Posts by Cassius

AlteFrau tells us:

This is to confirm my request for a new account.

I have always been interested in religion and philo. I am irreligious, so philo has been my go-to when wondering how to find meaning. Emotionally I am Schopenhauerian, but I have also read and re-read and re-read The Meditations and Epictetus. When I read Cicero's arguments against Epicureanism , however, I thought, Hold on, this sounds really good! Rather than strive (and fail again and again) toward The Good, why not move away from The Bad? So I decided to read everything I could about E and decided to live my life accordingly as much as possible. I don't live in a garden with friends, but I have attempted to align myself with E ideals. Last year my father died, and it was horrible. I moved into his little apartment for his last month while he was in hospice. We did not always have a good relationship. I was away from my husband and my Pomeranian, who was very old and sick at the time, and I cried a lot. But what got me through it was NOT being stoic and thinking about filial piety or being brave, but making the decision to move (emotionally) away from resentment and away from anger. My sister is a born-again xian and she had a harder time with this than I did because our dad was not a xian and she is now worried about his soul. But death is nothing, isn't it?

Anyway, that's my background with this.

Welcome AlteFrau

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!

Not commenting at the moment on the AI aspect but on this specifically:

Quote from TauPhi

Most people would choose to sacrifice their humanity for blessedness and incorruptibility

I don't see this as a productive way to state the problem. I would CERTAINLY like to be blessed and incorruptible presuming those mean having the power to pursue pleasures without end and never being burdened with sickness or death. Where we can improve either our minds or bodies we should. The devil is always in the details and I don't see retaining humanity to mean that we can't further expand our health and our life spans and even our ability to think.

And I don't think that Epicurus saw "living as gods among men"' being incompatible with that.

In another conversation Don has recently mentioned "Rorschach tests" and I think the Epicurean gods are one. We are all projecting what it means to be an Epicurean god and we're doing so in very different ways, and the divide on these issues can't be bridged without being very specific about what we are talking about. I don't think Epicurus saw anything incompatible between himself as a human and what he saw as Epicurean gods - we just don't have the medical/technical/etc ability to get there, but there's no theoretical barrier to getting a lot closer to their status. And that's why I think DeWitt made a key observation to point out that there is textual support for the view that Epicurus held that the gods must ACT to maintain their blessedness and incorruptibility.

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

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

Welcome to Episode 337 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 start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues. This week will continue in Section 8 of Book 2

TRANSCRIPT OF EPISODE

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here:

• Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

CelestineEyes tells us:

Hi,

I've been following Stoic philosophy for years and I was a coach with Albert Ellis 30 years ago. I've been studying epicureanism for a while and just recently got back into it. I live in Europe right now and I noticed that the eat drink and be merry is wonderful, but drunkenness everyday is never the solution. So lately I've been focusing more on dr Emily Austin's audios and similar messages. I'm 62 years old + I'm both American and Australian.

Welcome celestineyes22

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!

Quote from Todd

This is a straw man argument. Such a person would certainly choose a lesser pain as a means of avoiding a greater one.

Thanks for your comments. I don't think that is a straw man argument at all. It is exactly this part of what Epicurus says - that we DO sometimes choose pain to maximize pleasure - that is in issue.

I wouldn't normally think it necessary to point this out (that we sometimes choose pain) but it is being ignored by the "painfree" chorus, and even if mentioned at all only in an exceptional way, never clearly stated to be something we can and should do on a routine basis to maximize pleasure.

This thread is for discussion of the blog article "Living For Pleasure, Or Dying For Relief From Pain?"

Blog Article

Living For Pleasure, Or Dying For Relief From Pain?

[…]

---

Is The "Emphasis" In Epicurean Philosophy On Relief From Pain?

