Posts by Cassius

This podcast will be released later today. In the meantime another note:

In discussing the tetrapharmakon i make the comment around 28 minutes in that people often have a problem with the use of the term "easy" as it applies to the good being easy to get and the bad being easy to endure.

In connection with other points being made in recent episodes, I am going to explore over time this possibility that i have not ordinarily stressed:

(1) it is clear that Epicurus saw the need to address the challenge made in Philebus and other places that the highest good must "have a limit" as stated also in PD03.

(2) I have previously taken the position that Epicurus was meeting that challenge by stating that when all pain is eliminated that is by definition or theory the limit of pleasure, and I do continue to think that makes sense.

(3) In the past however I have dismissed this argument as having further implications and therefore did not apply it further, and that led me to the tendency to dismiss the argument as having any real merit on its own.

(4) However on thinking further I now begin to believe that Epicurus did not mean to diminish the importance of the argument, and that he in fact embraced it himself in his own presentation.

(5) By now in this list my direction is probably clear: of course this tetrapharmakos wording was not as far as we know from Epicurus himself, so the "easy" is what is suspicious. I now want to explore the possibility that the real meaning of what is captured here is not that what is good is necessarily "easy" to get, but that what is good (pleasure) is "attainable" because in fact it is graspable in full, it "has a limit" that enables it to be grasped.

(6) the same will go for pain in the fourth leg. The point would not be that the terrible is "easy" to avoid or endure, but that it is in fact "attainable" to endure it because it too has a limit - it cannot remain forever because death will terminate even the worst pain.

Epicurus never says in PD03 or PD04 tha what is good or bad is "easy" to reach. That's an overlay of the tendency of some people to focus on "absence of pain" as being akin to nothingness and therefore "easy" to obtain. The argument Epicurus is addressing, and then picking up for his own use is clearly different from that. The point is more likely to be that what is truly good and bad in life is not some fantasy of idealistic divine perfection, or evil in the sense of a supernatural force or eternal punishment in hell. What is true is instead that the good (pleasure) is attainable, and the bad (pain) is avoidable, because they "have a limit" which cannot be exceeded.

This line of thinking would parallel other recent comments I have made that, as Torquatus is stressing, the key to the understanding of the natural and necessary desire analysis is that it helps to analyze whether the goal of the desire is in fact attainable, and therefore reasonable to pursue, or in fact unattainable, and therefore unreasonable by definition to pursue.

The fact that most people fail miserably in achieving happiness and avoiding disaster is proof that none of this is "easy," and I don't think Epicurus would have agreed with that kind of phrasing. I doubt Epicurus considered at the end of his life that all of his efforts to build his school had been "easy" at all, and in fact I think he would have resented the implication.

Most of us are continental USA but Northern Europe is in a strong second place. Welcome aboard!

Of course Epicurus likely would have agreed with the conclusion and at least some of the reasoning, but his primary approach on gods was significantly different.

The riddle is based on pointing out contradictions in someone else's argument which certainly can be effective as far as it goes, but it still leaves you hanging on what the truth really is, as you are pointing out as to "the problem of evil."

I think you are right to sense that a physics argument is more important, and Epicurus also combines it with an argument based on how the human mind works.

Those are positive assertions you can verify for yourself whether they make sense to you or not. Pointing out contradictions in someone else's argument is helpful for debunking false claims, but Epicurus was not content with debunking alone.

We want a position on what is true, not just on how many millions of arguments are wrong.

It's sort of ironic but the position that there is a truth out there that can be found isa point of commonality between Stoics and Epicureans. They simply disagree profoundly on what that truth is.

Brief info on Tony is that he was raised catholic and came across Epicureanism when studying history. He's read and studied his letter to menoeceus, his texts on physics and 'on the nature of things', as well as his last wish. He's particular interested in Epicurus' ideas on death, justice, the myths and pleasure

Tonight we had a spirited discussion on several options for interpreting this doctrine. I see that we don' have FAQ entry on this and now would be good time to construct one.

