Good question, Alex, but can you clarify what you are asking? At this precise moment I am not recalling a part of Lucretius specifically on this as much as I am remembering Diogenes Laertius and Cicero's criticism. And then as to the relationship between happiness and pleasure there is the "shout" part of Diogenes of Oinoanda and then several instances here in Torquatus.
Can you clarify your question? (Or maybe Joshua or Don or someone can go ahead and respond further as is.)
Also on this topic, in terms of "spreading the word to new people," another obvious observation is that since of the things we pursue to ensure a happy life by far the greatest is the acquisition of friends, and since it is also clear (i would assert) that we want friends who see the world the way we Epicureans do, then it is logical that some amount of effort is going to be spent on spreading the word so as to increase the number of your Epicurean friends.
A major part of my rejection of Buddhism is that I believe that sometimes, it‘s a good thing to endure some pain
I don't have much experience on that myself, but I can guarantee you that you and a large number of others here at the forum who have taken a detour through Buddhism can "commune" on that topic at extreme length! 
(Not sure what the "cute" term for the Buddhist practice would be but I bet there is one. )
First, yes: There's no divine commandment or categorical imperative to save everyone in the world, as the Christians argue to be the case. Your own pleasure and that of your friends is ultimately the only natural standard for what to pursue. Of course that ends up meaning all sorts of other things in regard to virtue and relations with others and trying to be on good terms with them as well, but ultimately it all comes down to the feelings that nature provides, and that varies according to "who else" you are talking about. Your friends evoke stronger feelings of pleasure than do random strangers.
Also
If I want to enjoy pleasure with the least amount of pain, I won’t go out into the world and proclaim to know the truth
I would caution to be very precise with this formulation. I do not think it is correct exactly as written, although I probably say it that way often myself -- too loosely.
I think the proper approach would be a combination of several considerations, primarily:
But I most certainly wouldn’t gain pleasure from going around, from door to door, and spreading the word of Epicurus.
YOU wouldn't do that, WE wouldn't do that, and neither would the Epicurean mentioned in Lucian's "Aristotle the Oracle-Monger" after getting this advice from Lucian: https://epicurism.info/etexts/Alexander.html
On one occasion, indeed, an Epicurean got himself into great trouble by daring to expose him before a great gathering. He came up and addressed him in a loud voice, ‘Alexander, it was you who induced So-and-so the Paphlagonian to bring his slaves before the governor of Galatia, charged with the murder of his son who was being educated in Alexandria. Well, the young man is alive, and has come back, to find that the salves had been cast to the beasts by your machinations." What had happened was this: The lad had sailed up the Nile, gone on to a Red Sea port, found a vessel starting for India, and been persuaded to make the voyage. He being long overdue, the unfortunate slaves supposed that he had either perished in the Nile or fallen a victim to some of the pirates who infested it at that time; so they came home to report his disappearance. Then followed the oracle [indicting the slaves with murder], the sentence, and finally the young man’s return with the story of his absence.
All this the Epicurean recounted. Alexander was much annoyed by the exposure, and could not stomach so well deserved an affront; he directed the company to stone the man, on pain of being involved in his impiety and called Epicureans. However, when they set to work, a distinguished Pontic called Demostratus, who was staying there, rescued him by interposing his own body; the man had the narrowest possible escape from being stoned to death—as he richly deserved to be; what business had he to be the only sane man in a crowed of madmen, and needlessly make himself the butt of Paphlagonian infatuation?
You're providing the answer to your own question by pointing out that it would defy common sense to go around preaching indiscriminately.
And as we know, Epicurus held ALL of these are true:
PD16. In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain.
VS41. We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.
VS52. Friendship dances around the world, bidding us all to awaken to the recognition of happiness.
It was called to my attention today that we don't have much here in terms of reviews of Hiram's book. We really ought to add more commentary in this thread, since a lot of people come into contact with it.
I have a lot I could say about this book but let me be brief for the moment. Hiram put a lot of work into this and into his other work, and there's a lot to be gained from reading it. However it is important to keep in mind what this book is not:
Hiram's book is in my view much more of a "self-help" book that people who are somewhat familiar with a variety of other traditions besides Epicurus may find helpful in their own pursuit of techniques to improve their lives. When read in that way I think Hiram's book is helpful. I have a copy myself and don't mind including it on reading lists for people who are interested in this approach.
But I do want to caution people against thinking that Hiram is giving, or even attempting to give, and exhaustive analysis of the details of Epicurean philosophy and how it compares with competing Greek or non-Greek philosophies. If you approach it looking for that information you may end up being confused about the issues that Hiram chooses to emphasize as against what you read in Lucretius, or in Epicurus' own letters, or in Diogenes Laertius or the other ancient sources.
People who come across this thread are encouraged to post their own thoughts about "Tending the Epicurean Garden" as that will likely be of great use to those who read it. And especially - if you have questions or concerns while reading it - please don't hesitate to post here in this thread and we'll deal with them as they occur to you.
