REMINDER: SUNDAY WEEKLY ZOOM - March 22, 2026 -12:30 PM EDT - Ancient text study and discussion: De Rerum Natura - - Level 03 members and above (and Level 02 by Admin. approval) - read more info on it here.
In cleaning up the subforum for our Sunday meetings I see that we did not create a thread last week, given that we held our Twentieth Meeting at this time since the 20th was on a Sunday. In order to avoid confusion in the forum listing I'm adding this filler to indicate that we did in fact meet, and in fact had one of our best-attended meetings ever.
We'll return to normal format on July 26th.
This is to call attention to the material that we'll be covering for the next several weeks in the Lucretius Today Podcast. We're now in Section III of Tusculan Disputations, and the material we are about to cover is some of the most intense and influential anti-Epicurean material remaining from the ancient world. We'll eventually cover Plutarch's attacks on Epicurus as well, but this section of Tusculan Disputations is packed with important arguments that has set the tone for anti-Epicurean consensus ever since it was written two thousand years ago. In going through these arguments we can better see where these issues originated (in most cases with Socrates/Plato) and why Diogenes Laertius records Epicurus taking the positions he took.
Anyone who has time to read through these sections and comment as we go through them would be doing themselves and us a favor. There are many leads to follow and lots of details to address, and much that we won't have time to cover in full on the podcast,
These key sections start around Section XV:
Cicero - Tusculan Disputations - EpicureanFriends Handbook
and they continue through a lengthy argument over the next sections thereafter.
We're also going to find some valuable material in Part IV, which expands the Ciceronian/Stoic objections to the way that Epicurus handles "grief" to other "perturbations" of the mind, and Part V, which summarizes the previous sections and gives the summation as to why allegedly virtue is the essence of and the only thing necessary for a happy life.
In Part IV Cicero takes the Peripatetics to task because they tried to say that strong emotions are not always bad, and they can even be useful (such as anger in wartime) so long as they are kept within bounds. Cicero sides with the Stoics and argues that any amount of disturbance can never be a good thing. This context makes it easier to see why Diogenes Laertius recorded that the wise man will feel his emotions more strongly than others, but this will not be hindrance to his wisdom. Seeing the broader dispute takes the fragment out of isolation and sets it off as part of a much larger dispute.
Tusculan Disputations became one of the most influential works in western literature, so it will be good for us to develop a comprehensive response as we proceed through the podcast.
Welcome to Episode 292 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.
Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
This week we continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint.
Today we continue in Part 3, which addresses anger, pity, envy, and other strong emotions. Today we'll continue into Section XVI, where we compare Epicurus' views on dealing with grief to those of other schools.
Thanks Patrikios. I am going to post about this further elsewhere but i spent some time today reviewing the remaining part of Section III of Tusculan Disputations (from where we are now to the end of the section).
For the next several weeks we're going to be reading some of the most intensely anti-Epicurean discussion anywhere in Cicero, but it's packed with important information that explains what the issues were all about and why Epicurus addressed them the way he did.
I'm going to post further and recommend that anyone who has time to read these sections would be doing themselves and us a favor, as there is a lot here the the podcasters are going to have to address and it would be good to see it discussed in detail here on the forum as we go through it.
We'll be starting in Section XVI next week:
Cicero - Tusculan Disputations - EpicureanFriends Handbook
.... and at least the next five or ten sections are packed with information on Epicurus.
I also had a chance to begin reviewing Part IV. That's going to take some strategic picking and choosing, as a lot of it is devoted to discussion Pythagorus and then the Stoics, but I've already picked up something significant that I did not realize.
Cicero takes the Peripatetics to task, and the Peripatetics and Stoics were at war with each other, apparently because the Peripatetics tried to say that these strong emotions are not bad in themselves, and they can even be useful (such as anger in wartime) so long as they are kept within bounds - which I gather fit into their endorsement of all things in moderation. At least in the part I have reviewed so far, Cicero sides with the Stoics and takes the Aristotelians to task for admitting that any amount of disturbance can be a good thing. It's easy to look upon those disputes between other schools as irrelevant, but when you see how the main debates were being framed by the older/larger schools it becomes easier to see how short or fragmentary comments by Epicurus were framed to engage in the same disputes. That short comment in Diogenes Laertius that the wise man will feel his emotions more strongly than others, but this will not be hindrance to his wisdom, becomes not just an isolated fragment but hugely important to seeing where Epicurus fit in these larger disputes.
