Posts by Cassius

Some of you will appreciate that i was particularly impressed by THIS analysis:

Quote

Where did Lucretius get this obstinate desire that he describes above to fashion his didactic poem in Latin? The answer, I believe, is to be found by noting Lucretius’ strong belief that it was the format of his work that contained its effectual power and presumably its construction in Latin was also a carefully chosen part of this allure. If Epicureanism wished, it seems Lucretius had judged, to truly integrate itself into Roman society it must be expressed in Latin. If, as he says, he wanted to put Epicureanism before his reader’s mind, he did so with the recognition that, though capable in Greek, they thought in Latin. If Epicureanism was to become a Roman, as well as Greek, philosophy (and we have seen his belief on the transcended reach of philosophy demonstrated above), then it would need to be translated into the language of the state. We should remember that Cicero provides similar reason as motivating his efforts to manufacture philosophy away from their traditional Greek language, and into his native Latin.

Also:

Quote

J. D. Minyard (1985) 46,87 also concluded that: ‘Had his purpose been purely explanatory, didactic, and descriptive, purely philosophical, this is what he should have done. Greek was well*known to his oligarchic audience and the De Rerum Natura is nothing if not an oligarchic poem...[rather] he wants his poem to revaluatethe literary heritage and rearrange Roman culture, to reform the language itself and the society based on it....This cannot be accomplished by ignoring the language that reflects and embeds the inherited social form of thought and motivates a pattern of life it fossilizes and inspires...He clearly believed that if Epicureanism was to take root in society at large, specifically in Roman society, it must reach out to the wider audience in the form and on the terms to which that audience was used.

So we have to do both: study the details of the Greek and be sure we get the most accurate understanding of it, and then re-express the same thoughts in understandable English.

Yes, as you read through the rest of the article he expands on this point with lots of details. To be clear, McGilivray does NOT believe that Epicureans were essentially Hermits who put up walls around themselves and lived isolated from the rest of the world.

The trust of the article is to the opposite point: That while Epicurus was very clear that not every person or group or people will become our friends, those who are "well-disposed" towards us should be invited to at least some of our gatherings (the 20th is explicitly mentioned) and that we engage in discussion and question and answer with them, even with those who we are sure will never want to spend the time to read all the 37 books and pursue all the details.

That's one of the the really interesting parts of the essay -- the use of outlines like the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles and the 40 doctrines: are they summaries for use of new people? are they abbreviations for use in memorization by the inner circle? are they in any sense "dumbing down" the doctrines to make it easier to spread the word?

So a lot of the essay is directed toward the question of how dedicated Epicureans should act towards those who are not (yet) dedicated Epicureans, and that touches on a lot of what we do with EpicureanFriends.com and our other initiatives.

McGilivrary makes the kind of comments we are now accustomed to (calling DeWitt out when he goes too far with his Christianity analogies) while at the same time affirming DeWitt's basic point -- that the Epicureans were not at all hermits, and that it was an important part of the Epicurean model to work to expand the philosophy to others.

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Twenty One of Lucretius Today.

This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

Today we continue our review of Epicurus' letter to Herodotus, and we move further into fundamental physics and discuss issues related to the question of whether matter can be infinitely divided.

Now let's join Martin reading today's text:

Bailey

[60] Furthermore, in the infinite we must not speak of “up” or “down,” as though with reference to an absolute highest or lowest — and indeed we must say that, though it is possible to proceed to infinity in the direction above our heads from wherever we take our stand, the absolute highest point will never appear to us — nor yet can that which passes beneath the point thought of to infinity be at the same time both up and down in reference to the same thing: for it is impossible to think this. So that it is possible to consider as one single motion that which is thought of as the upward motion to infinity and as another the downward motion, even though that which passes from us into the regions above our heads arrives countless times at the feet of beings above and that which passes downwards from us at the head of beings below; for none the less the whole motions are thought of as opposed, the one to the other, to infinity.

[61] Moreover, the atoms must move with equal speed, when they are borne onwards through the void, nothing colliding with them. For neither will the heavy move more quickly than the small and light, when, that is, nothing meets them: nor again the small more quickly than the great, having their whole course uniform, when nothing collides with them either: nor is the motion upwards or sideways owing to blows quicker, nor again that downwards owing to their own weight. For as long as either of the two motions prevails, so long will it have a course as quick as thought, until something checks it either from outside or from its own weight counteracting the force of that which dealt the blow. Moreover, their passage through the void, when it takes place without meeting any bodies which might collide, accomplishes every comprehensible distance in an inconceivably short time. For it is collision and its absence which take the outward appearance of slowness and quickness.

