Posts by Cassius

Thanks. I'll have a lot more to say when I finish the book but I'm definitely impressed so far.

Eikadistes - today I finished the chapter in this book on Epicurus - "Epicurus' Dangerous Idea."

It's got to be one of the deepest treatments of Epicurus that I've read in many a day, and given that it was released as recently as 2015 it's probably one of the longer recent treatments out there - certainly in a book meant for general readership.

It may not be quite as "broad," but it's a *much* deeper treatment of some of the core ideas than the chapter on Epicurus in Greenblatt's "The Swerve."

He's giving far more detail than I am familiar with, but one person I wish he had referenced (although she's after the revolutionary period so I can understand her being omitted) was Frances Wright and her Few Days In Athens.

I'm looking forward to reading it to the end but wanted to re-engage you on your overall impression of the book. Did it lead you to any additional reading on any of the many lesser-known figures that he talks about from the followers of Bruno (Vallini?) on up to the 1800's? It sounds like Thomas Young was a key figure and link to Epicurus.

There's also a lot of general reflection on how to present revolutionary religious ideas when you know that many people around you aren't ready to hear them.

This might be one of the best general-interest books to talk about Epicurus since "The Swerve," and it almost certainly deserves more attention than we've given it.

Quote from AxA

So I judge my life against this expanded sense of time, and see it as very inconvenient to only be alive for a tiny part of it.

Yes I feel the same way, and I think it's important not the let the Epicurean view that you don't need an unlimited time to attain the fullness of please lead you to think that it's entirely irrelevant how long you live. I don't think that was Epicurus' view at all - as evidenced by his comments about the desirability of life and his opposition to suicide.

Quote from AxA

I can't fathom the meaning of beauty (or honour or excellence, translating the same word as beauty) that does not bring pleasure.

Ha -- YOU can't, nor can most normal people in my view, but apparently Plato and the stoics had no problem thinking that way at all, and finding "beauty" to have nothing to do with pleasure whatsoever.

Quote from AxA

I'm not convinced of the value of "morality" as a concept

Yep. "Morality" can be a useful term, sort of like "ethics," but like most (all?) abstractions it has no real meaning outside of particular circumstances. You can say that "pleasure and pain" are also tied to circumstances, but Nature gives you a very direct awareness of those without need of logical or conceptual identification. Pleasure and pain can also be viewed as abstractions in the way we use the terms, but they are immediately traceable back to the "feeling" given by nature.

Quote from Kalosyni

Without a god which gave moral mandates as absolutes, then we see that moral precepts are a product of humans living together with other humans and desiring to find safety, trust, and peace, rather than creating fear, distrust, anger and perpetual violence. So we as groups of humans

The key being that just humans (not gods) develop language, WE develop these ideas, and they are not sanctioned or handed down by any supernatural being, nor do they have any eternal transcendent existence. And when circumstances change, we change those ideas of morality to fit circumstances, we don't try to fit the circumstances to some arbitrary and unchanging notion of what is "just." This is explained at length and forcefully in PD37 and 38:

Quote

PD37. Among actions which are sanctioned as just by law, that which is proved, on examination, to be of advantage, in the requirements of men's dealings with one another, has the guarantee of justice, whether it is the same for all or not. But if a man makes a law, and it does not turn out to lead to advantage in men's dealings with each other, then it no longer has the essential nature of justice. And even if the advantage in the matter of justice shifts from one side to the other, but for a while accords with the general concept, it is nonetheless just for that period, in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty sounds, but look to the actual facts.  PD38. Where, provided the circumstances have not been altered, actions which were considered just have been shown not to accord with the general concept, in actual practice, then they are not just. But where, when circumstances have changed, the same actions which were sanctioned as just no longer lead to advantage, they were just at the time, when they were of advantage for the dealings of fellow-citizens with one another, but subsequently they are no longer just, when no longer of advantage.