This week's podcast is a little shorter than normal but contains discussion of an Epicurean viewpoint I bet few have heard of. Cicero tells us that Epicurus pushed back at the attitude of the Cyreniacs - later picked up by the Stoics - that we should constantly think about bad things happening to us. This is interesting material that sheds new light on several other references in the Epicurean texts.
Episode 291 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today our episode is entitled: "Epicurus Pushes Back Against 'Expect The Worst And You'll Never Be Disappointed.'"
VERY nice!
I never think of the Annicerian school!
Thank you. All of that is new to me too!
Also, I see that the original Latin may not imply "foot and horses" but "men and horses"
Cum his "viris equisque" ut dicitur, si honestem tueri ac retinere sententia est, decertandum est.
With this footnote from the Peabody edition:
Latin, viris equisque, literally, with men and horses, i. e. in full military array, with all the strength that I can muster, with might and main.
I'd say that's a quote that's highly relevant to keep in mind as we read Cicero.
When you're fighting someone with all the strength you can muster, sometimes you're going to fight up front and honestly, and sometimes you're going to fight by deception.
This Stoic-sounding statement is very much like Cicero's position that all disturbance should be avoided as stated in Tusculan Disputations:
69 Again, we must keep ourselves free from every disturbing emotion, not only from desire and fear, but also from excessive pain and pleasure, and from anger, so that we may enjoy that calm of soul and freedom from care which bring both moral stability and dignity of character. The retired life.But there have been many and still are many who, while pursuing that calm of soul of which I speak, have withdrawn from civic duty and taken refuge in retirement. Among such have been found the most famous and by far the foremost philosophers[P] and certain other[Q] earnest, thoughtful men who could not endure the conduct of either the people or their leaders; some of them, too, lived in the country and found their pleasure in the management of their private estates. 70 Such men have had the same aims as kings—to suffer no want, to be subject to no authority, to enjoy their liberty, that is, in its essence, to live just as they please.
"...brave he surely cannot possibly be that counts pain the supreme evil, nor temperate he that holds pleasure to be the supreme good."
From Part 1:
5 Moreover, the subject of this inquiry is the common property of all philosophers; for who would presume to call himself a philosopher, if he did not inculcate any lessons of duty? But there are some schools that distort all notions of duty by the theories they propose touching the supreme good and the supreme evil. For he who posits the supreme good as having no connection with virtue and measures it not by a moral standard but by his own interests—if he should be consistent and not rather at times over-ruled by his better nature, he could value neither friendship nor justice nor generosity; and brave he surely cannot possibly be that counts pain the supreme evil, nor temperate he that holds pleasure to be the supreme good.
Reasons for choice of subject and authorities.
6 Although these truths are so self-evident that the subject does not call for discussion, still I have discussed it in another connection. If, therefore, these [9]schools should claim to be consistent, they could not say anything about duty; and no fixed, invariable, natural rules of duty can be posited except by those who say that moral goodness is worth seeking solely or chiefly for its own sake. Accordingly, the teaching of ethics is the peculiar right of the Stoics, the Academicians, and the Peripatetics; for the theories of Aristo, Pyrrho, and Erillus have been long since rejected; and yet they would have the right to discuss duty if they had left us any power of choosing between things, so that there might be a way of finding out what duty is. I shall, therefore, at this time and in this investigation follow chiefly the Stoics, not as a translator, but, as is my custom, I shall at my own option and discretion draw from those sources in such measure and in such manner as shall suit my purpose.
Our "friend" Cicero says:
Now that these schools are out of date, Epicurus has come into vogue—an advocate and supporter of practically the same doctrine. Against such a philosophy we must fight it out "with horse and foot," as the saying is, if our purpose is to defend and maintain our standard of moral rectitude.
116 XXXIII. We have still left our fourth division, comprising propriety, moderation, temperance, self-restraint, self-control.
Can anything be expedient, then, which is contrary to such a chorus of virtues? And yet the Cyrenaics, adherents of the school of Aristippus, and the philosophers who bear the name of Anniceris find all good to consist in pleasure and consider virtue praiseworthy only because it is productive of pleasure. Now that these schools are out of date, Epicurus has come into vogue—an advocate and supporter of practically the same doctrine. Against such a philosophy we must fight it out "with horse and foot," as the saying is, if our purpose is to defend and maintain our standard of moral rectitude.
117 For if, as we find it in the writings of Metrodorus, not only expediency but happiness in life depends wholly upon a sound physical constitution and the reasonable expectation that it will always remain sound, then that expediency—and what is more, the highest expediency, as they estimate it—will [399]assuredly clash with moral rectitude. For, first of all, what position will wisdom occupy in that system? The position of collector of pleasures from every possible source? What a sorry state of servitude for a virtue—to be pandering to sensual pleasure! And what will be the function of wisdom? To make skillful choice between sensual pleasures? Granted that there may be nothing more pleasant, what can be conceived more degrading for wisdom than such a role?
