1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Website Overview
    6. Site Map
    7. Quizzes
    8. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    9. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Files
    5. Search Assistance
    6. Not NeoEpicurean
    7. Foundations
    8. Navigation Outlines
    9. Reading List
    10. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Forum Shortcuts
    7. Forum Navigation Map
    8. Featured
    9. Most Discussed
  4. Latest
    1. New Activity
    2. Latest Threads
    3. Dashboard
    4. Search By Tag
    5. Complete Tag List
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Collection
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. More
    1. Featured Content
    2. Calendar
      1. Upcoming Events List
      2. Zooms - General Info
      3. Fourth Sunday Meet-&-Greet
      4. Sunday Weekly Zoom
      5. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    3. Logbook
    4. EF ToDo List
    5. Link-Database
  • Login
  • Register
  • Search
Everywhere
  • Everywhere
  • Forum
  • Articles
  • Blog Articles
  • Files
  • Gallery
  • Events
  • Pages
  • Wiki
  • Help
  • FAQ
  • More Options

Welcome To EpicureanFriends.com!

"Remember that you are mortal, and you have a limited time to live, and in devoting yourself to discussion of the nature of time and eternity you have seen things that have been, are now, and are to come."

Sign In Now
or
Register a new account
  1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Website Overview
    6. Site Map
    7. Quizzes
    8. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    9. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Files
    5. Search Assistance
    6. Not NeoEpicurean
    7. Foundations
    8. Navigation Outlines
    9. Reading List
    10. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Forum Shortcuts
    7. Forum Navigation Map
    8. Featured
    9. Most Discussed
  4. Latest
    1. New Activity
    2. Latest Threads
    3. Dashboard
    4. Search By Tag
    5. Complete Tag List
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Collection
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. More
    1. Featured Content
    2. Calendar
      1. Upcoming Events List
      2. Zooms - General Info
      3. Fourth Sunday Meet-&-Greet
      4. Sunday Weekly Zoom
      5. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    3. Logbook
    4. EF ToDo List
    5. Link-Database
  1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Website Overview
    6. Site Map
    7. Quizzes
    8. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    9. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Files
    5. Search Assistance
    6. Not NeoEpicurean
    7. Foundations
    8. Navigation Outlines
    9. Reading List
    10. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Forum Shortcuts
    7. Forum Navigation Map
    8. Featured
    9. Most Discussed
  4. Latest
    1. New Activity
    2. Latest Threads
    3. Dashboard
    4. Search By Tag
    5. Complete Tag List
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Collection
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. More
    1. Featured Content
    2. Calendar
      1. Upcoming Events List
      2. Zooms - General Info
      3. Fourth Sunday Meet-&-Greet
      4. Sunday Weekly Zoom
      5. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    3. Logbook
    4. EF ToDo List
    5. Link-Database
  1. EpicureanFriends - Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  2. Cassius
  • Sidebar
  • Sidebar

Posts by Cassius

  • Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

    • Cassius
    • October 2, 2019 at 4:37 AM

    Excellent! Too late at night for me to absorb at the moment but I will read! This is probably a situation calling for a "collapsible" outline hierarchical format with headings and subheadingsat increasing levels of detail the further out it is opened. Otherwise we deal with the "wall of text" problem you mentioned earlier.

    The Jowett intro is helpful bit it ends up being a wall of text too.

  • Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 10:41 PM

    "But with everything from Gutenberg, it becomes a large wall a of text."Yep. We ultimately need an outline of the major arguments.

  • Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 10:38 PM

    Oh geeze i forgot how the "mixture" issue is also mixed in to the package. Something about how if there are types of pleasure, of which some are better than others, or which are judgeable by outside standards, then that is proof that the knowledge/ wisdom of this outside standard is more important than pleasure itself, since you need it to recognize the best pleasure. If admitted, this once again dethrones pleasure from the top spot as the greatest good. And which therefore means that it is a fatal error to ever admit that there are types of pleasure which are judgeable by anything other than the feeling of pleasure itself. No doubt this is related to the "unity of pleasure" discussed by Dewitt.

  • Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 10:31 PM

    i think the Jowett version is probably the standard english version, and i found his intro useful. I also made a copy for cut and paste purposes here : https://epicureanfriends.com/wiki/doku.php?id=plato_-_philebus

  • Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 10:28 PM

    Thank you Charles! I am certainly no Plato expert myself, but i think Philebus is fairly manageable. If i recall correctly i got some good leads from the Gosling and Taylor book, but Philebus pretty much stands on its own and is written to supposedly be pretty focused.

    I think the 2 big arguments about (1) to be the best, a thing must have a limit and (2) something that is "pure" is better than having more of something that is adulterated, are both profoundly relevant to the Principal Doctrines. I am pretty sure that I have a good handle on how the "limit" argument relates to PD3 and absence of pain, but the "purity" issue may have even deeper implications for the "fullness of pleasure" and "pure pleasure" arguments of other PDs

  • Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 9:53 PM

    Godfrey, while this is on my mind, I recall also thinking that the parts of Philebus that I pulled out to the "limits" as relevant are pretty clear, but the version of the argument made by Seneca is even *more* clear. To me that's especially true with Seneca's formulation that "THE ABILITY TO INCREASE IS PROOF THAT A THING IS IMPERFECT.” I think Plato says the same thing in different words, but Seneca's version is extremely precise. A thing which has no limits cannot be "perfect" and therefore it cannot be the "highest" anything, and since we're talking about the "highest" good - that rules out pleasure!

    Once someone gets a handle on the argument that is being made, PD3 and the otherwise troublesome passages of the Letter to Menoeceus as to "limits" make perfect sense.

    And the continuation of the argument into the discussion of "purity" is also extremely important, and bears on some otherwise very obscure parts of the Principal Doctrines.

    But this is going to take a long and dedicated campaign to bring this observation into wider view.


    _Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XVI: This also is a saying of Epicurus: “If you live according to nature, you will never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich.” Nature’s wants are slight; the demands of opinion are boundless. Suppose that the property of many millionaires is heaped up in your possession. Assume that fortune carries you far beyond the limits of a private income, decks you with gold, clothes you in purple, and brings you to such a degree of luxury and wealth that you can bury the earth under your marble floors; that you may not only possess, but tread upon, riches. Add statues, paintings, and whatever any art has devised for the luxury; you will only learn from such things to crave still greater. **Natural desires are limited; but those which spring from false opinion can have no stopping point. The false has no limits. **


    Seneca’s Letters – To Lucilius – 66.45: “What can be added to that which is perfect? Nothing otherwise that was not perfect to which something has been added. Nor can anything be added to virtue, either, for if anything can be added thereto, it must have contained a defect. Honour, also, permits of no addition; for it is honourable because of the very qualities which I have mentioned.[5] What then? Do you think that propriety, justice, lawfulness, do not also belong to the same type, and that they are kept within fixed limits? The ability to increase is proof that a thing is still imperfect.”“THE ABILITY TO INCREASE IS PROOF THAT A THING IS IMPERFECT.”

    Here Seneca explicitly links PD3 to the “limits” argument, but Seneca being the Stoic that he was, chose to focus on the “Tranquility” rather than viewing the result as the uninterrupted enjoyment of the pleasures that filled the cup in the first place:

    Selection_470-1-1024x274.png

  • Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 9:36 PM

    Godfrey just FYI I split off your comments about Philebus into THIS new subforum / thread: Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

  • Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 9:34 PM

    Of course I have my notes and excerpts that I collected on my original"Full Cup of Pleasure" page at NewEpicurean.com but the subject demands a much more detailed analysis, starting with just a basic outline of Plato's arguments against pleasure, and a basic summary of how he tricks Philebus into making admissions that make it impossible to maintain pleasure as the goal.

    I know that there are other Platonic dialogues that contain other relevant arguments, but Philebus seems to be the ultimate summary of Plato's anti-pleasure argument, and as such it would not be surprising if Epicurus organized his arguments against that document in particular.

  • Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 9:26 PM

    Godfrey I would be extremely grateful if you could help me get discussion going about this, as i have generally not succeeded in getting much followup comment in the past. If you made any note of important sections or just general comments that would be great and we can split the discussion off into the Philebus thread. There is a TON of important stuff there - not just "quantity" but also "purity" argument and it would really help if we could get some readable commentary going on that.

    I suggest THIS location for discussion of Philebus in detail: Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

  • Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 6:35 PM

    More of my ill will toward Cicero: Cicero was nothing if not intelligent, and he had the means at his disposal to get to the bottom of the issue, and, if necessary, consult the two opposing sides for their own explanation of the apparent conflict between Heironymous and Epicurus. Yet rather than present a sympathetic explanation from an Epicurean (or from a Heironymian) as to why their positions were in conflict, he simply stated the alleged inconsistency and left it unanswered, planting in the mind of his readers that Epicurus was a sloppy thinker and did not even know how to make a coherent argument about pleasure.

    Once again the DeWitt statement about Cicero rings in my ears:


    Image may contain: text


    The bottom line is that Cicero took out of context the building-block discussion of "limit of pleasure" - which has a perfectly legitimate place in the *foundation* of the logical structure that Epicurus was erecting - and placed that building-block at the *apex* of the structure instead of in its proper place as a supporting explanation of why Pleasure is the ultimate goal. That's why it ("absence of pain") standing at the apex of the philosophy looks silly or ridiculous or even offensive to neutral normal people, but still is absolutely correct as written when viewed in its proper subordinate context.

  • Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 6:34 PM

    According to Wikipedia, Hieronymous of Rhodes lived from c. 290 – c. 230 BC, while Epicurus lived from 341–270 BC. That means that Hieronymous lived after Epicurus, and had Epicurus' works to reference, but Epicurus was no longer around to respond to Hieronymous. If indeed Epicurus had taken the position that "absence of pain" is a correct and full statement of the goal of life, why would Hieronymous have had to deviate from Epicurus, and why would Cicero have had to set them up as opposites? the tragedy is that we don't have the works of contemporaneous Epicurus who would certainly have written to clear up this conflict. All we can go on now is that Cicero and those who knew at the time, knew that Hieronymous advocated "absence of pain" and deprecated pleasure, and that that was *not* what Epicurus had taught.

  • Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 6:34 PM

    We will eventually straighten out the posting here, but in the meantime, here is the point: it is absolutely true that all these references to "absence of pain" do exist. The issue is "What do they mean?" and "What do they tell us about the goal of life?" For each reference to "absence of pain" we can find MORE references to "Pleasure," and so it is necessary to determine the relationship between the two. Cicero and Hieronymous and the Greeks knew that the two are absolutely not the same thing. Epicurus had a reason for saying what he said, and it is up to us to figure out what the Epicureans meant from the fragmentary texts that are still available.

    Quoting over and over the same passages does nothing to explain to an honest inquirer how to reconcile these things, and the bitter truth for the Hiernonymous crowd is that "absence of anything" tells us NOTHING about "what is present" unless we define the terms of the discussion first. Epicurus had already done that - many times it appears - by making the point that there are only two feelings - pleasure and pain. When there are only two of anything, the "absence of one" means that the space formerly occupied (if any) by that thing is now occupied by its opposite.

    If you re like Hieronymous and think that "absence of pain" tells you anything specific and practical about how to spend your life, then more power to you, but have the grace to identify yourself as Hieronymian, and allow the Epicureans to pursue the pleasure which Epicurus, and more importantly Nature, calls us to pursue.

    Once we have that ground rules of the debate established, we can then discuss with intelligence what the "absence of pain" references do mean, by referring to Plato and the other anti-pleasure philosophers who suggested that "gods" or "virtue" or "ideal forms" give us the standard by which to live our lives.

  • Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 6:33 PM

    Poster A:

    Even Cicero continues:

    Fourth, we do not agree with those who allege that when pleasure is withdrawn, anxiety follows at once.

    That result is true only in those situations where the pleasure happens to be replaced directly by a pain.

    The truth is, in general, we are glad whenever we lose a pain, even though no active sensation of pleasure comes immediately in its place.

    This fact serves to show us how life itself, WHEN LIVED IN THE ABSENCE OF PAIN, IS itself so GREAT a PLEASURE.

  • Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 6:33 PM

    Poster GW:

    Yes indeed that is a principal doctrine, and that has a meaning within the full context of Epicurean philosophy which does not contradict the bottom line that PLEASURE is the goal. That is what this thread is about, Garrett, that it is not possible to take things out of context and still understand the full picture.

    And nothing that Poster A just wrote contradicts the point either, Poster G. As A writes, Epicurus endorsed both pleasures that some term as "at rest" and some term as "active" -- but both types are PLEASURE. the key observation is that there are only two feelings - pleasure and pain - and that therefore as a matter of quantity, the "absence of one" is the same as "the presence of the other." This has everything to do with quantity and nothing to do about what type of feeling is actually happening at the time.

    Poster G, (and anyone else reading along) - just read Cicero's words closely and you'll see the issue. Cicero was a master of the details of all of these philosophers, and he knew very well that Epicurus' view of the goal of life was pleasure, and that Heironymous' view of the goal was "absence of pain" and that these are two totally different things and are not reconcilable. That means that PD3 does NOT mean that "absence of pain" is the ultimate goal, or even "the ultimate pleasure." The key words are "maximum limit" or as others translate "the limit of quantity." This is not a discussion of the goal of life explicitly, but a discussion of a specific objection to pleasure that had been raised previously by Plato / other philosophers. The objection was that "pleasure has no limit" (we always want more) and Plato thought that was an effective argument because the logicians had decided that nothing could be an ultimate goal if it can always be made better (meaning that it has no limit). This is set forth in Philebus and elsewhere.

    Epicurus pointed out the error in this reasoning by showing that pleasure DOES have a limit - and that limit is reached when our total experience is filled with pleasures of any time such that there is no more room for the experience of any pain -- all pain has been "crowded out."

    And thus in another context Cicero described the Epicureans as holding that "nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures." In Defense of Publius Sestius 10.23

  • Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 6:32 PM

    Poster GW: "But is it not a Principal Doctrine that, "Pleasure reaches its maximum limit at the removal of all sources of pain. When such pleasure is present, for as long as it lasts, there is no cause of physical nor mental pain present – nor of both together."?

    Poster A:

    "...the complete removal of pain has correctly been termed a pleasure.

    Even Cicero forwarded Torquatus' writing:

    The happiness we pursue does not consist solely of the delightful feelings of physical pleasures.

    On the contrary, according to Epicurus, the greatest pleasure is that which is experienced as a result of the complete removal of all pain.

    When we are released from pain, the mere sensation of complete emancipation, and relief from distress, is itself a source of great gratification.

    But everything that causes gratification is a pleasure, just as everything that causes distress is a pain.

    Therefore, the complete removal of pain has correctly been termed a pleasure.

    For example, when hunger and thirst are banished by food and drink, the mere fact of getting rid of those distresses brings pleasure as a result.

    So as a rule, the removal of pain causes pleasure to take its place.

  • Welcome Garden Dweller!

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 6:30 PM

    Welcome Garden Dweller ! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us a little about your background in Epicurus.

  • Welcome Azbcethananderson!

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 5:12 PM

    Welcome   azbcethananderson ! When you get a chance please let us know your background in Epicurus!

  • Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 2:30 PM

    Exactly Charles. This information is out there, but I think very few people have taken the time to digest it and think about its implications. And the last couple of decades the problem is accelerating -- all people are reading nowadays is popular wikipedia-like summaries, and the most recent commentaries, and the misinformation is accelerating like a snowball on a hill.

  • Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 2:08 PM

    According to Doctrine 3, Epicurus held that the limit of quantity of pleasure is the absence of pain. This is a function of the truism / premise that there are only two feelings - pleasure and pain - which means that in quantity, the measurement that describes the "absence" of the one is the same measurement as the "presence" of the other. But this observation is limited to quantity - it has nothing to do with the quality or the detail of the type of pleasure (or pain) that is being experienced at a particular moment.

    Nevertheless, there is at loose in philosophical communities today the idea that Epicurus taught that pleasure is exactly equal - is defined as - "absence of pain," and so many are motivated to try to reconcile the inconsistencies in the texts by holding that Epicurus meant "tranquility" and that "tranquility itself" is the goal of life. What they would really say, if they followed their conclusion to the end, is that "tranquility is the highest pleasure" -- but you rarely see that formulation, as it is so obviously and counter intuitively incorrect.

    The record of how all this discussion got started is out there if people would look. Much of the story begins with Plato and Philebus, but Epicurus was not the only one to grapple with the issue. One philosopher -Heronymous of Rhodes - explicitly adopted the modern "absence of pain" position - and everyone at the time knew the difference. Heronymous of Rhodes is forgotten today, but Epicurus is tagged with his incorrect viewpoint. Beware!


    Cicero - Academic Questions:


    Cicero - On Ends:


    I will give Hieronymous credit for one thing: he is consistent in seeing that holding up "absence of pain" as the goal means to depreciate "pleasure" as the goal of life. Whether they admit it or not, this is the natural road which proponents of "absence of pain" will follow - they end up being opponents of "pleasure" as ordinarily understood.

    Next - again from Cicero, On Ends:

    Image may contain: text


    Cicero the lying litigator at work again! Cicero KNOWS that Epicurus did not make the mistake of calling "absence of pain" the goal of life, as Hieronymus did, but because some are so obtuse as to think "absence of pain" makes sense (Hieronymous was such a one!) Cicero is able to use the argument to great effect - or so he thinks! But once we see that the goal is PLEASURE, rather than absence of pain, Cicero's argument falls to the ground:

    Image may contain: text

  • On "Happiness" As An Abstraction / "Pleasure" As a Feeling

    • Cassius
    • October 1, 2019 at 12:13 PM

    [Admin note 1/11/21 - Something has happened the image from the autarkist blog referenced below. I'll try to rconstruct what the image was, but in the meantime the article referred to is probably this one.]


    Some time ago Hiram pointed to a book by Lampe entitled "The Birth of Hedonism" and made this statement on his Autarkist blog:


    I have been wanting to track that down and finally today I found the page which is being referenced here:


    This is another situation where words can be used in different ways, and it is necessary to be precise. Lampe's reference here does a good job of clarifying the issue being discussed. He is talking about the Cyreniacs, but if we just step back and think about the topic in general, then this passage makes clear a distinction between the words "happiness" and "pleasure," and probably explains why Epicurus used both words in different contexts.

    In general and most frequently, it seems to me that when people use the word "happiness" in philosophical discussion it is very difficult to be sure what they mean, and how to unpack the definition. On the other hand, again generally, "pleasure" or "pleasing" generally refers to a "feeling" for which this statement from Torquatus applies:

    We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. This he sets out to prove as follows: Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict.

    Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.) Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature.

    What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance?

    _____________

    All of which is not to be negative about "happiness" being an abstraction, because abstractions are incredibly useful. But in order to be clear as to what we mean we have to be very precise, and there are huge variations in opinion as to what makes a person "happy."

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

Here is a list of suggested search strategies:

  • Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
  • Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
  • Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
  • Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
  • Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.