As to the "Beautiful" being trademarked Platonism, I believe the citation I was trying to remember tonight was the following, which in this case (from Bryan's Epicurea PDF) translates as "honorable" and "excellence" rather than "beautiful," though I think i have seen it translated "beautiful" as well:

Quote

Aetius, Doxography, XII p. 547A: And in his work On the End-Goal, he says again:
"{=U70}" And in other passages, he says "I spit upon the honorable and those who
vainly admire it, whenever it produces no pleasure."

Plutarch, Against Kōlṓtēs, 30, p. 1124E: … and when men take for sages those who
"spit on excellence, unless pleasure attends it." [c.f. 1124E @ U368]

Thank you Bryan -- I don't want you to have to paste more screen shots. I will edit these, presumably using my Hix/Loeb to match the greek to the right place. It'll take time but I'll get it done.

Welcome BramBoro

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 72 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 / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

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 some 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 other viewpoints, 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 by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being 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 have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

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!

Well, here's a first draft of a web version, but I am not at all confident of some of the line divisions, and as to to the Greek version matching the divisions, it will be pure luck if some of them match

It's going to take more effort to make this usable, but if Tau Phi is able to produce a more careful version in PDF, then I'll eventually make mine conform to his. I'd suggest that anyone who has time to volunteer focus on Tau Phi's version of the full book, and then I'll eventually get mine into shape from that.

EpicureanFriends Side-By-Side Diogenes Laertius Ten

I've been continuing to work on a format that I can use as a web version in similar side-by-side as in the Lucretius page, but the differences in line numberings between the editions are really a bear.

I'll proceed as best I can using the Hicks/Loeb as the standard, but because there are all sorts of differences in groupings (plus decisions as to whether to include scholium) the finished product will hopefully match the original content, but not have consistent line numbering. I'm not sure there's much way to deal with any of this other than do the best we can, and then point to PDFS of the original editions so people can check the PDFs to verify the originals. I suspect Tau Phi's is going to be more precise than mine (it definitely is so far) so when his full book ten comes out I'll do my best to bring a web version in conformity with his.

Bryan when you referred to the Cambridge edition, I am guessing you are talking about the academic one that's mostly in Greek. Do you know how closely the Loeb/Hicks conforms to that? I don't know that there's a much better choice than that one (Loeb/Hicks), if we want to pick one of the public domains as the "standard."

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

Thank you Tau Phi! This is a huge effort and I appreciate any of it you can complete!

This is the part that caught my attention - a potential huge difference between Epicurus and Democritus. Cicero's earlier reference to Democritus seems to read this ("soul and mind are, he says, one and the same thing, and this thing must be one of the primary and indivisible bodies,") as indicating that Democritus thought that there are primary and indivisible soul/mind atoms, rather than that, as Epicurus thought, souls/minds are non-primary things that are composed of indivisible atoms. Given this translation, Cicero's reading might well be a fair reading of Democritus:

Quote

Some thinkers, accepting both premisses, viz. that the soul is both originative of movement and cognitive, have compounded it of both and declared the soul to be a self-moving number.

As to the nature and number of the first principles opinions differ. The difference is greatest between those who regard them as corporeal and those who regard them as incorporeal, and from both dissent those who make a blend and draw their principles from both sources. The number of principles is also in dispute; some admit one only, others assert several. There is a consequent diversity in their several accounts of soul; they assume, naturally enough, that what is in its own nature originative of movement must be among what is primordial. That has led some to regard it as fire, for fire is the subtlest of the elements and nearest to incorporeality; further, in the most primary sense, fire both is moved and originates movement in all the others.

Democritus has expressed himself more ingeniously than the rest on the grounds for ascribing each of these two characters to soul; soul and mind are, he says, one and the same thing, and this thing must be one of the primary and indivisible bodies, and its power of originating movement must be due to its fineness of grain and the shape of its atoms; he says that of all the shapes the spherical is the most mobile, and that this is the shape of the particles of fire and mind.

Joshua if you could add here that section from Aristotle that you quoted in today's episode I would appreciate it.

That's great Bryan I had no clue! Can you do them in English for the book headings?