We clearly have some divergent opinions on how to interpret this one so I'll prepare a FAQ entry listing the various contenders for most likely interpretation.

If you have current thoughts on how to distill this doctrine down into a succinct form that provides reasonably clear guidance to a new reader, please post in this thread and I'll update the FAQ as we go forward.

Everyone pretty much asks the same question, something like this:

How do I know what desires fall into the various categories of natural and necessary desires, and are there hard and fast rules about how to apply the resulting categorization of a particular desire I am considering?"

Tony has emailed me -- Welcome!

Welcome Tony Fox

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!

Somehow I missed this earlier today. Yes, happy birthday sanantoniogarden

I'll be adding some notes as I make while editing this episode. Thist first note also relates to recent comments about natural and necessary desires and how one of the key aspects of the unnatural / unnecessary category is that they CANNOT be satisfied.

I probably did not emphasize the "limit" issue enough in comparing PD3 to what Cicero is saying. I think there's definitely a parallel between PD3 and what Torquatus says:

Quote

PD03. The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once.

Torquatus in On Ends Part 1 - XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. (3) Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because (2) death is apart from sensation, and (4) pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance. When in addition we suppose that such a man is (1) in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?

Both of these underlined sections from Torquatus are making the point that after you reach the desired status then it cannot be made "better" or "more excellent."

As I think about it now that's probably the best way to understand the "limit of quantity" reference in PD03, and how it relatest to the "variety" issue. Certainly longer time allows for more pleasure in terms of time, and someone could argue that more time allows for more "quantity" of pleasure.

The ultimate point seems to be that the definition of the "best" feeling of pleasure is when pleasure is not accompanied by any pain. That fits nicely with the additional point no extra amount of time allows for pleasure that is "better" or "more excellent" than the pleasure we can experience here and now. And it's a target or a theoretical goal as much as anything else, because we can still be "happy" even if we don't always or even ever reach the point of eliminating all pain. As evidence for that we have Epicurus saying that he happy even during his final sickness and Diogenes Laertius and Cicero saying that Epicurus held that the wise man can be "happy" even under torture.

if indeed this is Torquatus' way of expressing PD03, and I think it probably is, then I'd say that this is a much more understandable-to-modern-ears way of saying it.

Happy Birthday to sanantoniogarden! Learn more about sanantoniogarden and say happy birthday on sanantoniogarden's timeline: sanantoniogarden

By the time I post this message version 2 of this video will be live, with a significantly improved voice. It's still far from perfect, but much better.

Not as an apology but as a statement of fact, Hollywood-quality video doesn't spring into existence overnight. It's going to take a process for those of us who are interested in producing these things to get better and better, and enlist more and more sophisticated technology, over time.

One way this may work is to treat the interim steps as learning exercises every step along the way. Hearing and seeing even a less-than-perfect video can allow us to better imagine what a superior effort might look like.

Not the least of the issues to resolve is the text of any such presentation. An infinite variety of choices are possible, and among the most difficult is that of choosing whether to present to an existing educated fan-base of Epicurus, or to target the presentation more simplistically to convey key points to those who are not currently aware of the details.

Obviously this video currently caters to potential "future" Epicureans more than to those of us who have read the original texts many times.

More changes are coming as we get closer and closer to something really usable. I've received some very helpful suggestions already in private conversation on the technology side of the video, and though I can't promise to incorporate everything (the "too many cooks in the kitchen" and the "camel as a horse designed by committee problems) every comment good and bad is valuable.

Once I get the TTS engine further improved it will be time to ramp it up and produce reasonable (and free) public domain media versions of Lucretius and other core texts that would not be practical for us to record with a live speaker.

Oh no, I am not sure we can handle two participants from Poland!

You'll have to speak with TauPhi

Glad to have you with us Daniel!

Daniel has written to me today so I think we'll hear from him very soon. Please post first in this thread Daniel -- thanks!

Welcome Daniel188

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!

