Posts by Cassius

ELAYNE's Post Responding To The Original Outside Post:

Watts died of alcoholism... my take on him (having read him in my 20's) is that he was a somewhat pretentious person with a superficial understanding of Buddhism who enjoyed playing the guru role and maybe damaged his brain with various drugs. He was in that wave of westerners who got dazzled by the eastern philosophies and made more of them than was there. It was exotic and exciting-- I can understand how people got sucked in.

Ask yourself if it is really true that your desires for pleasure can't be satisfied. Is it? That's not true for me. I desired and got several intense pleasures today, as I described in another thread, including good food, a hike to a gorgeous creek, and time with my family. I couldn't have been happier, and I don't get bored. It is simply not true that enjoying life leads one to want pain or to want to watch girls being eaten by lions. Perhaps at 56, I am too young to say that... but I have many older friends, some in their 80's, who enjoy life very much and have not yet started clamoring that they are tired of pleasures and want to be miserable!

Watts is using suggestion in a vile way, getting people to agree that they don't know what they want and can't enjoy pleasure-- that they couldn't possibly prefer to make their own choices. Is that true for you? Sometimes what I thought I wanted hasn't been as I expected, but by paying attention, now that I am older I am pretty reliable at choosing what I enjoy. There's some trial and error, but he's promoting a sort of learned helplessness where you just give up and follow fate like a Stoic dog!

That is not anything like what Epicurus advised.

The way to decide if what Watts says is true is to use your senses and feelings-- observe what happens in your own life. What works, what doesn't? Please don't let people like Watts bamboozle you out of your choices.

I have reviewed that video and I do not recommend it to the members of the group. The main question in my mind is whether it deserves the time for an elaborate refutation or is so clearly essentially stoic and theistic in nature as to write off the discussion as unproductive. There are parts in the beginning that are ok, it seems to me, so you may be sincerely thinking that there are Epicurean aspects to this, but by the end it is very clear that this has little if anything to do with an Epicurean view of the universe and the goal of life. And of course as the title suggests, the video comes down against "only pursuing pleasure" before it ends up in a Stoic / Divine fire extravaganza.

I think this may be one of your first posts here (maybe the first) and so I don't mean this to be harsh. What I would like to point out more than anything else is that if you can find the time to read Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy" you'll have no trouble seeing how utterly incompatible these ideas are with what Epicurus taught. However I am well aware that lots of people who fancy themselves Epicurean follow almost all the views stated in this video, so all sorts of mistakes are understandable. But the way out of this confusion is available for those who desire to look for it.

I note that this video does not in any way represent itself to be Epicurean, so the video itself is not the source of any misunderstanding. The source of the problem is the superficial view of Epicurus promoted so many places - but not in this Facebook group

[Admin Edit: This is a post from outside the forum being pasted here to preserve the information. I had never heard of Alan Watts til reading this thread, so I advise caution, especially with the video, which starts out well enough but ends up being significantly anti-Epicurean in its conclusions. See Elayne's comments below, as she is much more familiar with Watts than am I.]

Is anyone in the group familiar with Alan Watts? His philosophies seem to line up decently well with Epicureanism, although with a lot more Eastern/Zen influence. He was mentored by Francis Croshaw, a self proclaimed Epicurean, and In his obituary, it contains a quote from him saying he was “an intellectual, a Brahmin, a mystic and also somewhat of a disreputable epicurean who has three wives, seven children and five grandchildren”. This comes off as kind of a joke, but I think he meant it more than he lead on. Despite the somewhat misleading title, I think this video does a decent job of showing that, but I’d love to know your thoughts!

Namcisumeht, I looked up Daniel Gilbert on wikipedia but I am not familiar with him.

What background reading in Epicurus have you done?

Again, welcome to the group!

Welcome  Namcisumeht ! And thanks for joining us! When you get a chance, please tell us about yourself and your background in Epicurean philosophy.

It would be particularly helpful if you could tell us (1) how you found this forum, and (2) how much background reading you have done in Epicurus. As an aid in the latter, we have prepared the following list of core reading.

We look forward to talking with you!

