We are revising our participation requirements so that new registrants will be able to post only in the "Welcome New Members" section until they are approved for posting in other forums. A "Welcome" message will be posted for each new registrant - please post in response to that here so you application can be fully processed.
Logic in the sense of parsing definitions and categories. It's largely a word game until you connect back to emotions / pain / pleasure.
But that too begs the question between whether there is any "natural" connection between words and perceptions, and for that we might have to call in Godfrey and Don on visualization issues 
In its poetic aspect I largely agree. But in links to the Bible it skirts close to the line. Paine was a deist and I now consider his whole approach to have been deficient, so his allegory falls flat too.
Ah yes Good vs. Evil and whether they exist as absolutes…the great debate.
It seems to me that despite the emotion involved, the largest part of this question is "definitional" and even "logical" so probably every time it's discussed with newer people, it needs to be hit home that there can be a lot of emotion and personal attachment involved in discussing this. Right Don? 
Kalosyni one of the closest threads is this one started by Joshua: Is Pleasure the Only Good?
Yes I agree. She seems to be more of a "writer" than an academic too. Almost in the category of Greenblatt (the swerve) who probably deserves mention but is less clear in status as a promoter.
Given the quality of his posts I suspect Nate has retired and gone into full-time Epicurean commentary. Another great post.
Last time I did not bother to look up that book. Here's a link or two:
So it's fairly recent: https://www.amazon.com/You-will-not-t…h/dp/B0006FANBK
I can't find much else as to who Hannah is or his views.
That's someone definitely to consider. She's certainly writing a lot of books and articles. But I wonder to what extent she says she agrees with it herself? (And of course that leads to the question of what kinds of caveats to include.) Same question would likely apply to Sedley, Tsouna, and probably several others. Are they academics and/or commentators or actual "promoters" of Epicurean philosophy, and what are their caveats?
"A godlike state of pure pleasure, a disposition of imperturbable joy, free from physical pain and mental anguish. The practice of prudence will lead the wise person to the good life."
I largely agree with that statement too and think it's a good highlevel summary. At what point however does it need however to have a caveat that since there is no fate, and not every person can become wise (see Diogenes Laertius) that "the practice of prudunce the best course most likely to lead the wide person to a good life" (which hints at the truth that this result is not guaranteed due to factors that sometimes occur that are out of our control.
Or is that something to explain later after the first statement?
Ok massive reordering of Ethics forums to put these near the top:
The Relationship of Pleasure and The Highest Good (And Is Pleasure the "Only Good"?)
Ok that categorization isn't going to work. I will re-split them:
The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And Pain To "Evil"
Pleasure as The Highest Good (And Is Pleasure the "Only Good"??
There's a lot to talk about in that post, probably starting with the basic issue of whether "good" and "evil" have an absolute existence in themselves, or are entirely relative.
There's also the issue of the relationship of pleasure to good and pain as evil.
We've talked about some of these before and we can do this here or in the older threads. It's possible we'll split this out after we talk a while too.
But here are the two older categories where we explored these issues:
The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And The "Highest Good"
The Relationship of Pain To "Evil"
(The latter link is new)
I think we are basically on top of most of these, but we've had a flurry of activity recently and this is a good time for a reminder.
If you prepare any kind of lengthy "document" or even a "table" or something like that which is good for future reference., we need to feature it on the front page of the website in a separate box, either as a "blog article" or a "Filebase item" or perhaps even both.
If you check there now you'll see that we have Nate's list of translations, and I'm working on getting Nate's list of historical figures better featured. We also have the graphic he did a couple of years ago.
We also have Don's translation of the letter to Menoeceus, and we might elevate his "timeline" to similar status (need to talk to him about that).
Have I missed any significant contributions that need to be on the front page?
The basic thing to remember is that posts here in the forum can be pretty long, but for really "long-format" or detailed pieces, it's better to post them either as an "Article" or as a "File" so we can "feature" them and they are easier to find. It might be a good idea to feature more "Comparison Charts" or simply "Charts" as we currently do with the old Stoicism one I prepared. It would really be good either to extend that one into other philosophies, or use separate charts.
We'll also add something soon on the "A Few Days In Athens" book review.
But the main point of this post is that we do want to encourage everyone that if you put a lot of effort into any particular project we need to make sure it gets the attention it deserves, so let us know in this thread or otherwise if we've missed something from the past, or if new things are created.
The Christianity Comparison thread, but I don't think we have a chart:
Epicureans have been unpacking this for 2000+ years
Lucretius Book One:
Brown:
[80] But in these things, I fear, you will suspect you are learning impious rudiments of reason, and entering in a road of wickedness. So, far from this, reflect what sad flagitious deeds Religion has produced. By her inspired, the Grecian chiefs, the first of men, at Aulis, Diana’s altar shamefully defiled with Iphigenia’s blood; her virgin hair a fillet bound, which hung in equal length on either side of her face. She saw her father, covered with sorrow, stand before the altar; for pity to his grief the butchering priests concealed the knife. The city, at the sight, overflowed with tears; the virgin, dumb with fear; fell low upon her knees on the hard Earth; in vain the wretched princess in distress pleaded that she first gave the honored name of Father to the King; but hurried off, and dragged by wicked hands, she, trembling, stood before the altar. Alas! not as a virgin, the solemn forms being duly done, drawn with pleasing force to Hymen’s noble rites, but a chaste maid, just ripe for nuptial joy, falls a sad victim, by a father’s hand, only to beg a kind propitious gale for Grecian ships. Such Scenes of villainy Religion could inspire!
