Posts by Cassius

**THIS WEEK IN EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHY - 05/24/2015***

** This is the one hundred and seventh in a series of weekly reports on news from the world of Epicurean Philosophy. Our home base for discussion is https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/Copies of these posts, and links to active Epicurean websites, are stored atEpicurusCentral.wordpress.com.

** We welcome all participants and lurkers. If you apply to participate and don't receive a reply promptly, please send an email to an admin about your interest in the group. We are here to discuss Epicurean Philosophy, have fun, and in the words of Lucian, "strike a blow for Epicurus - that great man whose holiness and divinity of nature were not shams, who alone had and imparted true insight into the good, and who brought deliverance to all that consorted with him!"

**Some unavoidable traveling yesterday has delayed me in posting this week's update on the Facebook group, but it has given me more time to think about this week's theme. In recent weeks we have had the usual series of excellent posts and discussions, but there has been an uptick in controversy, some of it helpful, and some of it not.

The issue is exemplified in the extensive discussion of my post this week:

"Query: "Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." Would Epicurus have agreed or disagreed? Why?"https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…32027843512844/

The question posed here proved to be an excellent way to get to the very deep issues that divide those who are truly and primarily fans of Epicurus from those who are primarily fans of other philosophers. But the real issue is not a matter of labels and schools - the real issue is the deep one that Epicurus addressed directly: "What is the goal of life?" There have always been, and apparently always will be, those who for a variety of reasons wish to attack the goal of living devoted to pleasure, and praise life devoted to pain. As Cicero's Toquatus described them as those who hold: "...this mistaken idea of reprobating pleasure and extolling pain ..."

The enemies of pleasure operate under many frameworks. There is a large contingent that embraces the stoic idea of that goes under the guise of suppressing all emotion, but is really oriented toward suppressing pleasure and encouraging pain. But there is also the spirit of skepticism that lives on in the attitude of eclecticism. These people are so adamantly certain that nothing can be considered true that they insist that there is no need for consistency, no need for intellectual rigor, and that they can combine by sheer force of will the most contradictory ideas into one grab-bag collection. What unites these two is that both the pure stoics *and* the eclectics thrive on the deception of being opaque about their true goals. They extol "happiness" to the skies, and demand that we accept that their goal and their definition of happiness is the same as ours. But if you scratch the surface, the goal of happiness as defined by these people is as drained of pleasure as the surface of the moon.

The pleasures of life can only be purchased at the price of some pain. Epicurean philosophy is devoted to the intelligent application of the facts of reality and human nature to assist us in living with as much happiness as possible, which entails also living with as little pain as possible. But just as with his discussion of "the gods," Epicurus did not write and teach to the "lowest common denominstor." He did not oversimplify the issues and he did not distort his teachings so that even the unwise can understand them. Diogenes Laertius: "However, not every bodily constitution nor every nationality would permit a man to become wise. VS29. "To speak frankly as I study nature I would prefer to speak in oracles that which is of advantage to all men even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the constant praise that comes from the many."

In reading Epicurus on the gods, it is necessary to understand that Epicurus defined "gods" in a non-supernatural way. So when Epicurus said that "gods" exist, he was not talking about the supernatural gods that many people insist on jumping to conclude. If you insist on reading Epicurus superficially, you will totally miss his meaning.

In reading Epicurus on pleasure, it is necessary to understand that Epicurus defined "feeling" as having only two categories - pleasure or pain - and that one's feelings, if not painful, are therefore going to be pleasurable. So when Epicurus talks about the goal of absence of pain, he means pleasure as ordinarily understood, and not some mystical third state of anesthesia that Stoic-minded people embrace and insist on jumping to conclude. Again, if you insist on reading Epicurus superficially, you will totally miss his meaning.

And "insisting on reading Epicurus superficially" is exactly what the majority of pleasure-repressing philosophers have insisted on doing since at least the time of Seneca. "If you can't defeat him, co-opt his words and twist them to support your own" has been their theme for 2000 years. And they have succeeded to the point where it is almost impossible to find a group of people who insist on talking the truth about Epicurean pleasure.

There may be other places I am not aware of, but the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook page, and those sites affiliated with the leadership of this group, are the exceptions. Although we certainly have differences of opinion among ourselves, the unifying theme is that we are rejecting the ascetic view of Epicurus, and we are studying and working to understand once again the pleasure-focused philosophy that is evident when one escapes the jail of the orthodox framework.

We have promoted in the past and will continue to promote in the future honest and constructive discussion of these issues. But we are not going loosen our moderation practices to allow the enemies of pleasure to conduct in this group their standard campaing of intimidation and misprepresentation. If you have an open mind about the meaning of pleasure, and you truly wish to study Epicurean philosophy to assist yourself in living happily in a way that ordinary people can understand, then you are welcome and encouraged to participate and post in our group.
If your interest in being here is to snipe against pleasure and suppress discussion, then you are *not* welcome to participate. The About Section and Sticky Post of this group will be enforced in a constructive manner to reinforce the goal of the group and to prevent those who disagree with that goal from disrupting it.

Questions like "is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" are of vital interest to everyone. Elli P. in particular, and others as well, gave great responses. They pointed out that in EVERY question, even one as charged as this one, the ultimate answer is always the same. There is no Platonic ideal form, no Aristotelian evaluation of "essences," or looking for "golden means," or "moderation," that answer the question for us. Nor is it possible to succeed in analyzing this question with an eclectic "whatever works" approach which hides the meaning of "works."

Epicurus' doctrine is clear: All pleasure is good, and all questions of what we choose and avoid have to be evaluated according to whether those choices and avoidance bring pleasure or pain. And in the end, since the goal of life is the most possible pleasure AND the least possible pain, only we can evaluate for ourselves how that calculation should be computed.

These are questions and answers that are fundamental to living. Epicurus stood alone against mainstream Greek philosophy with his outlook on answering these questions, and in 2000 years no other school has approached the level of his insight. What people find so hard to understand in many cases is the reason they have failed -- despite their protests about "happiness" -- is that they don't *want* to succeed, because they fundamentally disagree with us that pleasure is desirable for itself.

But pleasure *is* desirable for itself, and the reason that it is so is that Nature has made us that way. If we wish to follow Nature, then we need to study and apply the philosophy of Epicurus. That is what we are working to do in the Epicurean facebook group, and those who share our goal are welcome and encouraged to join us.

**Thanks to all who participated the the Facebook forum this week. As always, if you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, please add a comment or participate in the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Grouphttps://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/ or hop around the internet world of Epicurean Philosophy by checking the links here:EpicurusCentral.wordpress.com
*
Live Well!
Cassius Amicus

A very smart woman in Greece wrote this. Maybe she will post it herself at some point but until then:

As you placed this issue, Epicurus would answer to it, like this: I do not answer in such kind of dilemmas to agree or disagree.

I prefer to post here again, a comment that I have written to another thread and some months ago.

On the matters of : 1) Eros as sexual desire and 2) love as friendship

Two different concepts and meanings : the first (1) is complex, inexplicable and unreason the second (2) is very simple, explicable and reason.

What is eros as sexual desire and what is friendship as love and what does this word really means ? Epicurus used to talk for “friendship”(filia), which is came from the greek verb "filo"="φιλώ" = agapo = love. Which means a relationship based on care and interesting in accordance to a mutual benefit which has a balance of offering and taking about feelings thoughts and actions.

Epicuru’s exhortations (neither demands nor simple advices) on eros as sexual desire are trying to show us the way to overcome the obstacles that cause disturbances in our body, mind and soul. Because eros as sexual desire, this complex and absurd situation is dominated under the status of the conquer, of sovereignty and of the destruction. So many have been written what is "eros" ? Poets, writers, philosophers, thinkers, scientists, and all of them lead to one conclusion :"Eros is the brother of death and without the disaster is not eros, but a matter of LOL and derision".

And here comes Epicurus to show us, something else, something that we already know it, but we pretend that we do not know it. He shows us clearly what is eros as sexual desire as a typical sequential model: “At the beginning is lust, then is infatuation, then fulfillment and finally jealousy and boredom. In this infinite and repeated story, beyond the actual sexual act there is only anxiety and depression” ... but here comes again that Titan of wisdom going straight to the matter and tells us, how we would achieve to find the right friend partner in our life, to love and share the friendship, which is based on mutual benefit, under the same interests, common thoughts and actions with the balance of offering and giving and with the same desires to live the joy of a fruitful relationship with all the pleasures of life it has.

