Posts by Cassius

Thanks I will look into that! The existing podcast provider does have a transcript, but it is not very good.

Planning yes, but schedule unknown. It's a big effort. However I am coming around to the idea that the podcast audio versions can serve as a "first draft" that when edited further turn into really good articles with wider impact. So yes I am going to work on more of these!

Substack transcript version of this podcast available here:

Is It Truly Impossible - As Cicero Alleges - To Advocate For Epicurus In The Public Sphere?

From Episode 303 of the Lucretius Today Podcast

epicureanfriends.substack.com

Quote from Don

I will admit I didn't read this entire thread, but that's never slowed me down before.

I already "liked" the main post but I can't resist adding an set of here.

Quote from SillyApe

As such, trust in the law for protection is not an effective option. I understand that building a strong community can be helpful(as I believe this is one of the many forms of security that can be increased with the help of friendship), but what else can I and other people do to deal with anger, resentment, and especially anxiety in scenarios like this? What would Epicurus and his followers advise?

SillyApe

I am sorry to hear all that which you posted. You have raised all sorts of issues which are impossible to deal with directly without more details, but you are also right that it would probably not be appropriate for us to try to go further into details which are no doubt very specific to circumstances.

I definitely think however that what you have raised can lead to generally helpful discussion of how to analyze any situation.

And it seems to me that if you truly have reached a stage where "trust in the law for protection is not an effective option" then your first priority must be to do what you can to secure the safety of yourself and your friends. Whether that requires what Kalosyni mentions of moving to another area is too fact-specific to say, but I personally not would not approach what you are describing as primarily a therapy issue, once you make sure that you avoid being out of control (which I gather is a concern per this comment:

Quote from SillyApe

When I read this, my blood began to boil as never before. I started shaking with anger.

So long as you do not let anger or any other emotion make you act irrationally, I would seek to use the anger as a spur to taking appropriate action. There are references in the fragments to Philodemus stating that Epicurus held some types of anger to be appropriate. In fact the last thing i would do would be to prioritize "calming down" over taking firm action, if firm action is in fact required. In recent podcasts we've seen Cicero take the Peripatetics to task for too loose a willingness to compromise with certain types of strong emotion, but with Epicurus the focus is always on the result, not that there is a magic quantity (zero or any other quantity) which is always bad or always good.

Epicurus left not one but two locations under terms from which we might infer that he was not welcome in those locations, so yes Epicurean philosophy will offer advice on keeping anger under control, but remember also that Epicurus says that the wise man will feel his emotions more deeply than others, and this will not be a hindrance to his wisdom.

No doubt PDO6 is relevant, and there are other references that make the same point that safety is an extremely high priority.

PD06. In order that men might not fear one another, there was a natural benefit to be had from government and kingship, provided that they are able to bring about this result. PD06: The translation given is by Mensch. Formerly we used Eugene O’Connor from “The Essential Epicurus": "Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.” Bailey: “To secure protection from men anything is a natural good by which you may be able to attain this end.” New Greek Version: “In order to obtain security from other people, there was (always) the natural good of sovereignty and kingship, through which (someone) once could have accomplished this.” This version is up for review given that the Greek for sovereignty and kingship clearly appears in the text but is emended out by Usener and others. See the discussion of PD06 for further detail.

Also there is PD14. The most unalloyed source of protection from men, which is secured to some extent by a certain force of expulsion, is in fact the immunity which results from a quiet life, and retirement from the world.

And also PD39 and PD40:

PD39. The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus.

PD40. As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbors, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and, after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.

At first thought I think that Dr. Austin touches on the subject (maybe repeatedly) but I don't think there is a chapter devoted to it.

For that I would recommend the DeWitt book, which treats it extensively, but equally or more so I would recommend the article "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism" by Dr. David Sedley. i think we have it here or it's readily available on Academia -- if you can't find it let us know!

You'll find that most here agree with you, and that Emily Austin agrees and talks about this in chapter 4 of her book "Living for Pleasure" under the title "Natural Hedonism.

Quote from wbernys

I'm become more interested in psychological hedonism (the thesis that all human actions are due to avoiding pain and increasing pleasure) and curious your guys thoughts on it.

Mark Twain makes the same argument in his "What Is Man" as well.

Epicurus has a very expansive view of pleasure that goes far beyond just physical stimulation, and yes that definitely plays into the idea that everyone acts for what they perceive to be their best interests.

