Posts by Cassius

Welcome Ranc1! Just had a second to start scanning your video and I think you are going to find that some of those quotes are not accurate, but in general I think you are definitely on the right track. Sorting out the details is what we do here and we'll be glad to help. Welcome aboard and I applaud your enthusiasm!

Welcome ranc1 !

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!

Thank you for the kind words Eikadistes, and thank you for all you do yourself.

Of all the many things that might be said about social media and politics, I am totally convinced that no matter what one's perspective, nothing can be fixed in politics or personal life or anything else without a fundamental reexamination of the way the world works. Studying Epicurus shows that almost everything we've been taught in conventional society is totally upside down.

Most institutions of modern society are totally corrupt, shot through with the type of deception Lucian pointed out in "Alexander the Oracle-Monger." Lucian was right that what's needed in response is the mental strength of Epicurus and his school. There's no way we get to the point where such people can exist again without going back and uncovering what made them what they were.

So that's the place, and not on day to day politics, where we need to keep our focus. We haven't even scratched the surface on that job.

Good to have you Dave!

I moved your post over to this location where it will be more findable.

Yes, the Thomas Jefferson connection is significant to many of us - if you didn't see it, we discussed it recently in the welcome thread for Al Hakiim von Grof.

Be sure to let us know if there's anything we can help you with, or if you have questions. Given your background I'd recommend to you the DeWitt book as the place to start for the deepest background, and the Emily Austin book for good practical advice. And of course as a Jefferson fan the connection to Frances Wright's http://www.afewdaysinathens.com is something you will want to check out.

If you come across references to Epicurus or his ideas in Jefferson that we don't already have listed at the link below, please let us know. If you run across other founding fathers with connections to Epicurus please let us know too.

Thomas Jefferson Resources

Ok read it. No need to soften my comments. But I will add more:

Quote

But Stoicism’s history extends far beyond its recent resurgence. When Zeno founded his school, he did so at a time when other philosophical currents were trying to address similar issues. He was a disciple of the Cynics, and during this period, Epicurus founded Epicureanism, while Pyrrho developed Scepticism — philosophical schools that also offered practical responses to the societal challenges of their time.

I almost want to come to the defense of traditional Stoicism after reading that article, as I think the ancient Stoics would themselves if they could read it. The article is the kind of breezy dismissal of the deeper significance of Stoicism that they would have detested. They weren't just "offering practical responses to the societal challenges of their time." The Stoics - and the Epicureans - were taking philosophy seriously and attacking issues of eternal and enduring significance- worth living and dying for -- and not just acting as social commentators offering the latest self-help advice.

Next, on a slightly different issue:

Quote

The French philosopher Michel Onfray wrote in EL PAÍS that “without Epicurus, there would have been no Renaissance, no Montaigne, no libertine thought of the 17th century, no philosophy of the Enlightenment, no French Revolution, no atheism, no philosophies of social liberation.”

I don't know that I think that Epicurus himself would agree with that. Gosh knows I have a high opinion of Epicurus, but the arguments that had Epicurus not lived there would never have been an enlightenment or French Revolution or atheism or philosophies of social liberation" seems to me to go way too far. In the end, Epicurus didn't invent something from nothing - he simply did the best job so far of putting all the pieces together into a coherent whole. Others would eventually have done something similar, and we would know their names instead of Epicurus'. So I don't think Epicurus himself would have agreed with a view that he was an indispensable genius.

As Lucretius himself said, nature never makes only a single thing of a kind.

In fact, I sense there's something Stoic even in looking at Epicurus that way - as if everything good in life comes because a god has handed it down from heaven. I think if Epicurus heard that kind of argument he would have said not to worry about looking to Epicurus, look to NATURE and you'll eventually --even if after a much longer journey making do without his help -- get there on your own.

Quote

"However, during the early centuries of Christianity, followers of Epicureanism were often misrepresented as people who organized banquets and orgies. This was a not true. In reality, the Epicureans advocated for a life centered around friendship and the thoughtful consideration of the consequences of everyday choices. They favored present moderation — such as having just one glass of wine — to avoid greater misfortunes in the future, like a hangover. But they proposed a life far removed from politics, which harmed the school’s influence, as Méndez Lloret points out.”

I need to read the full article, but out of context I am not gonna lie-- most of this is damning with faint praise and I would repudiate it as helpful to the Epicurean cause. It totally ignores the revolutionary philosophical and moral side of Epicurus' teachings which distinguish him from the passive ascetics for whom "moderation" and "a life far from politics" is something to be sought instead of prudence and pleasure and engagement with what the world has to offer.

Again I will read the full article to see if there is more context, but once again we have a so-called defense of Epicureans without once mentioning "pleasure" - except to distance them from it (banquets and orgies).

Quote from Eikadistes

I could see Lysimakhos (King of Thrace) suggesting that Epikouros was being very political when he offered his finance minister, Mithres asylum from a sentence. When you additionally consider that the Epicureans paid Mithres' bail, housed him in the Garden, and then helped him escape ... a few things come to mind.

I see Bryan posed essentially the same question, but if there is more documentation to support this please link it as I'd definitely like to be sure we have that here. Is that coming from an academic article or an ancient text?

thanks!

Updated Facebook Announcement -

Epicurean Philosophy | **Reminder: Thi**s coming Sunday (the 19th) at 1:00 pm EST, Epicureanfriends is sponsoring a YouTube livestream on the topic "Applying Epicurus Accur... | Facebook

**Reminder: Thi**s coming Sunday (the 19th) at 1:00 pm EST, Epicureanfriends is sponsoring a YouTube livestream on the topic "Applying Epicurus Accurately."…

www.facebook.com

Remember our upcoming Livestream "Applying Epicurus Accurately" this Sunday the 19th at 1:00 PM EST! Please go here for the Youtube stream, where we will watch the chat and take your questions. Join us if you can!