----------------------- Epicurean Works I Have Read ---------------------------------

1 The Biography of Epicurus By Diogenes Laertius (Chapter 10). This includes all Epicurus' letters and the Authorized Doctrines. Supplement with the Vatican list of Sayings.

2 "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Norman DeWitt

3 "On The Nature of Things"- Lucretius

4 Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

5 Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

6 The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

7 "A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

8 Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus (3) Others?

9 Plato's Philebus

10 Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

11 "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially on katastematic and kinetic pleasure.

Interesting and thanks again! I think Dewitt may tend to strain a little to find analogies in St Paul and Epicurus but I have found no reasons to doubt his dexterity with classical languages (which appears to have been his professional specialty) but it is good to see that at least some of what he says seems consistent with your observations.

Welcome @Callisto ! And thanks for joining us! When you get a chance, please tell us about yourself and your background in Epicurean philosophy.

It would be particularly helpful if you could tell us (1) how you found this forum, and (2) how much background reading you have done in Epicurus. As an aid in the latter, we have prepared the following list of core reading.

We look forward to talking with you!

----------------------- Epicurean Works I Have Read ---------------------------------

1 The Biography of Epicurus By Diogenes Laertius (Chapter 10). This includes all Epicurus' letters and the Authorized Doctrines. Supplement with the Vatican list of Sayings.

2 "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Norman DeWitt

3 "On The Nature of Things"- Lucretius

4 Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

5 Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

6 The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

7 "A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

8 Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus (3) Others?

9 Plato's Philebus

10 Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

11 "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially on katastematic and kinetic pleasure.

Good points Eugenios. As a technical aside, I see that you are probably pasting your text into the post from an outside program, and so it is coming through in a slightly different font. There's no problem with that at all, but that method brings in a fixed font style, and I find sometimes when people change themes for the site that a fixed font can cause issues, so I will go in and fix that. If you see what I mean, you can fix that yourself in the future by blocking your text in the input box and selecting the "font family" option, and you'll see that the last option is "remove" -- and that returns it to normal text.

You have such strong detail in your writing that I want everyone to be able to see it!

Edit -- I made the change, and I see that in order to revert to standard I had to do the same thing with the "font size" option too. I hope the final result looks ok to you.

In a recent exchange about the use of the word "hedonism" (I was advocating against it on the grounds that it does not adequately represent Epicurus, is too loaded with negative connotations, and shouldn't be substituted for an accurate translation) I was reminded that one of my main goals is reaching out to non-Epicureans of the normal ordinary people variety. Of course the point comes to mind because a normal ordinary person would not use the term "hedonism" in everyday conversation anyway - it is largely today a term of art used by professional philosophers to keep Epicurus and others in a convenient box off to the side of mainstream philosophy.

So I was reminded of the question, "What words and topics that are of some interest to "ordinary" people are there for building connections in their minds with Epicurean philosophy - and one of the most obvious is to point out to them that Epicurus and Epicurean philosophy are referenced in several places in the Bible.

I think it's probably a good idea to list these for ready reference, because most of them do not identify Epicurus by name, and yet are clearly pointed in his direction. The best source for help in compiling such a list is Norman DeWitt's "St Paul and Epicurus" available free here.

I see that he online version does not contain the table of "Verses Newly Explained or Translated" at the end of the book, so here is a copy of that (click to enlarge):

I will assemble a list of direct cites in the outline below. I won't have time to collect all of them at first, so if you see that I miss any please comment below. This first list is a selection from Norman DeWitt's references that seem to be the most plainly relevant.

1. Acts 17:18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
2. Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 8Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
3. Ephesians 2:2  2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:...
4. Philippians 3:18-19  18(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
5. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
6. 1 Thessalonians 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
7. 2 Peter 3:4 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

We also need to address the "Old Testament." This section needs even more work to rearrange than the first section:

