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.
What happens when you go down the path of separating static and active pleasure, and concluding that static pleasure is the goal of life? You end up concluding things that are totally counterintuitive like "Epicurus does not consider joy to be a kind of pleasure," as did Jeffrey S. Purinton, Phronesis, Vol. 38, No. 3 (1993), pp. 281-320:
It seems almost certain that this is going to be another case where we start with the general rule (that there IS no absolute rule that applies to everyone) and then analyse this as a case of particular importance because of the amount of pain and pleasure that can come from it. Surely it (hyper-romanticized love, anyway) also fits in a category such as "intoxication" which is often, but not always presumably, going to be a bad idea. But "marriage" doesn't have to be based on intoxication, and we'd have to know tons of variables to reach a specific conclusion in a particular case.
And we KNOW that Epicurus directed in his will that Metrodorus' daughter be married - there is even an academic article citing that point somewhere. So in this case it might be that all of them are erring in not making it clear that this too is a generalization rather than a rule. I would think that if possible to a good match, Epicurus would say that it is desirable, but to be cautious because of the risk.
Same thing with children, which might be even riskier, but has great rewards if done right. Probably need a separate thread on that at some point - years ago there was a long discussion of the relative merits and demerits of "childlessness"
Christos:
Elli indicates that you (and possibly others of the Athenian Garden) are working on an updated set of English translations of some of the core Epicurean texts (presumably at least the Principal Doctrines and the Vatican List?)
Could you let us know what you are doing in that regard and how the project is coming? We desperately need a reliable set of core texts from people we can trust.
I have set up a list of current translations that appear to be problems in English, and I would really like to see your project come to fruition.
Thanks!
I believe I have now finally arranged the boxes containing the lists of new posts in the way it probably should be:
1 - The first box shows the most recent threads from across all the forums.
2 - The second box shows the list of most-discussed threads from all the forums.
and then
3 - on the dashboard there is the "Recent Activity" box which contains most recent POSTS with an excerpt of what is said in each post.
The Home page is targeted to new and recent users; the Dashboard is targeted to regular users who want to skip the static (or should I say katastematic? 
) content.
As always let me know if there are user comments and suggestions we need to consider.
One of the most troublesome translation issues is the passage in Diogenes Laertius in which Epicurus either advises "for" or "against" marriage, depending on the translator.
There is a maddening discrepancy in the various translations of Diogenes Laertius in the crucial “Wise Man” sequence. CD Yonge’s 1853 translation reports that Epicurus thought marriage to be a bad idea: “Marriage, they say, is never any good to a man, and we must be quite content if it does no harm; and the wise man will never marry or beget children, as Epicurus himself lays down in his Doubts and in his treatises on Nature. Still, under certain circumstances in his life he will forsake these rules and marry.”
The Loeb Classical Library version of the R.D. Hicks translation, which dates from 1931, concurs: “Nor, again, will the wise man marry and rear a family: so Epicurus says in the Problems and in the De Natura. Occasionally he may marry due to special circumstances in his life.”
But Cyril Bailey in his 1926 translation says the opposite: “Moreover, the wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in the Problems and in the work On Nature. But he will marry according to the circumstances of his life.”
Is Bailey leading us into a trap with a problem translation? Or in this case does Bailey have the better view? We know that Epicurus provided in his will for the marriage of Metrodorus daughter, so I tend to think in this case Bailey is correct. I posted about this previously here.
Due to recent catches by Elli in problem translations of key Epicurean passages, I have set up a tablewhere I would like to compile a list of them, with a preferred translation and documentation of sources of the alternatives. I know we have discussed more than Vatican 35 and 66. If people here are aware of passages which they think are questionably translated it would be great if you could mention them so I could add them to this list and make it accessible.
I have a series of others I want to add to the list myself. One of the most troublesome is the passage in Diogenes Laertius in which Epicurus either advises "for" or "against" marriage, depending on the translator.
There is a maddening discrepancy in the various translations of Diogenes Laertius in the crucial “Wise Man” sequence. CD Yonge’s 1853 translation reports that Epicurus thought marriage to be a bad idea: “Marriage, they say, is never any good to a man, and we must be quite content if it does no harm; and the wise man will never marry or beget children, as Epicurus himself lays down in his Doubts and in his treatises on Nature. Still, under certain circumstances in his life he will forsake these rules and marry.”