AETIUS has this:

1.23 On Motion

§1 Pythagoras Plato: motion is a difference or alteration in matter qua matter. This is the shared definition of every (form of) motion.
§2 Aristotle: (motion is) entelechy of the movable.
§3 Democritus: (there is) one kind of motion, that which (occurs) through vibration.
§4 Epicurus (says there are) two kinds of motion, that which (occurs) perpendicularly and that which (occurs) through deviation.
[a lemma on three kinds of motion seems to have fallen out]
§5 But there are some who introduce a fourth kind, that which (occurs) substantially, i.e. that which (occurs) in terms of coming to be.
§6 Yet others add intellectual (motion) as well, so in fact they have advanced up to the (number) five.
§7 Diodorus Cronus (says that) things have moved to some extent, but that nothing is moving (sc. in actuality).
§8 Heraclitus removed rest and standing still from the whole of things, for this belongs to corpses; to everlasting things he assigned everlasting motion and to perishable things (he assigned) perishable (motion).
§9 Herophilus (says that there is) motion that is observable by reason and (there is) motion that is sense-perceptible. (P5,S8)
§10 (But) Asclepiades declared that all motion is sense-perceptible. (S9)

---------------------

So "entelechy" is the way Aristotle seeks to preserve Plato's forms and suggests that they are "essences' within a thing, rather than in some higher dimension.

Entelechy | Definition, Example, Aristotle, & Leibniz | Britannica

Entelechy, that which realizes or makes actual what is otherwise merely potential. The concept is intimately connected with Aristotle’s distinction between…

www.britannica.com

entelechy, (from Greek entelecheia), in philosophy, that which realizes or makes actual what is otherwise merely potential. The concept is intimately connected with Aristotle’s distinction between matter and form, or the potential and the actual. He analyzed each thing into the stuff or elements of which it is composed and the form which makes it what it is (see hylomorphism). The mere stuff or matter is not yet the real thing: it needs a certain form or essence or function to complete it. Matter and form, however, are never separated; they can only be distinguished. Thus, in the case of a living organism, for example, the sheer matter of the organism (viewed only as a synthesis of inorganic substances) can be distinguished from a certain form or function or inner activity, without which it would not be a living organism at all, and this “soul” or “vital function” is what Aristotle in his De anima (On the Soul ) called the entelechy (or first entelechy) of the living organism. Similarly, rational activity is what makes human beings human and distinguishes them from other animals.

-----

The link to hylomorphism is very interesting, and contains this:

Opposed to hylomorphism are atomism, mechanism, and dynamism, all of which deny the intrinsic composition of metaphysical principles in bodies and recognize only physical principles, such as corpuscles, pure mathematical extension, or forces and energies. These theories agree also in denying the hylomorphist’s claim that intrinsic change can occur in the ultimate realities of which the physical world is composed and, further, in reducing the phenomenon of becoming to a simple local movement or to purely accidental changes of a single selfsame reality.

Tau Phi I know what you've already done has been a huge amount of work, but let me ask this: Does the method of assembly you used make it possible with reasonable effort to:

1 - Do the same thing for the rest of DIogenes Laertius so that we have the full Book X in one place? That makes it much easier for word searching.

2 - In cutting and pasting from the PDF I am seeing a problem that I've had with other PDFs of my own in the past -- there's something wrong with the constructions involving "f" that corrupts the words. For example, here is paste of Herodotus from Hicks 44: Note the 'o ering" and "aner" and " inds." Do you get the same thing? Is there anything we can do to fix this - if we need to we can spell check and hand edit but that will need to be done before generating the PDF. We can get you some help with that if it would help.

Quote

Hicks, 1925 This is because each atom is separated from the rest by void, which is incapable of o ering any resistance to the rebound; while it is the solidity of the atom which makes it rebound aner a collision, however short the distance to which it rebounds, when it lnds itself imprisoned in a mass of entangling atoms.