How do my current thoughts compare to what I wrote on another venue seven years ago? I think you'll see some of the same points in an earlier form, but I am more cautious about recommending it today:
This is an excellent book focused on how you can apply ancient Epicurean principles to live a happier life in the modern world. Hiram Crespo is the founder of the Society of Epicurus, and this is his first book, explaining his suggestions for living according to the principles of Epicureanism. This is not an academic treatise or a primer on basic Epicurean doctrines, but a practical guide written for general audiences. The book explains Epicurean views in context with similar views from numerous other traditions, and shows how techniques from a variety of sources can be combined to assist in living more pleasurably. The book is well written and well organized, providing essentially a "self-help" approach with lots of specific advice. This is one of the few absolutely pro-Epicurean books to have been written in the last several hundred years. As far as I know, one has to go back to Frances Wright's "A Few Days In Athens" for another book which comes out swinging in its unreserved advocacy of Epicureanism as a lifestyle and as a philosophy. One can read this book without any knowledge at all of the history or doctrine of Epicurus, because the author provides a good measure of both history and teachings in the course of the book. However the reader who is new to Epicureanism would profit from consulting websites such as http://www.epicurus.info/, http://www.epicurus.net/, and of course Crespo's own http://www.societyofepicurus.com/ for more background on the specifics of Epicurean ideas. It appears that Crespo's work as an advocate for Epicurean ideas is just getting started, so hopefully there will be more to come from the same author. (less)
Maybe my perception of Epicureanism has been shaped by Wright, but I still believe that there's something I misunderstand from this philosophy- and I'm trying to figure out, what.
Also --- I do think if Wright were someone's main frame of reference, there is a possibility of going off track due to her emphasis on "observation" and her unwillingness to go further in the direction of Epicurus' epistemology.
I myself haven't gotten as far as I would like in analyzing Philodemus' On Signs / Methods of Inference, but I think that Epicurus would conclude that she went somewhat too far in Skepticism and that she did not absorb, or at least embrace, his ideas on when it is proper to reach conclusions and on what subjects.
Thank you for that intro!
I hope you will have DeWitt on your list, and that you will consider the Nikolsky article and the Gosling & Taylor book thereafter.
As many eyes as we can get on these issues the better off we are!
It's interesting that you were so impacted by the Frances Wright book. It's incredibly impressive as you say, but in itself it leads to some interesting issues (that we have some threads on here at the forum). SInce you are focusing on its attack on Stoicism, I think you would also be interested in the sections of Cicero's "On Ends" that are attacks on Stoicism. So many people consider him to have been a stoic but those sections of On Ends make some excellent anti-Stoic points from an unexpected direction.
Based on what you wrote if I were you I would probably NOT read the full Lucretius poem next - I would read DeWitt and the ones I mentioned above to further assist in the overall framework.
Not in the sense that pleasure isn't the thing we should employ to determine what is good or bad, but because there's something resulting out of this belief that transforms a regular man into Gandalf, so to speak.
It might be that further explanation of the Gandalf analogy would be helpful. I am familiar with Lord of the Rings but not enough to be sure exactly what you mean or draw from the analogy.
Great point. I know that in general discussion (such as below) that shorthand is used, but maybe the texts don't really justify it?
PD26. Of desires, all that do not lead to a sense of pain, if they are not satisfied, are not necessary, but involve a craving which is easily dispelled when the object is hard to procure, or they seem likely to produce harm.
PD29. Among desires, some are natural (and necessary, some natural) but not necessary, and others neither natural nor necessary, but due to idle imagination.
In fact, I would posit that most of our everyday desires fall into the "natural but not necessary" category, but they do add variety to our lives
Yes and the highlights another peril - that if thinking that "natural but not necessary" desires as a rule should not be pursued because they are not "necessary." Such a general rule would not in my opinion by Epicurean, but Stoic/ascetic.
And I don't think any (or many) people here would infer such a rule, because we hit on that point so hard here in this forum. But in the outside world of people who read Epicurus I think that's a very real problem. They infer that Epicurus suggested we should pursue ONLY natural and necessary desires, even though he himself manifestly did not do that in his own case, nor would it be logical to reach such a conclusion in the first place given the rest of his philosophy.
And if someone wants to argue that point (which they often do in outside Epicurean discussions) I would ask them among many other things: Exactly how many of the slaves which Epicurus held at his death were "necessary?"
Welcome @smoothiekiwi !
This 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 personal 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.
In that regard 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.
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.
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.
Welcome to the forum!
unsatisfying nature of the empty desires, like "empty" calories, empty handed, empty headed, etc.
Right. Those in themselves are good qualifying explanations. They exist, but they are deceptive as to final result and all the implications that go with them.
