Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

I agree with Wilson about this

I'm afraid we can't unwind this without being more clear what we are agreeing with, because i am no longer certain what we are talking about as Wilson's opinion.

As to the bliss drug, let's ask IF IT WORKED TO PRODUCE PERPETUAL LIFETIME BLISS (which seems to be the issue, some of us are presuming it works, others are simply concluding it can't), would you take it? Again, for purposes of this answer, let's presume that the hypothetical is that the bliss drug is in fact effective to produce perpetual uninterrupted bliss for the rest of one's life. And let's just say "lifetime" so that we're not arguing that the bliss pill extends or shortens life.

So :

(1) Is Catherine Wilson saying Epicurus would say to take it, or not? She seems to be saying that most people (with whom she apparently agrees?) would say no, but let's be clear as to what she is saying or implying that Epicurus would say. What is she saying is the Epicurean answer to the bliss drug question?

and therefore in terms of whether you agree with her Don,

(2) Would you (Don) take that pill?

Quote from Don

Finally, I'm just happy to see Epicurus's name in a popular magazine where it's not some Stoic writing how unworthy pleasure is as a goal then going off on their "following nature" and virtue rant.

Ok this is I think a good summary of your point and I certainly agree with it - you're cutting her a lot of slack because of this, and indeed that title -- explicitly promoting Epicurus over Stoicism - is impossible not to appreciate. How infrequently we see anything like that in the popular material that we read is a testament to how bad things are out there. Catherine Wilson deserves tremendous credit from that point of view.

So within that context I can certainly appreciate that you want to be generous. I tend to think the same way -- I've watched some of her videos and I like her personality. She seems honest and friendly and clearly means well. And I think she realizes that even to the small extent she's wandered from the academic orthodoxy, in her circle she's pretty much out on a limb on her own, with few allies. So I can appreciate that she's being brave even being in the game at all.

But having said that, I think Elayne's criticism still stands. It would not be very hard for Wilson to word these passages more accurately, and I don't really think that she was being sloppy -- she seems to really draw back from the full logical conclusions that Epicurus' logic compels her to draw. Elayne's point about Epicurus saying clearly that we sometimes choose pain in order to eventually achieve more pleasure --- that really is a super-fundamental point. I cannot imagine a really no good excuse for her not making that very precisely and clearly except that she doesn't want to -- she doesn't want to say explicitly that wisdom or knowledge is not desirable in itself unless it brings pleasure. That's just too much for the academic world to tolerate, and she's not willing to go there even though that is clear Epicurean doctrine.

As to the bliss pill, I also see Elayne's point that the general principle that she's laying out is very wide from the mark. She's choosing to emphasize that the problem would be that "the causes of pain and pleasure would be obscured." Well, why is that a problem? If the bliss pill works, who cares WHY it works -- that's principle doctrine 10 in spades. The clear implication of this phrasing is that it is the KNOWLEDGE of the causes that is of concern to Wilson. She's clearly implying that knowledge in and of itself is good, which is totally wrong in Epicurean terms. It is even somewhat contradicted by what she has just said in the preceding paragraph, where she implies that the benefit of experiencing pain is to "keep our appetites sharp."

Here's the main point I wanted to come back and add, and this is a little different from what Elayne wrote:

Rather than Wilson failing to appreciate pleasure as a feeling, I think the thing that bothers me about her approach is that she seems to back away from taking the doctrines to their logical conclusions. As Elayne pointed out, her emphasis on the pleasure of "all" is Wilson's own arbitrary humanist addition, and isn't at all supported by the texts. She's universalizing and humanizing the edge because she isn't willing to follow the logical progression to the end, which involves real feelings of pleasure for real people and not universalized abstractions about what would be nice if the world were like that. Same with her observations about "justice."

Probably the best way I can express my concern at the moment is that I think you have to accept that Epicurus was preaching pleasure (a feeling) a the goal while at the same time employing words in a system that he wanted to be rigorously logical and consistent. If you can't follow the principles he set out to their logical conclusions, you're really ignoring them and producing something that might seem pleasing to us for the moment, but isn't true to what Epicurus was teaching.