1. The book of Ecclesiastes
   1. Ecclesiastes 9:10  10Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Also:

1. Epicurus in the Mishnah:  From Epicurus.net: In the Talmudic Mishnah, one of the authoritative documents of Rabbinical Judaism, there is a remarkable statement in the tractate Sanhedrin that defines the Jewish religion in relation to Epicureanism: “All Israel has a share in the world to come, as Isaiah said: And all of your people who are righteous will merit eternity and inherit the land. And these are the people who do not merit the world to come: The ones who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and those who deny the Torah is from the heavens, and Epicureans (‘Apikorsim’).”
2. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, also from Epicurus.net: The origins of this anti-Epicurean element of Jewish thought can be traced to the 2^nd century B.C., when the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes embarked on a military campaign against Egypt in an attempt to conquer his Ptolemaic rival. Judea had the misfortune to be located between the Seleucid heartland of Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt, and the Judeans were divided into pro-Seleucid and pro-Ptolemaic factions. At this time, the hereditary Zadokite priesthood had been deeply influenced by Greek culture, adopting doctrines that tended to discount the conservative oral tradition and deny some of the more superstitious beliefs then current, notably the belief in bodily resurrection. At the time of Antiochus's campaign, the Zadokite high priest was a pro-Ptolemaic partisan. Antiochus, anxious to secure Judea in connection with his Egyptian expedition and to create a more culturally-unified empire, had the Zadokite high priest removed and founded a Greek-style Gymnasium in Jerusalem. Antiochus was sympathetic to Epicureanism (albeit not acting in accord with Epicurus's injunctions to avoid politics), so his attempt at a forced hellenization of Judea was closely linked to Epicureanism in the minds of the Judean patriots. Another factor was that Epicureans were prominent in the hellenized cities of Galilee, creating a rivalry between Epicureanism and the traditional religion among the northern Judeans. Antiochus's provocations brought about a strong nationalistic reaction, which exploded into violence when a rumor of Antiochus's death reached Judea. While the rumor was false, nonetheless the Hasmonean leader Judas Maccabeus was ultimately successful in his revolt against the Seleucids. After the Hasmoneans consolidated their power, a rather delicate situation developed with respect to the priesthood. The hereditary successors to the priesthood had had their legitimacy fatally undermined by their hellenizing tendencies and their close association with the foreign Ptolemaic monarchy. The party of the “separatists” (the Pharisees), prevented the Zadokite legitimists (the Sadducees) from reassuming control of the temple in Jerusalem, while some of the Sadducees set up a rival temple in the Egyptian city of Leontopolis.

The following article "Crying Out In Despair" came up in my google news feed, and I think it makes a point worth noting: the ultimate end of the "Tranquilism" approach to understanding Epicurus is absurdity.

The writer cites Catherine Wilson as advocating "organizing your sock drawer" as an example of finding meaning in life. Is this an unfair criticism of Wilson's position? I don't really think so, because this kind of "meaningfulness" is indeed what she seems to end up advocating, because she does not consistently and forthrightly advocate "pleasure" as the goal.

I haven't finished reading Wilson's book (and for this very reason - that I don't find many of her articulation of Epicurus' position on pleasure to be persuasive). Yet from the parts I have read I also think ironically that she is indeed on of the better Epicurean book-writers out there today, in that she does not fall into this tranqulisim trap as far as do many others.

But when people are out there advocating inanities like "Christ is the antidote to depressing diagnoses," the response that is called for is not "tranquilism" and its logical conclusion of lowering your goals in life to the level of sock-drawer-organizing. This is biting criticism, and it is valid against the "tranquilist" position -- which a thorough reading of the texts establishes is *not* what Epicurus advocated.

Welcome @vahdamteas ! And thanks for joining us! When you get a chance, please tell us about yourself and your background in Epicurean philosophy.

It would be particularly helpful if you could tell us (1) how you found this forum, and (2) how much background reading you have done in Epicurus. As an aid in the latter, we have prepared the following list of core reading.

We look forward to talking with you!

----------------------- Epicurean Works I Have Read ---------------------------------

1 The Biography of Epicurus By Diogenes Laertius (Chapter 10). This includes all Epicurus' letters and the Authorized Doctrines. Supplement with the Vatican list of Sayings.

2 "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Norman DeWitt

3 "On The Nature of Things"- Lucretius

4 Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

5 Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

6 The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

7 "A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

8 Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus (3) Others?

9 Plato's Philebus

10 Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

11 "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially on katastematic and kinetic pleasure.