[62] Moreover, it will be said that in compound bodies too one atom is faster than another, though as a matter of fact all are equal in speed: this will be said because even in the least period of continuous time all the atoms in aggregate bodies move towards one place, even though in moments of time perceptible only by thought they do not move towards one place but are constantly jostling one against another, until the continuity of their movement comes under the ken of sensation. For the addition of opinion with regard to the unseen, that the moments perceptible only by thought will also contain continuity of motion, is not true in such cases; for we must remember that it is what we observe with the senses or grasp with the mind by an apprehension that is true. Nor must it either be supposed that in moments perceptible only by thought the moving body too passes to the several places to which its component atoms move (for this too is unthinkable, and in that case, when it arrives all together in a sensible period of time from any point that may be in the infinite void, it would not be taking its departure from the place from which we apprehend its motion); for the motion of the whole body will be the outward expression of its internal collisions, even though up to the limits of perception we suppose the speed of its motion not to be retarded by collision. It is of advantage to grasp this first principle as well.

[63] Next, referring always to the sensations and the feelings, for in this way you will obtain the most trustworthy ground of belief, you must consider that the soul is a body of fine particles distributed throughout the whole structure, and most resembling wind with a certain admixture of heat, and in some respects like to one of these and in some to the other. There is also the part which is many degrees more advanced even than these in fineness of composition, and for this reason is more capable of feeling in harmony with the rest of the structure as well. Now all this is made manifest by the activities of the soul and the feelings and the readiness of its movements and its processes of thought and by what we lose at the moment of death.

[64] Further, you must grasp that the soul possesses the chief cause of sensation: yet it could not have acquired sensation, unless it were in some way enclosed by the rest of the structure. And this in its turn having afforded the soul this cause of sensation acquires itself too a share in this contingent capacity from the soul. Yet it does not acquire all the capacities which the soul possesses: and therefore when the soul is released from the body, the body no longer has sensation. For it never possessed this power in itself, but used to afford opportunity for it to another existence, brought into being at the same time with itself: and this existence, owing to the power now consummated within itself as a result of motion, used spontaneously to produce for itself the capacity of sensation and then to communicate it to the body as well, in virtue of its contact and correspondence of movement, as I have already said.

[65] Therefore, so long as the soul remains in the body, even though some other part of the body be lost, it will never lose sensation; nay more, whatever portions of the soul may perish too, when that which enclosed it is removed either in whole or in part, if the soul continues to exist at all, it will retain sensation. On the other hand the rest of the structure, though it continues to exist either as a whole or in part, does not retain sensation, if it has once lost that sum of atoms, however small it be, which together goes to produce the nature of the soul. Moreover, if the whole structure is dissolved, the soul is dispersed and no longer has the same powers nor performs its movements, so that it does not possess sensation either.

[66] For it is impossible to imagine it with sensation, if it is not in this organism and cannot effect these movements, when what encloses and surrounds it is no longer the same as the surroundings in which it now exists and performs these movements.

HICKS

[60] Further, we must not assert 'up' or 'down' of that which is unlimited, as if there were a zenith or nadir. As to the space overhead, however, if it be possible to draw a line to infinity from the point where we stand, we know that never will this space – or, for that matter, the space below the supposed standpoint if produced to infinity – appear to us to be at the same time 'up' and 'down' with reference to the same point; for this is inconceivable. Hence it is possible to assume one direction of motion, which we conceive as extending upwards ad infinitum, and another downwards, even if it should happen ten thousand times that what moves from us to the spaces above our heads reaches the feet of those above us, or that which moves downwards from us the heads of those below us. None the less is it true that the whole of the motion in the respective cases is conceived as extending in opposite directions ad infinitum.

[61] When they are travelling through the void and meet with no resistance, the atoms must move with equal speed. Neither will heavy atoms travel more quickly than small and light ones, so long as nothing meets them, nor will small atoms travel more quickly than large ones, provided they always find a passage suitable to their size, and provided also that they meet with no obstruction. Nor will their upward or their lateral motion, which is due to collisions, nor again their downward motion, due to weight, affect their velocity. As long as either motion obtains, it must continue, quick as the speed of thought, provided there is no obstruction, whether due to external collision or to the atoms' own weight counteracting the force of the blow.

