We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
or b.) Preserved by being made into a church.
I used to presume that the state of the forum and related areas was the result of some kind of barbarian action to burn and/or knock down all the buildings, because what else short of an incredible earthquake could produce that kind of result.
But now I gather that most all of the damage was intentional harvesting of stone over the centuries, so presumably that means the real barbarians were the churchmen.
Michele I apologize that we've lost your last post. I know some of the links so I will reconstruct now....
OH no did we lose the Michele Updates too!?? GRRRRR. I will reconstruct what I can - I think I have most all of what Michele posted, and I think I can find Hiram's link too.
Compare photos like this one below to downtown areas that were pulverized in Europe and Japan in World War II. Today those cities have been rebuilt to the point where the damage is barely visible.
But just like with the Parthenon in Athens, the ruins of the capitals of the cities that the Judeo-Christian conquerors demolished have been pretty much left out the open for all to see, as if they were buzzards leaving picked-over bones behind.
I suppose the religionists thought the ruins would be a good reminder to everyone of their power, and would serve as a warning that their power should never be challenged.
I hope there are a lot of people who see these ruins and think of how much better this world would have been if it had followed the lead of Epicurus rather than these religionists.
At 9:00 AM Tuesday we had an aborted upgrade which required a site restoral.
It appears that if you posted in the last 24 hours that your post may have been lost. I apologize to anyone whose post was lost. The only post I am aware of that may have been lost was a new thread I believe I started that mentioned Ayn Rand, so maybe losing that was for the best. 
We'll take steps to be sure that this does not happen again, and I want to apologize to anyone who was affected.
Excellent Godfrey, and thank you again for joining us today!
Welcome Charles ! When you get a chance please let us know your background and interest in Epicurus. And thank you for joining us on the 9/1/19 conference call. We look forward to getting to know you better.
Cassius started a new event:
Part 2 of Online Book Discussion - DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy" Chapter 12 - The New Hedonism - Skype
Starting with the subsection - "The Natural Ceilings of Pleasure"
We just had an excellent conference call to discuss Chapter 12 of Epicurus and His Philosophy, and thanks to all who participated. We'll be continuing the same discussion next week, same time, same place. Thanks especially to the two new people who joined us today, and we will look forward to next time starting with the subsection "The Natural Ceilings of Pleasure.
Joshua we are sorry you missed it, but thanks to Godfrey for joining us, and we hope you both can participate next week!
Here is the link for anyone who can join us starting about 10 minutes from now at 11 Eastern https://join.skype.com/NSVK30V2BKhb
I agree with everything that Elayne wrote, and she's provided a great general answer that should be good for most anyone.
If you happen to know something about the person who is asking the question, you can attempt to be sure to cover more specific aspects of the philosophy that might interest them.
For example, if they are acutely interested in religious issues, then it is good to mention that Epicurean philosophy was one of the major viewpoints that was popular before the take-over of Judeo Christian religion. Such a person would be interested to know that Epicurus taught that there is no life, and no punishment or reward, after death, and that any "gods" that exist are not as we are taught, but did not create or control this earth and do not punish or reward humans for their actions.
If they are interested in nature or physics, it would would good to mention that Epicurus was one of the first leading teachers that the universe is made of combinations of particles that interact naturally without any supernatural forces; and that both regularity in the actions of bodies exist along with "swerving" of elemental particles as science observes today.
If they are interested in astronomy / space travel / science "fiction" they would be interested to know that Epicurus taught that life does not exist just here on earth, but throughout the universe as a whole; that the universe is boundless in size and eternal in time, and that the earth is not the center of the universe.
If they are interested in philosophy in general, or history, it would be good for them to know that Epicurus was a rebel against Plato and most prior (and following) schools of Greek philosophy. They would be interested to know that Epicurus warned against the misuse of dialectical logic, and even against the misuse of math and geometry to claim that there are mysterious forces (implicitly supernatural) "behind" the reality of the universe.
If they are interested in government and society they will be interested to know that Epicurus taught that there is no absolute justice or absolute morality, and that many important people over the centuries from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx to Frederik Nietzsche to the English Utilitarians studied Epicurus' views on that area.
If they are Americans and interested in American history, you can point out to them that they probably didn't know that Thomas Jefferson called himself an Epicurean, and that he was friends with a woman (Frances Wright, who visited him at Monticello) who published one of the best summaries of major points of Epicurean philosophy in hundreds of years.
So there's a lot you can do if you know something about the person you are talking to.
And as a final comment, we do have the example of Lucretius to consult, because his poem is essentially one long presentation of the philosophy to someone who previously did not know the details.
This is Elayne's outstanding post for a first answer:
Great question! For me, I would say it is a reality-based philosophy which advises us to observe and understand nature so that we may learn how to make decisions to maximize our own pleasure.
I would tell them that we interact with reality by 3 means: our senses (and instruments which extend those); our evolved pattern recognitions (which IMO form a historical encoding of our species' interactions with reality), such as our innate sense of justice; and our individual feelings of pain and pleasure. We also have the tool of reason, but reason and logic must always be based on real information and are not a method of encountering reality but only of interpreting it.
I would note to the person that through these ways of studying reality, we have determined that there is no supernatural realm, that life ends at death, that future events are not predetermined but probabilistic, that there is no absolute morality or ethics, and that the natural way animals achieve health and survival is to choose actions that cause pleasure and avoid those that cause pain. And that because humans have advanced cognitive capacity, we are able to consider the effects of our actions on our future pain and pleasure, not just the moment, and we can thus choose for net pleasure. That happiness is made of pleasure and nothing else. That observation teaches us humans are not naturally insatiable but can enjoy satisfied pleasure from activities like eating until full. That we can take pleasure in memories, in current enjoyment, and in hope for the future. This requires freedom from delusional fears and a belief in agency, that we can influence our own lives.