And we? No, we say to him. We want to pass first from the condition of the animal to bleed, to suffer, to feel pain, to give pain, to devour and be devoured and after all these painful situations, then I will become a man of wisdom. And while he, Epicurus, tells us how we can become an hyperman of wisdom and to have prudence and live as a god among the men, we answer : No ! I want to be an animal firstly. An animal which is been conquered under my unreasonable instincts.

And Epicurus answers : Sure, you have your instincts this is natural and of course you can’t uproot them, since your are not a foolish apathetic stoic person, but I can show you the way, in which you can understand WHY you have these instincts; and HOW they become evolved when they've been well educated with prudence and stop to be instincts...but HUMAN FEELINGS and wise thoughts, that will bring you all the benefits to live a wonderful and pleasurable life .
Our choices are always free of charge !
1 hr · Edited · Unlike · 2

Cassius AmicusVictor Hugo there is no clearly authoritative viewpoint on this, but here is my understanding: DeWitt calls the anticipations an "intuitive" faculty involving abstract relationships like justice. The point is that unless our minds were "oriented" or "disposed" or "wired" with certain principles of functioning, we could never even RECOGNIZE the relationships we consider to be "justice." This view is like the sense of sight. If our eyes did not operate according to certain physical principles, we would not see the light of the sun. If they were wired differently we might see UV instead of sunlight. In the case of sight, we were not born having seen trees, or knowing anything about trees. But we are born with a faculty (eyesight) that is "tuned" and "operates with certain principles" that allows our eyes to report the shapes and colors etc that our minds interpret as trees.

• With abstract relationships such as justice, the analogous theory would be that our minds were wired to operate in such a way that they recognize the spectrum of relationships that amount to what we label "justice." This wiring does not tell us that one form of justice is good or bad, or pleasing and non-pleasing (this latte is the job of pleasure and pain). What the wiring DOES do is allow us as men to recognize that the issue of "justice" exists, which is something that lower animals do not even recognize, much less evaluate.
  

  The theory I have just stated is a blend of what DeWitt calls intuitive, and Jackson Barwis calls "innate principles." I am not saying for certain that this is what Epicurus held. But it does appear clear that Epicurus held anticipations to be PRE-conceptual, and as part of the canon, they must operate without injection of opinion. So what i am describing *may* be a way of thinking about the Epicurean position.7 hrs · "}" href="https://www.facebook.com/home.php?#" role="button" title="Like this comment" data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment831616663553962_831758306873131:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.3.$likeToggle:0:$action:0">Like · 2

• Cassius Amicus Let me add something else here: what I gave above is my interpretation, based on DeWitt. Here again, there is a "majority" view that is/was held by people like Cyril Bailey. Essentially, that view is that Epicurus held "anticipations" to be "concepts" formed by conceptual reasoning. And in fact Diogenes laertius says "Now in The Canon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and preconceptions and our feelings are the standards of truth; the Epicureans generally make perceptions of mental presentations to be also standards." To me, this indicates a split in they years after Epicurus. DeWitt says that Epicurus was right, and that the "Epicureans generally" were wrong, for reasons I am about to discuss.
  

  Here is another key section in Diogenes Laertius: "By preconception they mean a sort of apprehension or a right opinion or notion, or universal idea stored in the mind; that is, a recollection of an external object often presented, e.g. Such and such a thing is a man: for no sooner is the word “man” uttered than we think of his shape by an act of preconception, in which the senses take the lead. Thus, the object primarily denoted by every term is then plain and clear. And we should never have started an investigation, unless we had known what it was that we were in search of."

  Now that OUGHT to be very clear, and end the discussion, but DeWitt thinks this was the position of "the Epicureans generally" and not the position of Epicurus himself, and that it is in fact a view that opens the door to the undermining of the core doctrine, and here's why.

  What we are calling the "Canon of Truth" is really nothing more than "our faculties of direct contact with reality" (kind of like aponia means nothing more than "without pain"). Everyone agrees on the five senses as being direct contacts. The eyes report what they see, without adding opinion or recognition - the mind does that. But in considering anticipations as "concepts," that would mean they are "abstract concepts," such as "justice" or "divinity" for example). Most people agree that we are not born with "concepts" in our mind, and that concepts arise from the process of thinking about things. If preconceptions are abstract concepts that have arisen after we thought about them, and if they are also part of our faculties that test reality, then that would mean that we have created our own standard by which to test reality.

  Now there is no doubt that this process does exist as PART of how our mind works. We see different types of trees, and we assign the concept "tree" to them. We see different types of human relationships, and we assign the concept "justice" to describe some of those relationships.

  But DeWitt says, and I think rightly, that this process of thinking and forming concepts is NOT part of our "our faculties of contact with reality." He says this conceptual formation process takes place LATER, AFTER the faculties of perception have done their work of presenting us data to process. And so DeWitt thinks that any process which includes "opinion", which all concepts do (since they are not handed down to us by ideal forms or by essentials) CANNOT be considered a "faculty of direct contact with reality").

  Instead, Dewitt says, these are called PRE-conceptions for a reason. They PRECEDE the end result of the concept-formation process. Dewitt calls them "intuition" that is used in the process of forming concepts, which is why I was describing them above as "dispositions" or intuitions that allow us to recognize that an issue of "justice" or "divinity' is involved. Justice and divinity are kinds of "relationships", so seen in this way, anticipations are a faculty for recognizing abstract relationships that we otherwise would not even consider, such as a cat or dog or animal can look in a mirror and not seem to see anything worth considering. DeWitt is essentially saying that anticipations are dispositions guiding us to recognize areas that need consideration.

  SO the majority view is that preconceptions are the result of a reasoning process. This brings "reason" directly into the heart of the canon, and says that reasoning to produce concepts is every bit as reliable and trustworthy as seeing or hearing. Do you see why that view would undermine the whole system? It invites us to treat the results of "reasoning" as just as valid as seeing or hearing or being pleased by something. And that invites us to think that we can overrule the guidance of nature, and decide for ourselves what the ultimate goal of life "should" be. It invites us to substitute "virtue" (or any other conceptual goal we come up with) as equally, or more, important, than choosing pleasure and avoiding pain, which is the directive NATURE gave us to follow.

  That's why the nature of anticipations is so important. It appears to have been an issue within the Epicurean community fairly early, and I think DeWitt is right that those who adopted it, probably in order to accommodate the Stoic/Platonic/ Aristotelian worship of "reason/logic", made a very bad mistake in doing so.

  If you allow that it is possible to "reason" your way to conclude that "virtue" is more important than "pleasure," which is what happens when you consider "reason" to be a part of the canon of truth, then you have opened the door to the collapse of the entire system, which is built on the faculties NATURE gave us, and not on standards we dream up ourselves.1 min · "}" href="https://www.facebook.com/home.php?#" role="button" title="Like this comment" data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment831616663553962_831863276862634:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.3.$likeToggle:0:$action:0">Like

**THIS WEEK IN EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHY - 05/16/2015***

** This is the one hundred and sixth in a series of weekly reports on news from the world of Epicurean Philosophy. Our home base for discussion is https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/ Copies of these posts, and links to active Epicurean websites, are stored at EpicurusCentral.wordpress.com.

** We welcome all participants and lurkers. If you apply to participate and don't receive a reply promptly, please send an email to an admin about your interest in the group. We are here to discuss Epicurean Philosophy, have fun, and in the words of Lucian, "strike a blow for Epicurus - that great man whose holiness and divinity of nature were not shams, who alone had and imparted true insight into the good, and who brought deliverance to all that consorted with him!"

**Tonight I am going to deviate from my normal format in order to announce the launching of a new project. I hope will prove to be an important supplement to - and not replacement of - the work of the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook group.

Over the last several years we have had many great discussions on Facebook. Lots of very helpful information has been posted. Many people have contributed enormous amounts of time to post on complicated issues of philosophy, and those posts were greatly helpful and appreciated. And yet all that work is effectively gone -- disappeared into the ether and into the abyss of Facebook and the inexorable scrolling of the Facebook timeline. The "search" feature, it is true, can recover things if we know what we are looking for. But it is largely useless for new people and for finding specific information.