[62] Moreover, when we come to deal with composite bodies, one of them will travel faster than another, although their atoms have equal speed. This is because the atoms in the aggregates are traveling in one direction during the shortest continuous time, albeit they move in different directions in times so short as to be appreciable only by the reason, but frequently collide until the continuity of their motion is appreciated by sense. For the assumption that beyond the range of direct observation even the minute times conceivable by reason will present continuity of motion is not true in the case before us. Our canon is that direct observation by sense and direct apprehension by the mind are alone invariably true.

[63] Next, keeping in view our perceptions and feelings (for so shall we have the surest grounds for belief), we must recognize generally that the soul is a corporeal thing, composed of fine particles, dispersed all over the frame, most nearly resembling wind with an admixture of heat, in some respects like wind, in others like heat. But, again, there is the third part which exceeds the other two in the fineness of its particles and thereby keeps in closer touch with the rest of the frame. And this is shown by the mental faculties and feelings, by the ease with which the mind moves, and by thoughts, and by all those things the loss of which causes death.

[64] Further, we must keep in mind that soul has the greatest share in causing sensation. Still, it would not have had sensation, had it not been somehow confined within the rest of the frame. But the rest of the frame, though it provides this indispensable condition for the soul, itself also has a share, derived from the soul, of the said quality; and yet does not possess all the qualities of soul. Hence on the departure of the soul it loses sentience. For it had not this power in itself; but something else, congenital with the body, supplied it to body: which other thing, through the potentiality actualized in it by means of motion, at once acquired for itself a quality of sentience, and, in virtue of the neighborhood and interconnection between them, imparted it (as I said) to the body also.

[65] Hence, so long as the soul is in the body, it never loses sentience through the removal of some other part. The containing sheath may be dislocated in whole or in part, and portions of the soul may thereby be lost; yet in spite of this the soul, if it manage to survive, will have sentience. But the rest of the frame, whether the whole of it survives or only a part, no longer has sensation, when once those atoms have departed, which, however few in number, are required to constitute the nature of soul. Moreover, when the whole frame is broken up, the soul is scattered and has no longer the same powers as before, nor the same motions; hence it does not possess sentience either.

[66] For we cannot think of it as sentient, except it be in this composite whole and moving with these movements; nor can we so think of it when the sheaths which enclose and surround it are not the same as those in which the soul is now located and in which it performs these movements.

[He says elsewhere that the soul is composed of the smoothest and roundest of atoms, far superior in both respects to those of fire; that part of it is irrational, this being scattered over the rest of the frame, while the rational part resides in the chest, as is manifest from our fears and our joy; that sleep occurs when the parts of the soul which have been scattered all over the composite organism are held fast in it or dispersed, and afterwards collide with one another by their impacts. The semen is derived from the whole of the body.]

YONGE

[60] Further, we must not assert 'up' or 'down' of that which is unlimited, as if there were a zenith or nadir. As to the space overhead, however, if it be possible to draw a line to infinity from the point where we stand, we know that never will this space - or, for that matter, the space below the supposed standpoint if produced to infinity - appear to us to be at the same time 'up' and 'down' with reference to the same point; for this is inconceivable. Hence it is possible to assume one direction of motion, which we conceive as extending upwards ad infinitum, and another downwards, even if it should happen ten thousand times that what moves from us to the spaces above our heads reaches the feet of those above us, or that which moves downwards from us the heads of those below us. None the less is it true that the whole of the motion in the respective cases is conceived as extending in opposite directions ad infinitum.

[61] "When they are travelling through the void and meet with no resistance, the atoms must move with equal speed. Neither will heavy atoms travel more quickly than small and light ones, so long as nothing meets them, nor will small atoms travel more quickly than large ones, provided they always find a passage suitable to their size, and provided also that they meet with no obstruction. Nor will their upward or their lateral motion, which is due to collisions, nor again their downward motion, due to weight, affect their velocity. As long as either motion obtains, it must continue, quick as the speed of thought, provided there is no obstruction, whether due to external collision or to the atoms' own weight counteracting the force of the blow.

[62] "Moreover, when we come to deal with composite bodies, one of them will travel faster than another, although their atoms have equal speed. This is because the atoms in the aggregates are travelling in one direction during the shortest continuous time, albeit they move in different directions in times so short as to be appreciable only by the reason, but frequently collide until the continuity of their motion is appreciated by sense. For the assumption that beyond the range of direct observation even the minute times conceivable by reason will present continuity of motion is not true in the case before us. Our canon is that direct observation by sense and direct apprehension by the mind are alone invariably true.

