Posts by Cassius

We didn't end up discussing it very much, but I highly recommend this video of a debate between Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on Krauss' book "Something From Nothing."

Thread

Video Discussion Between Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on the "Something From Nothing" Question

I have been meaning to make sure that this video was referenced somewhere in the forum. It's been years since I watched it but I recall it being very good on getting to the heart of the "something from nothing question" - with Richard Dawkins defending the traditional point of view identified with Epicurus:

youtube.com/watch?v=gH9UvnrARf8

Cassius

November 14, 2022 at 2:36 PM

In summary, my personal (admittedly untrained) view is that in this case as in others, the point being argued by Krauss is overstated. If I recall correctly, Dawkins does a good job of dragging out of Krauss that the "nothing" in Krauss's sensational book title isn't really "nothing" as a philsopher would mean it. Instead, what appears to us to be empty space contains energy/fields/forces or whatever. The Epicurean point would be that whatever the thing we're describing turns out to be, it is going to be "natural," and it's not going to be evidence of an intelligent-design-god that overturns the "matter and void" system. Just like throwing the spear shows that the universe has no terminating point, if something is proved to exist then that simply shows it has a natural fundamental basis, and it isn't going to be "infinitely divisible" so as to upend the fundamental world-view.

Quote from Rolf

My point, however, is less about this specific topic and more about scientific discoveries and consensus potentially being at odds with Epicurus’ physics. Don’s view is a valid one, and probably one I share, but I’m interested in hearing more perspectives on this.

I will look to see if we have prior threads on what happens when philosophy seems to conflict with science. I know the subject has come up regularly, but it tends to get buried with other topics.

But for now and in general, I don't think this apparent conflict is something new, and it existed to a degree even in Epicurus' time, on such issues as the calculations as to the size of the sun. In that case Epicurus can be made to look ridiculous in light of modern telescopes and observations, but he can also be defended as pointing to very reasonable caution about the implications of new methodology which might itself be incomplete. There's also a relationship here with Epicurus' refusal to accept a logical challenge that Metrodorus must be either alive or dead tomorrow.

We have a good thread on the size of the sun here.

And the subforum (which probably does not contain all the threads, some of which are buried in "general," is here:

Explaining Epicurus' Position On The "Size of the Sun" And Related Issues of Speculative Math / Geometry

Quote from Rolf

Fascinating! Does this mean that we as Epicureans would be wise to align ourselves with modern scientific understanding, adopt this view as the most probable explanation, and ditch the Epicurean view on static atoms and void

I don't think Bryan meant to imply that, If following dominant interpretations were always a good idea, Epicurus would have accepted intelligent design for his physics and we would all be Abrahamists today! 😀

Welcome dlippman

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

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 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 most other philosophies, 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 of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

The "rage" probably implicates the discussion of the "good" vs "bad" types of anger in Philodemus and elsewhere. I can see the argument that being angry with your disease (or deterioration with age) would be of assistance in prolonging life and pleasure.

And I'd say this Vatican Saying calls for comparison:

Quote

VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And I will not give myself up as captive to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for me to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who vainly cling to it, I will leave life crying aloud a glorious triumph-song that I have lived well.

I don't know anything about the context of Dylan Thomas or whether he's commented about what he means or any background. Anyone looked into the poem and found anything they'd care to recommend? All I know is that it is well known.

"do not go gentle" does not necessarily equate in my mind with "rage, rage, against..."

Let's do a separate thread on the Dylan Thomas poem:

Thread

Epicurus And The Dylan Thomas Poem - "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

Don referenced this poem so maybe we should discuss it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_go…that_good_night

Cassius

July 6, 2025 at 8:55 AM

Don referenced this poem so maybe we should discuss it:

Do not go gentle into that good night - Wikipedia

Lots of interesting stuff there including the rage against the dying light which might need its own thread to analyze.

But I think we are establishing that drinking unmixed wine was known to be very dangerous and thus Epicurus would have known at the least that it might be fatal.