Welcome to Episode 267 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we are continuing our review of the key doctrines of Epicurus that are featured here at Epicureansfriends on the front page of our website.

This week we will address "Virtue Is Not Absolute Or An End In Itself - All Good And Evil Consists In Sensation."

Our discussion outline (work in progress!) will be here.

Welcome to Episode 264 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we have a special episode in which our podcaster co-host Don will give a talk entitled "Bread and Water - Debunking the Myth of Epicurean Asceticism." This talk was given on January 19, 2025, as part of our first EpicureanFriends Livestream. We'll link the slideshow presentation in the show notes to this episode, but you can view it anytime at EpicureanFriends.com by clicking on the "Featured Videos" link at the top of our website.

At the same location we also have a link to Don's video on "Where Was the Garden of Epicurus? Isolated, or Near the Center of Things?" In that talk, just as in this new Bread and Water talk, Don debunks myths that have grown up around Epicurean philosophy, mistakenly labeling the ancient Epicureans as isolationist and ascetic. Don does great work and we're proud to have him as a part of our podcast family.

Next week we'll be back with a regular Lucretius Today episode. Until then, enjoy Don on the topic "Bread and Water? Debunking the Myth of Epicurean Asceticism"

Welcome DaveT !

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!

Episode 263 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available: "All Sensations Are True."

Also:

Quote

Caesar also offers a striking argument against the death penalty itself (Sall. BC 51.20):

de poena possum equidem dicere, id quod res habet, in luctu atque miseriis mortem aerumnarum requiem, non cruciatum esse; eam cuncta mortalium mala dissolvere; ultra neque curae neque gaudio locum esse.

About the punishment I can speak according to the facts: in sorrow and misery death is a relief from grief, not a torture. It dissolves all human ills, and beyond it, there is place for neither care nor joy.

While Sallust is not quoting Caesar verbatim, he presumably availed himself of the senatorial archives in reconstructing the speeches, and the historicity of the remarks on death is confirmed not only by the fact that Sallust’s Cato, in responding to Caesar, refers back to them, but crucially also by Cicero’s own summary of the discussion in the fourth speech Against Catiline.

As for Cato, he begins his attack on Caesar’s proposal as follows (Sall. BC 52.13):

bene et conposite C. Caesar paulo ante in hoc ordine de vita et morte disseruit, credo falsa existumans ea quae de inferis memorantur, divorso itinere malos a bonis loca taetra, inculta, foeda atque formidulosa habere.

C. Caesar a little while ago gave this order a well-phrased and well-structured lecture on life and death, apparently deeming false what is said about the underworld, namely, that divorced from the good, the wicked inhabit horrid, desolate, foul and fearful places.

Display More

I see Trebatius Testa, apparently a well-known figure, is listed in Wikipedia, but Epicurean leanings are not mentioned --

Trebatius Testa - Wikipedia

Here is another article discussing Julius Caesar as potentially Epicurean. I don't yet have a fix on how to compare it to the 1977 article by Frank Bourne, but we have links to both in our "Julius Caesar" subsection of the forum.

Caesar the Epicurean? A Matter of Life and Death

In Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age, ed. by S. Yona and G. Davis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022, pp. 72-86.

www.academia.edu

Couple of sections that catch my attention:

Quote

That Caesar was informed about Epicureanism is without doubt. Even if he had undergone no specifically philosophical training himself, a basic knowledge concerning the major philosophical schools was, by the first century BC, part and parcel of the Roman aristocracy’s cultural competence, and Caesar can hardly have failed to pick up the principles of Rome’s most fashionable philosophical creed. Furthermore, as has often been pointed out, many of Caesar’s friends and followers were Epicureans. These include not only his father-in-law Piso, but also his trusted lieutenant C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus and the jurist C. Trebatius Testa. In the case of such other Caesarians as L. Cornelius Balbus, A. Hirtius and C. Matius, we cannot be sure about their philosophical allegiance, but Epicurean leanings have often been suggested. While older views that Epicureanism provided a political ideology for the Caesarian party have long been debunked, and it is well established that Epicureans stood on both sides of the Civil War, the concentration of putative Epicureans in Caesar’s circle is still worth noting.

What is especially interesting is the evidence for Epicurean activity in the Caesarian camp during the campaigns in Gaul, Germany and Britain. Trebatius, who had joined Caesar’s staff on the recommendation of Cicero, converted to Epicureanism in 53 BC, apparently under the influence of Pansa. His mentor back in Rome reacted in mock horror: “My friend Pansa tells me you have become an Epicurean. That’s a great camp you got there!” (indicavit mihi Pansa meus Epicureum te esse factum. o castra praeclara!, Fam. ..). Just a year earlier, the leisure hours of the campaigning Caesarian officers may have been taken up with studying Lucretius’ brand-new poem. As Christopher Krebs has shown, following F. R. Dale, Caesar himself must have read On the Nature of Things in 54, to judge from striking verbal echoes in Books 5, 6, and 7 of his Gallic War. It is possible that Caesar, and perhaps other philosophically interested members of his staff, were introduced to Lucretius by Quintus Cicero, who knew the poem by February 54 (Cic. QFr. ..) and joined Caesar’s campaign shortly thereafter. Dale (, ) fondly imagines that Caesar “read Lucretius with Quintus in Britain, on a summer evening in his tent.”

Would be particularly interesting to follow up on the reference to verbal parallels between Lucretius and Caesar's "Gallic War"!

Thanks to Don for pointing to that thread. We have several people who are particularly familiar with those philosophies and I seem to recall that Eikadistes' knowledge was particularly detailed.

A Special Happy Birthday to our regular participant -- ONENSKI!