In a separate article I have made the case that it is a major rhetorical and factual mistake to describe Epicurean philosophy as primarily about relief from pain. Jack Gedney, a writer on Substack, responded with an article referencing me and affirming his contention that pain relief is indeed the primary emphasis of Epicurus. The title of the second article changed the focus slightly from "primary" to "emphasizes," but Gedney…

Cassius

June 5, 2026 at 1:35 PM

As a reminder of what it means to be Cartesian, which Wikipedia emphasizes LeGrande was, there's this from Wikipedia:

Quote

Cartesians view the mind as being wholly separate from the corporeal body. Sensation and the perception of reality are thought to be the source of untruth and illusions, with the only reliable truths to be had in the existence of a metaphysical mind. Such a mind can perhaps interact with a physical body, but it does not exist in the body, nor even in the same physical plane as the body.

I agree Tau Phi.

And thank you again. This is a major contribution here. We have to take the bad along with the good and process it all.

My verdict is that this book is an abomination, but a highly useful one.

It might deserve the award of being the first "truly modern" book on Epicurus that has led the way toward the numerous watered-down versions of Epicurean philosophy that we have today.

It's best use is going to be the evidence is gives to diagnose how non-Epicurean of orientations can latch on to certain aspects of what Epicurus wrote and enlist them for very non-Epicurean goals. This tactic is probably even more clear here than it is in Gassendi. To give Gassendi credit, he paid considerable attention to Epicurean physics and canonics. LeGrande totally ignores them. Now that I've gone through it all i can confirm that there is ZERO physics and ZERO canonics in it.

I would summarize what LeGrande has done as that he has featured the psychological hedonism "everyone pursues pleasure" argument early in the book. This takes the teeth out of pleasure as a philosophical goal and turns it into nothing more than live-simply advice: Isolate oneself from society, shun sex and marriage and children as more trouble than they are worth, and assorted other homespun positions. Then eliminate almost all further reference to Epicurus in favor of a very conventional "eternal wisdom" and "faith"-based virtue-ethics morality. Praise Plato, but not Arisotle, because Aristotle dared to say that strong emotions may sometimes be beneficial.

The final paragraph of the book, which makes no mention whatsoever of Epicurus, but fittingly cites Plato.

Quote

As Love according to Plato, is the bond of the Universe, and causes
that good Intelligence to arise, which is observed in each of its parts;
Friendship has not its subsistence but through Vertue, it derives all
its Glory from its Merit, and ceases being True as soon as it leaves off
further Converse with it. The Antients, whose Ignorance and Infidelity
had buried them in darkness, had of it but an imperfect shadow, and
the cause of its birth, being wanting to them, they could never ingage
themselves but into affections that were Illegitimate. But as soon as the
Eternal Wisdom dissipated their darkness, that Faith began to cast its
beams into their hearts, Friendship was re-established in the World, Men
lived in a Community, their thoughts were no more divided then their
goods, and all agreeing in one and the same Principle, they discovered
in their Republick the image and representation of an Eternal Peace. So
that Vertue is the soul of Friendship, it is requisite that the knot which
unites the Hearts should be sacred, and derive its Force from Piety, to
become True and Real.
FINIS.

Display More

I would suggest that a representative sample of the Christianization of this work is the "Third Discourse" on Celibacy starting on page 45 of the PDF. Yes indeed this represents a species of modern Epicureanism, but i can't imagine Epicurus taking considering what this chapter contains to be generally wise advice. It gets worse after the passage I quoted above.

Here' are more examples:

Quote

Marriage is the partage of those who are
either Incontinent or Slaves, and that person must needs lose his Liberty,
or his Reason, who will ingage himself to it, without an unavoidable
Necessity.