I personally would go further than Don in my conclusions at this point but that might mean diving into what the "rage against the dying light" really means.

At present I am mainly willing to say that there can come a time (mostly cases of clinically certain terminal highly painful disease combined with advanced age) when it can be a rational assessment to conclude that future pleasure is not worth the cost in pain.

That term toxic positivity deserves a 😀 but no doubt the problem is real - or a LACK of being real.

In this episode and probably the next, it will be good to remember these two Vatican Sayings, as they are directly relevant to Cicero's discussion of preparing for hardship and dealing with it.

VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And I will not give myself up as captive to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for me to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who vainly cling to it, I will leave life crying aloud a glorious triumph-song that I have lived well.

VS55. We must heal our misfortunes by the grateful recollection of what has been, and by the recognition that it is impossible to undo that which has been done

So you're reading that to mean that unmixed wine can kill(?), but Bryan I find Laertius' poem hard to decipher too. What is he saying - that he died unintentionally?

Robert - You are level 3 and very welcome to attend. We'll add you to the private conversation which has the link. Check your conversations in the next hour or so and a thread for the Zoom should appear there for you.

Bailey: 33. Justice never is anything in itself, but in the dealings of men with one another, in any place whatever, and at any time, it is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed.

**ΟΥΚ ΗΝ TΙ ΚAΘ' EAΥTΟ ΔΙΚAΙΟΣΥΝΗ ****AΛΛ' EΝ TAΙΣ ΜET' **

**AΛΛΗΛΩΝ ΣΥΣTΡΟΦAΙΣ ****ΚAΘ' ΟΠΗΛΙΚΟΥΣ ****ΔΗ ΠΟTE AEΙ**

**TΟΠΟΥΣ ΣΥΝΘΗΚΗ ****TΙΣ ΥΠEΡ TΟΥ ΜΗ ΒΛAΠTEΙΝ ****Η**

**ΒΛAΠTEΣΘAΙ. **

“Justice has no independent existence; it results from mutual contracts, and establishes itself wherever there is a mutual engagement to guard against doing or sustaining mutual injury.” Yonge (1853)

“There never was an absolute justice, but only a convention made in mutual intercourse, in whatever region, from time to time, providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.” Hicks (1910)

“There never was an absolute justice, but only an agreement made in reciprocal intercourse in whatever localities now and again from time to time, providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.” Hicks (1925)

“Justice never is anything in itself, but in the dealings of men with one another in any place whatever and at any time is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed.” Bailey (1926)

“There is no such thing as justice in the abstract; it is merely a compact between men in their various relations with each other, in whatever circumstances they may be, that they will neither injure nor be injured.” Geer (1964)

“Justice was never anything per se, but a contract, regularly arising at some place or other in people's dealings with one another, over not harming or being harmed.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 125 (1987)

“There is no such thing as 'justice in itself'; it is, rather, always a certain compact made during men's dealings with one another in different places, not to do harm or to be harmed.” O'Connor (1993)

“Justice was not a thing in its own right, but [exists] in mutual dealings in whatever places there [is] a pact about neither harming one another nor being harmed.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“Absolute justice does not exist. There are only mutual agreements among men, made at various times and places, not to inflict nor allow harm.” Anderson (2004)

“Abstract justice in itself does not exist. Justice rather [comes into being only] in instances of reciprocal intercourse, applies specifically to this or that place [and time,] and consists in a covenanted agreement to refrain from inflicting harm for the sake of not having harm inflicted on oneself.” Makridis (2005)

“Justice does not exist in itself; instead, it is always a compact to not harm one another or be harmed, which is agreed upon by those who gather together at some time and place.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“Justice was never an entity in itself. It is a kind of agreement not to harm or be harmed, made when men associate with each other at any time and in communities of any size whatsoever.” Strodach (2012)

“Justice was not something in itself but existed in mutual relations wherever and whenever there was an agreement that provided against the inflicting or suffering of harm.” Mensch (2018)

“Justice was not anything in its own right, but rather a kind of agreement not to harm or be harmed in our dealings with one another within areas of whatever size they may be.”

