Patrikios posted, and it's behind a paywall so as I write this I have seen only the general opening. "The problem of evil" is a very important philosophical question so while the post seems to me at the moment to be ok, I'm putting this here just as a caution. "The problem of evil" is fair game, but a detailed discussion of who is right or wrong or whatever in the specifics of this very hot-button issue would be beyond the scope of the forum and violate our no-politics rule. Please keep that rule in mind in assessing any follow-up commentary (or lack thereof) on the article. Lurkers should not take the allowance of the post or any further posting or non-posting in response to it as taking sides on that issue. Everyone can and probably should do that in their private lives, especially since this issue is so closely tied to the disasters that come from supernatural religion. Aside from the philosophical side, most or all of the rest of this issue should not be part of our discussion here.

Great question.

This week we will devote the meeting to discussing Reinforcement Practices submitted by users that assist us in living according to the teachings of Epicurus.

Between now and then we'll pull together suggestions from past forum posts, compile them into a list, and discuss suggestions to expand the list and make it more useful.

It would be good to organize these according to topic (that is, what aspect of Epicurean doctrine is being reinforced), so please think about how you might "tag" your suggestions. While pretty much everything fits under "live a happier life," if we break down the topic of the reinforcement into tighter categories that will help us better organize them.

We encourage meeting participants to think about this and bring your suggestions!

After further investigation it appears that some users were not seeing reply boxes in the Lucretius Today Podcast forum threads, but other threads were performing normally. I've made a change to address that.

If anyone continues to see an issue please post here.

If you are a level 2 or above you should always see "Reply" boxes in any thread that you have permissions to view in the first place.

I've received a report that a member doesn't see a reply box under our Lucretius Today Podcast Episode 302 thread, and therefore cannot comment. Anyone else seeing that or other missing functionality?

Thread

Episode 302 - TD30 - Epicurus and Roads Paved With Good Intentions

Welcome to Episode 302 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…

Cassius

October 4, 2025 at 11:18 AM

Episode 302 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Epicurus And The Road That Is Paved With Good Intentions"

Epicurista tells me:

Quote

My interest in Epicurus arose when i studied Cicero at university. My professor, a specialist in Plato, was venturing into the skeptical academy. And we read some of Cicero's dialogues. I've been intrigued by how atomism works ever since. Without a doubt the most interesting part for me is the physics. I already made a post on the facebook group ( sorry spamming, im happy to found so many good sources ) about the swerve. It has always bothered me in my readings of Epicurus that the clinamen is never mentioned — it only appears later in Lucretius. I've even met some professors who argue that the swerve isn't necessary for Epicurus, and that's why he never mentions it in any of his letters.

That's it. I'm passionate by the Hellenism. In my university, the discussion and the interest is mainly Plato.

Welcome epicurista !

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!

Quote from Kalosyni

Which Epicurus would you want at your Birthday party or Twentieth Celebration?

I would definitely want the one on the left - the real Epicurus - the way he was portrayed by the people who knew him best!

We ought to note for the record that the one on the right is a creative alteration, and not authentic!

Welcome to Episode 303 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we continue covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean perspective and we move into Section XXI to address a particularly important challenge from Cicero:

How do we advocate the Epicurean position in public gatherings?

Quote

But these men behave with too much heat, especially as the opinions which they would uphold are no very spirited ones, and such as they dare not plead for either in the senate, or before the assembly of the people, or before the army, or the censors: but, however, I will argue with them another time, and with such a disposition that no quarrel shall arise between us; for I shall be ready to yield to their opinions when founded on truth. Only I must give them this advice: That were it ever so true, that a wise man regards nothing but the body; or, to express myself with more decency, never does anything except what is expedient, and views all things with exclusive reference to his own advantage; as such things are not very commendable, they should confine them to their own breasts, and leave off talking with that parade of them.

Comments on this episode:

1 - Joshua stresses that Cicero seems to object to Epicurus' labeling of pain as evil even more than he objects to labeling pleasure as good.

Quote from Cassius

But suppose we are mistaken as to his pleasure, are we so too as to his pain? I maintain therefore the impropriety of language which that man uses when talking of virtue, who would measure every great evil by pain?"