For that reason I am in the initial phases of launching a new website with dedicated, professional forum software - https://www.epicureanfriends.com/www.EpicureanFriends.com. Rough edges have to be smoothed out, but the framework of the website is operational and can already be browsed by anyone who is interested.

By using state-of-the-art forum software, we can organize discussions by topic for easy reference by new people. Direct linking will also make it easier to reuse content on other web sites, so that we will less often have to reinvent our wheels after we once devote the effort to post and explain particular issues.

Let me emphasize this as clearly as I can: Epicureanfriends.com is **NOT** intended to be, and will not be, a replacement for the Facebook discussion. I fully expect that most of my own time, and most of the time of the other leaders of the Facebook group, should continue to be spent on Facebook. It is here that in a free-flowing manner we can interact with people from all over the world, and find out who shares our interests and who is just passing through.

Epicureanfriends.com will have a distinctive organizational feature that dramatically separates its purpose and operation: All posting, except by a few of our established admins and leaders on the Facebook website, will be moderated for content before appearing on the site. New registrants will be given the status to submit questions and of course read all posts. They can also post new comments and start new threads, but all such posts will be moderated.

Given the moderation aspect, I expect the website to get off to a slow start and grow slowly- possibly *very* slowly. Anyone is free to register a user account, and submit posts, and I hope everyone with a sincere interest in supporting Epicurean philosophy will do so. But discussion will not be free-wheeling as it is on the Facebook site, and we will not be looking for regular posting from people who are not already supportive of the core ideas of Epicurus. Unless your post is deemed to contribute to the goal of providing reference material for the future, or directly contributing to a positive discussion of the particular topic, it will probably not be approved.

NOTE WELL: We should **all** acknowledge that no one has the right to say what "is" or "is not" Epicurean philosophy. The meaning of various doctrines is hotly contested. The interpretations you will find on Wikipedia and other philosophy sites is the "mainstream," "orthodox" and "majority" view. Everyone has a right to interpret Epicurus as they see fit.

But *not* everyone will have the right to post to Epicureanfriends.com. The tone there is expected to be more than just a superficial "facebook friendship," and we are expecting posters to be true friends of Epicurean philosophy.

The purpose of Epicureanfriends.com will be to continue the work that the admins and leaders of the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook forum have started at that forum and in their individual websites.

Broadly, that means that EpicureanFriends.com will be devoted to a fundamental, positive, pleasure-centered view of Epicurus and his philosophy. And when I say "pleasure-centered," I mean firm and uncompromising and unembarrassed adherence to the Lucretian formula that "Divine Pleasure is the Guide of Life."

This means that the tenor of Epicureanfriends.com will be expected to oppose interpretations that make Epicurus into an ascetic, a friend of stoicism, or a determinist. There are many other attitudes and goal that are not consistent with the effort to give full faith and credit to the overall thrust of Epicurean Philosophy. We will expect those attitudes to be checked at the door and left outside.

One way of describing this viewpoint and attitude is to say that it should be similar with that of Norman DeWitt, whose "Epicurus and His Philosophy" is widely admired among the leaders of our group. Another point of comparison is Frances Wright, whose "A Few Days In Athens" was a landmark work toward restoring Epicurus to the prominence that he deserves. And another point of reference is to Cosma Raimondi, whose letter from 1429 displays the zeal in defense and promotion of Epicurean philosophy that our current Facebook leadership team shares.

Epicureanfriends.com will tackle every difficult question that is relevant and appropriate to address. The distinctive feature is that we will tackle these issues in a way calcutated to reinforce the pro-Epicurean viewpoint. There are many other websites where anti-Epicurean, pro-Stoic, or simply Eclectic views can be discussed. The purpose here will be to assist those who are truly dedicated to Epicurean philosophy in furthering their work.

At present the website is little more than a skeleton. As soon as I personally have the time, one of my first efforts will be to go back through my posts at our various websites and the facebook page, and copy/paste/rewrite them into posts according to topic at Epicureanfriends.com. Many people have provided links and excellent commentary, and excerpts from these can be reused or linked on the new website so they can more easily be found in the future.

That aspect of the work - gathering existing material - is something that I would appreciate anyone's help in doing. And I do mean anyone - even if you have just been a "lurker" here and not previously posted. When you register with the new site, you will be able to submit threads and posts, and if you are motivated to do so and have the time, you too can assist in preparing posts on the various topics. It's not necessary for you to write up lengthy original material - links and excerpts under each topic will be a valuable start.

I ask your patience and indulgence in the problems that will no doubt arise in launching this. And please remember that the website may sit largely unused for many weeks or months until we get a nucleus of material and people interested in the goal. The goal of the site will never be complete, but it has to start with a first step.

The goal of the site will always remain clear. In the spirit of Cosma Raimondi, Frances Wright, and others, it is being set up to promote Epicurean philosophy in its full, positive, vigorous form - the form launched by Epicurus himself.

**Thanks to all who participated the the Facebook forum this week. As always, if you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, please add a comment or participate in the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/ or hop around the internet world of Epicurean Philosophy by checking the links here: EpicurusCentral.wordpress.com
*
Live Well!
Cassius Amicus

We already have a chart comparing Epicurus to Stoicism.

We are now working on a chart of wider scope Comparing Epicurus to Other Viewpoints

And a comparison chart of on the "goals of life" A Comparison Chart on "The Goal"

All of these are works in progress but maybe they will be of help to someone

Posted Originally at NewEpicurean.com on 5/5/15

Alexander Rios has written an excellent essay on Fields or Particles that is now posted at the Society of Epicurus. What is the relationship of that discussion to how we should live? One important aspect is revealed by this quote from the article: “subatomic force fields and space are the only things that exist.” What the writer really means is that they are the only things that exist “eternally,” and that the organized bodies we see around us are only there for a time. But what he conveys with that word choice – at least to many people – is that the things we see around us are an illusion.

To jump from “only atoms and void exist” directly to “the things we see around us don’t exist” is a huge mistake. Unfortunately, there are many people in philosophy groups – and religion – who enjoy suggesting just that. And why do they find that idea attractive? In part, because it makes them easier to dismiss the pain of life as “an illusion,” and frees them from necessity to consider “reality” as something important.

One of the key Epicurean insights about physics is that for us as humans, the things we see around us do not only exist, they are THE reality that we live in. The world we live in is in fact the ONLY reality that we have, and it is all that is important to us. The central reason – the ONLY reason – we study atoms and void and physics is to assist us in living happily. The world we are concerned about is the world that is real to us.

PD 11. If we had never been troubled by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, nor by fears about death, nor by our ignorance of the limits of pains and desires, we should have had no need of natural science.
PD 12. It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn’t know the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

We see a lot of the “world is unknowable/illusion” argument in other philosophy groups, but it doesn’t exist only in those who like to argue variants of Platonism / Stoicism / Skepticism. The real home of “true world” theory
is religion, which is why Stoicism is so compatible with religion, and why Stoicism blended so well with the rise of Christianity.

One of the most interesting places to see the historical contrast is in Norman Dewitt’s St. Paul and Epicurus. There, DeWitt explains references by Paul about the “weak and beggarly elements,” and links them to religion’s fight against Epicurean ideas. The reason the argument was important then is the same reason it is important now: arguments that the world is an illusion are intended to convey a sense of despair about the world we live in, and to encourage you to turn in fear to religion, or to philosophies which claim access to other – “truer” – worlds.

Atoms and void are not “the only things that exist. YOU exist, and if you allow arguments that the world around you is unreal to cloud your thinking, the cost is great: the loss of your ability to live happily now and the confident expectation of being able to live happily in the future.

Explanation of issues in physics like Alexander Rios has provided are not tangents or sideshows in Epicurean philosophy. Judgement and conclusions about the nature of the universe are not discretionary. Answers to questions such as Was the universe created by a supernatural being? Does the universe operate by supernatural or natural means? Is the universe a machine in which no free will is possible? Are the things we see around us real? are the essential foundation on which Epicurean philosophy is built.

