Today I tweaked the font color on the new "Radiant" themes to:
(1) make the color of the top bar a little less "radiant" - toning it down from effectively neon to a little darker, and
(2) made the color of the text in the main body of the website a little brighter, and less subdued and therefore (hopefully) easier to read.
If anyone sees any problem with those changes or would prefer further tweaking please let me know!
That's a nice start to a website!
Yep. Nor is there a book in which you can find an absolute list of "things that are and are not ethical.". I think that is probably the harder pill to swallow.
We hate the things we find unjust, and we need at act against them, but we shouldn't confuse our own views with those of God or Nature.
we - as members of society- have put in structures and "contracts" to deal with "injustice" to keep ourselves safe.
Yes hopefully so - but whether they are in fact in place is one of those contextual circumstances which has to be considered in projecting what will happen if we take particular actions. The point of writing this being that there is no supernatural automatic enforcement mechanism like the religious majority believes to be the case.
In tonight's 20th discussion Martin brought up the latest version of this continuing question, which was posted to the Facebook thread for Episode 95. Those of you who weren't on our 20th discussion were spared my rant on the subject, but there's one part of it I want to repeat and reassure you about: No matter how long you are involved in discussion of Epicurean philosophy, this position is going to be thrown in your face, so it is imperative that you develop a response and be prepared to deal with it.
Our episode of course was devoted to explaining the Epicurean position, through Torquatus, that pleasure is the highest good. Whenever that point is made, you can be sure that assorted stoics and neo-stoics are going to come out of the woodwork to point out that "Yes, Epicurus said pleasure was the highest good, but what he also said was that the highest pleasure was tranquility, and that's not a form of sensual pleasure at all but something that transcends the senses!"
Here it is once again, followed (logically enough) by a debate among Stoic-minded people about their own viewpoints:
epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/2381/
My answer to this question is set out in the discussion presented at this link, and at many other places on this forum: The Full Cup / Fullness of Pleasure Model
But simply posting a link doesn't begin to equip us to address the question. In our 20th discussion, Godfrey and Joshua suggested several different perspectives that need to be considered (one of which is "Who was Menoeceus and how advanced a student was he?" (so that we understand how Epicurus would have tailored his message).
Then there are observations about PD3 (which is very close to the section of the letter to Menoeceus about absence of pain, but which differs in significant respects.
There is an entire series of arguments to be made in addition to those I make about the Philebus context in the article I linked above.
But for now I would be appreciative to any who would like to extend this thread: How would YOU answer Mr. Daly's question in a way that makes plain how to reconcile the many clear statements about pleasurable sensations made by Epicurus with the argument that Epicurus then (they argue) reversed course and said that the highest pleasure was not a sensual experience at all?
Of course, we assume that we have developed the wisdom to make choices that are ethical, and so we don't choose to do things that cause any pain or suffering to others.
One of the most challenging issues (ask Don! 
) is that this wording itself probably has to be parsed, because there is no list if ethical vs non ethical to consult, and in the end Epicurus says there are no such lists. There's no guarantee that everyone feels pain when another person is harmed, and some in fact take pleasure in it in some circumstances. In the end much of the pain that can be expected to come from hurting other people depends on the circumstance that we can expect that others will punish us for that action, and if we have reason to expect that we will not be punished, that motivation will not exist.
All of which is not intended to invoke rabbit hunting, but to be a reminder that there are no supernatural forces lurking in the background to tell us what is ethical, or waiting to punish those who are unethical. Even back to Epicurus' time the majority thinks that such bright lines and supernatural forces do exist, so it's very interesting to think about how we should internalize and act on that knowledge.
Post from a reader at Facebook: Are you all familiar with this figure? I want to share it with those who haven't seen it. I also want to ask about the 3rd cup. What does it mean? Does it tip over sometimes or does extravagance create a pendulum effect? Photo source:
https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/blog/index.php?entry/18-the-full-cup-fullness-of-pleasure-model/
My response:
First, I want to apologize to Aapo for the delay in receiving and approving this post. It's now almost two weeks since he posted it but just a moment ago was the first time it popped up in its proper place on my page to review and approve it. A lot has changed with the way Facebook is tendering posts to administrators and I don't know what's going on. Last Sunday two of us Admins went looking for this (because Aapo asked about what happened) and we couldn't find it to approve it. Now here on Friday almost a week later it appears exactly as normal for approval. This is very frustrating. So the point here is to please understand that if you submit a post to the group and it doesn't come up shortly, please message one of the admins to ask about it and understand that there is a possibility that we may not have seen it.
