Posts by Cassius

Let's get input from several people on this including Bryan but one preliminary comment I would make is that I read Lucretius (and therefore presumably Epicurus) as using words that are translated as "soul" and "mind" and "spirit" somewhat interchangeably, so I would be cautious about dividing them up more specifically without very clear text references.

Quote from Patrikios

So, are our spiritual feelings innate Prolepsis of the gods, or just higher aspects our nervous system that we can attempt to control through breath work.

So as to this question I tend to think that anything regarding consciousness (which would include words like nervous system and mind and soul and spirit, and the processing work of the mind, including prolepses (which is related to images and how they over time shape our thoughts) is going to be generally considered to be a function of the soul/mind/spirit part of the body, but getting much more specific beyond that (especially "control through breath work") is going to be hard to do from the existing texts.

Bryan?

This is a crosspost of a handout that is available here:

File

Application of the Fundamentals of Nature

This is number two in a series of handouts on the Fundamentals of Nature and Key Doctrines.

Cassius

November 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM

This is a crosspost of a handout that is available here:

File

Foundations of Epicurean Philosophy - Single Page Handout

A single-page PDF of the 12 Fundamentals of Nature (Physics) and the 40 Key Doctrines (Canonics, Ethics).

Cassius

November 21, 2017 at 11:18 AM

This is a thread to cross-post and file this here in the "Brochures" section.

File

Major Characteristics of the Epicurean View of Life

This is a list of major characteristics of the Epicurean view of life.

Cassius

November 22, 2017 at 9:46 PM

Ha. I bet not yet 😀

Quote from Don

We got some work to do

Very much true.

If supernatural religion, and life after death with reward and punishment are true, then the Epicurean worldview makes no sense.

If the Epicurean worldview is true, then supernatural religion and life after death with reward and punishment make no sense.

Pointing this out doesn't mean that we have to go on a crusade and hit people over the head with a crowbar with these issues on first meeting. Probably all of us here, and even Epicurus and the founders of the school themselves, started out being taught and believing to at least some extent a standard religious worldview. It would be very hypocritical to lock out people "who are well-disposed" from coming to the same adjustments in thinking that we went through ourselves. Some will never be disposed to accept these views, but many can and will.

As Bryan cited in our zoom last night, Lucretius said in Book Three (this is the 1743 / Daniel Brown / Dunster? translation):

Quote from Lucretius Book 3

[307] The mind of man is formed of the same principles; though the discipline of philosophy may polish and correct some, yet it leaves behind the marks of the original nature of the mind, nor are we to think that the seeds of vice can be wholly rooted out. One man, we see, runs more rashly into passion, another is more disposed to fear, and a third is apt to be more merciful than just; It is impossible but the various tempers of mankind, and actions that follow them, must differ in many other instances, the reasons of which are at present out of my power to explain; nor can I find words to express that variety of figures by which the seeds are distinguished, and from which this variety of disposition is produced. This, however, may justly be asserted on this occasion: that the traces of original nature which cannot be corrected by the rules of reason are so very small that nothing hinders us from leading a life worthy of the Gods.

If we're concerned about living the best life that we can, and we should be, then we have to plan out how to work toward as complete an implementation of core Epicurean positions as possible. And in most cases, we'll want to do that without getting driven out of our towns (Epicurus) or stoned (the Epicurean in Alexander the Oracle-Monger).

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

For the sake of extending the discussion of the Sedley article into the future, I've started a new thread here, and suggest that new people who come across this and wish to talk about the article go here:

Thread

David Sedley's "Epicurean vs Cyreniac Happiness"

David Sedley - Epucurean vs Cyreniac Happiness Thanks to Joshua for finding this article and Don for finding the link at Academia. There are a number of very important aspects to this article (which I suspect is also one of Dr. Sedley's most recent articles on Epicurus) that could fit under different categories here. However it came to our attention in the discussion of how Infinite time does not contain "greater" pleasure than finite time, and we first mention it in Lucretius Today 269.

I…

Cassius

February 26, 2025 at 3:29 PM

File

David Sedley - Epucurean vs Cyreniac Happiness

Eudaimonia, happiness, is a property of a whole life, not of some portion of it. (Link to Article at the Academia.edu website.)

Cassius

February 23, 2025 at 6:48 AM

Thanks to Joshua for finding this article and Don for finding the link at Academia. There are a number of very important aspects to this article (which I suspect is also one of Dr. Sedley's most recent articles on Epicurus) that could fit under different categories here. However it came to our attention in the discussion of how Infinite time does not contain "greater" pleasure than finite time, and we first mention it in Lucretius Today 269.