My own view of employing the psychological hedonism argument in this context is that while there is a lot of merit depending on how it is presented (as Twain does), I don't find it particularly useful on the deeper and more important point of decided what the word "pleasure' really should be held to mean. it's one thing to say that every in truth acts for what they think will bring them the best result, but how that result correlates to "pleasure" is really the issue, and saying that "everyone does it" doesn't really help with that, at least from my point of view. All the other lemmings may be jumping off the cliff, but observing that everyone is doing it doesn't really help me decide that I should follow that path myself.

Welcome to Episode 304 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 covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean perspective. Today we wrap up our discussion of Part 3 with Section XXI and push forward into Part 4, after which we will devote our final episodes devoted to Tusculan Disputations by examining Part 5 on whether virtue alone is sufficient for happiness.

Episode 303 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Is It Truly Impossible To Advocate For Epicurus In The Public Sphere?"

Elli's comment on Facebook:

Quote

Dear epicurean friend Cassius, your comment is invaluable - not merely insightful, but absolutely necessary. The image of Epicurus as a “drunken rogue” is not just a misunderstanding; it is a historical distortion. And no matter how humorous or technically polished the presentation may be, the essence remains: what is being promoted is a caricature that insults the philosophy of the Garden.

This video, however “well-made” it may be, reproduces a Buddhist-Stoic version of Epicurus, stripped of his active stance toward pleasure, pain, and life. Epicurus #was #not #a #passive #ascetic who “wants nothing so as not to suffer.” He was a philosopher of choice, evaluation, and presence. His phrase “I would not know the meaning of the good without the stimulating pleasures” is not rhetorical flourish; it is an ontological position. And its omission from the video is not innocent, it is misleading.

So I ask: Who created this video? What is its intended purpose? Why choose to portray Epicurus as ridiculous, weak, and inconsistent? Why omit his clearest statements about pleasure, pain, and active living? Why reproduce a stereotype that even his ancient opponents did not dare to use?

Cicero and Plutarch, despite their disagreements, knew that his thought was coherent, radical, and dangerously compelling. In contrast, today we see “admirers” portraying him as a toga-party dropout spouting nonsense and collapsing from excess. That is not Epicurus. That is an insult.

And yes, as you said, the solution is not to reject the video outright, but to use it as a prompt to return to the texts, to the real experiences of life and to conscious choices. Because Epicurus was never “simplistic.” He was clear, very clear. And his clarity is not deprivation, it is fullness without fear, leading us - with his philosophy - to genuine pleasure and freedom!

Despite my own past reading in this subject I've never opened a forum on this comparison, but it's probably time to do so and should lead to all sorts of points of disagreement, especially in ethics but also (or especially) in canonics. Please remember our forum rules and confine this dscussion to philosophical issues rather than the political issues with which she is commonly identified. it may also be appropriate here to talk about "Libertarianism," but again focusing on its philosophical roots and not on its political implementation.

Years ago I wrote this article at NewEpicurean about Objectivism, but there may be people here on the forum who would like to explore the philosophical (rather than political) aspects of this topic.

Objectivism: The “Worst and Most Dangerous” Philosophy In America – NewEpicurean

Given Rand's emphasis on Aristotle and her in her own writing (to my knowledge) stiffing Epicurus from even any mention, I think there are important philosophical problems in Objectivism that would be worthwhile to discuss.

Feel free to comment here in this thread or open your own thread in this section.

Bailey uses lots of "whits" which are likely much better rendered in modern English as "bits."

Similarly, "needs be" is much better as "necessarily be" and "aught" is better as "anything"

Also:

forsooth -> indeed

perchance -> perhaps

thou and thee -> You

verily -> truly

must needs -> must necessarily

There are no doubt many other examples where Bailey can be improved. We can't hope for perfection but before we invest a lot of effort in a text to speech version we might as well start with a version that doesn't perpetuate the worst of the possible poor word choices.

Another rendering by Bailey that has always bothered me is this one at Book 2:37:

But if we see that these thoughts are mere mirth and mockery, and in very truth the fears of men and the cares that dog them fear not the clash of arms nor the weapons of war, but pass boldly among kings and lords of the world, nor dread the glitter that comes from gold nor the bright sheen of the purple robe, can you doubt that all such power belongs to reason alone, above all when the whole of life is but a struggle in darkness?

I don't find this one as objectionable as my first example, but the phrase "belongs to reason alone" is easy to misinterpret if someone isn't aware of Epicurus' views on logic and the priority of the senses, and "when the whole of life is but a struggle in darkness" is easy to read in a negative way that Lucretis is implying that the whole of life IS and HAS TO REMAIN a struggle in darkness.

Munro does better with his "withal" to indicate that the whole of life does not have to be a struggle in the dark:

how can you doubt that this is wholly the prerogative of reason, when the whole of life withal is a struggle in the dark?