Bailey: 32. For all living things which have not been able to make compacts not to harm one another, or be harmed, nothing ever is either just or unjust; and likewise, too, for all tribes of men which have been unable, or unwilling, to make compacts not to harm or be harmed.

**ΟΣA TΩΝ ΖῼΩΝ ****ΜΗ EΔΥΝATΟ ΣΥΝΘΗΚAΣ ΠΟΙEΙΣΘAΙ ****TAΣ**

**ΥΠEΡ TΟΥ ΜΗ ΒΛAΠTEΙΝ AΛΛA ΜΗΔE ΒΛAΠTEΣΘAΙ ****ΠΡΟΣ**

**TAΥTA ΟΥΘEΝ ****ΗΝ ΔΙΚAΙΟΝ ****ΟΥΔE AΔΙΚΟΝ·**** ΩΣAΥTΩΣ ΔE**

**ΚAΙ TΩΝ EΘΝΩΝ ****ΟΣA ΜΗ EΔΥΝATΟ ****Η ΜΗ EΒΟΥΛETΟ ****TAΣ**

**ΣΥΝΘΗΚAΣ ΠΟΙEΙΣΘAΙ ****TAΣ ΥΠEΡ TΟΥ ΜΗ ΒΛAΠTEΙΝ ΜΗΔE**

**ΒΛAΠTEΣΘAΙ. **

“Those animals which are unable to enter into an argument of this nature, or to guard against doing or sustaining mutual injury, have no such thing as justice or injustice. And the case is the same with those nations, the members of which are either unwilling or unable to enter into a covenant to respect their mutual interests.” Yonge (1853)

“Those animals which were incapable of making compacts with one another, to the end that they might neither inflict nor suffer harm, are without either justice or injustice. Similarly those tribes which either could not or would not form mutual covenants to the same end are in the like case.” Hicks (1910)

“Those animals which are incapable of making covenants with one another, to the end that they may neither inflict nor suffer harm, are without either justice or injustice. And those tribes which either could not or would not form mutual covenants to the same end are in like case.” Hicks (1925)

“For all living things which have not been able to make compacts not to harm one another or be harmed, nothing ever is either just or unjust; and likewise too for all tribes of men which have been unable or unwilling to make compacts not to harm or be harmed.” Bailey (1926)

“To all animate creatures that have been unable to make the covenants about not injuring one another or being injured nothing is just nor unjust either; this statement holds equally true for all human races that have been unable or unwilling to make the covenant about not injuring or being injured.” DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 295 (1954)

“There is no such thing as justice or injustice among those beasts that cannot make agreements not to injure or be injured. This is also true of those tribes that are unable or unwilling to make agreements not to injure or be injured.” Geer (1964)

“Nothing is just or unjust in relation to those creatures which were unable to make contracts over not harming one another and not being harmed: so too with all peoples which were unable or unwilling to make contracts over not harming and not being harmed.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 125 (1987)

“For those living creatures that are unable to form compacts not to harm or harm others or to be harmed, there is neither justice nor injustice. It is the same for all tribes of men unable or unwilling to form compacts not to do harm or to be harmed.” O'Connor (1993)

“There was no justice or injustice with respect to all those animals which were unable to make pacts about neither harming one another nor being harmed. Similarly, [there was no justice or injustice] for all those nations which were unable or unwilling to make pacts about neither harming one another nor being harmed.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“For all living creatures incapable of making agreements not to harm one another, nothing is ever just or unjust; and so it is likewise for all tribes of men which have been unable or unwilling to make such agreements.” Anderson (2004)

“Some animals are incapable of entering into compacts that agree not to inflict harm in order to avoid suffering harm: in the cases of such animals neither moral right nor moral wrong can be said to apply. Similarly, there are communities which are either incapable or unwilling to make treaties that undertake not to inflict harm in order to avoid suffering harm: [in the cases of such communities, the concepts of moral right and moral wrong cannot be said to apply either.]” Makridis (2005)