Isn't there also a related question about her choice of the word "extravagant" - i think she brought that up herself in her podcast interview.

My own take at the moment is that the key thing that distinguishes this category is that the desire in question cannot be satisfied - it has no limit. Yes we might consider them to be extravagant, yes we might consider their result to be corrosive. But it seems to me that the crucial first step is to focus on how to identify them in the first place. And there it seems to me that the various texts are pointing to their commonality being that they "have no limit" - they cannot be satisfied - and so as a result pursuit of them is doomed to failure from the very start.

What is to one person and in one situation "extravagant" is very different for another person in another situation, for whom it might be necessary. Drawing the distinction at "simply cannot be satisfied" such as for eternal life would appear to me both more practical and philosophical and consistent with the texts.

In the letter to Menoeceus Epicurus does not explain the principal of the classification:

We must consider that of desires some are natural, others vain, and of the natural some are necessary and others merely natural; and of the necessary some are necessary for happiness, others for the repose of the body, and others for very life.

But Torquatus does in On Ends 1:45, and what he focuses on is not describing it with a negative adjective but pointing out the fact that it has no limit:

Rackham:

One kind he classified as both natural and necessary, a second as natural without being necessary, and a third as neither natural nor necessary; the principle of classification being that the necessary desires are gratified with little trouble or expense; the natural desires also require but little, since nature's own riches, which suffice to content her, are both easily procured and limited in amount; but for the imaginary desires no bound or limit can be discovered.

Reid translation;
...and it is not possible to discover any boundary or limit to false passions.

My plan is to update this video over time with improved text and graphics. Therefore the following text will no doubt change, but here's the version as of launch on 11/17/25.

It's written in shorter sentences than I would ordinarily use but the TTS engine gets excited if you write long sentences like Cicero does:

How Can The Wise Epicurean Always Be Happy?

There are as many opinions about happiness as there are people. Everyone has their own idea of what happiness is or should be. Some say that we should look to God for happiness. Others say that there are no hard and fast rules, so if it feels good do it. But most people say that the key to happiness is virtue - being a "good" person.

In the history of the West, there was one leader—Epicurus—who taught something dramatically different. The teachings of Epicurus were once widely popular. At the time of Julius Caesar most leading Romans were at least partly Epicurean. Even an opponent like Cicero admitted that Epicurus had "taken the Roman world by storm."

Epicurus was popular because he taught a common-sense approach to being happy. He did not look to supernatural gods or high-sounding ideals. Instead, Epicurus taught that we should look to Nature. Nature herself leads us through pleasure and pain. A happy life is simply a life in which we experience more pleasure than pain.

What exactly is pleasure?

Today there is much debate over what Epicurus meant when he talked about pleasure and happiness. Some say that Epicurus was a slacker who had no ambition and avoided all work and effort. They allege that he fled from social responsibility and ran straight into the arms of wine, women, and song. Others say the opposite. These people say that Epicurus taught self-denial. They allege that Epicurus advised us to seek only the most simple and necessary of pleasures.

Most of what Epicurus himself wrote is now lost. In one letter that survives, however, Epicurus wrote that pleasure is the beginning and the end of the happy life. That seems clear enough. However in the same letter Epicurus also wrote that by pleasure we mean the absence of pain.

Based on this statement, some people argue that Epicurus was actually more like a Buddhist or Stoic. These people say that absence of pain does not mean what we normally think of as pleasure. So what did Epicurus really teach when he spoke of absence of pain? Unless we have more information, saying that something is absent tells us nothing about what is present.

Today we cannot ask Epicurus what he meant. Fortunately many Greek and Roman writers of the time tell us what they understood Epicurus to be saying. These writers were very clear. Epicurus included within the word pleasure the same kinds of bodily and mental stimulation that we think of today.