Here are some references in Herodotus and Lucretius where it is stated that atoms are eternally in motion on their own, rather than set in motion by an outside force. Collision is a source of motion as well, but "weight" is separate and is an inherent property of atoms.

Herodotus

44 - For on the one hand the nature of the void which separates each atom by itself brings this about, as it is not able to afford resistance, and on the other hand the hardness which belongs to the atoms makes them recoil after collision to as great a distance as the interlacing permits separation after the collision. And these motions have no beginning, since the atoms and the void are the cause.

Scholium to 44 - Hicks - This is because each atom is separated from the rest by void, which is incapable of offering any resistance to the rebound; while it is the solidity of the atom which makes it rebound after a collision, however short the distance to which it rebounds, when it finds itself imprisoned in a mass of entangling atoms. Of all this there is no beginning, since both atoms and void exist from everlasting. [He says below that atoms have no quality at all except shape, size, and weight. But that colour varies with the arrangement of the atoms he states in his “Twelve Rudiments”; further, that they are not of any and every size; at any rate no atom has ever been seen by our sense.]

54 - Bailey - Moreover, we must suppose that the atoms do not possess any of the qualities belonging to perceptible things, except shape, weight, and size, and all that necessarily goes with shape.

76 - ,,, Furthermore, the motions of the heavenly bodies and their turnings and eclipses and risings and settings, and kindred phenomena to these, must not be thought to be due to any being who controls and ordains or has ordained them and at the same time enjoys perfect bliss together with immortality

Lucretiius

1-628 - And again, if nature, the creatress, had been used to constrain all things to be dissolved into their least parts, then she could not again renew aught of them, for the reason that things which are not enlarged by any parts, have not those powers which must belong to creative matter, the diverse fastenings, weights, blows, meetings, movements, by which all things are carried on.

1-984 - Moreover, if all the space in the whole universe were shut in on all sides, and were created with borders determined, and had been bounded, then the store of matter would have flowed together with solid weight from all sides to the bottom, nor could anything be carried on beneath the canopy of the sky, nor would there be sky at all, nor the light of the sun, since in truth all matter would lie idle piled together by sinking down from limitless time. But as it is, no rest, we may be sure, has been granted to the bodies of the first-beginnings, because there is no bottom at all, whither they may, as it were, flow together, and make their resting-place. All things are for ever carried on in ceaseless movement from all sides, and bodies of matter, are even stirred up and supplied from beneath out of limitless space.

1-1067: But empty error has commended these false ideas to fools, because they embrace and hold a theory with twisted reasoning. For there can be no centre, since the universe is created infinite. Nor, if indeed there were a centre, could anything at all rest there any more for that, rather than be driven away for some far different reason: for all room and space, which we call void, must through centre or not-centre give place alike to heavy bodies, wherever their motions tend. Nor is there any place, to which when bodies have come, they can lose the force of their weight and stand still in the void; nor must aught that is void support anything, but rather hasten to give place, as its own nature desires. It cannot be then that things can be held together in union in such a way, constrained by a yearning for the centre.

2-80 - If you think that the first-beginnings of things can stay still, and by staying still beget new movements in things, you stray very far away from true reasoning. For since they wander through the void, it must needs be that all the first-beginnings of things move on either by their own weight or sometimes by the blow of another. For when quickly, again and again, they have met and clashed together, it comes to pass that they leap asunder at once this way and that; for indeed it is not strange, since they are most hard with solid heavy bodies, and nothing bars them from behind. And the more you perceive all the bodies of matter tossing about, bring it to mind that there is no lowest point in the whole universe, nor have the first-bodies any place where they may come to rest, since I have shown in many words, and it has been proved by true reasoning, that space spreads out without bound or limit, immeasurable towards every quarter everywhere. And since that is certain, no rest, we may be sure, is allowed to the first-bodies moving through the deep void, but rather plied with unceasing, diverse motion, some when they have dashed together leap back at great space apart, others too are thrust but a short way from the blow.