“With regard to those animals that do not have the power of making a covenant to not harm one another or be harmed, there is neither justice nor injustice; similarly for those peoples who have neither the power nor the desire of making a covenant to not harm one another or be harmed.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“Nothing is either just or unjust in the eyes of those animals that have been unable to make agreements not to harm each other or be harmed. The same is true of those peoples who are unable or unwilling to make covenants not to be harm or be harmed.” Strodach (2012)

“Those animals incapable of making agreements with one another, that they may neither inflict nor suffer harm, are without justice or injustice. The same is true of peoples who are unable or unwilling to make such agreements.” Mensch (2018)

“There was nothing just or unjust regarding any animals that were unable to make agreements not to harm others or be harmed; and likewise among any culture that were unable or unwilling to make agreements not to harm or be harmed.” White (2021)

Bailey: 22. We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion.

**TΟ ΥΦEΣTΗΚΟΣ ****ΔEΙ TEΛΟΣ EΠΙΛΟΓΙΖEΣΘAΙ ****ΚAΙ ΠAΣAΝ**

**TΗΝ EΝAΡΓEΙAΝ ****EΦ ΗΝ TA ΔΟΞAΖΟΜEΝA AΝAΓΟΜEΝ·**** EΙ**

**ΔE ΜΗ ΠAΝTA AΚΡΙΣΙAΣ ****ΚAΙ TAΡAΧΗΣ ****EΣTAΙ ΜEΣTA. **

“But as to the ultimate aim, we ought to consider it with all the clearness and evidence which we refer to whatever we think and believe; otherwise, all things will be full of confusion and uncertainty of judgment.” Yonge (1853)

“We must take into account as the end all that really exists and all clear evidence of sense to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will be full of uncertainty and confusion.” Hicks (1910)

“We must take into account as the end all that really exists and all clear evidence of sense to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will be full of uncertainty and confusion.” Hicks (1925)

“We must consider both the real purpose and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion.” Bailey (1926)

“We must take into our reckoning the established telos of all manifest evidence, to which we refer our judgments; otherwise all life will be filled with indecision and unrest.” DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 152 (1954)

“It is necessary to take into account the real purpose of knowledge and all the evidence of that clear perception to which we refer our opinions. If we do not, all will be full of bad judgment and confusion.” Geer (1964)

“We must take into account both the underlying purpose and all the evidence of clear perception, to which we refer our opinions. Otherwise, everything will be filled with confusion and indecision.” O'Connor (1993)

“One must reason about the real goal and every clear fact, to which we refer mere opinions. If not, everything will be full of indecision and disturbance.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“We must consider the ultimate goal to be real, and reconcile our opinions with sensory experience; otherwise, life will be full of confusion and disturbance.” Anderson (2004)

“When all is said and done, we need to take into account what kinds of things exist in the universe and every vivid and clear sense perception, to which we must refer opinions; if we fail to do so, everything will be full of gullibility and confusion.” Makridis (2005)

“You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“It is necessary to take into account both the actual goal of life and the whole body of clear and distinct precepts to which we refer our judgments. If we fail to do this, everything will be in disorder and confusion.” Strodach (2012)

“We must reason about the true goal and about all the evidence to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will be full of confusion and disorder.” Mensch (2018)

“We must appraise the established end, and all the manifest evidence to which we refer all we believe; otherwise, everything will be full of indecision and turmoil.” White (2021)

Bailey: 18. 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.