I want to suggest that this is a very good article to read because:

1 - We're constantly talking about the difference between the Cyreniacs and the Epicureans and this is probably the most authoritative article.

2 - It gives a very interesting take on how Epicurus was looking at more of a "big picture" perspective on pleasure than were the Cyreniacs. The article comes to the defense of the Cyreniacs in defending them against the accusation that the Cyreniacs seemed to be narrowly focused on today or the pleasures of the moment. Sedley says that's not a justified accusations.

3 - The way in which Sedley thinks that Epicurus DID differ from the Cyreniacs is very helpful for our understanding of the widened scope of pleasure, and how Epicurus used that widened scope, not only to make pleasure more accessible, but also in a way that I think plays into the "complete life" and the "limit of pleasure" issue that is so difficult for so many people.

The thread where we first started talking about this for Episode 269 and is here, but for the future it will probably make sense to add more comments here.

Then we'll take these comments and incorporate them into Lucretius Today 270.

Godfrey if you chave not read the article Don recently posted by Sedley on Epicurean vs Cyreniac happiness I hope you will, and comment.

I hadn't fully absorbed it when we recorded the podcast but I think it has additional insights into mental pleasure and the "big picture" that we will want to talk about further - probably this next podcast too.

A complete show transcript is available here:

By Pleasure We Mean Absence of Pain - All Experience That Is Not Painful - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Episode 269 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is entitled: "By Pleasure We Mean The Absence of Pain."

Welcome Ken!

Quote from AxA

I'm very fortunate to live a primarily pleasant life, and I want to spread that and be around others who also feel this or who are at least open to the possibility of a mostly pleasant life

Thomas Jefferson's "head and heart" letter has a very good line to the effect that "the greater part of life is sunshine" as is also very useful in general on the point that the feeling of pleasure / happiness is more important to us than logical analysis. He stages a debate between head and heart and the "head" does not come out the clear winner over feeling

Welcome yankee

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 72 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 / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

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 some 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 other viewpoints, 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 by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being 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 have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

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!

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

Quote from Bryan

Yes, as we know Herodotus wrote a book (Περὶ Ἐπικούρου ἐφηβείας), Hicks translates this tile On the Training of Epicurus as a Cadet. The

Bryan - is this also in book 10?

As to these, here are some personal comments. Not everyone will respond the same, and everyone has to do what they think is right with their own local group. With that caveat, here are some thoughts as to "some of the objections that came up:"

Quote

- Pain as a source of meaning vs boring bland state of continuous pleasure (I did not even get into the whole "pleasure as absence of pain" definitional issue, and this came up at the end and was never really addressed)

Yes, this is why it is necessary ultimately to get into this issue of what "pleasure" really is, and how it encompasses everything we find desirable in life, mentally and physically. There is literally no activity that anyone will find desirable for them to pursue that is not to them pleasure, and there is absolutely no reason for them not to be willing to pursue whatever activities that bring them pleasure, so long as they in fact bring them more pleasure than pain. It is a killer problem to be boxed into pleasure as being ONLY sipping win and eating cheese, and I would avoid that like the plague by taking it head on. Epicureans like Cassius Longinus and his friends certainly did not live that way, nor did those who engaged in spreading the philosophy through writing, and you can cite the examples given by Torquatus in On Ends Book One as to his ancestors who were military leaders being totally reconcilable to Epicurean philosophy.

Pain is not meaning in itself, it's just pain, and Epicureans are fully willing to embrace pain when the result is more pleasure (desirable living) than pain.

There is much that can and should be done to develop this point, and I would push back hard at it any time it raises its head. And it will raise its head, regularly, anytime a group gets started or new people come in, because this attitude is entrenched in the Stoicized view of Epicurus that has prevailed in the academic world for many years. Modern histories and commentaries on Epicurus are mostly written by people who disagree with large aspects of the philosophy, and who want to pick bits and pieces of it just to pursue their own agendas (primarily based on virtue-based ethics). Everyone is going to want to deal with this issues in their own way, but this is the reason for the part of our website which states that it is devoted to "Classical Epicurean Philosophy" and not "neo-Epicureanism"

About Us: Classical Epicurean Philosophy Unadulterated by Humanism, Platonism, Stoicism, Buddhism, or Other Eclecticism

Quote

- The necessity of dealing with violent external enemies raised on hate who will be "harder" than you chill garden people (I had to reassure this guy I'm not a pacifist, but it remains an issue how much to compromise in the name of defence)

Again this objection would be a killer if true, but there is no reason to accept it. THere is every reason to believe that Epicurus and his friends complied with their military service. No one ever accused them of refusing to serve when their time came, and you can be sure that would have been charged had it happened. As in the first answer, you can cite Torquatus, Cassius Longinus, and even Julius Caesar himself as people who were either explicit or implicit Epicureans. "Passivism" as a goal makes no more sense than "virtue," as a goal. Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes a terrible idea. "Turning the other cheek" is Christianity, not Epicureanism.