2-284 - Wherefore in the seeds too you must needs allow likewise that there is another cause of motion besides blows and weights, whence comes this power born in us, since we see that nothing can come to pass from nothing. For weight prevents all things coming to pass by blows, as by some force without. But that the very mind feels not some necessity within in doing all things, and is not constrained like a conquered thing to bear and suffer, this is brought about by the tiny swerve of the first-beginnings in no determined direction of place and at no determined time.

2-294 - Nor was the store of matter ever more closely packed nor again set at larger distances apart. For neither does anything come to increase it nor pass away from it. Wherefore the bodies of the first-beginnings in the ages past moved with the same motion as now, and hereafter will be borne on for ever in the same way; such things as have been wont to come to being will be brought to birth under the same law, will exist and grow and be strong and lusty, inasmuch as is granted to each by the ordinances of nature. Nor can any force change the sum of things; for neither is there anything outside, into which any kind of matter may escape from the universe, nor whence new forces can arise and burst into the universe and change the whole nature of things and alter its motions.

2-308 - Herein we need not wonder why it is that, when all the first-beginnings of things are in motion, yet the whole seems to stand wholly at rest, except when anything starts moving with its entire body. For all the nature of the first-bodies lies far away from our senses, below their purview; wherefore, since you cannot reach to look upon them, they must needs steal away their motions from you too; above all, since such things as we can look upon, yet often hide their motions, when withdrawn from us on some distant spot.

3-31 - And since I have shown of what kind are the beginnings of all things, with what diverse shapes they differ, and how of their own accord they fly on, impelled by everlasting motion, and in what manner each several thing can be created out of them; next after this it seems that the nature of the mind and the soul must now be displayed in my verses, and the old fear of Acheron driven headlong away, which utterly confounds the life of men from the very root, clouding all things with the blackness of death, and suffering no pleasure to be pure and unalloyed.

3-262 - For the first-beginnings course to and fro among themselves with the motions of first-beginnings, so that no single one can be put apart, nor can its powers be set in play divided from others by empty space, but they are, as it were, the many forces of a single body. Even as in the flesh of any living creature anywhere there is smell and a certain heat and savour, and yet of all these is made up the bulk of a single body. Thus heat and air and the hidden power of wind mingled create one nature together with that nimble force, which sends among them from itself the beginning of motion, whence the motion that brings sensation first arises throughout the flesh. For right deep within this nature lies hid far below, nor is there anything further beneath than this in our bodies, and it is moreover the very soul of the whole soul.

5-416 - But by what means that gathering together of matter established earth and sky and the depths of ocean, and the courses of sun and moon, I will set forth, in order. For in very truth not by design did the first-beginnings of things place themselves each in their order with foreseeing mind, nor indeed did they make compact what movements each should start; but because many first-beginnings of things in many ways, driven on by blows from time everlasting until now, and moved by their own weight, have been wont to be borne on, and to unite in every way and essay everything that they might create, meeting one with another, therefore it comes to pass that scattered abroad through a great age, as they try meetings and motions of every kind, at last those come together, which, suddenly cast together, become often the beginnings of great things, of earth, sea and sky, and the race of living things.

Welcome George Vincent Schaefer

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 72 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 / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

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 some 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 other viewpoints, 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 by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being 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 have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

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!

Bryan you are probably here one of the most expert on the full text of Diogenes Laertius. To which would you look for the best order for all of Book X? If not Bailey, Hicks?

(I see an example of such a note in Herodotus 61 of the PDF. I don't know how many such notes there are, but it would be a desirable to maybe include a statement as to what/which order the PDF follows?)

Tau Phi ---

I've been working with Book ten myself recently and in looking back over the versions that I have here at the site and in various other places, I find it very difficult to line up some paragraphs between the three versions because it appears that different translators are using different text arrangements and/or line numbers.

When I was working with the Lucretius texts I ended up using the Rouse/Loeb as "canonical" for numbering purposes, and then I forced the other translations to fit.

Did you do something similar with this PDF, or did you not run into such issues for some reason? If you used one version as the "master" reference for line numbering, which did you use?