I would say that while most of us share species level pleasure from activities like friendship, freedom, food when hungry, and sleep when tired, there is wide variation of individual preference. And since reality is partly encountered subjectively, through our personal feelings, we do not find that other people can effectively choose for our pleasure or we for theirs. However, for most of us, there will be certain beloved others whose pleasure is bound up in ours, so that if they are in pain we will be also, and if they are happy, we will have a share in that too. These are our friends, and we will be wise to choose them carefully.
I would say to this person that to practice EP, they need to closely plan and observe the results of their actions-- does the action bring net pleasure or pain? And learn constantly, to improve the outcomes of future choices.
I would then give them examples from my own life. If I knew them well enough, I'd tell them some specific significant difficulties I have encountered and how I navigated those. Today, I make my daily schedule with the aim of net pleasure, which means some activities won't be pleasurable at the time but will be needed for future pleasure, and others will be pleasurable today and later.
For instance, today I am about to take a hike in the woods--current and future pleasure from health and memories-- and from being ready to start section hiking the AT next spring. I will do the Skype call with admins and then with group members to discuss DeWitt-- current and future pleasures of friendship. I will enjoy my meals, having chosen food that tastes good and gives my body what is needed for health. One of those meals I'll be cooking for my son and a friend, for our Sunday lunch, and then we will watch Doctor Who together. This gives me pleasure from cooking, eating, and seeing people I love enjoy my cooking! We will have some lovely hugs and laughter. I also have on my list laundry-- not especially fun, but I'll have the pleasure of clean clothes-- and completing some paperwork for a job I'm doing in November-- boring paperwork but for a job that will be enjoyable and that will give me funds for travel and living expenses. I'll enjoy reading before bed, and listening to music. I'll go to sleep at a time which allows my brain to get enough deep sleep, so that I can enjoy tomorrow.
If you met someone who asked you to explain to them what Epicurean Philosophy is about, how would you introduce them to it, and what are some examples of how it can be applied in everyday life?
Please remember to join us tomorrow at 11 AM eastern if you can. The link for the Skype chat will be posted tomorrow well before the start time.
As we in the USA start a long holiday weekend, please remember to join us if you can Sunday morning at 11 AM for a skype conference call to discuss Epicurean philosophy. Our topic will be chapter 12 of Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy," but Julie has prepared a great outline so even if you have not read the book you'll easily be able to follow along. A link to the conference will be posted later this weekend but all you need is a working Skype connection on your desktop or phone. Don't worry about video - this will be audio only.
Here's the full outline: NewHedonism_v3.pdf
So it's quite helpful of you to point out his context. DeWitt does that quite a bit, but when reading his book I'm focused more on understanding the philosophy than the context.
Yes Godfrey as I think about it, that may be one of the most important ways that DeWitt's book seems to be different from most other "overview" books.
When I have read the others, they tend to focus exclusively on outlining the major ideas while giving very little attention to the context, and that doesn't work for people who have no idea of the context. To me at least, many of the Principal Doctrines make no sense whatsoever without seeing the as responses to other philosophical positions. Even as quickly into the list as PD3 and PD4, I believe most "normal" people are going to be bewildered as to why Epicurus wrote in such a seemingly choppy and clipped way.
With probably my primary example being PD3 - "The limit of quantity of pleasure....." I contend that without an understanding of why "limits" and "quantities" were considered relevant to pleasure (which is "explained" in Philebus) Epicurus' choice to place such a statement near the head of his list "is Greek to us." And the same for PD4, which seems to be a ridiculous assertion if taken literally rather than directed toward the continuity issue. And "death is nothing to us" seems flippant and contradictory to other provisions of the philosophy unless you realize that he his attacking issues of the alleged afterlife.
While we still largely understand the context of the issues of gods and death, so that PD1 and PD2 continue to be intelligible, much of the rest is directed against specific philosophical problems which are not taught (or at least taught in the same way) anymore, so many people skip over them despite their importance.
DeWitt's approach (pursue in much finer grain detail by Gosling & Taylor, is the only way to pick up the lost meaning.
Exactly Joshua. I think you are correct here:
When we talk about desire with regards to it being natural and necessary, surely what we mean is that the experience of a desire is natural (or not), while the satisfaction of a desire is necessary (or not). [Am I wrong here!?]
How ridiculous to accept the idea that Epicurus would argue straightforwardly that it is not "natural" to love one's children. As you say, all pleasure is natural, as we did not create the mechanism ourselves, so anything in which we find pleasure is a natural result of that experience. Now some pleasures cost much more in pain than they are worth, but that does not make the pleasure, or the pain, any less "natural."
I continue to refer to Torquatus' statement as the most logical expression of what natural / necessary is all about -- that "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."
Now I am thinking that this argument maybe got mixed up in the issue of friendship and what is the motivating force for friendship in the first place (?) Maybe those who were attacking Epicurus were trying to argue that even with children the same issue is involved as Torquatus discusses with friends:
"Other Epicureans though by no means lacking in insight are a little less courageous in defying the opprobrious criticisms of the Academy. They fear that if we hold friendship to be desirable only for the pleasure that it affords to ourselves, it will be thought that it is crippled altogether. They therefore say that the first advances and overtures, and the original inclination to form an attachment, are prompted by the desire for pleasure, but that when the progress of intercourse has led to intimacy, the relationship blossoms into an affection strong enough to make us love our friends for their own sake, even though no practical advantage accrues from their friendship,"
And so maybe that argument mutated into "there is no NATURAL motivation to love our children any more than it is to love our friends - because Epicurus said It is all a question of advantage."
Maybe - as I am just speculating here, but there must be some explanation for this "bizarre" discussion.