So I think in order to really understand and appreciate Epicurus you have to be ruthlessly logical in identifying and then applying Epicurus' chain reasoning, as I think is DeWitt's strength. We can debate in good faith all day long whether it is necessary to follow his chain reasoning on eternality and infinity, but even those of us on different sides of that question are on the same team. We ultimately pick up the chain at some point where we all affirm materiality and lack of supernatural forces, and so we're ultimately holding the same chain, just at different starting points.

In ethics though it's hard to say that we're even on the same chain with Catherine Wilson. Wilson understands that "pleasure" is identified as the goal, but she takes all sorts of liberties with other aspects of the ethics, so she reaches conclusions that are more personal preference than they are illustrations of the principles. She's taking principles and showing how SHE applies them without identifying the fundamental issues involved in them, so she ends up teaching "Wilsonism" rather than Epicurus' process, approach, and system. By doing so she lowers the discussion away from the "philosophy" part entirely and makes Epicurus into simply an ethicist with whom we should agree.

My greatest concern then is that because she isn't following the course logically, she ultimately isn't going to be able to deal effectively to what I see to be one of the biggest obstacles we all face -- dealing with the "pleasure as the absence of pain" passages.

Unless you get used to seeing Epicurus as a master logician, you're going to try to make sense of the "by pleasure we mean the absence of pain" passages thinking that he is talking in terms of feelings that we should grasp directly, when -- in my humble opinion - he is talking in primarily LOGICAL terms in order to address the Platonic logical arguments against pleasure as the highest good such as expressed in Philebus. He's expecting us to remember that the logical context is that there are only two feelings, so that BY DEFINITION - by logic - the presence of one equals the absence of the other. If you try to take that passage in purely experiential or "I know it because i feel it" terms without keeping in mind its logical context you're going to crash on the rocks, because in "feeling" terms it doesn't feel right to identify the goal of life - the greatest joy we can experience, as "absence of pain."

You're got to be prepared to approach Epicurus at the same time as both (1) the master architect of human happiness -- a masterful conveyor of the importance of "feeling," as well as (2) a master logician who was superior to Plato in explaining the goal of life in terms of ideas.

If you can't walk both paths then you're going to stumble. If you're too focused on emotion and feeling you will stumble when you confront the logical ideas of the Platonists, but at the other extreme if you're too focused on logic you'll fail because you sound like as much of an emotionless robot as the Stoics.

I firmly think you have to be grounded in *both.* Catherine Wilson is primarily explaining Epicurus in terms of her own feelings, and that's not good enough.

It's kind of a coincidence that I start this thread at the same time as the nearby thread about the hazards of social media use, but:

If anyone who reads this is a Facebook user who is able to keep that bad habit under control, and you'd be interested in helping to keep the Epicurean Philosophy group going, please let us know.

We need to constantly be on the lookout for new potential members here, and despite all their pitfalls, participating to a limited degree on places like Facebook, Reddit, etc, can be useful for making new contacts.

Several of us spend a lot of time "moderating" the facebook group to keep it in line with core Epicurean views, and if you're interested in doing something like that we'd be glad for the help. Looking for new people, bringing them along, and converting them into potential new moderators themselves is an ongoing process that will always be needed, and we need to systematize the process. For example, when someone on Facebook starts regularly making promising posts, we try to invite them to closer conversation to find out about them, and then steer them into closer levels of participation, including here.

That's a fun but time-consuming process, and we need all the help we can get. We do that now on facebook, but it would be ideal to do something similar in other places too.

For example on Facebook, long ago we set up a separate "closed" group where we could talk more freely with new potential members. We invited them to the closed group with a private message like this:

Quote

**Goals and terms of the 2019 Epicurean Friends Facebook Group**

Due to your past active participation in the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group, you have been asked to join this confidential "Friends" Group, which was formed for the purpose of promoting Epicurean Philosophy. The main discussion group is "open," and just like other groups on Facebook there are hundreds of profiles in it which are probably "fake" and which we know nothing about. That means everyone has to be careful about the level of personal information and the depth of personal commentary that we post there. In order that the core regulars of the group can get to know each other better, exchange ideas more freely and confidently, and work together more closely to promote the study of Epicurus, we have set up this "closed/secret" group.