One of Epicurus' most famous sayings was that he would not know what good is without the pleasures of taste, of sex, of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form. Epicurus also spoke often about the joy and delight that we obtain through friendship, philosophy, and the study of nature. These too come within the meaning of the word pleasure. We can therefore be sure that Epicurus endorsed the same kinds of activities that we normally think of as pleasure. But calling these activities pleasure does not mean that Epicurus was a party animal.

Almost everyone agrees that Epicurus himself led a very sober and self-disciplined life. The statues of Epicurus that survive from the ancient world are all very similar. Each one shows Epicurus with an intense and serious look in his eyes. Epicurus definitely took pleasure seriously, but he did not chase it through fast and loose living.

Epicurus taught that the key to pleasure is in how we pursue it. He did not tell us to restrict pleasure to include only those that are necessary to remove bodily pain. In fact he did the opposite. Epicurus told us to expand our view of pleasure.

He pointed out that humans are much more than passive receivers of outside stimulation. Once we understand our place in Nature our minds are well equipped to generate pleasure on their own.

Epicurus pointed out that we experience as pleasure everything in life that we consider to be desirable. There are many different types of mental and physical pleasures and pains. Everything that we feel to be desirable we call pleasure. Everything we feel to be undesirable we call pain. In the end, all feelings resolve down into pleasure or pain.

Whenever there are only two possibilities, the absence of one means the other is present. That's exactly what Epicurus said about pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain in any part of the body or mind are mutually exclusive. Wherever pleasure is present, that part of the mind or body is not feeling pain. The phrase absence of pain therefore means nothing more or less than the word pleasure itself.

But here is an important question. Does talking about absence of pain tell us what specific pleasure is present?

The answer is no, not any more than the word pleasure alone tells us what specific pleasure we are feeling. Pleasures and pains differ widely in intensity, in duration, and in the parts of the mind or body they affect. Every pleasure and pain is different. Only by listening to the feelings given to us by Nature can we know what is pleasant and what is painful.

What evidence do we have that Epicurus viewed absence of pain the same as pleasure? The famous Roman Senator Cicero disliked Epicurus so much that he wrote lengthy books against him. Cicero denounced the pursuit of pleasure as unworthy, and he praised suffering and virtue as noble. Years later the books of Cicero found favor with the Judeo-Christians. These religious authorities preserved Cicero's books and destroyed most of what was left of what Epicurus had written.

Cicero may have opposed Epicurus, but he had many friends who were Epicureans. One such friend was Torquatus, a military and political leader from a distinguished Roman family. Torquatus was a strong follower of Epicurus. Torquatus explained what Epicurus taught in this way:

Anyone who totally and permanently loses all feeling is the same as dead. From this we can conclude that Nature herself, through the feelings she gives us, is the true judge of what is agreeable or disagreeable. Everything we feel is either pleasurable or painful. If we are aware of our condition at all, what we are feeling is pleasure or pain. There is no middle ground and no third alternative. Since pleasures are desirable and pains are not, our goal should be to fill as much of our life as possible with pleasures.

From this point of view it is easy to understand what Epicurus meant by absence of pain. Whenever we remove any pain of mind or body, whatever replaces it is pleasure. For Epicurus the word pleasure never changes its meaning. Pleasure always refers to something that we find to be desirable. The specific mental or bodily activity that we find to be pleasurable will depend entirely on our personal circumstances and feelings. Whether we call the goal of life pleasure or absence of pain is of no consequence.

But if we think of the goal as absence of pain, does this mean that we must be entirely free from pain before we can consider ourselves to be happy? Of course not, and Epicurus was very clear about this.

At the time of his death, Epicurus was in severe pain due to kidney disease. Nevertheless Epicurus wrote that these days were among the happiest of his life. How could Epicurus be happy even while in severe pain? Because happiness does not require complete absence of all pain. In fact, we often choose things that are painful when that choice leads to greater pleasure or less pain later. Epicurus' physical pain did not prevent him from being happy. Even while in pain, Epicurus was still able to feel the pleasures of friendship and of philosophical insight. Pleasures in one part of life can outweigh pains in other parts of life when we realize that the perfect is not the enemy of the good.