In sum, the physics of Epicurus supported the following conclusions (among many others):
1 – That the universe is not supernatural and operates by natural means.
2 – That the universe consists of space and elemental “particles.” These particles have an eternal nature which in turn gives the universe consistency and predictability, which is why the universe is not chaotic and random.
3 – That while the eternal particles give the universe consistency and predictability, they have a nature which is not entirely mechanistic. Epicurus theorized that this nature entailed the ability to swerve at no fixed time and no fixed place, and because this capacity exists, phenomena can exist which is not entirely mechanistic (i.e., conscious beings have a degree of free will).
4 – That while only atoms and void are truly eternal, combinations of atoms and void to form bodies are also real. The world we live in is formed by these combinations of atoms and void, and must be treated as real, and not as illusions, in order for us to live happily. The simple fact that combinations of atoms and void are not eternal does not mean they are not real.

For those interested in tracing this argument to the New Testament period, here is an excerpt from Chapter 4 of “St Paul and Epicurus”:

For instance, verse 4:3, which is rendered in the Revised Standard, “So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe,” may be more rightly interpreted to mean: “when we were juveniles, we were slaves to the elements of the universe.” The inference is that the Galatians, before they became Christians, had been Epicureans and believers in the atomic theory. The word elements is a synonym for atoms.

There is evidence also that the fickle Galatians were backsliding and reverting to the creed of Epicurus, as in verse 4:9: “how can you turn back to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits,” which should be rendered “weak and beggarly elements,” meaning the despised atoms.

Again, when Paul writes in the verse following: “You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years,” these words can be explained in terms of the last will and testament of Epicurus. In this document, which is extant, the philosopher enjoins upon his followers the regular observances of a number of festivals, ceremonies, and anniversaries.

"Flourishing" is a code word that it appears that Aristotelians like to use instead of "pursuit of pleasure" or some variation of pleasure. In my observation, "flourishing" - to the extent you can pin down a definition, is meant by the Aristotelian to include the goal of virtue that they believe is equally a goal of life with pleasure. I need to pin down some examples and/or discussion of this in order to establish the point, and I don't have those lined up. But I am confident the point is correct. In the end, this is a subset of the wider issue that Aristotle failed to ground his ethics in pleasure. While Aristotle denied Plato's contention that the good existed as an ideal form in another dimension, he simply moved the location of these ideal forms to *this* world and considered them to be "essentials" that exist in this dimension. The result is largely the same as Plato.

I will update this as I can find cites. In the meantime:

• Essentialism - an article by Richard Dawkins: "Essentialism—what I’ve called "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind"—stems from Plato, with his characteristically Greek geometer’s view of things. For Plato, a circle, or a right triangle, were ideal forms, definable mathematically but never realised in practice. A circle drawn in the sand was an imperfect approximation to the ideal Platonic circle hanging in some abstract space. That works for geometric shapes like circles, but essentialism has been applied to living things and Ernst Mayr blamed this for humanity’s late discovery of evolution—as late as the nineteenth century. If, like Aristotle, you treat all flesh-and-blood rabbits as imperfect approximations to an ideal Platonic rabbit, it won’t occur to you that rabbits might have evolved from a non-rabbit ancestor, and might evolve into a non-rabbit descendant. If you think, following the dictionary definition of essentialism, that the essence of rabbitness is "prior to" the existence of rabbits (whatever "prior to" might mean, and that’s a nonsense in itself) evolution is not an idea that will spring readily to your mind, and you may resist when somebody else suggests it. Paleontologists will argue passionately about whether a particular fossil is, say, Australopithecus or Homo. But any evolutionist knows there must have existed individuals who were exactly intermediate. It’s essentialist folly to insist on the necessity of shoehorning your fossil into one genus or the other. There never was an Australopithecus mother who gave birth to a Homo child, for every child ever born belonged to the same species as its mother. The whole system of labelling species with discontinuous names is geared to a time slice, the present, in which ancestors have been conveniently expunged from our awareness (and "ring species" tactfully ignored). If by some miracle every ancestor were preserved as a fossil, discontinuous naming would be impossible. Creationists are misguidedly fond of citing "gaps" as embarrassing for evolutionists, but gaps are a fortuitous boon for taxonomists who, with good reason, want to give species discrete names. Quarrelling about whether a fossil is "really" Australopithecus or Homo is like quarrelling over whether George should be called "tall". He’s five foot ten, doesn’t that tell you what you need to know?
• Wikipedia Reference: Eudaimonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία [eu̯dai̯moníaː]), sometimes anglicized as eudaemonia or eudemonia /juːdɨˈmoʊniə/, is a Greek word commonly translated as happiness or welfare; however, "human flourishing" has been proposed as a more accurate translation.^[1] Etymologically, it consists of the words "eu" ("good") and "daimōn" ("spirit"). It is a central concept in Aristotelian ethics and political philosophy, along with the terms "aretē", most often translated as "virtue" or "excellence", and "phronesis", often translated as "practical or ethical wisdom".^[2] In Aristotle's works, eudaimonia was (based on older Greek tradition) used as the term for the highest human good, and so it is the aim of practical philosophy, including ethics and political philosophy, to consider (and also experience) what it really is, and how it can be achieved.
• The Three Key Ideas From Arisototle That Will Help You Flourish. "Eudaimonia is Greek and translates literally to “having good demons.” Many authors translate it as “happiness,” but I don’t think that’s the best translation or way to understand it. “Well-being” and “flourishing” are closer to what Aristotle means, and I think that of the two, “flourishing” captures the full range of the way he uses the word. And someone who is flourishing is living The Good Life. According to Aristotle, all humans seek to flourish. It’s the proper and desired end of all of our actions. Flourishing, however, is a functional definition. And to understand something’s function, you have to understand its nature. Keep in mind that Aristotle, unlike Plato, was an empiricist – that is, he was trying to describe what he was seeing, rather than stating what he thought it should be. In Aristotle’s schema, there are four aspects of human nature, and he is often quoted as saying “Man is a political creature.” Aristotle’s meaning is much richer than the way it’s translated, though, because he means that “man is a rational creature who lives in poleis (societies).” (“Poleis” is the plural of “polis,” from which we get the root “poli” that’s used in so many words like polite, political, police, etc. that have to do with how we interact in groups.)"
• Notes on Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics: "There are several ways in which Aristotle approaches the question of what happiness consists in. First, he notes that flourishing for plants and animals consists in their functioning well according to their natures. So one question we should ask is this: What is the proper or peculiar function of a human being? Aristotle thinks it obvious that our proper function consists in reasoning and in acting in accord with reason. This is the heart of the doctrine of virtue, both moral and intellectual. So on this line of reasoning we are led to the conclusion that the possession and exercise of moral and intellectual virtue is the essential element in our living well. A second approach is to survey the goods which we find ourself desiring, since happiness presumably consists in the attainment of some good or set of goods such that to have them in the right way is to be living well. One division of goods is into (i) external goods (wealth, fame, honor, power, friends), (ii) goods of the body (life, health, good looks, physical strength, athletic ability, dexterity, etc.), and goods of the soul (virtue, life-projects, knowledge and education, artistic creativity and appreciation, recreation, friendship, etc.). The problem then is to delineate the ways in which such goods are related to happiness. Aristotle's view is that (a) certain goods (e.g., life and health) are necessary preconditions for happiness and that (b) others (wealth, friends, fame, honor) are embellishments that promote or fill out a good life for a virtuous person, but that (c) it is the possession and exercise of virtue which is the core constitutive element of happiness. The virtuous person alone can attain happiness and the virtuous person can never be miserable in the deepest sense, even in the face of misfortune which keeps him from being happy or blessed. So happiness combines an element over which we have greater control (virtue) with elements over which we have lesser control (health, wealth, friends, etc.).
• Aristotle, Human Flourishing, And the Limited State: "Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) is the most significant thinker and the most accomplished individual who has ever lived. Every person currently living in Western civilization owes an enormous debt to Aristotle who is the fountainhead behind every achievement of science, technology, political theory, and aesthetics (especially Romantic art) in today's world. Aristotle's philosophy has underpinned the achievements of the Renaissance and of all scientific advances and technological progress to this very day."
• The Concept of A Flourishing Life in Aristotle's Politics and Nichomachean Ethics: "In Politics, Aristotle argues that to lead a flourishing life, it is imperative that all free men embrace their responsibility in the political system, thereby protecting the interests of their personal lives, social class, and community, as well as instilling virtue in oneself through civil servitude and leadership."