Resources

  1. Getting Started At EpicureanFriends
  2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
  3. The Major Doctrines of Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  4. Introductory Videos
  5. Wiki
  6. Lucretius Today Podcast
    1. Podcast Episode Guide
  7. Key Epicurean Texts
    1. Side-By-Side Diogenes Laertius X (Bio And All Key Writings of Epicurus)
    2. Side-By-Side Lucretius - On The Nature Of Things
    3. Side-By-Side Torquatus On Ethics
    4. Side-By-Side Velleius on Divinity
    5. Lucretius Topical Outline
    6. Usener Fragment Collection
  8. Frequently Asked Questions
    1. FAQ Discussions
  9. Full List of Forums
    1. Physics Discussions
    2. Canonics Discussions
    3. Ethics Discussions
    4. All Recent Forum Activities
  10. Image Gallery
  11. Featured Articles
  12. Featured Blog Posts
  13. Quiz Section
  14. Activities Calendar
  15. Special Resource Pages
  16. File Database
  17. Site Map
    1. Home

Frequently Used Forums

  • Frequently Asked / Introductory Questions
  • News And Announcements
  • Lucretius Today Podcast
  • Physics (The Nature of the Universe)
  • Canonics (The Tests Of Truth)
  • Ethics (How To Live)
  • Against Determinism
  • Against Skepticism
  • The "Meaning of Life" Question
  • Uncategorized Discussion
  • Comparisons With Other Philosophies
  • Historical Figures
  • Ancient Texts
  • Decline of The Ancient Epicurean Age
  • Unsolved Questions of Epicurean History
  • Welcome New Participants
  • Events - Activism - Outreach
  • Full Forum List

Latest Posts

  • Article and Short Video By Don On The Location of The Garden of Epicurus in Athens

    Cassius January 14, 2026 at 9:38 PM
  • Don Boozer - Where Was The Garden of Epicurus? Discussion

    Cassius January 14, 2026 at 9:34 PM
  • A Welcome Sign From Shahab

    Cassius January 14, 2026 at 7:32 PM
  • Exposition therapy,Courage and when choosing Pain

    Matteng January 14, 2026 at 3:53 PM
  • Thomas Nail - Returning to Lucretius

    Cassius January 14, 2026 at 2:08 PM
  • Roman Felicitas And Its Relevance to "Happiness"

    kochiekoch January 13, 2026 at 9:16 PM
  • Why Epicurus Railed Against Atheists And Questioned Their Sanity

    kochiekoch January 12, 2026 at 8:41 PM
  • Exercise for the happiness of the modern soul

    Kalosyni January 12, 2026 at 8:16 AM
  • Updating Of EpicurusToday.com

    TauPhi January 11, 2026 at 7:02 PM
  • Welcome JLPENDALL!

    Don January 11, 2026 at 6:30 AM

Frequently Used Tags

In addition to posting in the appropriate forums, participants are encouraged to reference the following tags in their posts:

  • #Physics
    • #Atomism
    • #Gods
    • #Images
    • #Infinity
    • #Eternity
    • #Life
    • #Death
  • #Canonics
    • #Knowledge
    • #Scepticism
  • #Ethics

    • #Pleasure
    • #Pain
    • #Engagement
    • #EpicureanLiving
    • #Happiness
    • #Virtue
      • #Wisdom
      • #Temperance
      • #Courage
      • #Justice
      • #Honesty
      • #Faith (Confidence)
      • #Suavity
      • #Consideration
      • #Hope
      • #Gratitude
      • #Friendship



Click Here To Search All Tags

To Suggest Additions To This List Click Here

EpicureanFriends - Classical Epicurean Philosophy

  1. Home
    1. About Us
    2. Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  2. Wiki
    1. Getting Started
  3. Frequently Asked Questions
    1. Site Map
  4. Forum
    1. Latest Threads
    2. Featured Threads
    3. Unread Posts
  5. Texts
    1. Core Texts
    2. Biography of Epicurus
    3. Lucretius
  6. Articles
    1. Latest Articles
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured Images
  8. Calendar
    1. This Month At EpicureanFriends
Powered by WoltLab Suite™ 6.0.22
Style: Inspire by cls-design
Stylename
Inspire
Manufacturer
cls-design
Licence
Commercial styles
Help
Supportforum
Visit cls-design