Second, to answer the question generally, this is a graphic I prepared some years ago on the topic of the analogy of the leaky vessel used at the beginning of Lucretius Book Six. If I were redoing it today I would probably do it differently, but I do think that it does help serve as a point of discussion (as it is doing here) that the issue of "how much pleasure should be pursued" is one to think about carefully. The current version of my longer post discussing many of the cites to the texts that are relevant to this question is here: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…kUthgrzzD_Xgt7o
And now to answer the question more precisely: The third cup example is intended to illustrate what happens when the vessel (an analogy for human life) is "overfilled" with pleasures. I believe the point of the "vessel" analogy in the first place is to serve as an illustration of the Epicurean doctrine that the "limit of quantity of pleasure" as described in PD03 can be thought of as "a human life completely full of pleasure." For purposes of the illustration it means roughly all the experiences from birth to death of any living thing. The optimum state for any living being would be to experience only pleasure for every moment of its life from birth to death. No one is saying that that goal is possible for a human being, and in Epicurean doctrine it's probably only possible for Epicurean gods in the intermundia. But for purposes of defining a goal - for purposes of responding to Plato or Aristotle as to what is the best life possible - we can define a the goal as a vessel which is absolutely full of pleasure.
Now, as stated in PD18 (and elaborated in 19 and 20):
PD18. The pleasure in the flesh is not increased when once the pain due to want is removed, but is only varied: and the limit as regards pleasure in the mind is begotten by the reasoned understanding of these very pleasures, and of the emotions akin to them, which used to cause the greatest fear to the mind.
PD19. Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of pleasure.
PD20. The flesh perceives the limits of pleasure as unlimited, and unlimited time is required to supply it. But the mind, having attained a reasoned understanding of the ultimate good of the flesh and its limits, and having dissipated the fears concerning the time to come, supplies us with the complete life, and we have no further need of infinite time; but neither does the mind shun pleasure, nor, when circumstances begin to bring about the departure from life, does it approach its end as though it fell short, in any way, of the best life.
So the point of the third cup illustration would be to bring home to your mind an image that the cup of life can be filled only so far, and that any pleasure that one might think about adding to it after that point would be spilled out and would only at best amount to variation of what is already there.
The illustration has a number of uses, including the obvious one that we're discussing here. As explained further in the article linked here, the point of a "limit of quantity of pleasure" also has important uses in logical debate over whether it is correct to think of pleasure as the guide or end of life. Plato and others argue that pleasure cannot be the goal because the goal must be something that can be a superlative ("the best") and cannot be exceeded. Most people think that pleasure can be extended indefinitely, so if you take a rigorously logical perspective that would in some minds disqualify pleasure as meeting the definition of a "final goal." One point of a vessel analogy like this would be to respond to such an argument with the response: "You say pleasure must have a limit? Yes it does have a limit - the limit of pleasure in a human life is a life filled with pleasure for that lifetime (the vessel)."
This was an allusion to "nihilism" - the emphasis is on what it means to think that "your life means nothing" - and the heart of that issue is the question of "meaningfulness."
Yes you are indeed made up of atoms and void, and in the Epicurean view there is no "divine spark" mixed in. So if you are looking at the entire situation in terms of matter and space, you are indeed a speck in a huge extent of space.
Does that mean you should consider yourself to be in every respect the equivalent of dirt, and recklessly spend your time as if it were no concern of yours whether you lived or died?
That's the direction I am going with that statement.
Does your life in fact mean anything to the universe? No - the universe is not an animate object and has no concern or evaluation of you.
Does the fact that the universe has no concern or evaluation of you mean anything to you? I would say that Epicurus would answer that by his many statements about the value to us of the pleasure of living, which is implicitly in fact our highest value. There are times when we do voluntarily give up our lives, but we don't make that decision by asking "Universe, should we give up our life today?"
So both are true - we are indeed in terms of quantity a speck in a huge expanse of space. But at the same times, our lives are of most important value to us, so that we should focus our effort on using our time the "best" way possible. And we have to have a philosophical judgment as to what is the "best way possible."
Welcome @Tdhultman !
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!