The Loeb Classical Library version of the R.D. Hicks translation, which dates from 1931, concurs: “Nor, again, will the wise man marry and rear a family: so Epicurus says in the Problems and in the De Natura. Occasionally he may marry due to special circumstances in his life.”
But Cyril Bailey in his 1926 translation says the opposite: “Moreover, the wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in the Problems and in the work On Nature. But he will marry according to the circumstances of his life.”
Is Bailey leading us into a trap with a problem translation? Or in this case does Bailey have the better view?
If you have comments on this or other problem translations, please add them here. Commentary on the Marriage issue would be good to discuss here.
I completely agree Eric. This one is not "crazy" but someone in control of the effect. 
By the way, I like your new profile picture of you being thoughtful. But I miss the one of the guy looking joyful, bordering on insane!
Very true!!
Elli has pointed out another problem with Bailey: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…55210121194609/
Let's see again another example of a translation in engllish for this E.saying LXVI.(66), which is a tiny sentence.
Ancient greek : Συμπαθῶμεν τοῖς φίλοις οὐ θρηνοῦντες ἀλλὰ φροντίζοντες.
New greek : Συμπαραστεκόμαστε στους φίλους όχι θρηνώντας αλλά φροντίζοντάς τους. (translation from ancient to newgreek is by Takis Panayiotopoulos, founding member in the Garden of Athens)
In english I found the following translations :
1) Let us show our feeling for our lost friends not by lamentation but by meditation. (website by Cassius Amicus)
2) We show our feeling for [deceased] friends, not by wailing, but by pleasant recollection. (translation by Erik Anderson)
3) We show our feeling for our friends' suffering, not with laments, but with thoughtful concern. (website hosted by Vincent Cook)
[Note]: I wonder who were those translators, who knew the ancient greek and english fluently, and found in the above ancient greek text the words such as : "lost", "deceased" and "suffering" friends, as well as where the translators found the words "meditation", "the pleasant recollection", and "the thoughtful concern"???!!!!
------------------------------------------------------
My translation in english, according to the ancient greek that is translated in newgreek correctly, is : "We support (or stand by or help) the friends not by lamenting, but taking care of them".
On the greek word : "θρήνος", and in english "lament". In greek "θρήνος" [thrinos] means an intense and prolonged crying. General expression of intense sadness / pain. In the music is a song that expresses deep sadness. Often it concerns and the death of a man e.g. "the mother lament the loss of her child".
Since in the above E.saying there is no any mentioning for "dead" or "lost" friends, I would like to give an example of an experience in the real life : One of my near and dear friends get sick from cancer. He is inside a hospital or in his home, and when I visit him realizing his weakness and his future coming death, I go outside from his room or in front of him, and I'm crying with an intense and prolonged crying. I feel a deep sadness and a huge pain, but my friend did not die yet, and I ? What I’ am supposed to do, when he would ask me something to help him ? I will lament in front or behind him for his weakness and future coming death ?!
Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Elli you are providing more reasons why I push the Dewitt book and not the Bailey books (which I use only for translations, never for commentary.) DeWitt's translation is much closer to yours than to Bailey - this is page 327:
That's a great description of the process. We can combat overindulgence by trying to suppress the immediate pleasures by appeals to false religious/idealistic ideas, or we can combat it by acknowledging that pleasure really is our goal, and that if we really do want to maximize our pleasure we have to avoid going too far with certain activities that are beyond our ability to handle them without punishment through excessive pain. To me the latter argument is far more persuasive than the first.
It also helps a lot to be able to talk about and compare experiences with other like-minded people, so thanks for participating in allowing us all to do that here!
Thank you for responding Elli! Vince Cook is one of the most respected Epicurus students out there, so Nal if you know how he calculated it, let us know. I see on the moon calendar that there is a start and finish of the new moon over several days, so I can see that being a source of ambiguity.
Hi Nal! I am afraid that I was not able to calculate this myself, and was working with info provided by friends of Epicurus in Greece at this thread on Facebook. Also using this.
We initially calculated the 26th, but switched based on this comment: "But the right, and as Diogenis Laertius reports, is 7 days after the new moon in the month Gamelion, thus Epicurus birthday - for this year - is 23rd of January." That was the conclusion of two of our friends in Greece.
Do you know the basis of Vince's calculation? We'd certainly like to get it right! Thank you!
Welcome Nal ! When you have time, please let us know a little about your background and interest in Epicurus. Thanks for joining us!