[63] "Next, keeping in view our perceptions and feelings (for so shall we have the surest grounds for belief), we must recognize generally that the soul is a corporeal thing, composed of fine particles, dispersed all over the frame, most nearly resembling wind with an admixture of heat, in some respects like wind, in others like heat. But, again, there is the third part which exceeds the other two in the fineness of its particles and thereby keeps in closer touch with the rest of the frame. And this is shown by the mental faculties and feelings, by the ease with which the mind moves, and by thoughts, and by all those things the loss of which causes death.

[64] Further, we must keep in mind that soul has the greatest share in causing sensation. Still, it would not have had sensation, had it not been somehow confined within the rest of the frame. But the rest of the frame, though it provides this indispensable condition for the soul, itself also has a share, derived from the soul, of the said quality; and yet does not possess all the qualities of soul. Hence on the departure of the soul it loses sentience. For it had not this power in itself; but something else, congenital with the body, supplied it to body: which other thing, through the potentiality actualized in it by means of motion, at once acquired for itself a quality of sentience, and, in virtue of the neighbourhood and interconnexion between them, imparted it (as I said) to the body also.

[65] "Hence, so long as the soul is in the body, it never loses sentience through the removal of some other part. The containing sheath may be dislocated in whole or in part, and portions of the soul may thereby be lost; yet in spite of this the soul, if it manage to survive, will have sentience. But the rest of the frame, whether the whole of it survives or only a part, no longer has sensation, when once those atoms have departed, which, however few in number, are required to constitute the nature of soul. Moreover, when the whole frame is broken up, the soul is scattered and has no longer the same powers as before, nor the same motions; hence it does not possess sentience either.

[66] "For we cannot think of it as sentient, except it be in this composite whole and moving with these movements; nor can we so think of it when the sheaths which enclose and surround it are not the same as those in which the soul is now located and in which it performs these movements. [He says elsewhere that the soul is composed of the smoothest and roundest of atoms, far superior in both respects to those of fire; that part of it is irrational, this being scattered over the rest of the frame, while the rational part resides in the chest, as is manifest from our fears and our joy; that sleep occurs when the parts of the soul which have been scattered all over the composite organism are held fast in it or dispersed, and afterwards collide with one another by their impacts. The semen is derived from the whole of the body.]

Lots of anecdotes and references I have never seen before, such as:

Quote

Epicureanism then, even for a critic like Cicero, had integrated itself into the vibrant exchange of ideas, and was a topic for intellectual sparring with friends.33 Cicero’s association with this group probably also provided him with the amusing anecdote that after a lecture in Campania on Epicureanism had ceased, the unnamed Epicurean lecturer gave time for questions to be asked by the audience; to which Paetus responded not by voicing an intellectual question as the lecturer had intended, but by asking who was to take the scholar to dinner? 34

34 Fam. 9.25.2

As of this note I am still on page 90 of the PDF, but I have to say this is one of the best written and most useful articles I have read in a long time on a subject that concerns the basic purpose of the forum - methods and purposes of the popularization of Epicurean philosophy.

I have not previously seen this and have not finished reading it but it contains a lot of good research that should be helpful. And as you might infer from the fact that I am saying positive things about it, it does not take the position that Epicureans should be hermits!

File

Epicurean Mission and Membership From The Early Garden To The Late Roman Republic

A very good article covering the "missionary" aspect of the Epicurean movement.

Cassius

May 8, 2022 at 6:15 AM

Slide For This Week's Book Review:

Epicurean Open Invitation Zoom - Wednesday 8:30pm EDT

Epicurean Open Invitation Zoom - Wednesday nights at 8:30pm EDT

www.eventbrite.com

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/epicurean-op…ts-335486799047

In our discussion for this week Joshua mentions that Jefferson made some extensive notes on Frances Wright (or was it AFDIA in particular?) in one of his "commonplace books" and that it would be interesting to look that up.

Haven't had much time to pursue this but here are some links:

Founders Online: Thomas Jefferson to Frances Wright, 22 May 1820

founders.archives.gov

Project MUSE - Jefferson's Literary Commonplace Book

Episode 120 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today we continue in the Letter to Herodotus to discuss the issue of infinite divisibility of atoms. Please let us know any comments or questions you have in the thread below, and please be sure to subscribe to the podcast on your telephone or other podcast aggregator.