There are many good summaries available and I will update this page as I collect good links.

In the meantime, here is the one I have prepared most recently for this purpose: Foundations of Epicurean Philosophy

The issue of "painlessness" / "aponia" is controversial and needs much discussion.

I have collected on this page my current understanding of the issue, as well as cites and references for the position that painlessness is not paradoxical, but is in fact simply understood as a life so full of pleasure that no room is left for the experience of pain, a formulation found stated by Cicero.

This is not the only possible formulation of this issue by any means, but it seems to me that any formulation must be consistent with the full scope of the available evidence and be consistent with the role of Pleasure/Pain in the Canon of Truth, the insistence of Epicurus that words be used in ordinary, familiar, and clear meaning, and the many statements to the effect that "pleasure" is the guide of life.

**THIS WEEK IN EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHY - 05/09/2015***

** This is the one hundred and fifth in a series of weekly reports on news from the world of Epicurean Philosophy. Our home base for discussion is https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/ Copies of these posts, and links to active Epicurean websites, are stored at EpicurusCentral.wordpress.com.

** As of tonight, our group has grown to 1684. Last week this time we were 1669. We continue to grow steadily, and we welcome all participants and lurkers. If you apply to participate and don't receive a reply promptly, please send an email to an admin about your interest in the group. We are here to discuss Epicurean Philosophy, have fun, and in the words of Lucian, "strike a blow for Epicurus - that great man whose holiness and divinity of nature were not shams, who alone had and imparted true insight into the good, and who brought deliverance to all that consorted with him!"

**Every week I say we have lots of excellent discussion, and this week is not only no exception, it was almost too full to do justice here. Before I get started, I mentioned last week that I would soon have an announcement for a new initiative to help preserve some of the content we are generating on Facebook. That's not quite ready to go, but it will be soon. In the meantime, here are the week's highlights:

**We had a discussion this week of dating the current year (2015) in terms that would be recognizable to Lucretius and Epicurus. It seeems tha Lucretius would name this year as (2768 AUC) but with Epicurus we got a number of different answers (2091 and 2768). So we may still need more work on that. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…25973464118282/

**Elli posted a graphic on VS 41: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26400777408884/

**Prompted by a post by Alexander Rios, I posted "Fields, Particles, and the Reality We Live In." https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26486014067027/ Also: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26413944074234/

**Also this week Hiram and Alexander posted an excellent Spanish-language interview they gave. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26325070749788/ That prompted me to write "Setting the Stage for the Discussion of Pleasure." https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26556700726625/

**Elli posted a graphic on PD33, which says that justice has no independent existence. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26486637400298/

**Doug B. posted on "Is it depressing or empowering to think of life as a performance?" https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26677037381258/

**Elli posted on the very difficult VS62 - the one about the anger between parents and children. This is one that is not discussed often enough: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26666660715629/

**Doug B. also contributed as link to a paper by Bernard Frischer with an imposing title, but is essentially about recruitment among the ancient Epicureans. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26703304045298/

**Hiram posted a review of his book by blogger Tom Church. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26785464037082/

**In the first of several related posts, this week, we talked about the issues involved in promoting unadulterated Epicureanism here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26412780741017/

**I.V. reminded us of the "Epicurean Year" project. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27036987345263/

**Elli posted two great graphics paraphrasing Diogenes of Oinoanda: Here https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27096677339294/ and also here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27126447336317/

**Uwe F. started a good conversation on euthymia which also involved the Phaecaian analogy from Homer. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26774200704875/

**Jason B. started "What should Epicureans eat?" https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27128484002780/

**Elli continued her graphic creation this week with a reference to Lucian's Hermotimus: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27242810658014/

**And in another post dealing with differences between Epicurus and Stoicism, I posted a graphic excerpt from "Happiness: A philosopher's Guide" which did a good job of summarizing basic tenets of Stoicism, which allowed for a clear contrast. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26859490696346/

**And Elli continued the graphics with "A Philosophy For Marbles" https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27282057320756/

**Ioannis A. posted a good short animated clip which Elli described as "slaves to the slavers" https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27366720645623/

**Yesterday I posted to a clip from Francois Bernier, a friend of Gassendi, who tried to reconcile what the Stoics had said about Epicurus with what he thought was a correct understanding of Epicurus. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27382237310738/

**Alexander R linked to "More sex doesn't lead to increased happiness." https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27426840639611/

**I linked to John Lennon's "Imagine" and asked if we could imagine a world truly based on Epicurean pleasure. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27462133969415/

**With some good assistance from friends, we discussed here how to use the PERSEUS website to find every instance of the word "ataraxia" in their extensive Greco-Roman library. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27467220635573/

**Alexander R. linked to a table showing "Epicurus vs. Mohammed" in physics. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27683320613963/

**Hiram linked to "Atoms Here, Atoms There, Atoms Everywhere: Fields or Particles" https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…26464474069181/

**Elli started an excellent discussion on VS78 with a graphic. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27669747281987/

**And again I swatted at the hornet's nest with "Why Do I Speak Harshly About Stoicism?" https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27159647332997/

**Thanks to Uwe F. we started a discussion on the opening of Book I of Lucretius and the meaning of the Venus/Mars symbolism. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27783143937314/

**And in the most recent post before this goes to press, I posted my latest explanation of Epicurean Philosophy Through Coffee - "Pleasure is a Dish best served Pure and Smooth." https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…27756357273326/

**Those are most of the highlights for the week. Thanks to all who participated. We've had another very substantive week of discussion, and I thank everyone who participated. Feel free to post any comments in this thread. I apologize if I missed anyone or anything. As always, if you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, please add a comment or participate in the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/ or hop around the internet world of Epicurean Philosophy by checking the links here: EpicurusCentral.wordpress.com
*
Live Well!

Cassius Amicus

Hello and welcome to the forum. This 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 personal 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.

In that regard 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.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "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.

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.

Welcome to the forum!

Years ago when I (Cassius Amicus) first started reading Lucretius, I was struck by the intensity of Lucretius' personal devotion to Epicurus. It was clear from every word that Lucretius was not only writing a poem about philosophy, but that he personally believed what he was writing and thought that it was important that Epicurus' memory be preserved and treated with respect. It occurred to me that this was at least the kind of attitude we see displayed today in everyday life by people who value the traditions and history of the favorite sports clubs, and that Epicurus deserved at least as much respect and affection as the average home town sports hero - to say the least. While there are numberless places on the internet where people can go to discuss issues of general philosophy, there were very few places where the heritage of Epicurean philosophy was treated as the focus and with great respect. My goal in my internet activity was to increase that number, and I have tried to do that at NewEpicurean.com.

After the establishment of NewEpicurean.com, I became involved with several others (who know who they are) in what has turned into a great group of friends at the facebook Epicurean Philosophy Group. The project is continuing to grow, and I expect it to remain the main focus of interaction with people who are new to the study of Epicurus or have not previously participated in Epicurean forum activity.

I now think it is time for me to launch a new project, and following on the "sports fan" analogy I plan to follow a new model: the "linux software" distribution model. Those of you who are familiar with linux know that the core software is developed by many individual groups of people who work together to provide support to each other and improve the way the software operates. Two of many examples of these are here and here. The key to the model is that each group provides a free support forum organized in detail by topic where people can talk about issues as they occur, and more importantly, easily find where problems have been dealt with in the past so that the information can be reused.

Every collaboration model on the internet has strengths and weaknesses, and over time every sort, from blogs to wikis to standard web pages, have their uses. At this point it seems to me that we have identified enough of a core group of people interested in rediscovering Epicurean Philosophy that it is time to launch the EpicureanFriends.com website. The site is primarily a state-of-the-art "forum," powered by the "Burning Board" software from Woltlabs in Germany, which is optimized for use on devices for all sizes, from desktops to mobile phones and everything in between.

A key difference between this forum and the Facebook group is that Epicureanfriends.com will be tightly moderated for the purpose of building a reference bank of data prepared by a community of Epicurean leaders who share a focus on this primary goal. This site will not be the place for attempting to reconcile and build bridges with conflicting philosophies. Our goal here will be to build a site worthy of something the ancient Epicureans - and Lucretius in particular - would be proud to see. The spririt of Lucretius was one of concern for all "hearts in darkness" who need philosophical assistance, combined with unwavering confidence that the path laid out by Epicurus is the correct one on which to provide that assistance.