This is a wide question and I bet others will have lots of perspectives. A thumbnail of my own approach is that I attempt to find some point of common ground to discuss first. For example many people in my area, even the very religious ones, were also raised to respect and admire Thomas Jefferson. So with those, one of the first places I start is to point out that Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence wasn't written without a context, and that Jefferson said some really great things about Epicurus.
If Jefferson could get elected president in a very religious country while still holding his Epicurean views, then we can be successful too. It might be, however, that like Jefferson, we have to be very careful with whom we discuss some of the details. No doubt some of the deeper implications should be held for discussion later, and at first only with those of us who are like-minded.
Another much lesser known example, but someone who is fascinating and probably appeals to a different group than Jefferson, is Frances Wright and her pro-Epicurean "A Few Days In Athens." She can be held up as a female example of someone who understood and promoted Epicurean philosophy with a great book in a time when most women did not do that kind of thing. In fact that book is a very good starting point for someone who doesn't read a lot of pure philosophy.
On the other hand if the person you're talking to has been studying a lot of philosophy, there's hardly a more prominent friend-of-Epicurus name to drop than Nietszche. And if the person you're talking to is a communist, you can even cite Karl Marx as someone who was interested in Epicurus!
So I think it is generally possible to start by building some bridges in areas of common ground, then expanding from that.
I want to hear others on this too so anyone reading this thread, please comment!
Possibly we ought to set up an "Epicurean Outreach" Forum, but for now probably this one: Special Challenges of the Modern World
I have fixed (I think!) my websites with this replacement for VS35:
DeWitt: We must not spoil the enjoyment of the blessings we have by pining for those we have not but rather reflect that these too are among the things desirable. Peter St. Andre: Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for. [The version of this text by Bailey appears clearly incorrect: “We should not spoil what we have by desiring what we do not have, but remember that what we have too was the gift of fortune.”]
Fixing the ebooks and other references points will be harder but I will track them down.
Absolutely. It would help so much to get to people much younger. I always remember that line from "ON ENDS" on that topic: “Was he, I say, to study arts like these, and neglect the master art, so difficult and correspondingly so fruitful, the art of living? No! Epicurus was not uneducated: the truly uneducated are those who ask us to go on studying til old age the subjects that we ought to be ashamed not to have learnt in boyhood!”
It's always complex to debate specifics, and the Japan example is no exception. Was it needed? Was it appropriate? My answer on those questions has varied over the years, but it is difficult to dispute that it did bring the Japanese warmaking regime to an end more quickly than otherwise. Not taking a position on whether that was the right thing to do under the specific case, though. Probably easier is just the hypothetical normal homeowner being invaded with intent to murder by a random burglar, with the homeowner shooting the burglar or otherwise simply inflicting pain in order to protect his / her young children. I think most would agree that in virtually all such situations the infliction of pain was "correct."
Even those situations can be analyzed further, but what Epicurus was really saying I think is that there's no absolute standard by which we can look at a situation from outside and make an absolute judgment of right or wrong. The burglar apparently thought it would enhance his pleasure to invade the home. The homeowner thought it would advance his pleasure to stop him. Each side is making choices based on their view of their best interest, and both sides have to live with the consequences.
Even looking back at Japan vs USA, same analysis. Japan's leaders saw their interest one way, the USA's leaders saw it differently. One side one, and the other lost, but neither can legitimately claim that God or ideal virtue justified their side, because those things simply don't exist.
When I use progression I did not mean to imply evolution in particular, which is probably your concern there(?) just that we can observe variations in degree, regardless of what caused them.
Here's my initial thought: "If pain is an evil, then inflicting it on others is immoral." That is probably very over-broad, because, for example, shooting a burglar or injuring someone trying to kill you would not be immoral. I think there are several texts we could cite in support of that.
I think we also have to be careful with the word "evil" in this and lots of contexts. Yes our feeling of pain is always undesirable, and from that point of view we consider it evil, but "evil" often implies much more - a religious or idealistic imperative never to do it under any circumstances. And there is no religious or idealist realm or function which establishes that, so that connotation of "evil" is not valid in Epicurean terms.
So issues with that part of the comment flow through to "But inflicting pain on others is questionable if it denies their option of accepting it for that later avoidance."
Depending on the context, we often probably are not concerned whether our infliction of pain on others, in our own defense at least, limits the other person's response options.