We don't have many ground rules or obligations other than (1) new people will only be added by consensus of the existing members, (2) members agree to keep the information posted there private and not to repost it outside the group without permission of the original poster, and (3) members must introduce themselves within 30 days of being added to the group, and participate actively at least once every thirty days thereafter. If you lose interest in the group and don't post at least once every 30 days, the admins will check on you and ultimately remove you from the group until you ask to be readmitted and are again approved by the group. Also, of course, if you join and then decide later to pull out for any reason, of course you can do that - we just ask that you pledge to keep the conversations private.

Upon suggestion of a new member to the group we will post a thread and receive comments for at least three days, and we'll consider that we have a consensus if no one states affirmative opposition to the suggestion. We will then provide new suggested members with a copy of this post, and let them know that if they'd like to be added we will add them on these ground rules.

Thank you for being a part of the Epicurean Friends Facebook Group.

We've found that a system like that works pretty well to allow us to get to know people over time. By now I think most of us who have been around a while will agree that "time" - in terms of continued quality posting over a period of time - is the best and possibly only method of really getting an idea of the direction someone will go in the future. A few post over a couple of days, or even a couple of weeks, just isn't a reliable indicator. A few posts are enough to judge whether we want to get to know someone better, but there's an essential next step in finding out a little more about them that their stated views, and seeing them sustain that interest and friendliness over a period of time.

So - the bottom line is -- if you'd like to assist at Facebook, or a similar project anywhere else, please post here and we'll go forward from there.

Once again my negligent typing rears its head. Thank you Joshua! I will correct the original but leave these comments to document your assistance!

Quote from JJElbert

Epicurus' core teaching about death is that it is "nothing" to us. This is essential. If what awaited us beyond the grave was eternal torment, no amount or length of pleasure would be adequate to keep us happy.

I particularly agree with that Joshua, even though not everyone might think this is essential. I personally see this as very similar to specific positions on the nature of the gods, and on the erternality / infinity issue. Not everyone is going to feel the same way, but my personal bet is that 80% of the world would never even entertain a philosophy-of-life seriously unless it took a position on these questions.

The more i thought about it the more i expected Elayne to blast the article, and I see I was not disappointed. In my view this is one of Elaynes strongest areas (of many).

I understand (I think) why Don reacted the way he did, because I see this article from several different angles. But there's something fundamentally wrong with Catherine Wilson's approach to Epicurus which really gives us some great oppportunities to discuss.

I really think there is a lot of important material here to digest, and I will probably suggest we cut this out to a public post while treating the politics at a very high level, as Elayne did. But I am in the road for 4 hours so can't do that til tonight. I hope more will comment.

We should never be afraid to disagree with each other and on this topic above all our discussions will help us articulate the issues better and see where obstacles stand in our way.

There's nothing more important than this in Epicurean philosophy, and the road to explaining how we get there is crucial. The interplay of the logic and the feeling aspects still seems to me to be one of those where we can improve our presentation. I see that aspect slightly different from Elayne but I need to work on articulating how. I think Wilson is failing dramatically in her understanding of the logical issues.

Catherine Wilson is providing us great material for growth in these areas.

Notes from similar thread on Facebook:

Poster: If Epicurus lived in our time, would he have used a smartphone?

Elayne:: 😂😂😂 Love it! Of course, he would do the same process as for every choice or avoidance-- consider the total effect on his pleasure and pain, in his own life, knowing his own preferences and situation. He would not make a decision apart from these specifics because pleasure is what must come first.

Matt:

As I posted elsewhere...

In my humble opinion, Epicurus most likely would’ve written a treatise on the use of an iPhone/Internet/Media/Social Media. To show the advantages of how the technology leads to a more pleasurable life.....and conversely if not used WISELY how it can become the greatest tool of creating pain and misery.

Elli:

ES. 41 We must laugh and philosophize at the same time and do our household duties and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.