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

How many times have we heard of men and women in their 70s beginning to enjoy retirement and then their natural end has come?

I agree with both posts above and when we think about the choice to approach life cheerfully or sadly, we can always remember that death is inevitable, and we don't get an extension of time for the period we spend moping around feeling sad. The end comes too soon whether we've spent our time cheerfully or not, so to the best of our ability we need to spend time as enjoyably as we can.

If that truly expresses his full view then he was truly an idiot, so I wonder what else he held to explain how he himself lived long enough to be remembered as a philosopher. Perhaps some expansive view of what it means to focus on the present moment.

I don't recall that his memory includes him being a supreme hypocrite(?)

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

I have to wonder too. I've lived that lifestyle it just eventually leads to a lot of pain.

And whenever a person or group is represented by a prevailing majority as having a position that seems so counterintuitive as to be apparently impossible for a sane person to believe, I tend to want to look more closely to see if the fault is in the accused, or the accuser!

Quote from Don

The only caveat for readers of this forum that I'd add is that all pleasure is (a) good (feeling), *but* not all pleasure (good feeling) is choiceworthy.

Yes. The issue that some people still stumble over, despite the clarity of that sentence, is that "choiceworthy" is not an objective standard either. Phrasing with words like "worthy" rings of Stoic / absolute flavor, but only the person having the experience can decide whether it is choiceworthy - whether the pleasure that will be obtained is worth the pain that will be required. We can make generalizations and predictions about consequences, but there's no supernatural or objective standard that tells everyone to make the same decision. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Quote from Don

Context and consequences are also fundamental parts of Epicurus's philosophy.

And that's the reason only the the person experiencing the pain or pleasure is in a position to make the decision on how to choose between actions.

Quote from Don

"If it feels good, do it" is Cyrenaic.

I have to wonder if even the Cyrenaics were so short-sighted. Wish we had more texts from them too.

You know it would probably be an interesting topic to discuss: Which therapies for depression and similar conditions *are* most consistent with Epicurean philosophy?

Good to hear from you Eoghan!

Quote from Godfrey

Really the best we can do is to take prudent actions to maximize our pleasure and minimize our pain in pursuit of a pleasant life, which it seems like you're doing. So, damn the statistics! Full speed ahead!

Exactly. By finding your way to EpicureanFriends you have already shown that you are capable of finding a true "needle-in-the-haystack" in the world of philosophy. That proves already that you have the ability to beat odds that have been stacked for 2000+ years!

Quote

For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame.

For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation.

As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it. He therefore thinks it better to be unfortunate in reasonable action than to prosper in unreason. For it is better in a man’s actions that what is well chosen (should fail, rather than that what is ill chosen) should be successful owing to chance.

Quote from Kalosyni

34. The use of friends is not that they are useful, but that we can trust in their usefulness.

We really need Nate to expand his book of alternate translations to the Vatican Sayings, but there aren't that many to choose from.

Is that St Andre? In this case the term "use" strikes me as a little utilitarian, and the Bailey's "help" may ring a little more friendly:

VS34. It is not so much our friends' help that helps us, as it is the confidence of their help.

This is a draft already in process of revision but posted here for talking purposes:

Wednesday Night Epicurean Zoom Discussion Group

For those who are interested in expanding their circle of friends who are interested in the philosophy of Epicurus, a new Zoom-based online "live" discussion group is in the process of forming, and this is your invitation to consider participating.

The group is being sponsored by several regular participants of both this Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group and the EpicureanFriends.com forum. Our goal is to provide an opportunity for those who are sincerely interested in Epicurean philosophy to extend their circle of friends in a safe and structured but hopefully creative way.

Those who are familiar with Zoom are probably aware of its "Waiting Room" feature, and what we plan to do is to open up each meeting to everyone who has asked to attend and "registered" by messaging ahead and letting us know their desired user name. We plan to make registration and attendance available beyond those who are members of Facebook and Reddit and similar platforms, so we will maintain a master list of usernames independent of Facebook or other social media platform, and we will admit participants to each meeting according to their username.

Use of video is optional, and for the safety of all users we expect that many or most will choose not to use video, and that they will remain anonymous to whatever extent they prefer.

Format

We plan to go for an hour each evening, and we have been discussing a series of formats that we will fine-tune over time. Each week, however, will follow essentially this format:

(1) Welcome: We'll go "around the table" and let each participant identify themselves as they wish, hopefully including a reference to their background and level of interest in Epicurus.