And Dunster doesn't make it so easy to misinterpret the Epicurean position on reason by saying "want of sense":

Do you doubt but all this stuff is want of sense, and all our life is groping in the dark?

So here I would combine Dunster and Munro to improve that final statement.

If you are aware of particularly problematic sections of Lucretius where some translations seem better than others, please point them out. Here's one example:

At Book 1:449, Bailey renders "eventum" as "accidents," which I think is exactly the wrong implication in modern American English. "Accident" today has more of a meaning of "chaotic" or "truly accidental," and implies that any particular moment anything can happen. The real sense seems to me to be rather that what happens is simply "without intention," but in fact what does happen is not chaotic or "accidental" at all, but in fact a necessary result of the properties of the atoms as they move through the void. Rather than "accidental," most things are in fact closer to be "determined" rather being the result of a universe in which "anything" can happen.

Dunster does better by leaving the main word as "event" rather than introducing "accident." "Event" is a more neutral term in English that just conveys "it happens" rather than implying that things happen chaotically. So in this section I'll make the "modern American version" follow Dunster rather than Bailey:

Lucretius Side-by-Side

I'm posting this in the "News And Announcements" section to keep this post readily visible on the forum for the foreseeable future. This is a highly desirable project that is now readily doable combining (1) our past work on compiling versions of Lucretius with (2) readily-available good quality AI text-to-speech generation.

Thread

Preparing A Public Domain Audio And Text Version Lucretius In Modern American English

The title of the post states the goal: I want a freely accessible good quality audio version of Lucretius rendered into modern American English based on the best translations currently available. This goal is going to take quite a while to accomplish and it will require several steps:

1. We need a text that has been prepared from the best public domain versions available, "conformed" into a mashup-edition that avoids archaic or over-academic constructions but still highly accurate and as literal

…

Cassius

October 16, 2025 at 2:42 PM

The title of the post states the goal: I want a freely accessible good quality audio version of Lucretius rendered into modern American English based on the best translations currently available. This goal is going to take quite a while to accomplish and it will require several steps:

1. We need a text that has been prepared from the best public domain versions available, "conformed" into a mashup-edition that avoids archaic or over-academic constructions but still highly accurate and as literal as possible. That will require the version be in prose rather than poetry.
2. We already have three side-by side public domain translations that can be used to compile a revised version. They can be viewed here on the web.
3. I created a Google Doc with the Bailey edition as a base and we can use that to make changes based on better word choice in the other editions. As set up now anyone can view the latest version at that link. I will grant commenting permission to anyone here on the forum who asks, and I will appreciate as many people as possible making editing comments. We can discuss those proposed changes in the comments and I will then incorporate into the body of the text. At regular intervals I will export to markdown and we'll add this version back to the side-by-side page where it can be selected or deselected along with the other three translations.
4. After we have an improved text we will want to create a text-to-speech version and export to MP3 where we can make this publicly available for download. In order to accomplish that we'll need to do the following:
5. Find an affordable AI text-to-speech generator with a very professional voice. I suspect we want standard Mid-West style accent that is serious but not overly dramatic. I'm forever indebted to the Charlton Griffin version available at Audible.com, but I find it overly dramatic and even pompous in tone at places, and I don't think that's the right tone. The most widely useful version would likely not sound like Biblical/Apocalyptic tone, or even "Thus Spake Zarathustra, but rather serious and insistent without sounding like an eccentric fanatic.

Steps where you can help:

1. Keep prompting us to move this forward when things seem to slow down for a period of time.
2. Make suggestions for consolidating better language from other translations to substitute for issue with the Bailey version.
3. Make suggestions for AI text-to-speech generation. That includes going through the many website offerings to find the best mix of affordable (preferably free, but at last reasonable cost) that will produce output recordable and usable in the public-domain. This will also likely mean generating a "prompt" that will give instruction as to the way the voice should read the text. For example as a start
   1. "Render the following text in a very professional voice with Mid-West American accent that is serious but not overly dramatic. The voice should never be pompous or fanatical but rather serious and insistent while always being friendly."

Comments and suggestions for how to proceed are welcome. I am sure there are versions already available, and there will be more in the future, but I'd like to see one that will forever be public doman, and is based on a revised and "conformed" copy of the best texts, and that won't happen anywhere else but here.

Glad to have you Zarathustra. All of the topics you mentioned are of great interest here. I personally am among those most interested in the Nietzsche relationship, but I'm no expert on Nietzsche so I'm of limited use other than in being convinced that there's a fascinating relationship. I think I'll tag Elli in Thessaloniki in this comment as I know she has shared my interest in that for many years. She introduced me to a Greek writer by the name of Liantinis who is related to this interest.