Then again, if anyone hold that pain is the supreme evil, what place in his philosophy has fortitude, which is but indifference to toil and pain? For however many passages there are in which Epicurus speaks right manfully of pain, we must nevertheless consider not what he says, but what it is consistent for a man to say who has defined the good in terms of pleasure and evil in terms of pain.
And further, if I should listen to him, I should find that in many passages he has a great deal to say about temperance and self-control; but "the water will not run," as they say. For how can he commend self-control and yet posit pleasure as the supreme good? For self-control is the foe of the passions, and the passions are the handmaids of pleasure.
118 And yet when it comes to these three cardinal virtues, those philosophers shift and turn as best they can, and not without cleverness. They admit wisdom into their system as the knowledge that provides pleasures and banishes pain; they clear the way for fortitude also in some way to fit in with their doctrines, when they teach that it is a rational means for looking with indifference upon death and [401]for enduring pain. They bring even temperance in—not very easily, to be sure, but still as best they can; for they hold that the height of pleasure is found in the absence of pain. Justice totters or rather, I should say, lies already prostrate; so also with all those virtues which are discernible in social life and the fellowship of human society. For neither goodness nor generosity nor courtesy can exist, any more than friendship can, if they are not sought of and for themselves, but are cultivated only for the sake of sensual pleasure or personal advantage.
Let us now recapitulate briefly.
119 As I have shown that such expediency as is opposed to moral rectitude is no expediency, so I maintain that any and all sensual pleasure is opposed to moral rectitude. And therefore Calliphon and Dinomachus, in my judgment, deserve the greater condemnation; they imagined that they should settle the controversy by coupling pleasure with moral rectitude; as well yoke a man with a beast! But moral rectitude does not accept such a union; she abhors it, spurns it. Why, the supreme good, which ought to be simple, cannot be a compound and mixture of absolutely contradictory qualities. But this theory I have discussed more fully in another connection; for the subject is a large one. Now for the matter before us.
120 We have, then, fully discussed the problem how a question is to be decided, if ever that which seems to be expediency clashes with moral rectitude. But if, on the other hand, the assertion is made that pleasure admits of a show of expediency also, there can still be no possible union between it and moral rectitude. For, to make the most generous admission [403]we can in favour of pleasure, we will grant that it may contribute something that possibly gives some spice to life, but certainly nothing that is really expedient.
Cicero's "De Officiis" is one of his most famous works, but it has been many years since I read it. I don't see it discussed very frequently in Epicurean commentary because I don't recall that it makes as much specific reference to Epicurus as some of his other works, but no doubt the references are there and just need pulling out. I'll tag this thread with #Morality and we can add to this section some of our general dicsussions about morality and social duties.
This: ..."that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions"...
and..."I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties"
So then the question is what are a person's "social duties"?
And that's going to take us down a long road of discussing "social duties" in general. We actually don't have an existing thread on Cicero's "On Duties," which is one of his most famous works, so I will set that up and probably move that there to see talk about what might be the Epicurean commentary on that.
but at the end of the day, I'm not a nihilist.
I'd rather have my life be about pleasure than virtue or duty or spend it whining about the meaninglessness of existence
Very very well stated Sam. Those comments are very close to why I personally got involved in Epicurean philosophy years ago and remain motivated today. To me, most modern "atheism" is sterile and totally unattractive, and does exactly what you reference - end up in nihilism and whining in self-pity about the supposed meaninglessness of existence. I think Epicurus saw exactly that too, and that that's neither true nor good enough for happy living.
Glad to have you here and look forward to hearing more from you. It can be a lonely world for people of these views and it is good to have other like-minded people to talk to.
Welcome Sam Qwerty and Thank you for being persistent in getting registered! For our existing members, I have already heard from Sam and have heard just a little about his background.
Sam, if you'll introduce your background to the group I feel sure you will find that this is a supportive environment for studying Epicurus.
Welcome aboard.
Welcome @Sam_Qwerty !
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!
Maybe they should start by just saying "Epicurus was right all along!"
Good to hear from you Charles. Stay in touch when you can.
As a test to reducing spam registrations, we are switching to requiring that all new participants be approved by an administrator before greeting or allowing a new account to post. if you are requesting an account and have any difficulties, please email the forum administrator.