If Epicurus lived today, definitely he would use iphone, to watch and such kind of videos on youtube for laughing out loud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUm2KWPmnHg

Eis Aiona :    may be smartphone, but FOR SURE NO SOCIAL MEDIA

Actually I want to pull back my first good impression of that bliss drug comment. Now that I look at it again, is the analysis really correct? Is she in fact showing that she does not understand the importance of maintaining that pleasure is pleasure and good in itself, and that the reason that the problem with a bliss drug is its IMPRACTICABILITY, not the desire for total pleasure?

The second paragraph seems to hint at the right analysis, but..... she isn't stating WHY it is good to experience the world as it is....

Elayne I particularly want to know what you think about that! The more I think about it the less I like it. I think she is buying into the "we must have pain in order to experience pleasure" argument which might give us a good example of why Epicurean divinity has an important use -- to illustrate that pain is not necessary to the best life ??????

Oh my this implicates a lot of our discussions! Is Wilson so focused on the practical feeling / experience aspect that she has lost the importance of the "logical" argument by which we must maintain that pleasure is desirable in and of itself? Is this an illustration of how we must constantly recognize BOTH the logical and practical arguments lest we slide down a slope in which we lose our focus on the need for both?

Now I have raised two topics (1) the political angle of the article, and (2) Wilson's bliss drug analysis. Of the two, the SECOND is far more important than the first.

Here is a new article by Catherine Wilson:https://www.newstatesman.com/international/…phy-we-need-now

Who can disagree with the title?

Quote

OK I just looked at this one and see it is actually a new article by Catherine Wilson. It contains some good philosophical points along with some not-so-good, but is something most of us would personally agree with. However it's focused on politics, and my view is that it would probably not be a good idea to post it, especially right now.

All of us in the USA are no doubt aware that political tensions right now are probably higher than any time in our lifetimes, so this is probably a particularly good time to adhere to the posting guidelines for the greater good of our mutual project here.

I almost want to post the article solely for this following paragraph, and I might pull the paragraph out somehow and post it anyway. This increases Catherine Wilson in my estimation, but the danger involved in opening discussion into humanism and politics is probably too great to post the whole article.

I even hesitate to post these confidential comments because I want us to stay away from politics as far and as long as we can. But at the very least we need to be open to discussing where the limits are, and I think at least here in this confidential group we have a close enough relationship we can at least discuss where the limits are, if anyone has any comments.

This is a video that was discussed here some years ago, but only recently became available again:

Thanks Don. There are some significant issues with parts (not all) of the article, as Elli's and Elayne's posts point out, but there are some good parts too and that's part of what we're here for -- to discuss things and help clarify issues for everyone.

Jordan Crago recently posted an article "Epicurean Atheopaganism" on his blog "The Modern Epicurean." You can click through to read that article.

Elli and Elayne have written some lengthy and very good comments on Facebook, and I want to preserve those comments by pasting them here:

Quote

Elli wrote:

In this article we read : "The ancient Epicureans attended religious festivals, visited temples to offer prayers, and formed religious rituals within their communities: they celebrated the 20th of every month to honour Epicurus’ birth, where they would come together and feast". Questions :

1. From where it comes (sources) this argument that Epicurus along with the ancient epicureans formed religious rituals inside the community of the Garden ? 2. What has to do the celebration of one’s birthday with his friends with the practices of a religion? 3. What has to do practicing religiosity and prayers with the practicing in philosophy ?

Answers : VS65. It is pointless for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself.

I recommend constant activity in the study of Nature i.e. I recommend constant activity in Physiology i.e. Physics, Gnosiology i.e. Canon that both are connected with scientific works, knowledges, and doings along with Ethics that is a way of life, which above all, respects the uniqueness of the person, but mostly is not connected with sacred orders or doings. And only the word "sacred" ethics it reminds me the sacred maxims in Delphi and sacred orders along with mysticism of the clergy. So, says Epicurus, the only I recommend is the constant activity in the study of Nature and in this way MORE than any other I enjoy calm in my life.
Another point in this article that I would like to comment: "Lucretius’ conceptual or allegorical Venus is playing many roles in this hymn: she is the mother of Romans."

What ? only the Romans had a mother with the name Venus ? What about the other Nations? What is the name of the mother as goddess or the archetype of other Nations? Name her please.