Opposing philosophers argued that viewing happiness this way makes no sense because happiness is an all-or-nothing proposition. They argued that we can never reach complete pleasure because the desire for pleasure can never be satisfied. They also argued that bodily pleasure is beyond our control and that we can never be free of the fear of losing it.

Epicurus rejected those arguments. He pointed out that the desire for pleasure can in fact be satisfied. There is a limit to the number of things any single person can experience in life. It is impossible to fill our experience beyond that limit. Once we fill our experience with pleasure, it is impossible to experience any additional pleasure. Of course over time we can pursue new pleasures, but variety does not make what is already full more full. Variety adds no new intensity to our feeling, no new parts to our body, no more hours to our day. If we view pleasure wisely, no matter how long we live, we do not gain a level of pleasure beyond what we can experience here and now.

Epicurus also rejected the idea that we must live in fear of suffering more pain than pleasure. The wise Epicurean can find more pleasure than pain in almost any situation. No matter how severe it is, pain never has the power to hold us in its grip permanently.

Torquatus illustrated this view of pleasure by repeating a story once told by his father. As the story went, a Stoic philosopher held up his hand and asked, "Does a hand in its normal condition feel pleasure?" The Stoic expected his listeners to say "No," because people tend to think that pleasure requires stimulation from the outside. The Stoic claimed that everyone who answered "No" was proving that Nature does not establish pleasure as the goal of life. He argued that if Nature wished us to pursue pleasure, Nature herself would complain whenever we are not feeling stimulation.

Torquatus pointed out that this argument is false and in no way undercuts Epicurus. So long as we are not feeling pain, our bodies do not complain about lack of stimulation. Nature herself recognizes that a healthy and normal life without pain is pleasurable.

Was Epicurus right to expand his view of pleasure in this way? Yes, but to understand this fully we must first know what Epicurus taught about the universe and our place in it.

Epicurus taught that the most important issues in life depend for their answers on one question: Is the universe natural, or is the universe designed, created, and managed by supernatural forces? Unless we can answer that question with confidence, we can never be confident about anything else.

Epicurus told us to look for the answer in our own experience. We see around us that nothing ever comes from nothing or goes to nothing. From this simple starting point we can reason step by step to reach answers to the most important questions of life.

Since nothing comes from nothing or goes to nothing, the universe as a whole has always existed and will always exist. Nothing exists that is not a part of the universe, so the universe is infinite in size. Everything that we experience is a result of atoms moving naturally and forever through space. The universe was not created, nor is it governed, by supernatural forces.

Nature herself tells us through our senses what is real. Whatever is real is possible, and what is possible can happen over and over again, since Nature never creates only a single thing of a kind. Just as there is life here on Earth, reason tells us that life exists throughout the universe.

Life on Earth is neither supernatural nor unique. The universe as a whole is both eternal in time and infinite in size, so nothing can exist outside of nature. Nature herself gives us all the evidence we need to live our lives happily. The evidence of nature tells us that there are no heavens, no hells, and no supernatural beings running things from behind the scenes.

Once we are confident of this big picture, we see that human birth and death are just as natural as anything else. There is no reason to be afraid of death. When we die we will no longer exist, and we will only be in the same condition as we were before we were born. Nothing harmful ever happened to us before we were born. For the same reason we can be confident that nothing harmful will happen to us after we die.

It is not sad or depressing to know that when we die we cease to exist. To the contrary, when we see that death is final we see how valuable life really is. Once we appreciate its true value, we realize that we are justified in holding that every moment of life that is not painful is pleasurable. People such as Epicurus, who love life, see this viewpoint as liberating and invigorating. All of us know how life becomes extremely valuable when someone is told that they have a fatal disease. In the same way, what can be more motivating than to know with confidence that we only live once?