As the website launches there will be only a few participants with full posting privileges. Everyone who desires, however, can register and submit posts, all of which will be considered for posting after review by the moderators. The goal here is not quantity, but quality.

There will be many rough spots in getting this off the ground, and I expect progress to be very slow. As quickly as I can, I am going to go back over my posts at NewEpicurean.com and add links to important articles in the particular places here. I also want to see the same thing done at other excellent Epicurean websites, such as SocietyofEpicurus.com and the Menoeceus blog. I will work to get those up as quickly as I can, but here is one of the great advantages of the full forum system:

There is much more to be done that I or a few of us can ever do ourselves. The forum software allows anyone to assist us in the goal - simply register, collect the information you think would be useful, and submit it for consideration and approval.

Anyone who has followed NewEpicurean.com or the Facebook group knows that there are many different interpretations of Epicruean doctrines. As it is the goal of this site to promote the practical application of Epicurean living to the modern world, this site will accept as part of its core material only those posts which are consistent with that goal. Over time we will develop a full set of Community Standards / Rules of the Forum which will set this out in detail. For now, here are some examples of key attitudes to keep in mind when posting here:

An Epicurean does not have an "ascetic personality" which is drawn to viewing pleasure with suspicion and eliminating all but the most necessary of desires. An Epicurean can see that the definition of "happiness" is one of the most important aspects of philosophy, and that any definition of the goal of life which is not focused on pleasure is going to conflict with the chief goal set out for us by Nature. An Epicurean does not have a tendency to want to see some "greater good" above living pleasurably, so an Epicurean is not tempted by the "greatest good of the greatest number" analysis. An Epicurean is not enthralled with "logic" and "reason" which is the big temptation to the dark side that distinguishes Epicurus from Aristotle and Plato. An Epicuran is not tempted by "flourishing" and idol worship of Aristotle. An Epicurean is not tempted by the "merge our consciousness into the divine fire" kind of attitude. An Epicurean is an individualist who would refuse to take orders even if someone gave them, and who will tend to separate himself or herself from the kind of people who like to give orders. An Epicurean holds the evidence obtained through the three sets of faculties in the Canon of Truth to be the ultimate standard of truth, rather than speculative logic or speculation of any kind. An Epicurean is not seduced by all the many variations of philosophy which hold that reality is not knowable and that nothing is certain.

And an Epicurean is not tempted to be a "Tranquilist" and to believe that "avoidance of pain" is the goal of life or of Epicurean philosophy.

This statement of purpose and the associated Community Standards/Rules of the Forum will no doubt be rewritten many times, but it is necessary to start somewhere. All who are interested in supporting this project are invited to register so we can get started.

There are two readily available sources for the Inscription:

1) The website

2) The book by Chilton

3) The https://www.epicureanfriends.com/Oinoanda%20Blog blog with bibliography

We are collecting citations for permanent reference here: Canonics - List of Primary Citations in Canonics

Please use this thread to submit suggestions for additions.

Diogenes Laertius Book X - The Biography of Epicurus (Translated by Cyril Bailey)

EPICURUS, son of Neocles and Chaerestrata, was an Athenian of the deme of Gargettus, and the family of the Philaidae, as Metrodorus says in his work on Nobility of Birth. Heraclides in his epitome of Sotion and others say that the Athenians having colonized Samos, Epicurus was brought up there. In his eighteenth year, as they say, he came to Athens, when Xenocrates was at the Academy and Aristotle was living in Chalcis. After the death of Alexander of Macedon, when the Athenians were driven out of Samos by Perdiccas, he went to join his father in Colophon. Having stayed there some time and gathered disciples he returned again to Athens in the archonship of Anaxicrates. For a while he joined with others in the study of philosophy, but later taught independently, when he had founded the school called after him. He tells us himself that he first made acquaintance with philosophy at the age of fourteen. Apollodorus the Epicurean in the first book of his Life of Epicurus says that he took to philosophy because he despised the teachers of literature, since they were not able to explain to him the passage about Chaos in Hesiod. Hermippus says that Epicurus was at one time a schoolmaster and then after he met with the writings of Democritus, he took eagerly to philosophy. And this is why Timon says about him:

Last and most shameless of the scientists, infant school teacher from Samos, the most stubborn of all living beings.

His three brothers, Neocles, Chaeredemus, and Aristobulus, joined him in studying philosophy at his suggestion, according to Philodemus the Epicurean in the tenth book of his Comparison of Philosophies. Also a slave called Mys, as Muronianus says in his chapters on historical coincidences.

Diotimus the Stoic, who is ill-disposed to Epicurus, has calumniated him most bitterly by producing fifty lewd letters as Epicurus’ work; so has the writer who has assigned to Epicurus the collection of ‘billets-doux’ which were attributed to Chrysippus, and also Posidonius the Stoic and his followers, as well as Nicolaus and Sotion in the twelve books of the ‘Arguments of Diocles’ which are named after the Epicurean celebration of The Twentieth; also Dionysius of Halicarnassus. For they say that he used to go round from house to house with his mother reading out the purification prayers, and assisted his father in elementary teaching for a miserable pittance. They add that one of his brothers prostituted himself and kept company with Leontion, the hetaera. Also that he took Democritus’ atomic theory and Aristippus’ theory of pleasure and taught them as his own. Further, that he was not an Athenian born, as Timocrates says, and Herodotus too in his book The Youth of Epicurus. He is also said to have used degrading flattery towards Mithres, the steward of Lysimachus, calling him in his letters both ‘Saviour’ and ‘My lord.’ Idomeneus too and Herodotus and Timo crates, who divulged his secrets, he is said to have praised and flattered all the same. And in his letters he wrote to Leontion, ‘Lord and Saviour, my dearest Leontion, what a hurrahing you drew from us, as we read aloud your dear letter,’ and to Themista, Leonteus’ wife, "If you two don’t come to me, I am capable of arriving with a hop, skip and jump, wherever you and Themista summon me.’ And to Pythocles, who was young and beautiful, he writes, ‘I will sit down and wait for your lovely and godlike appearance.’ And again in writing to Themista he calls her (by a most flattering name), as Theodorus says in the fourth book of his attack on Epicurus. They say that he wrote to many other women of pleasure and particularly to Leontion, with whom Metrodorus was also in love; and that in the treatise On the End of Life he wrote, ‘I know not how I can conceive the good, if I withdraw the pleasures of taste and withdraw the pleasures of love and those of hearing and sight.’

Again in the letter to Pythocles they say he wrote ‘Blest youth, set sail in your bark and flee from every form of culture.’

Epictetus moreover calls him a filthy talker and abuses him roundly. And even Timocrates, who was the brother of Metrodorus and a disciple of Epicurus, after he had abandoned the school, wrote in a book with the title Pleasant Things that Epicurus used to vomit twice a day owing to his luxurious living, and that he himself was scarcely able to escape from his philosophical disquisitions during the night and from the community of the initiates. He adds that Epicurus was profoundly ignorant of philosophy, and still more so of practical life, that his body was miserably weak, so that for many years he was unable to rise from his portable couch. Further, that he spent no less than a mina a day on his food, as Epicurus writes himself in the letter to Leontion and in the letters to the philosophers in Mytilene. Moreover, there were other women who lived with him and Metrodorus, named Mammarion and Hedeia and Erotion and Nicidion. He adds that in the thirty-seven books On Nature he repeats himself for the most part and attacks many other philosophers in them, but Nausiphanes most of all, saying in his own words, ‘Away with them all, for Nausiphanes, like many another slave, was in travail with that wordy braggart, sophistic.’ He says that Epicurus himself in his letters about Nausiphanes said, ‘This drove him to such a state of fury that he abused me and ironically called me “Master.”’