There are obvious and major hazards in applying guidelines that limit and direct discussion toward "the ultimate end." Most us here are probably non-conformists by nature - otherwise how would we have resisted peer pressure and ended up with Epicurus, so far outside the academic / philosophic / religious mainstream? But here is a physics clip which helps visualize why it IS necessary to be concerned about those we surround ourselves with -- as Epicurus regularly stated, to associate with friends with whom we see things similarly - which means being concerned about being in a stream of our own:

https://twitter.com/UniverCurious/…3353863169?s=20

And here is Epicurus exhorting his students to study in the same direction / with the same goal in mind:

HERODOTUS: Here, Herodotus, is my treatise on the chief points concerning the nature of the general principles, abridged so that my account would be easy to grasp with accuracy. I think that, even if one were unable to proceed to all the detailed particulars of the system, he would from this obtain an unrivaled strength compared with other men. For indeed he will clear up for himself many of the detailed points by reference to our general system, and these very principles, if he stores them in his mind, will constantly aid him. For such is their character that even those who are at present engaged in working out the details to a considerable degree, or even completely, will be able to carry out the greater part of their investigations into the nature of the whole by conducting their analysis in reference to such a survey as this. And as for all who are not fully among those on the way to being perfected, some of them can from this summary obtain a hasty view of the most important matters without oral instruction so as to secure peace of mind.

PYTHOCLES: All these things, Pythocles, you must bear in mind; for thus you will escape in most things from superstition and will be enabled to understand what is akin to them. And most of all give yourself up to the study of the beginnings and of infinity and of the things akin to them, and also of the criteria of truth and of the feelings, and of the purpose for which we reason out these things. For these points when they are thoroughly studied will most easily enable you to understand the causes of the details. But those who have not thoroughly taken these things to heart could not rightly study them in themselves, nor have they made their own the reason for observing them

MENOECEUS: Meditate therefore on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself; and with a companion like to yourself, and never shall you be disturbed waking or asleep, but you shall live like a god among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings is not like unto a mortal being.

P.B: Cool. I get the desire to separate Epicurus out from the tranquility nuts, we don't need another Buddha or Zeno, but I don't understand the distinction being made about hedonism. Hedone is the Greek word for pleasure. You used the word pleasure 28 times in the original post. If that's not driving home the centrality of hedone in Epicureanism, I don't know what it is.

Epicurean philosophy is one among several hedonistic philosophies, philosophies that put pleasure as the central focus, pleasurism if you prefer a neologism instead of the baggage hedonism carries in your mind. It carries no negative connotation in mine. To say that there is no Epicurean hedonism is to say that there is no systematic methodology to pleasure seeking in Epicureanism. Isn't that the whole point of Epicureanism? If you're going to deny tranquilism then you've got to embrace something so people can understand what you're selling.

Cassius: P.B., if I understand your post correctly, and I think I do, you are commenting on my reference to hedonism being a word with negative connotations and suggesting that it be embraced. I don't think you and I are far apart in the end, but here is what I would stress:

As far as my own writing goes, I am not interested in playing only to an audience of professional philosophers who are familiar with the technicalities and history of "hedonism." Epicurus taught in his native language, and he taught on a wide variety of topics, of which pleasure was only one of several highly important things. In the minds of normal and ordinary people (and I consider myself and the people who important to me to be "normal and ordinary") hedonism is a word from a foreign language that means an ultimately evil pursuit of immediate bodily pleasures at the expense of all other considerations. For those who do not speak classical Greek it is the equivalent of affixing a label like "Satanist" on an everyday atheist or agnostic. In modern discussion words like that intimidate, shut down discussion, and bury the issues, rather than reveal them. All for nothing, because Epicurean philosophy has far more to say than just commentary on pleasure.

So ultimately I do think that it is necessary to stress "pleasure" - or whatever the equivalent word is in the language we are working. And in fact I think the best immediate indication of whether someone is embracing Epicurus or running from his implications is how quickly and often that they use the word "pleasure." It is amazing to see how many articles and presentations are given about Epicurus than never mention pleasure at all, or which rush to immediately say "Pleasure to Epicurus did not really mean 'pleasure' as we use the word."

So I agree with you, I just dont like to use the untranslated Greek, especially in a form "hedon-ISM" that implies that Epicurus arbitrarily picked a desired result and made all else fit the result, rather than working out an accurate physics and epistemology, on which he concluded that pleasure is the ethical end, and without which he would never have reached that same conclusion.