Kalosyni it occurs to me to mention that I would have no problem with you taking my draft and adopting / adapting it in any way that you see fit if you'd like to pursue these thoughts in greater detail.
One of my key presumptions of everything that I do here is that it is all so heavily based on Epicurus and the ancient Epicureans that I can't imagine complaining about someone taking my writings and adapting them for their own use, just as I do from the Epicureans, so feel free.
Those are great suggestions thank you!
As to number seven, that's mainly a reference to:
PD06. Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.
PD39. The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus.
PD40. As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbors, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and, after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.
And:
Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation. (from the Torquatus material in On Ends Book 1)
I think my reference to not very good was more a reference to could be better style rather than a problem with the content. As I glance over it now I am still good with the basic thrust of it.
Yes we still have a lot further to go on that! I was afraid I was pushing too hard but you are right it is on these very basic issues that everything turns. It's probably too basic to just say "trust the senses" but in a real way that is what it comes down too. Established the means of proof and what amount is required is something everyone has to think about and come to terms with.
Please ask more questions on this and that will help push us forward !
Welcome to Episode Ninety-Seven 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 six books of Lucretius' poem, 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.
At this point in our podcast we have completed our first line-by-line review of the poem, and we have turned to the presentation of Epicurean ethics found in Cicero's On Ends. Today we continue with that material starting with line forty-seven, and we have Charles back with us for the discussion.
Now let's join the panel with Martin reading today's text:
[47] And on the same principles we shall assert that even temperance is not desirable for its own sake, but because it brings quiet to our hearts and soothes them and appeases them by a kind of harmony. Temperance is in truth the virtue which warns us to follow reason in dealing with the objects of desire or repugnance. Nor indeed is it enough to resolve what we are to do or omit, but we should also abide by our resolve. Most men, however, being unable to uphold and maintain a determination they have themselves made, are overmastered and enervated when the image of pleasure is thrust before their eyes, and surrender themselves to be bound by the chain of their lusts, nor do they foresee what the issue will be, and so for the sake of some paltry and needless pleasure, which would be procured by other means if they chose, and with which they might dispense and yet not suffer pain, rush sometimes into grievous diseases, sometimes into ruin, sometimes into disgrace, and often even become subject to the penalties imposed by the statutes and the courts.
[48] Men however whose aim is so to enjoy their pleasures that no pains may ensue in consequence of them, and who retain their own judgment, which prevents them from succumbing to pleasure and doing things which they feel should not be done, these achieve the greatest amount of pleasure by neglecting pleasure. Such men actually often suffer pain, fearing that, if they do not, they may incur greater pain. From these reflections it is easily understood that intemperance on the one hand is not repugnant in and for itself, and on the other that temperance is an object of desire, not because it flees from pleasures, but because it is followed by greater pleasures.
[49] XV. The same principles will be found to apply to courage; for neither the performance of work nor the suffering of pain is in itself attractive, nor yet endurance, nor diligence, nor watchings nor much-praised industry itself, no, nor courage either, but we devote ourselves to all such things for the purpose of passing our life in freedom from anxiety and alarm, and of emancipating both mind and body, so far as we can succeed in doing so, from annoyance. As in truth, on the one hand, the entire stability of a peaceful life is shaken by the fear of death, and it is wretched to succumb to pains and to bear them in an abject and feeble spirit, and many have through such weakness of mind brought ruin on their parents, many on their friends and some on their country, so on the other hand a strong and exalted spirit is free from all solicitude and torment, as it thinks lightly of death, which brings those who are subject to it into the same state they were in before they were born, and such a spirit is so disciplined to encounter pains that it recalls how the most severe of them are terminated by death, while the slighter grant many seasons of rest, and those which lie between these two classes are under our control, so that if we find them endurable, we may tolerate them, if otherwise, we may with an unruffled mind make our exit from life, when we find it disagreeable, as we would from a theater. These facts enable us to see that cowardice and weakness are not blamed, nor courage and endurance applauded, for what they are in themselves, but that the former qualities are spurned, because productive of pain, while the latter are sought, because productive of pleasure.