Quote

- The value of spiritual beliefs and practices in comforting the afflicted (one participant gave an impassioned speech about the beauty of Aphrodite's grief over the death of Adonis and how oppressed women could find comfort in this. I had no response)

At a deep level you have to come to terms with whether a person is so afraid of pain that they want to adopt fantasy answers, or whether they want the truth. Not everyone wants the truth and those who don't are not going to be at home with Epicurean philosophy. Epicurus appeals mostly to those who see life as intrinsically pleasurable, rather than intrinsically suffering (such as Buddhism or the like) or those who would have preferred never to have been born, or who are in revolt against nature because they themselves think they are superior to nature. You could go on and on with this answer but this is a part of the reason that Epicurus advised not giving in to "the crowd" and to their false beliefs, and Diogenes of Oinoanda pointed out how the crowd catches the disease of false beliefs like sheep. You do your best to help everyone who wants to be helped, but there are lots who don't and you can't let them hold you and your friends back from living happily yourselves.

Quote

- A sense that this philosophy is "for individuals" (or friend groups) and is somehow disconnected from wider politics, something that only the privileged can do, and that does not address world issues (my usual response to this is instead of trying to influence how people vote, which is "downstream" of their beliefs and values, I see more potential in going "upstream" to these beliefs and values themselves - imagine how a world of Epicureans would vote)

As to the philosophy being only for the privileged, that too comes from the false definition of pleasure as ONLY consisting of luxury and sensual stimulation. As for Epicureans being aloof from politics, that is a false idea in large part. Epicurus advised against pursuing a political CAREER, as that places you at the mercy of the mob, but he did not advise against action when action is appropriate. This is developed very well in the Boeri book referenced here on the cite ( podcast interview with the author is here):

Blog Article

Lucretius Today Interviews Dr. Marcelo Boeri - co-author of "Theory and Practice of Epicurean Political Philosophy: Security, Justice, and Tranquility"

In Episode 197 of the Lucretius Today Podcast, on October 19, 2023, we were privileged to speak with Dr. Marcelo Boeri, co-author with Javier Aoiz of Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy - Security, Justice, and Tranquility. Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Dr. Boeri is originally from Buenos Aires, and after receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Salvador in 1995, he has worked extensively in the field of Ancient Greek…

Cassius

October 22, 2023 at 8:20 PM

As mentioned before, we have a rule against pursuing politics here at the forum, and I would advise something similar in any local group, especially in getting off the ground. But that is not a policy against individuals pursuing political issues outside the group, and in fact I personally advise engagement and participation in anything you think will truly lead to greater pleasure for you. The problem with allowing those discussions within the groups is that they are too divisive, and they will lead to the false perception that Epicurean philosophy is necessarily capitalist or communist or left or right or any other necessary grouping. There are clearly some things (primarily supernatural religion) which are off limits due to the philosophy itself, but like-minded friends can organize themselves in many different ways and still be entirely consistent with core Epicurean views. For those who want to debate, it's the aloofness and asceticism of Stoicism that would by nature lead to inactivity. David Sedley has a good article on "The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius" which mentions how -- if you want to talk about resistance to 'tyranny' for example - it's the Stoics who generally postured rather than acted when action was deemed appropriate.

Quote from ifancya

Other recommended books have been Cyril Bailey's "The Greek Atomists and Epicurus: A Study", Benjamin Farrington's "The Faith of Epicurus", and John M. Rist's "Introduction to Epicurus". Any feedback on these additional recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

All of these books you listed are certainly high quality. I'd recommend you read at least the first chapter of DeWitt, take a look at the table of contents to see how it's organized, and then decide if that is where you prefer to start. DeWitt will introduce you to virtually every aspect of the philosphy in a general way. That will give you a better view of the "forest" before you go into detail on issues such as theology like the Farrington Book or atomism like the Bailey book you mentioned. i'm not familiar with Rist's introduction so I can't help much with a comparison there.

You'll see we generally start out recommending the DeWitt and the Austin books, but you are a special case given your reading already and your preference for a more detailed approach over a "lifestyle" approach.

I am sure others will have recommendations, including Sedley's "Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom" since you already have some experience with Epicurus.

If you will let us know whether there are particular topics or aspects that interest you most, we can probably fine-tune the recommendations further.