He used to call Nausiphanes ‘The mollusk,’ ‘The illiterate,’ ‘The cheat,’ ‘The harlot.’ The followers of Plato he called ‘Flatterers of Dionysus,’ and Plato himself ‘The golden man,’ and Aristotle ‘The debauchee,' saying that he devoured his inheritance and then enlisted and sold drugs. Protagoras he called ‘Porter’ or ‘Copier of Democritus,’ saying that he taught in the village schools. Heraclitus he called ‘The Muddler,’ Democritus [he called] Lerocritus (‘judge of nonsense’), Antidorus he called Sannidorus (‘Maniac’), the Cynics [he called] ‘Enemies of Hellas,’ the Logicians [he called] ‘The destroyers,’ and Pyrrho [he called] ‘The uneducated fool.’

But these calumniators are all mad. For Epicurus has witnesses enough and to spare to his unsurpassed kindness to all men. There is his country which honoured him with bronze statues, his friends so numerous that they could not even be reckoned by entire cities, and his disciples who all remained bound forever by the charm of his teaching, except Metrodorus, son of Stratoniceus, who went over to Carneades, overweighted perhaps by Epicurus’ excessive goodness. There is also the permanent continuance of the school after almost all the others had come to an end, and that though it had a countless succession of heads from among the disciples. There is again his grateful devotion to his parents, his generosity to his brothers, and his gentleness towards his servants, of whom the most notable was Mys, already mentioned, as is proved by his will and the part they took in his philosophical discussions. In short, there is his benevolence to all.

Of his reverence towards the gods and his love of his country it would be impossible to speak adequately. But from excess of modesty he would not take any part in politics. Yet although Greece was at that time in great straits, he continued to live there, and only once or twice made a voyage to Ionia and the neighborhood to see his friends. But they came to him from all quarters, and took up their abode with him in the garden, as Apollodorus says [who adds that he bought it for eighty minae. Diocles in the third book of his Course in Philosophy confirms this], living a most frugal and simple life. Indeed, he says, they were satisfied with half a pint of wine, and for the most part drank water. He adds that Epicurus did not recommend them to put their belongings into a common stock, as did Pythagoras, who said that ‘Friends have all in common.’ For to do so implied distrust: and distrust could not go with friendship. Epicurus himself says in his letters that he was content with nothing but water and a bit of bread.

‘Send me,’ he says, ‘some preserved cheese, that when I like I may have a feast.’ Such was the man who taught that the end is pleasure. Athenaeus sings his praise in an epigram:

The truth of this we shall know better as we go on from his own words and teaching.

Diocles says that of the earlier philosophers he showed most sympathy with Anaxagoras, though on certain points he opposed him, and with Arclielaus, the master of Socrates. And, he adds, he used to practice his disciples in getting his writings by heart. Apollodorus in his Chronicles asserts that he listened to the teaching of Nausiphanes and Praxiphanes. Epicurus himself denies this in his letter to Eurylochus, and says he was his own teacher. And indeed both Epicurus and Hermarchus deny that there ever was such a philosopher as Leucippus, whom Apollodorus the Epicurean and others say was the master of Democritus. Demetrius of Magnesia says that he was also a follower of Xenocrates.

He uses current diction to expound his theory, but Aristophanes the grammarian censures it as being too peculiar. But he was clear in expression, Just as in his book On Rhetoric he insists on clearness above everything. In his letters he used to say ‘Prosper’ or ‘Live well,’ instead of the conventional introduction ‘Be happy.’

Ariston in his Life of Epicurus says that he borrowed The Canon from the Tripod of Nausiphanes, whose pupil he says he was, as well as being a disciple of Pamphilus the Platonist in Samos. He states that Epicurus began philosophy at the age of twelve, and was at the head of his School at thirty-two.

He was born, says Apollodorus in the Chronicles, in the third year of the 109th Olympiad in the archonship of Sosigenes on the seventh day of the month Gamelion, seven years after the death of Plato. When he was thirty-two he started his school, first for five years at Mitylene and Lampsacus, and then he migrated to Athens. There he died in the second year of the 127th Olympiad in the archonship of Pytharatus, at the age of seventy-two. Hermarchus of Mitylene, son of Agemortus, succeeded to the headship of the school. Epicurus died of a stone in the bladder, as Hermarchus also says in his letters, after an illness of fourteen days. Hermippus tells us that as he was dying he got into a bronze bath filled with hot water, and asked for a cup of unmixed wine, which he gulped down. Then, having adjured his friends to remember his teaching, he expired. I have composed the following epigram on him:

Such was Epicurus’ life and such his death.

The Sayings As To The Wise Man (Translated by Cyril Bailey) - Note: this may be split up into separate threads in the future for easier reference.

But before considering it let us explain what he and his followers think about the wise man. Injuries are done by men either through hate or through envy or through contempt, all of which the wise man overcomes by reasoning. When once a man has attained wisdom, he no longer has any tendency contrary to it or willingly pretends that he has. He will be more deeply moved by feelings, but this will not prove an obstacle to wisdom. A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation.

And even if the wise man be put on the rack, he is happy. Only the wise man will show gratitude, and will constantly speak well of his friends alike in their presence and their absence. Yet when he is on the rack, then he will cry out and lament. The wise man will not have intercourse with any woman with whom the law forbids it, as Diogenes says in his summary of Epicurus’ moral teaching. Nor will he punish his slaves, but will rather pity them and forgive any that are deserving. They do not think that the wise man will fall in love, or care about his burial. They hold that love is not sent from heaven, as Diogenes says in his . . . book, nor should the wise man make elegant speeches.

Such are his sentiments on the heavenly phenomena, But concerning the rules of life, and how we ought to choose some things, and avoid others, he writes thus. But first of all, let us go through the opinions which he held, and his disciples held, about the wise man. Sexual intercourse, they say, has never done a man good, and he is lucky if it has not harmed him.

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. He will feel shame in the presence of some persons, and certainly will not insult them in his cups, so Epicurus says in the Symposium. Nor will he take part in public life, as he says in the ?rst book On Lives. Nor will he act the tyrant, or live like the Cynics, as he writes in the second book On Lives. Nor will he beg. Moreover, even if he is deprived of his eyesight, he will not end his whole life, as he says in the same work.

Also, the wise man will feel grief, as Diogenes says in the fifth book of the Miscellanies. He will engage in lawsuits and will leave writings behind him, but will not deliver speeches on public occasions. He will be careful of his possessions and will provide for the future. He will be fond of the country. He will face fortune and never desert a friend. He will be careful of his reputation in so far as to prevent himself from being despised. He will care more than other men for public spectacles. He will erect statues of others, but whether he had one himself or not, he would be indifferent. Only the Wise man could discourse rightly on music and poetry, but in practice he would not compose poems. One wise man is not wiser than another. He will be ready to make money, but only when he is in straits and by means of his philosophy. He will pay court to a king, if occasion demands. He will rejoice at another’s misfortunes, but only for his correction. And he will gather together a school, but never so as to become a popular leader. He will give lectures in public, but never unless asked; he will give definite teaching and not profess doubt. In his sleep he will be as he is awake, and on occasion he will even die for a friend.

They hold that faults are not all of equal gravity, that health is a blessing to some, but indifferent to others, that courage does not come by nature, but by a calculation of advantage. That friendship too has practical needs as its motive: one must indeed lay its foundations (for we sow the ground too for the sake of crops), but it is formed and maintained by means of community of life among those who have reached the fullness of pleasure. They say also that there are two ideas of happiness, complete happiness, such as belongs to a god, which admits of no increase, and the happiness which is concerned with the addition and subtraction of pleasures.

The Canon of Truth - Fragments On Epistemology Preserved In Other Writings

The Will of Epicurus - Translation By Cyril Bailey

I hereby leave all my possessions to Amynomachus, son of Philocrates, of the deme of Bate, and Timocrates, son of Demetrius, of the deme of Potamos, according to the form of gift to each registered in the Metroum, on condition that they make over the garden and all that goes with it to Hermarchus, son of Ageniortus, of Mitylene, and to those who study philosophy with him and to those whom Hermarchus may leave as his successors in the school, for them to live there in the pursuit of philosophy. And to those who hereafter follow my philosophy I assign the right to live in the garden, that they may assist Amynomachus and Timocrates to maintain it to the best of their power, and to their heirs, in whatever way may give the securest possession, that they too may preserve the garden, and after them those to whom the disciples of my school may hand it on.

The house in Melite, Amynomachus and Timocrates shall assign for a dwelling to Hermarchus and to those who study philosophy with him, as long as Hermarchus shall live.