If we want to play with the concepts of the words that are connected with symbols, archetypes and names, and if we connect the gods with a nation and the conquerors of Epicurus' nation, here it follows the conclusion that the victorious of wars impose to others the archetypes of gods that have in their minds. And if we would like to connect Lucretius’ Venus as mother of Romans with the pleasure of the Romans that were the conquerors (historically proved) of the nation of Epicurus, the pleasure of Romans has nothing to do with the pleasure of Epicurus and his fellow compatriots.

And if we want to extent this more, here how comes the conclusion that the consequences of any practicing of religion is leading to wars and strife.

My above argument is based on this, that I would like to make it more clear : When Lucretius wrote his book DRN and it started with the hymn in Venus as a mother of Romans, his book was addressed to only one person, Memmius that was a Roman too. Lucretius did not have the intension to proselytize others in an archetype that has in his mind. He did not have the intension to impose the ideal and the archetype as a goddess with the name Venus to other Nations and the mob. So, the hymn to Venus by Lucretius and his pleasure, as connected with an archetype was a very personal issue for him and in extension to his known person as Memmius.

Sorry, I do not agree, we do not get along on the basis with practices in religiosity. Epicurus said it clearly:

The wise man gather together a SCHOOL, but even he gather together in a school, he never so as to become a leader of crowds.

"Atheopaganism" as a term includes the suffix-ism and declares that is an ideological system that has a leader and followers. Epicurean philosophy is not Epicureanism. No, it is not a system and never would be. It is a philosophy as a way of life that has no leaders and followers because above all it respects the uniqueness of the person in any place and in any Nation knowing and this : a man cannot become wise in every kind of physical constitution, or in every nation.

“I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them, the will to a system is a lack of integrity.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Display More

Quote

Elayne wrote: I'm glad you decided to be Epicurean!

I have a few comments. On the idea that religion makes people happier (and this is measured as pleasuredness so far as I've seen, the feeling and not an abstraction), this is not established. There are some correlations-- if one lives in a religious culture, there are some studies showing more happiness. The big confounding factors there could be differences in access to social capital, feeling like one fits in, and maybe being persecuted by religionists.

There is an association between extreme economic disparity and increased religiosity, which seems to be causal in that the disparity happens first, and when it is relieved, religiosity decreases.

There is a consistent correlation between higher IQ and lower religiosity. Idk how that relates to happiness, but just an example of a potential confounder.

Countries with lower economic disparity and lower religiosity tend to be higher in happiness ratings than religious countries. Whether that's due to economics, atheism, or another factor, idk-- but it's at least evidence that religiosity isn't necessary for happiness .

Second-- the atheopagan principle of pleasure being good IF it harms no one else is not Epicurean at all, and the difference is critical to understand. That's paganism-- "and it harm none"-- but it puts some other good, nonharming, higher than pleasure, bc whatever limits a good must be more important.

EP doesn't say that. Most of us simply don't desire to harm others. It would cause us direct and immediate pain. Those of us who are less empathetic can be influenced by the prospect of being caught and punished. The result is usually still non-harming, but not always. Using pleasure quickly solves those issues like self defense, deadly defense for one's child, etc. Having the single top standard of pleasure prevents having to say there are exceptions to one's primary goal-- pleasure is always the goal.

Third, ataraxia does not mean a type of pleasure. It is the absence of mental distress. It doesn't describe the pleasure that is present anymore than absence of void describes matter. We do not put tranquility as some higher type of pleasure. Our goal is actually pleasure.

Display More

Quote

Elli wrote:

As it well known, the latest agreeable definition of health is that is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

"Of the wise man" quotes we also read: "Even if the wise man should lose his eyesight, he will not end his whole life". And that is because as long as that wise man lives is able to feel pleasure and eudeamonia in his life.

The same with the definition of health, is for pleasure that is a feeling of complete physical, mental and well-being, and as Epicurus said it with the word "eudaemonia", and not merely the absence of the feeling of pain or the absence of tranquility.

But most of the people do not understand that Epicurus, with the usage of terms as aponia and ataraxia, was one of his efforts to show the limit of pleasure in the accusation that was done by Plato et al. who said that Pleasure is something that extents to infinite and can't be fullfilled as a feeling from anywhere, as they also said that pleasure is the goal of the profligates. For this Epicurus said and this also VS 59. It is not the stomach that is insatiable, as is generally said, but the false opinion that the stomach needs an unlimited amount to fill it.