Quote

But the reasons that are brought to forbid a second
Marriage, are but little better then insignificant and Non-sence, to give
Epicurus satisfaction; This Philosopher condemns it in all his Writings
and though he believes it may be permitted, yet he neither judges it
honest or reasonable. He can never persuade himself that a Woman had
any Affections for her former Husband, who ingages her self to another,
and he accounts her Infamous every time that she proves unfaithful to
him. He instances to us in heathenish Women, who have preferr’d Death
to the bonds of Marriage, and chosen rather to burn in the Fire, then to
lose their Liberty a second time. ‘Tis to be ignorant of the miseries of
her first condition, to aspire at the same again, and to be insensible she
has ever been unhappy to entertain the Addresses of her new Votaries
after she has once been released from the grievances of Marriage. But
peradventure her first Affections have been very Fortunate, and she
found in the person of her Husband rather an Amorous Gallant then a
Domineering Master: Who then can assure her that he who shall succeed
him, will have the same passion for her? Since that which ought to feed
it, will be dying dayly, her Charms will diminish, her Beauty languish,
and all the Pains she can possibly be at to conserve it, have not power
enough to keep her from growing Old. A Husband looks not upon
another’s leavings but with Disgust, and he without any Regret can see
that Face decay, of which he has not cropt the Flower. If her Marriage
has been Unfortunate, dares she venture her Person a second time, and
run the risque of being miserable all the days of her life? Surely she
must have lost her Sences that is in love with Slavery, and purchase the
pleasure of a Beast at the expence of her Liberty.

Display More

Quote

How happy then is the Caelibate Life, if compared to Marriage,
and how redevable are those persons to the goodness of Heaven, who
are exempt from those Frailties which ingage even the greatest part of
Mankind to it! For if Virginity be a Grace, Continence is a Vertue, it is
an aspiring to that Sanctity that preferrs the Spirit to the Flesh, and to
contemn the Inhabitants of the Earth, to pursue the intelligences which
the Heav’ns are imploy’d in.

Display More

Here's a real gem:

Quote

Envy has its beginning
from the Eyes, and could never torment the base and unworthy, but that
the Sight furnishes them with occasions for their torture. In short, most
Sins would not have the vogue and sufferage of Mankind, were they
but blind; and they would be obliged to acknowledg the mercifulness
of Nature, for having deprived them of a good which is the beginning
of all their evils.

It cannot but be a great satisfaction to be deliv’red from those things
that are prejudicial to us, to be disingaged from any farther concern with
those guides that have betray’d us, and to have the loss of those lights
that have led us into places of darkness. Vertue has no need of light to
produce its self, and if we will believe the Poets who have described
them, even the most excellent among them all are blind. Faith sees not
but by the Ears, Hope has no other Organs but the Hands. Love knows
nothing but by the means of the Heart; and if Justice its self had eyes,
they ought to be hard bound down with a fillet, to oblige its Lovers to
despise the things of the Earth, and to exalt their thoughts to those of
Heaven. If Nature has deny’d us the use of Sight, it is tomake us of the
houshold of God, to rank us in the number of the Vertuous, and to make
us pertakers of the glory of happy Souls.

Display More

The file section thread is linked below.

As part of his Wikipedia biography I see that LeGrande was highly religious and (sarcasm) a real prince of a guy:

Quote

Le Grand argued against animal rights and authored Dissertatio de carentia sensus et cognitionis in brutis (On the Lack of Sense and Cognition in Brutes) in 1675 which defends the Cartesian idea that animals are mere machines.^[3][4]

I'm getting a highly negative impression of LeGrande and this work but let me emphasize that I am very appreciative to Tau Phi for preparing this because I think there's a lot to be learned by dissecting it. Had he not done so I might never have found out any more about it.

This kind of contribution by Tau Phi is a great contribution to the forum and example of what we can accomplish working in an online community.

File

LeGrande - The Divine Epicurus

Digital transcription by Tau Phi

Cassius

June 5, 2026 at 6:03 AM

I have scanned over about 50% so far. Couple of comments:

1. I am not able to get the link in Don's original post to work anymore. Not sure what's up with that.
2. It's difficult to read because of its archaic constructions and flowery language, much worse than the sections of Frances Wright that I also find overly-flowery. (As we are discussing "suavity" in another current thread, I'll say that if this kind of floweriness were what was meant by "suavity" I would be in favor of banishing it from the face of the earth. But I don't think this is what is meant by "suavity.")
3. I definitely think this is historically useful. As in my original comment above this seems to be a Gassendi-like attempt to blend Christian morality with Epicurus, and I am seeing long sections that are sort of "conventional morality" that don't make much effort to tie back to Epicurus at all.
4. At the moment my reaction is that this work may constitute a milestone in the "corruption" of Epicurus into something that the Christian world could find acceptable. Parts of it are no doubt ok, but it seems to contain lots of material such as the following from page 45 of the PDF:

Quote

Almighty God, who wrought this Miracle, fetch’d the Woman from
his side during his Extasy, that so those two Persons should make but
one and the same All, that their Bodies should be but one and the
same Flesh, and that their Minds should aspire but to one and the
same felicity. Marriage is an image of the Divinity, the Unity does not
Derogate from the plurality of their Persons, they are but one though
they be two, and though they are of a different Sex, they still have the
same Nature. This advantage heightens the glory of Marriage, and there
is no person but would boast that he resembled his Creator, if he was
not pursued with so vast a retinue of Miseries, and if there was not an
absolute necessity to be Miserable, because he was of the Number of
those that were Married.
The Wife is as it were, the bought Servant of her Husband, she loses
her Liberty in becoming his Spouse, and she obliges her self to serve
and obey him, from the time that she promises her self to be faithful to
him.

Display More

My main thought is that this is going to be very useful in tracking down the process of "dumbind down" Epicurean philosophy over the centuries. In what I've read so far there's no mention of Epicurean Physics and Epicurean Canonics and so what's left is being massaged - with many words and flowery phrases - into something very meek and mild that anyone of any philosophical position could accept.

I'd like to know more about this Le Grande so we could place him in context with Gassendi.

So again thank you very much Tau Phi!

I will add this to the files section.

Thank you Tau Phi!

Also the word "unctuous" comes to mind.

I can think of numbers of people who will remain unnamed who have that kind of sickly-sweet demeanor.

On the other hand (despite it being my least favorite part of her book) Frances Wright spends her Chapter One describing Epicurus in terms that probably are close to "suave" but in an entirely positive way.

Since suavity appears to be more Latin than Greek we probably need to look more to the Latin use of it.

Quote from Don

I freely admit I have no grasp on what "suavity" means,

I suspect that this is a very bad thing for the culture if even Don finds the word to be highly suspicious (as I do myself).

Certainly the times have changed and calling someone "gentlemanly" has lost all of its earlier appeal, at least in many circles. Must all gentlemen be back-slapping good-old-boys? Was that always considered to be the case? I suspect not.

And I completely agree that "Smooth" in terms of character has many more negative connotations than bad ones.

But I am old enough to suspect that this wasn't always the case, I would think courtesy and grace (especially but not always under pressure) and gentlemanliness had strong positiive means that are separate and apart from "gratitude" in the sense of a transactional appreciation for what someone has done for us.

The discussion so far indicates to me that it would be well worth while separating out the "good aspects" from the "bad aspects" of what is being referenced here. The pendulum seems to have swung way too far to the side of insincerity on something that should not be lost. And it does look like there were significant attacks against Epicurus (wording as to Colotes etc) that need to be understood in terms of a proper appreciation of good qualities, rather than insincere flattery. Must all flattery be "insincere"? Can't we praise someone or something without being guitly of manipulation?

This looks to be another area where it is going to be necessary to look to the Roman sources for better preserved discussion of what is going on. The quotes from Cicero and Augustine and about Atticus seem particularly promising if the words being used are forms of suavitas.

Certainly foods can be oversweet, but sweetness is often and even generally (?) desirable. And Iit wouldn't in general conversation be normal to call a man "sweet."

Latin definition for: suavitas, suavitatis

suavitas, suavitatis

noun

• declension: 3^rd declension
• gender: feminine

Definitions:

1. charm, attractiveness
2. sweetness

• Age: In use throughout the ages/unknown
• Area: All or none
• Geography: All or none
• Frequency: Frequent, top 2000+ words
• Source: General, unknown or too common to say

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