Maybe desires that come to nothing instead of "empty" desires
I am not wedded to any particular formulation but yes I do think that has a more meaningful ring to it. So we could be talking about an "idiom" here that explains the awkwardness I am sensing in the single word "empty"
I haven't thought of that "idiom" word lately in our context here, but I was just using it in another context earlier this week about someone who was raised overseas and who expressed confusion over the meaning of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
Maybe our lexicon or FAQ ought to include a list of actual or probable Epicurean "idioms"
I noticed in the text from Torquatus while editing this week's podcast:
[60] There is also death which always hangs over them like the stone over Tantalus, and again superstition, which prevents those who are tinged by it from ever being able to rest. Moreover they have no memories for their past good fortune, and no enjoyment of their present; they only wait for what is to come, and as this cannot but be uncertain, they are wasted with anguish and alarm; and they are tortured most of all when they become conscious, all too late, that their devotion to wealth or military power, or influence, or fame has been entirely in vain. For they achieve none of the pleasures which they ardently hoped to obtain and so underwent numerous and severe exertions.
Don I presume this ("entirely in vain") is pretty much the same sentiment we are discussing? If so maybe we can find some points of comparison with the Latin from this section.
Well what you are saying there is that the desire for anything other than pleasure itself is just a means to something else, but again power, money, and fame do all have their legitimate uses , I would argue, even under the strictest Epicurean analysis.
You can say that the desire for UNLIMITED amounts of those things are "empty" as impossible to obtain, but if t hat is what you are saying then to be clear you are saying that it is the UNLIMITED aspect which is impossible to attain and therefore "vain" "delusive" or "whatever words you'd like to use.
But none of that is self-explanatory just by using the word "empty"
Objects that can hold things (boxes, cups, etc.) can at times be empty.
Ideas that can hold things (truth, validity, reason, accuracy) can at times be empty.
I picked K's comment to quote largely at random, but the point I think is important is there.
I think this is important because I get the idea that in conjunction with discussions (us I mean, not Epicurean necessarily) which reference "empty" there it is also frequently implied that certain types of desires are ALWAYS "empty." That may be as much of my problem with this phrasing as anything else.
Is anyone thinking that there is a list of desires that is "ALWAYS" empty? I am thinking of the classic fame, power, riches, etc. Those may strike me as always dangerous, but NOT always "empty" and some degree of fulfillment of those is generally necessary in life.
So what I am suggesting as part of this discussion that we make clear the "relative nature" and "subjectivity" of these issues, because if we cross the line into saying "XXXX desire is ALWAYS empty" I have a feeling we are on that slippery slope to Platonism. That may apply to "I want to live forever" which is physically impossible for humans, but I am not aware of too many such desires that might be physically impossible to at least get some benefit from pursuing.
There's a lot of subtlety here to be considered.
I do not see myself arguing against what you guys are saying. I see this as an issue similar to use of the term "gods" which does not in American English convey the meaning and definition that Epicurus held to apply to gods.
We cannot use the term "God" without explanation any more than we can use the word "empty" without explanation if we expect people to understand us.
So I see myself as agreeing with your conclusion as long as you are annexing to your conclusion the explanation that you are providing here.
So I would say that "Empty" in American English does not convey the meaning we are wishing to convey. I don't see that you are yet suggesting a short phrase or combination of words that does the job, but that should be the goal, so that the word "empty" does not confuse people just like an unexplained use of the word "gods" confuses people
In both situations, clear speech and meaning requires explanation, just like we cannot throw the original Greek words at Americans and expect them to be understood.
Yes. The desire exists. There's just nothing to back it up
Yes that emphasizes how I do not think this terminology makes sense. If you want to say that the type of desire cannot be definition be filled for some reason, then that's one thing, but the word "empty" seems to me to have nothing to do with the discussion.
If we feel the desire, it exists. Maybe the issue is in the definition of desire. I consider a desire to be a feeling, not concept. I "feel a desire" - I don't "feel a concept."
If I can feel something, then it exists, and the word "empty" comes dangerously close to asserting that the feeling does not exist, which would almost certainly be inconsistent with the rest of Epicurean philosophy.
Possibly a more apt metaphor is the old Western movie set where there appears to be a main street of the town, but it's only a line of facades. The facades may be indistinguishable from actual buildings, but walk through them and you're in the desert. There's nothing there. I
Yes that is probably a better analogy, but not one that I would associate with the word "empty." There IS something there, the false front is there.
I don't say that to be disagreeable, though, but only to emphasize the height that will be necessary to climb.
Carry on as I am looking forward to this! That's what "gods among men" are supposed to do - talk about things like this!
These are great topics to discuss so keep it coming!
I agree with your ultimate analysis of void, but it does have the one characteristic of giving a "place" for atoms to be, if I remember Herodotus and Lucretius correctly.
And THESE / THIS is exactly on the list of things we are supposed to discuss, like infinity, right?