(2) Thought For The Week: Each week we will take one of the Principal Doctrines (and when we finish those, proceed to the Vatican List of Sayings) and we will have someone read the saying followed by commentary by a couple of our regulars to set the stage for further discussion. We'll then open the floor to comments by other participants (using the "raise hand" method and/or the text chat to raise an issue). We'll continue that discussion for as long as it goes but plan to cut that off around the 40 minute mark.

(3) Special Event: At the forty-minute mark we will shift to the special event of the week, which we are currently thinking of scheduling as follows:

Week One - Questions from the Floor - Bring your questions on any topic related to Epicurus that you wish.

Week Two - Living As An Epicurean in The Modern World - We will talk about things like cooking, gardening, movies, music as these relate to creating pleasurable living.

Week Three - Epicurean Favorits Art / Music Discussion - Bring music (e.g. a YouTube link) or a poem or short writing that you think best represents some part of EP, to share with the group and discuss

Week Four - Sharing Epicurean Ideas In The Modern World - Discuss ideas for engagement with people who don't know Epicurean Philosophy but who might be open to discussing it.

(4) Closing Wrap-Up - The Program coordinators will thank those who have participated and make concluding comments about what has been discussed, and what we can expect for next week, and how people can communicate and coordinate their study of Epicurean philosophy in the meantime.

Ground Rules

- Our objective is to provide friendly, supportive, and encouraging discussion among friends who are generally supportive of the philosophy of Epicurus. This is not a professional academic philosophy group for argument or intense debate of opposing philosophies or viewpoints. It is also not a professional clinical group aimed at the treatment of depression or any emotional disorders.

- We expect participants to conduct themselves as actual or potential friends. Participation does not express or imply that you agree with every tenet of Epicurean philosophy, but the purpose of the group is to study and discuss **Epicurean** philosophy. Please do not attempt to use the group for the promotion of viewpoints that are not consistent with Epicurean philosophy. Those who fail to follow this rule will be politely reminded of it for a time, but repeat offendors will eventually lose participation privileges after multiple violations.

- All communications in the discussion group are to be considered confidential and not repeated outside the group. The group is based in the United States and will not allow or promote any conduct illegal under the laws of the United States. We cannot guarantee the privacy of any communications, but recording or reposting of conversations outside the group, or invasions of the privacy of participants, will be grounds for dismissal from the group.

Questions or Comments?

- Please direct questions or comments to our special email address / messenger group at: TO BE DETERMINED (Session? Teleguard? EpicureanFriends? Preferably something that allows for anonymous signup. I question whether we want to use EpicureanFriends for this because I probably want to keep the participation agreement more rigorous than this one.)

I forgot a couple of very basic points that I should have included in what I posted earlier in this thread:

Maybe the most important aspect of the value of Epicurean philosophy is that it addresses the question of whether living happily is even *possible*!

If you believe that an arbitrary and capricious god is lurking behind every corner to punish you, then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.

If you believe that you're going to burn in hell, or miss out on heaven, depending on whether you follow an arbitrary set of rules that you can't really live up to, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.

If you think there are absolute standards written in the stars to which you have to conform, but don't want to conform to, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.

If you think that there is a "Fate" the guarantees that you're going to be unhappy, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.

If you think that your mind is a billiard ball and that every thought and action you take have been predetermined from the beginning of time, and that nothing you choose to do yourself can have any impact on your future to change it for the better, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.

If you think that the atomic flux moves so fast that there's no way you can ever grasp with confidence anything going on around you, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.

If you think that your senses are hopelessly inadequate to the task of determining anything with confidence, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.

If you think that no knowledge of any kind is possible on any subject, no matter how close to you or important to you, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.

If you think that pain is such a huge part of normal life that it overwhelms you, and that the best you can do is grasp scraps of happiness that last for only moments amid long expanses of agony, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.

I bet I have missed some big ones in that list, but that's why we start at the principles of the "Epicurean Worldview" and then move to applications of these principles to our individual circumstances.

To close out this post we need to remember too that "possible" does not mean "guaranteed." It's also possible in life that you get struck by lightning, or a meteor, or a drunk driver, or cancer -- there are many things that are in fact beyond your control, so it is not in the power of any philosophy - even Epicurus - to *guarantee* a long and happy life.

But better by far than any other worldview or system, I like the odds of success that come from following Epicurus' views on how to tackle the issue of happiness and go after it.