And from Meneoceus : When therefore we say that pleasure is the end we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in high living, as certain people think, either not understanding us and holding to different views or willfully misrepresenting us; but we mean freedom from pain in the body and turmoil in the soul. For it is not protracted drinking bouts and revels nor yet sexual pleasures with boys and women nor rare dishes of fish and the rest – all the delicacies that the luxurious table bears – that beget the happy life but rather sober calculation, which searches out the reasons for every choice and avoidance and expels the false opinions, the source of most of the turmoil that seizes upon the souls of men.

A false opinion is that when someoene prays to the gods, gods will get interest for his prayer, and without doing something more BENEFICIAL and PRACTICAL then suddenly he feels pleasure, when the whole society around him is collapsed from many other reasons e.g. the coronavirus... and he, what is he doing ? He just prays !

71. Every desire must be confronted by this question: what will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished and what if it is not ?

Just pray, and then be sure that you would find the right answer in the above question!

1

Display More

Bryan thank you for posting the translation notes! I know that many people here are interested to know more about you.

And I wonder if you have any readings of Lucretius that might be of interest here. We used to have access to some excellent readings of the Latin by a very good contributor, but we lost those when the older Facebook group was deleted.

This difference in perspective among people keyed into the issues is fascinating!

"That's what I find so intriguing about the range of words translated as happy from the texts: makarios, eudaimonia, then types of happiness like euphrosyne and khara."

Don is it safe to presume that these words had different shades of meaning, so that using happiness in each case is almost certainly overbroad?

Thanks for your question Godfrey - it prompted me to move these comments under the thread started back in 2019. It's long past time to discuss this further!

Admin Note: Don asked a great question of Matt about happiness vs pleasure, and that discussion needs to continue as long as appropriate, but so as not to disrupt this thread on science and eterrnality etc, I clipped that out and moved it here: RE: On "Happiness" As An Abstraction / "Pleasure" As a Feeling. As for Matt's comment, let's include in this thread issues such as how do you know that there is no supernatural retribution or reward?

Hello and welcome to the forum Bryan ! [Admin note from Cassius: If I recognize the user avatar / icon correctly, welcome indeed!!! ]

This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

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

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. "A Few Days In Athens" by Frances Wright
3. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
4. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
5. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
6. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
7. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
8. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
9. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
10. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
11. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
12. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.

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

Welcome to the forum!

Quote from Matt

If scientists are going to unanimously start preaching pantheism and creationism etc. presumably they will come bearing significant evidence? More so than anecdotal evidence from religionists.

And this is my issue with overly-broad references to "science" and "scientists." -- Which scientists are we going to listen to, when they disagree among themselves. I seem to remember when I was younger that people were so jaded about Russian scientists speaking the party line rather than the truth that that would be an example of the type of scientist definitely not to follow. And it's really hard to achieve much by saying "reputable scientists" or "the majority of scientists" because we can all point to examples when the scientific consensus on something was wrong. And if we stick to the broadest formulation "science says..." I again think we're doing only a little more than those who say "the bible says...."

Quote from Matt

I'll have to watch myself...yes they are one in the same.

Is it? I think that's actually one of the subtexts that we are discussing. Are they really "one and the same"? I would say that we likely have to view them differently -- pleasure is a feeling which we know without logical analysis; happiness may also be thought of as feeling, but seems to be a higher-level construction that contains mental operations beyond just feeling. Of course the word "pleasure" is not itself a feeling, but a word that denominates a feeling.

I guess this is why Epicurus was wise to refer more centrally to pleasure than to "happiness," but more than that, it's probably an important part of Epicurean philosophy to explain this point and prevent people from being confused in their own minds about this.

And that's where we get back to the issues of science and theories etc -- we can point to the feeling of pleasure and observe instances of it, but don't we also want to be able to explain in words to other people what we're talking about? So we have to move not only from observation of instances to a systematized explanation that people can understand, and that's not altogether easy to do.