**ΟΥΚ EΠAΥΞETAΙ ****EΝ Tῌ ΣAΡΚΙ ****Η ΗΔΟΝΗ EΠEΙΔAΝ ****AΠAΞ**

**TΟ ΚAT' EΝΔEΙAΝ AΛΓΟΥΝ EΞAΙΡEΘῌ ****AΛΛA ΜΟΝΟΝ**

**ΠΟΙΚΙΛΛETAΙ. **** TΗΣ ΔE ΔΙAΝΟΙAΣ ****TΟ ΠEΡAΣ ****TΟ ΚATA TΗΝ**

**ΗΔΟΝΗΝ AΠEΓEΝΝΗΣEΝ ****Η TE TΟΥTΩΝ AΥTΩΝ EΚΛΟΓΙΣΙΣ**

**ΚAΙ TΩΝ ΟΜΟΓEΝΩΝ ****TΟΥTΟΙΣ ΟΣA TΟΥΣ ΜEΓΙΣTΟΥΣ**

**ΦΟΒΟΥΣ ΠAΡEΣΚEΥAΖE Tῌ ΔΙAΝΟΙᾼ. **

“Pleasure in the flesh is not increased, when once the pain arising from want is removed; it is only diversified. The most perfect happiness of the soul depends on these refection, and on opinions of a similar character on all those questions which cause the greatest alarm to the mind.” Yonge (1853)

“Pleasure in the flesh admits no increase when once the pain of want has been removed; after that it only admits of variation. The limit of pleasure in the mind is obtained by calculating the pleasures themselves and the contrary pains, which cause the mind the greatest alarms.” Hicks (1910)

“Pleasure in the flesh admits no increase when once the pain of want has been removed; after that it only admits of variation. The limit of pleasure in the mind, however, is reached when we reflect on the things themselves and their congeners which cause the mind the greatest alarms.” Hicks (1925)

“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.” Bailey (1926)

“The pleasure in the flesh is incapable of increase when once the pain arising from need has been removed but is merely embellished. As for the mind, its limit of pleasure is begotten by reasoning out these very problems and those akin to these, all that once created the worst fears for the mind.” DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 227-228 (1954)

“When once the pain caused by need has been removed, bodily pleasure will not be increased in amount but only varied in quality. The mind attains its utmost pleasure in reflecting on the very things that used to cause the greatest mental fears and on things like them.” Geer (1964)

“The pleasure in the flesh does not increase when once the pain of need has been removed, but it is only varied. And the limit of pleasure in the mind is produced by rationalizing those very things and their congeners which used to present the mind with its greatest fears.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)

“The pleasure in the flesh will not be increased when once the pain resulting from want is taken away, but only varied. The limit of understanding as regards pleasure is obtained by a refection on these same pleasures and the sensations akin to them, which used to furnish the mind with its greatest fears.” O'Connor (1993)

“As soon as the feeling of pain produced by want is removed, pleasure in the flesh will not increase but is only varied. But the limit of mental pleasures is produced by a reasoning out of these very pleasures [of the flesh] and of the things related to these, which used to cause the greatest fears in the intellect.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“When pain arising from need has been removed, bodily pleasure cannot increase – it merely varies. But the limit of mental pleasure is reached after we reflect upon these bodily pleasures and the related mental distress prior to fulfillment.” Anderson (2004)

“Bodily pleasure cannot increase anymore once all the pain produced by need has been removed, even if this happened for the first time; [after that point, additional] pleasure can only [accrue from] variation. But the limit of the pleasure produced by mental pursuits is generally attained by means of reflecting on all those things, and on others kindred to the things, which furnish the mind with the greatest frights.” Makridis (2005)

“As soon as the pain produced by the lack of something is removed, pleasure in the flesh is not increased but only embellished. Yet the limit of enjoyment in the mind is produced by thinking through these very things and similar things, which once provoked the greatest fears in the mind.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“Bodily pleasure is not enlarged once the pains brought on by need have been done away with; it is only diversified. And the limit o f mental pleasure is established by rational refection on pleasures themselves and those kindred emotions that once instilled extreme fear in human minds.” Strodach (2012)

“Fleshly pleasure does not increase once the pain of want has been removed; it merely diversifies. But the limit of mental pleasure is reached when one reflects on these very realities, and others of the same kind, which afflict the mind with its worst fears. Mensch (2018)

“Pleasure does not increase in the flesh once any pain caused by need is removed; it only adds variety. As for thought, the very limit of its pleasure is a result of the appraisal of these very things and all the related things that formerly caused our thought the greatest fears.” White (2021)

ailey: 16. 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.