[50] XVI. Justice still is left to complete our statement concerning the whole of virtue, but considerations nearly similar may be urged. Just as I have proved wisdom, temperance and courage to be linked with pleasure, so that they cannot possibly by any means be sundered or severed from it, so we must deem of justice, which not only never injures any person, but on the contrary always produces some benefit, not solely by reason of its own power and constitution, whereby it calms our minds, but also by inspiring hope that we shall lack none of the objects which nature when uncorrupted craves. And as recklessness and caprice and cowardice always torture the mind and always bring unrest and tumult, so if wickedness has established itself in a man’s mind, the mere fact of its presence causes tumult; if moreover it has carried out any deed, however secretly it may have acted, yet it will never feel a trust, that the action will always remain concealed. In most cases the acts of wicked men are at first dogged by suspicion, then by talk and rumour, then by the prosecutor, then by the judge; many have actually informed against themselves, as in your own consulship.
[51] But if there are any who seem to themselves to be sufficiently barricaded and fortified against all privity on the part of their fellow men, still they tremble before the privity of the gods, and imagine that the very cares by which their minds are devoured night and day are imposed upon them, with a view to their punishment, by the eternal gods. Again, from wicked acts what new influence can accrue tending to the diminution of annoyances, equal to that which tends to their increase, not only from consciousness of the actions themselves, but also from legal penalties and the hatred of the community? And yet some men exhibit no moderation in money-making, or oice, or military command, or wantonness, or gluttony, or the remaining passions, which are not lessened but rather intensified by the trophies of wickedness, so that such persons seem fit to be repressed rather than to be taught their error.
[52] True reason beckons men of properly sound mind to pursue justice, fairness and honor; nor are acts of injustice advantageous to a man without eloquence or influence, who cannot easily succeed in what he attempts, nor maintain his success if he wins it, and large resources either of wealth or of talent suit better with a generous spirit, for those who exhibit this spirit attract to themselves goodwill and affection, which is very well calculated to ensure a peaceful life; and this is the truer in that men have no reason for sinning.
[53] For the passions which proceed from nature are easily satisfied without committing any wrong; while we must not succumb to those which are groundless, since they yearn for nothing worthy of our craving, and more loss is involved in the mere fact of wrong doing, than prot in the results which are produced by the wrong doing. So one would not be right in describing even justice as a thing to be wished for on its own account, but rather because it brings with it a very large amount of agreeableness. For to be the object of esteem and affection is agreeable just because it renders life safer and more replete with pleasures. Therefore we think that wickedness should be shunned, not alone on account of the disadvantages which fall to the lot of the wicked, but much rather because when it pervades a man’s soul it never permits him to breathe freely or to rest.
[54] But if the encomium passed even on the virtues themselves, over which the eloquence of all other philosophers especially runs riot, can find no vent unless it be referred to pleasure, and pleasure is the only thing which invites us to the pursuit of itself, and attracts us by reason of its own nature, then there can be no doubt that of all things good it is the supreme and ultimate good, and that a life of happiness means nothing else but a life attended by pleasure.
Episode 96 of the Lucretius Today podcast is now available. Today we continue our examination of Epicurean Ethics by reading further into the Torquatus narrative contained in Cicero's "On Ends." Our topic today is additional proof that Pleasure is the Supreme Good.
Good news - the great majority of editing of today''s edition is complete, and we should have the complete episode posted by tomorrow night at the latest.
Before you cause a heart attack here in those who have not heard the episode, the reference was to the argument some make that the motive to be a Christian is the pursuit of eternal pleasure - which is not an argument every Christian accepts, by any means ! 
I would never have thought it, but in trying it I am actually now preferring the "Radiant transparent" theme, which has the top of a mountain as a background image. I'm not sure that a mountain is the best image - might hint of Stoics climbing their mountain of virtue - but the blue sky works well to set off the page on desktop and mobile. This might actually be the most advanced-looking theme of them all. Dark, but not too dark.
This weekend I upgraded several aspects of the software and found that we now have a new set of "Dark" themes that will likely be more satisfactory than the old ones. I am leaving the "Default" theme with the light blue "Radiant" theme (because I understand that "most people" prefer light themes, and we Epicureans always play to the crowd, ya know..... ) However I prefer dark themes myself, and I think anyone who uses a dark theme should try out a couple of the Radiant Dark versions to see if they prefer them. As you know that's easy to do from your phone or desktop by scrolling to the bottom of any page, select "Change Style," and then simply click on one of the available options. Let me know if you have any questions about theming issues.
Wow it is interesting that they may have been added as late as that. I had presumed that the date was much earlier. Great research!