So I think that there is a lot of work to be done to make clear "what we're selling." Your comment is exactly on point about the need to invest a lot of work and thought into how to do that and customize the presentation to the audience at hand.That's on of the main purposes of this group and a lot of the online work that a number of us are trying to do, so I hope you and other like-minded people will help us continue and expand that discussion.

I am not familiar with the details beyond what I read at that link, and I am always wary of being in enemy territory, simply because it is enemy territory and all kinds of dangers should be expected to be lurking, especially in the land of an enemy that has to have such a profound difference with us as to the ultimate meaning and goals of life.

But having said that, I am sure that it can only be a good thing to "think about death" and so calling it to mind in a variety of ways should be nothing but helpful. As to meditation I just don't have much expertise to allow me to comment.

However I would say something in response to this:

Quote from Eugenios

But although Epicurus states that this knowledge will result in dispelling our fear, he doesn't provide a way to get there. There's no path laid out to get to that unshakable knowledge.

I think if Epicurus / Lucretius were here to respond to that, they would say that they DID set out that path, and that path is the study of nature as laid out in the sequence of observations/studies left to us in Lucretius Book 1 and 2 up to and through the discussion of how the soul is material and dissipates at death.

I would say that that understanding is the only true path to an unshakeable confidence that death is truly nothing to us, and if we do not in fact make that chain observation / deduction for ourselves, embracing the evidence and the reasoning behind us, then no amount of mental visualization or contemplation is ever going to be truly successful in giving us confidence that there is nothing to fear in death.

I am not familiar with the details beyond what I read at that link, and I am always wary of being in enemy territory, simply because it is enemy territory and all kinds of dangers should be expected to be lurking, especially in the land of an enemy that has to have such a profound difference with us as to the ultimate meaning and goals of life.

But having said that, I am sure that it can only be a good thing to "think about death" and so calling it to mind in a variety of ways should be nothing but helpful. As to meditation I just don't have much expertise to allow me to comment.

However I would say something in response to this:

Quote from Eugenios

But although Epicurus states that this knowledge will result in dispelling our fear, he doesn't provide a way to get there. There's no path laid out to get to that unshakable knowledge.

I think if Epicurus / Lucretius were here to respond to that, they would say that they DID set out that path, and that path is the study of nature as laid out in the sequence of observations/studies left to us in Lucretius Book 1 and 2 up to and through the discussion of how the soul is material and dissipates at death.

I would say that that understanding is the only true path to an unshakeable confidence that death is truly nothing to us, and if we do not in fact make that chain observation / deduction for ourselves, embracing the evidence and the reasoning behind us, then no amount of mental visualization or contemplation is ever going to be truly successful in giving us confidence that there is nothing to fear in death.

I think Thomas Jefferson would agree with you too, based on this excerpt from the letter to William Short. He may be contrasting fortitude with fleeing here, but I think more than that he is contrasting lack of energy vs energy in whatever we choose to do

Quote

I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well; brace yourself up; take a seat with Correa, and come and see the finest portion of your country, which, if you have not forgotten, you still do not know,

Wow that is in-depth analysis - thank you! You obviously have a lot of background in the Greek so I look forward to hearing more.

My comment is much more superficial but I still want to indicate my agreement - I think you are right and that it is inherently Epicurean to live passionately - to realize that time is of the essence because life is so short. So as you say we just don't "stroll around" (unless at that moment it is the most pleasurable option to us) we eagerly embrace life and the opportunities for pleasure it gives us. We should try not to waste a moment - and the words PURSUE and FLEE do communicate more strongly the energy we should invest in our living our lives.

Now no doubt some will wonder if "fleeing" doesn't indicate anxiety and fear, and I would say that would probably be a connotation of the word to limit in this context, but to the extent both pursuing and fleeing indicate "urgency" and "seriously" and the like, I think those completely apply.

Thanks to Trey for suggesting this article, Epicurus on the Three Obstacles to Happiness and Tranquility, and this Reddit discussion.