But there is a common mistake that must be avoided at all costs. Some people believe that Stoicism and Asceticism are admirable. They think that there is nobility in suffering and disgrace in pleasure. These people argue that when Epicurus spoke of absence of pain he was agreeing with them and speaking of something very different from pleasure. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Epicurus taught that virtue leads to strength and independence. But Epicurus did not pursue virtue as a goal in itself. Epicurus taught that living virtuously is desirable for the pleasure that virtue brings, not because virtue is an end in itself. The ancients who wrote about him did not say that Epicurus ever abandoned normal pleasures for the sake of virtue. Instead, they attacked Epicurus for pursuing normal pleasures too much.

The best evidence of what Epicurus really taught is how he lived his own life. Epicurus was fully engaged with the world around him. By the time he died, Epicurus was surrounded with both mental and material pleasures. He was the owner of valuable properties and the leader of a thriving school. He was loved by friends and supporters too numerous to count.

Epicurus poured his life into both studying and teaching about Nature. He did this not only for himself, but so that he could live in pleasure with like-minded friends. Epicurus was so successful that his school lasted for hundreds of years after he died. The Epicureans would have continued to prosper much longer had they not been suppressed by the rise of the Judeo-Christians. Until that happened, as Nietzsche pointed out, "Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean."

Epicurus was successful because he taught a practical and common-sense way of living happily. Over and over the Epicureans emphasized the following path to happiness:

The wise Epicurean has a true conception of the nature of divinity. His life is untainted by the fear that anything supernatural exists or can cause him harm.

The wise Epicurean does not fear death. He knows that his condition after death is no different from his condition before he was born.

The wise Epicurean pursues desires that he can keep within bounds. He never allows himself to be caught up in desires that can never be satisfied.

The wise Epicurean has no fear of unendurable pain. He knows that pain cannot prevail over him, because long-lasting pain is usually slight and intense pain is usually of short duration. Even the most long-lasting and intense pains can be brought to an end by death, because the wise Epicurean need not fear departing from life if that would truly better his condition.

The wise Epicurean remembers the past with gratitude. He grasps the present with a full awareness of its pleasantness, and he looks forward to the future without being dependent upon it.

Equipped in this way, the wise Epicurean is always happy, because he knows that there is no moment when the pleasures he experiences do not outweigh his pains.

When the end of his life finally comes, the wise Epicurean can face death and say:

I have anticipated you Fortune and I have entrenched myself against all your secret attacks. I have not and will not give myself up as captive to you or to any other circumstance. When it is time for me to go, I will spit contempt upon those who vainly cling to life, and I will leave life crying aloud in glorious triumph that I have lived well.

Today we're launching another introductory video: How can the Wise Epicurean Always Be Happy?

Work continues on improving the voice renderings, and you should find this one to be a significant improvement over the voice quality "Torquatus - In Defense of Epicurus" and "Velleius On The True Nature of Divinity."

As always please add to this thread your comments, reactions, and suggestions for improvement.

Welcome!

I am told that this new user is a former Christian who's been trying to make sense of life after leaving the faith. He happened to find out about Epicurus recently, and much of what he taught resonated with my own beliefs almost exactly. As such, I'd like to be able to explore these beliefs with others who share them.

EPicuruean your user name is a little unusual in spelling so you might want to consider changing it at some point, but for now I'm setting up the account as is so welcome aboard!

Welcome EPicuruean

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!

Here's the detail on what was mentioned in post 7 above. On page 56 Bernier/Gassendi is alleging (incorrectly in my view) that Epicurus did not make the statement that he would not know what good is but for the pleasures of sensation. Rather, he's alleging that this is a fraudulent statement inserted by Stoics. I'd say this is a gross error, and comes from failing to address Epicurean Canonics/Physics (probably due to the blinders of religion). Having not paid attention to that, Bernier/Gassendi fail to see that this statement is focused on the feelings/anticipations/senses as the Canonical test of knowledge, rather than a statement on practical ethics. He goes on at some length about this and it's a major problem - I'm just marking it here so we know where to find it starting on pdf page 56.