Humphries:
I fear that, in these matters, you may think
You're entering upon a path of crime,
The A B C's of godlessness. Not so.
The opposite is true. Too many times
Religion mothers crime and wickedness.
Recall how once at Aulis, when the Greeks,
Those chosen peers, the very first of men,
Defiled, with a girl's blood, the altar-stone
Sacred to Artemis. The princess stood
Wearing the sacred fillets or a veil,
And sensed but could not see the king her father,
Agamemnon, standing sorrowful
Beside the altar, and the priests near-by
Hiding the knife-blade, and the folk in tears
At what they saw. She knelt, she spoke no word,
She was afraid, poor thing. Much good it did her
At such a time to have been the very first
To give the king that other title, Father!
Raised by men's hands and trembling she was led
Toward the altar, not to join in song
After the ritual of sacrifice
To the bright god of marriage. No; she fell
A victim by the sacrificing stroke
Her father gave, to shed her virgin blood-
Not the way virgins shed it - but in death,
To bring the fleet a happy exodus!
A mighty counselor, Religion stood
With all that power for wickedness.
One aspect of this we need is:
(1) Notable "living" people who identify with Epicurus (and again I would exclude here our current internet-based people like this website, or Society of Epicurus, or the Greek Gardens), because we're looking for "notable" that the public might recognize. As per my prior comments I don't think Christopher Hitchens (who is now dead of course, but alive fairly recently) really qualifies.
(2) As to "scholars" who might not be notable but would have a reputation in the academic community, I note that Nate's list doesn't include scholars such as DeWitt. That's to be expected, because to my knowledge DeWitt himself never proclaimed that he himself was an Epicurean, and the fair assumption is that DeWitt was probably some form of Christian. However it's notable that DeWitt appears to have been one of the most recent people to have devoted his professional career to the study of Epicurus, and DeWitt's works are probably some of the few that are not filled with dismissals and efforts to point out Epicurus' alleged errors. I doubt we could consider Sedley or Tsouna as people who are primarily devoted in their professional career to promoting Epicurean views sympathetically. We might possibly consider Bailey, given the amount of work he put into both Lucretius and Epicurus, but Bailey seems to me to be mostly hostile to Epicurus's ethics and probably other parts of his philosophy as well. Another name to consider would be Martin Ferguson Smith, who I would place somewhere between Bailey and DeWitt.
For some reason I woke up thinking about this today. Although I am not interested in seeing us "play to the crowd," most of us live and work among people who are almost exclusively non-Epicurean, and know little about Epicurus.
At some point it becomes a logical and reasonable question for them to ask:
"I've never really heard of Epicurus, or anyone who said that they were Epicurean. Those views you are talking about sound pretty underground to me and actually bordering on evil. Of course I know you and I like you, but can you name me one reputable person over the last three hundred years who has labelled themselves an Epicurean? Hopefully you can name more than one obscure name, but if you can't, maybe we better talk about getting you some medical help. I know this great counselor who specializes in Dialectical Behavior Therapy!"
My comment to that:
I've heard people suggest names like Christopher Hitchens and all sorts of people who have said one or two good things about Epicurus, but there are very few who come anywhere close to embracing his entire philosophy, much less actually committed to writing "I too am an Epicurean."
I think this is a legitimate conversation topic with the outside world, so I think we need to work on our response. I know Nate has produced a very good list of historical Epicureans, and I think Don has done something similar in terms of a time frame or time line analysis.
I will start a new thread and link to those two sets of materials and let's see what we can do to expand this.
Nate's Research Discussion Thread: RE: Early Epicurean Community - Listing of Known Epicureans Thoughout History
Nate's Research Consolidated For Publishing: Epicurean Philosophers by Nathan H. Bartman
Don's Timeline: Updated Alternative Timeline of Epicurean History
New Page Devoted to this in Lexicon:
I have any number of problems with Thomas Jefferson and remain ambivalent with regards to him. He's never been one of my favorite Founders (I'm more a Franklin fan). I've also never been entirely comfortable with his image being in the header to this forum, but that is entirely Cassius 's call.
For some reason I woke up thinking about this today and this comment comes to mind:
Although I am not interested in seeing us "play to the crowd," most of us live and work among people who are almost exclusively non-Epicurean, and know little about Epicurus.
At some point it becomes a logical and reasonable question for them to ask:
"I've never really heard of Epicurus, or anyone who said that they were Epicurean. Those views you are talking about sound pretty underground to me and actually bordering on evil. Of course I know you and I like you, but can you name me one reputable person over the last three hundred years who has labelled themselves an Epicurean? Hopefully you can name more than one obscure name, but if you can't, maybe we better talk about getting you some medical help. I know this great counselor who specializes in Dialectical Behavior Therapy!"
My comment to that:
I've heard people suggest names like Christopher Hitchens and all sorts of people who have said one or two good things about Epicurus, but there are very few who come anywhere close to embracing his entire philosophy, much less actually committed to writing "I too am an Epicurean."
I think this is a legitimate conversation topic with the outside world, so I think we need to work on our response. I know Nate has produced a very good list of historical Epicureans, and I think Don has done something similar in terms of a time frame or time line analysis.
I will start a new thread and link to those two sets of materials and let's see what we can do to expand this.
Let's continue this part of this thread in the new location: Historical References on the School of Epicurean Philosophy - Ancient World To Today
Wow that is a whopper of a chart thank you Nate!
and realizing "aimlessness, signlessness, and emptiness" as the path to "nirvana"
Apparently I know a lot more Buddhists in my local life than I realized!
Outline of Events in Chapter Two:
Chapter 2 Summary – Epicurus introduces Theon to the Garden