The subject deserves a lot more time than I can give it right now, it gives us another opportunity to discuss the divergent viewpoints of Epicurus and the need to take a position on which is correct. That's why I entitled this post "How NOT To Escape Plato's Cave," because In my view if you follow the leads of this article you will not only never escape Plato's cave, you will assist in the chaining to the floor next to you the one philosopher who can show you the way to freedom.

The article is admirably clear about its position, and as a result we can take the opening paragraphs and highlight seven points that will jump out at you if you take the time to read the texts thoroughly for yourself, reflect on what the ancient writers who actually knew this material said about it, and put aside for the moment the modern analysis that much more deserves the label "neo-Stoic," as it hardly rises even to the level of "neo-Epicurean.

Here the opening paragraphs followed by my comments on each point.

(1) and (2) These points are closely related. Epicurus did not hold that "the path to living the good life" is self-evident, nor did he teach that "we all know with relative certainty the kinds of things that bring us both pleasure and pain." This kind of analysis exactly what you would expect from a Platonic jailer. Epicurus explicitly stated over and over that the way forward toward the best life requires the study of nature, and reflection on the meaning of what we observe. Anyone who reads book one of Lucretius, which is simply a poetic version of Epicurus' foundational masterpiece "On Nature," will be struck by the long chain of deductive analysis that starts with observing that nothing comes from nothing, and leads us step by step to concluding that the universe is boundless in size, infinite in space, filled with life on other worlds, and that our human "souls" are a material part of that same universe in which there are no supernatural gods, no rewards or punishments in this life for obeying the priests, and no life after death to compensate us for the time we waste listening to them while we live. None of that is in the least "self-evident." Nor did Epicurus teach that "we all know with relative certainty what brings us pleasure and pain." Once again Plato applies his chains because the guide of life in Epicurus is not knowing in the traditional Platonic / Aristotelian sense, but feeling. The senses are our contacts with reality, and the feelings of pleasure and pain are our guides to life through a constantly moving universe in which there are no absolute rights and wrongs, goods and evils, but only contextual choices that will lead to pleasure or pain depending on our circumstances. Epicurus will teach you that there is no logical or mathematical or geometric shortcut to pleasurable living, but if you are deceived by the Platonists into thinking that such as formula is the only acceptable answer to the question of how to live, you will never escape the cave.

(3) (4) and (5) Epicurus did not hold that "not all pleasure is created equal." He quite explicitly held that all pleasure is desirable because it is pleasurable, just as all pain is undesirable because it is painful, and he did not provide an explicit list of"good pleasures" or "noble pleasures" or "worthy pleasures" to prioritize, which is what the article is implying. "For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good." (Letter to Menoeceus) Epicurus was very clear that every choice has to be evaluated according to the pain and pleasure that will result from it, but he emphatically did NOT state that "long-term" pleasure should be chosen in every case over "short-term" pleasure. He specifically stated in fact that "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.

(6) Now we come to the true goal of the Platonist interpretation of Epicurus - the contention that Epicurus taught "tranquilism" rather than "hedonism." Think about these words - what does "tranquilism" mean other than "anesthesia," and why use the Greek form "hedonism" (with its derogatory connotations) rather than simply and clearly state that Epicurus taught that pleasure is the guide of life?

"And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good. 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."

So the "tranquilists" would have us understand that Epicurus taught that there are no gods to reward us in life, no heaven to reward us in death, that life is short while we are dead for an eternity afterwards, that pleasure is what makes life worth living, but that we are supposed to spend what time we have in what amounts to a drunken stupor, or in an effective coma, because we are so afraid of any amount of pain that we cannot bare the thought of experiencing any pain whatsoever? No Way.

We discuss these issues all the time at Epicureanfriends.com, and there are many threads devoted to it, so I'll bring this post to an end. But if you want to add a statuette of Epicurus to your medicine cabinet, right between the aspirin and the oxycodone, and call him out on occasion when you're under some kind of stress that the aspirin won't handle, then by all means follow the lead of the "Epicurus on the Three Obstacles" article and "knock yourself out."

But if you want to find out what Epicurus really taught, pick up Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy" and join for discussion those who are really committed to understanding Epicurus, and plant the explosives that will blow Plato's cave sky-high. And don't worry, the Stoics won't mind if they are caught in the explosion, because they are indifferent to all emotion anyway!

Thank you Elli!