If you run into any issues in using the forum let us know.

This is a first draft of an entry on this topic for the FAQ section.

I consider the heart of what needs expansion not to be the discussion of natural and necessary, but - after we have obtained what is necessary, and once we have identified that unnatural desires have no limit and should not be pursued - how we personally answer the question of how to decide from among the options that that are available to us.

We hitting in other places and will establish elsewhere that (1) pleasure IS the guide/goal of life, and that (2) we should NOT engage in the unlimited pursuit of any desire that is otherwise fine when kept within limit (even power, fame, money).

So those are addressed here but not as the exclusive focus of the answer.

What I think needs further expansion is the discussion of what factors to consider in choosing among options AFTER we are agreed that (1) and (2) are correct starting points.

When you have a chance please look over the text here and add your comments and suggestions to this thread so we can revise the existing version over time.

After I Identify Pleasure As The Guide of Life, Which Pleasures Should I Pursue? - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Below is the version when first posted. I will be regularly revising this as we go forward, so check the link above for the latest updates.

• 1. We will generally focus on Epicurus' division of the desires into natural and necessary classifications, but first, before anything else, we have to realize that these categories are contextual and cannot be described or implemented in absolute terms.
  • 1.1. "And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided." Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good. "[Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus 129]
• 2. Generally we will prioritize pursuing pleasures that are necessary for life. Therefore the first step at any particular moment of life is to confirm that you can expect your future life to be more pleasurable than painful. In almost every instance this is true, and in general it is a very small person who has more reasons for ending his life than living it. But this is not always true, as sometimes you will choose death, when the alternative of living on would be worse
  • 2.1. "[The lofty spirit] is schooled to encounter pain by recollecting that pains of great severity are ended by death, and slight ones have frequent intervals of respite; while those of medium intensity lie within our own control: we can bear them if they are endurable, or if they are not, we may serenely quit life's theater, when the play has ceased to please us."[ Torquatus in Cicero's On Ends, I:XV]
• 3. After confirming that it makes sense to live on, first obtain those pleasures which are necessary for continued life. These are presumably the basics of life such as air, food, water, shelter, and the like.
• 4. After obtaining the pleasures necessary for life, and after confirming that you can expect your remaining time of life to make available more pleasure than pain, consider whether the additional pleasures you choose to pursue are natural, in that they have a limit, or are unnatural, in that by their very nature you can never achieve them (such as unlimited amounts of time, fame, power, riches). This analysis allows you to forecast whether the pursuit of a pleasure is likely to lead to more pain than pleasure.
  • 4.1. The principle of the natural and necessary classification is as follows: "Nothing could be more useful or more conducive to well-being than Epicurus's doctrine as to the different classes of the desires. 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."
• 5. At this point when you know that it makes sense to continue to live, and you secure the pleasures that are necessary to life, and you identify what will likely be many options for pursuing desires that will lead to more pleasure than pain, you choose from among those options to pursue the most pleasant life according to the following considerations:
  • 5.1. Remember that the "most pleasant" does not equate either to the largest quantity or the longest time.
    • 5.1.1. "And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant."[Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus 126
  • 5.2. Remember that all pleasures are not identical and interchangeable, because they do not all have the same intensity, last the same period of time, or affect the same aras of the body and mind.
    • 5.2.1. "PD09. If every pleasure could be intensified so that it lasted, and influenced the whole organism or the most essential parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another."
  • 5.3. Remember that what others tell you is the most desirable or undesirable life is not the ultimate test of what is in fact most pleasant to you.
    • 5.3.1. PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.
  • 5.4. The ultimate test of what to pleasure pursue is reality - whether it in fact leads to the most pleasant life.
    • 5.4.1. VS71. 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?
• 6. Other Reference Material:
  • 6.1. EpicureanFriends Forum On Pleasure As The Guide of Life
  • 6.2. EpicureanFriends Forum on Natural and Necessary Desires

This is an old topic but it comes up regularly, and we need a summary of where we are on this. At the time of this writing (and I will update this pinned post) probably the best existing handouts in PDF form suitable for printing are:

1. AxA's general brochure in PDF
2. Kalosyni's general brochure
3. Al Hakiim's general brochure

I know that we have others, and i need to go through the older posts in this forum and find them and add them here. We need many more than one option, so they can be selectively used according to circumstance. If you know of one that needs to be highlighted here please post in this thread and I'll update this pinned post.