“The wise man is but little favoured by fortune; but his reason procures him the greatest and most valuable goods, and these he does enjoy, and will enjoy the whole of his life.” Yonge (1853)

“Fortune but slightly crosses the wise man's path; his greatest and highest interests are directed by reason throughout the course of life.” Hicks (1910)

“Fortune but seldom interferes with the wise man; his greatest and highest interests have been, are, and will be, directed by reason throughout the course of his life.” Hicks (1925)

“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.” Bailey (1926)

“Fortune plays but little part in the life of a wise man and the things that are of most value and consequence are subject to arrangement by rational planning, and throughout the whole extent of life are subject and will be subject to it.” DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 177-178 (1954)

“Fortune seldom troubles the wise man. Reason has controlled his greatest and most important affairs, controls them throughout his life, and will continue to control them.” Geer (1964)

“In a few instances does chance intrude upon the wise man, but reason has administered his greatest and most important affairs, and will continue to do so throughout his whole life.” O'Connor (1993)

“Chance has a small impact on the wise man, while reasoning has arranged for, is arranging for, and will arrange for the greatest and most important matters throughout the whole of his life.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“Chance has little effect upon the wise man, for his greatest and highest interests are directed by reason throughout the course of life.” Anderson (2004)

“The wise are rarely infringed by chance; the matters that are most signifcant and decisive have been, are, and always will be governed by reason throughout the entire span of a wise person's life.” Makridis (2005)

“Chance steals only a bit into the life of a wise person: for throughout the complete span of his life the greatest and most important matters have been, are, and will be directed by the power of reason.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“Bad luck strikes the sophisticated man in a few cases, but reason has directed the big, essential things, and for the duration of life it is and will be the guide.” Strodach (2012)

“Fortune impinges but little on a wise man; reason has directed his greatest and most important pursuits; these it directs and will continue to direct over the course of his life.” Mensch (2018)

“Fortune has little impact on the wise; their reasoning has already arranged the greatest and most important matters, and it does so and will continue to do so throughout their lifetime.” White (2021)

"If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life." Epicurus PD10 (Bailey)

**EΙ TA ΠΟΙΗTΙΚA ****TΩΝ ΠEΡΙ TΟΥΣ AΣΩTΟΥΣ ΗΔΟΝΩΝ ****EΛΥE**

**TΟΥΣ ΦΟΒΟΥΣ ****TΗΣ ΔΙAΝΟΙAΣ ****TΟΥΣ TE ΠEΡΙ ΜETEΩΡΩΝ**

**ΚAΙ ΘAΝATΟΥ ****ΚAΙ AΛΓΗΔΟΝΩΝ ****ETΙ TE TΟ ΠEΡAΣ ****TΩΝ**

**EΠΙΘΥΜΙΩΝ ****[ΚAΙ TΩΝ AΛΓΗΔΟΝΩΝ]***** EΔΙΔAΣΚEΝ ****ΟΥΚ AΝ**

**ΠΟTE EΙΧΟΜEΝ ****Ο TΙ ΜEΜΨAΙΜEΘA ****AΥTΟΙΣ ΠAΝTAΧΟΘEΝ**

**EΚΠΛΗΡΟΥΜEΝΟΙΣ TΩΝ ΗΔΟΝΩΝ ****ΚAΙ ΟΥΔAΜΟΘEΝ ****ΟΥTE**

**TΟ AΛΓΟΥΝ ****ΟΥTE TΟ ΛΥΠΟΥΜEΝΟΝ EΧΟΥΣΙΝ ****Ο ΠEΡ EΣTΙ**

**TΟ ΚAΚΟΝ. ** Arrighetti**

“If those things which make the pleasures of debauched men, put an end to the fears of the mind, and to those which arise about the heavenly bodies, and death, and pain; and if they taught us what ought to be the limit of our desires, we should have no pretense for blaming those who wholly devote themselves to pleasure, and who never feel any pain or grief (which is the chief evil) from any quarter.” Yonge (1853)

“If the objects which are productive of pleasures to profligate persons really freed them from fears of the mind—the fears, I mean, inspired by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, the fear of death, the fear of pain—if, further, they taught them to limit their desires, we should not have any reason to censure such persons, for they would then be filled with pleasure to overflowing on all sides and would be exempt from all pain, whether of body or mind, that is, from all evil.” Hicks (1910)

“If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky and death and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires [and of pains], we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full with pleasures from every source and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.” Bailey (1926)

“If the practices productive of the pleasures of profligates dispelled the fears of the mind about celestial things and death and pains and also taught the limit of the desires, we should never have fault to find with profligates, enjoying pleasures to the full from all quarters, and suffering neither pain nor distress from any quarter, wherein the evil lies." DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 235 (1954)

“If the things that produce the pleasures of the dissolute were able to drive away from their minds their fears about what is above them and about death and pain, and to teach them the limit of desires, we would have no reason to find them the limit of desires, we would have no reason to find fault with the dissolute; for they would fill themselves with pleasure from every source and would be free from pain and sorrow, which are evil.” Geer (1964)

“If the causes of the pleasures of the dissipated released mental fears concerning celestial phenomena and death and distress, and in addition taught the limit of desires, we should never have any reason to reproach them [i.e. the dissipated], since they would be satisfying themselves with pleasures from all directions and would never have pain or distress, which constitutes the bad.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)

“If the things that beget pleasure in dissolute individuals could dispel their minds' fears about the heavens, death, and pain, and could still teach them the limits of desires, we would have no grounds for finding fault with the dissolute, since they would be filling themselves with pleasures from every source and in no way suffering from pain or grief, which are evil.” O'Connor (1993)

“If the things which produce the pleasures of profligate men dissolved the intellect's fears about the phenomena of the heavens and about death and pains and, moreover, if they taught us the limit of our desires, then we would not have reason to criticize them, since they would be filled with pleasures from every source and would contain no feeling of pain or distress from any source—and that is what is bad.” Inwood (1994)

“If the things which debauched men find pleasurable put an end to all fears (such as concerns about the heavenly bodies, death, and pain) and if they revealed how we ought to limit our desires, we would have no reason to reproach them, for they would be fulfilled with pleasures from every source while experiencing no pain, neither in mind nor body, which is the chief evil of life.” Anderson (2004)

“If those elements that are productive of the pleasures of the debauched released them from the mental apprehensions aroused by natural phenomena, fear of death, and [obsessive anticipation of] pain; if, in addition, they formed their characters in such a way that they knew when to set a limit to their desires, we would then never have anything to censure them about: indeed, they would then be fully actualizing all the pleasures and in no way would they have either what is painful or what is productive of grief in them—and it is this latter condition [which they would be avoiding] that is morally bad.” Makridis (2005)

“If the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washe#d away the mind's fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that's what is bad).” Saint-Andre (2008)

“If the things that produce the debauchee's pleasures dissolved the mind's fears regarding the heavenly bodies, death, and pain and also told us how to limit our desires, we would never have any reason to find fault with such people, because they would be glutting themselves with every sort of pleasure and never suffer physical or mental pain, which is the real evil.” Strodach (2012)

“If the objects that afforded pleasure to profligate men actually freed them from mental fears, namely those that relate to celestial phenomena and death and pain, and also taught them to limit their desires, we would never have any occasion to find fault with such men, since they would then be filled with pleasures from all sides and would be free of all pain and grief—that is, of all that is bad.” Mensch (2018)

“If the things that produce the pleasures of the dissolute released our minds from fear of celestial things and death and pain, and if they taught us the limit of desire, then we would have nothing to reproach in them, since they would then be replete with pleasures from every source and devoid of pain or sorrow from any source, which are precisely what is bad.” White (2021)