The income of the property left by me to Amynomachus and Timocrates shall be divided by them as far as possible, with the advice of Hermarchus, for the offerings in honor of my father and mother and brothers, and for the customary celebration of my birthday every year on the tenth of Gamelion, and likewise for the assembly of my disciples which takes place on the twentieth of each month, having been established in recollection of myself and Metrodorus. Let them also keep the day of my brothers in Poseideon and the day of Polyaenus in Metageitmon, as I have done myself.

Amynomachus and Timocrates shall take care of Epicurus, the son of Metrodorus, and of the son of Polyaenus, provided they devote themselves to philosophy and live with Hermarchus. Likewise they shall take care of Metrodorus’ daughter, and when she comes of age shall give her in marriage to one of his disciples whom Hermarchus shall choose, provided she is well-behaved and obedient to Hermarchus. Amynomachus and Timocrates shall set aside for the maintenance of these children such sum out of the revenues of my estate as shall seem good to them each year in consultation with Hermarchus.

They shall give Hermarchus authority with themselves over the income, in order that everything may be done in consultation with the man who has grown old with me in the study of philosophy and has been left by me head of the school. The dowry for the girl, when she comes of age, shall be apportioned by Amynomachus and Timocrates, who shall take a suitable sum from the capital with the approval of Hermarchus. They shall also take care of Nicanor, as I have done, to show that those who have studied with me and have met my needs from their own resources and shown me every mark of friendship and elected to grow old with me in the study of philosophy, may not lack for anything that is necessary, as far as lies in my power.

They are to give all the books that belong to me to Hermarchus. And if any mortal chance befall Hermarchus before Metrodorus’ children come of age, Amynomachus and Timocrates shall as far as possible provide all that is necessary from the income of my estate, if the children are well-behaved. They shall carefully carry out all my other arrangements, so that each may be fulfilled as far as possible. Of my slaves I set free Mys, Nicias and Lycon, and I also set Phaedrium free.

The Letter to Menoeceus - Translation By Cyril Bailey

LET no one when young delay to study philosophy, nor when he is old grow weary of his study. For no one can come too early or too late to secure the health of his soul. And the man who says that the age for philosophy has either not yet come or has gone by is like the man who says that the age for happiness is not yet come to him, or has passed away. Wherefore both when young and old a man must study philosophy, that as he grows old he may be young in blessings through the grateful recollection of what has been, and that in youth he may be old as well, since he will know no fear of what is to come. We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it.

The things which I used unceasingly to commend to you, these do and practice, considering them to be the first principles of the good life. First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his immortality or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and immortality. For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision. But they are not such as the many believe them to be: for indeed they do not consistently represent them as they believe them to be. And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many. For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods. For men being accustomed always to their own virtues welcome those like themselves, but regard all that is not of their nature as alien.

Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation. And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality. For there is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. So that the man speaks but idly who says that he fears death not because it will be painful when it comes, but because it is painful in anticipation. For that which gives no trouble when it comes is but an empty pain in anticipation. So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more.
But the many at one moment shun death as the greatest of evils, at another (yearn for it) as a respite from the (evils) in life. (But the wise man neither seeks to escape life) nor fears the cessation of life, for neither does life offend him nor does the absence of life seem to be any evil. And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.

And he who counsels the young man to live well, but the old man to make a good end, is foolish, not merely because of the desirability of life, but also because it is the same training which teaches to live well and to die well. Yet much worse still is the man who says it is good not to be born but ‘once born make haste to pass the gates of Death’.

For if he says this from conviction why does he not pass away out of life? For it is open to him to do so, if he had firmly made up his mind to this. But if he speaks in jest, his words are idle among men who cannot receive them.

We must then bear in mind that the future is neither ours, nor yet wholly not ours, so that we may not altogether expect it as sure to come, nor abandon hope of it, as if it will certainly not come.

We must consider that of desires some are natural, others vain, and of the natural some are necessary and others merely natural; and of the necessary some are necessary for happiness, others for the repose of the body, and others for very life. The right understanding of these facts enables us to refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and (the soul’s) freedom from disturbance, since this is the aim of the life of blessedness. For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. And when this is once secured for us, all the tempest of the soul is dispersed, since the living creature has not to wander as though in search of something that is missing, and to look for some other thing by which he can fulfil the good of the soul and the good of the body. For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; (but when we do not feel pain), we no longer need pleasure. And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good.

And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided. Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.
And again independence of desire we think a great good — not that we may at all times enjoy but a few things, but that, if we do not possess many, we may enjoy the few in the genuine persuasion that those have the sweetest enjoy luxury pleasure in luxury who least need it, and that all that is natural is easy to be obtained, but that which is superfluous is hard. And so plain savours bring us a pleasure equalto a luxurious diet, when all the pain due to want is removed; and bread and water produce the highest pleasure, when one who needs them puts them to his lips. To grow accustomed therefore to simple and not luxurious diet gives us health to the full, and makes a man alert for the needful employments of life, and when after long intervals we approach luxuries disposes us better towards them, and fits us to be fearless of fortune.

When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. For it is not continuous drinkings and revelings, nor the satisfaction of lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table, which produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit.

Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is prudence. Wherefore prudence is a more precious thing even than philosophy: for from prudence are sprung all the other virtues, and it teaches us that it is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honourably and justly, (nor, again, to live a life of prudence, honour, and justice) without living pleasantly. For the virtues are by nature bound up with the pleasant life, and the pleasant life is inseparable from them. For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfil and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame. For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it. He therefore thinks it better to be unfortunate in reasonable action than to prosper in unreason. For it is better in a man’s actions that what is well chosen (should fail, rather than that what is ill chosen) should be successful owing to chance.

Meditate therefore on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself; and with a companion like to yourself, and never shall you be disturbed waking or asleep, but you shall live like a god among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings is not like unto a mortal being.

The Letter to Pythocles - Translation By Cyril Bailey

CLEON brought me a letter from you in which you continue to express a kindly feeling towards me, which is a just return for my interest in you, and you attempt with some success to recall the arguments which lead to 5 life of blessedness. You ask me to send you a brief argument about the phenomena of the sky in a short sketch, that you may easily recall it to mind. For you say that what I have written in my other works is hard to remember, even though, as you state, you constantly have them in your hands I was glad to receive your request and felt constrained to answer it by pleasant expectations for the future. Therefore, as I have finished all my other writings I now intend to accomplish your request, feeling that these arguments will be of value to many other persons as well, and especially to those who have but recently tasted the genuine inquiry into nature, and also to those who are involved too deeply in the business of some regular occupation. Therefore lay good hold on it, keep it in mind, and go through it all keenly, together with the rest which I sent in the small epitome to Herodotus.

First of all then we must not suppose that any other object is to be gained from the knowledge of the phenomena of the sky, whether they are dealt with in connection with other doctrines or independently, than peace of mind and a sure confidence, just as in all other branches of study. We must not try to force an impossible explanation, nor employ a method of inquiry like our reasoning either about the modes of life or with respect to the solution of other physical problems: witness such propositions as that ‘the universe consists of bodies and the intangible,’ or that ‘the elements are indivisible,' and all such statements in circumstances where there is only one explanation which harmonizes with phenomena. For this is not so with the things above us: they admit of more than one cause of coming into being and more than one account of their nature which harmonizes with our sensations. For we must not conduct scientific investigation by means of empty assumptions and arbitrary principles, but follow the lead of phenomena: for our life has not now any place for irrational belief and groundless imaginings, but we must live free from trouble. Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth. Now we can obtain indications of what happens above from some of the phenomena on earth: for we can observe how they come to pass, though we cannot observe the phenomena in the sky: for they may be produced in several ways. Yet we must never desert the appearance of each of these phenomena, and further, as regards what is associated with it, must distinguish those things whose production in several ways is not contradicted by phenomena on earth.

A world is a circumscribed portion of sky, containing heavenly bodies and an earth and all the heavenly phenomena, whose dissolution will cause all within it to fall into confusion: it is a piece cut off from the infinite and ends in a boundary either rare or dense, either revolving or stationary: its outline may be spherical or three-cornered, or any kind of shape. For all such conditions are possible, seeing that no phenomenon is evidence against this in our world, in which it is not possible to perceive an ending. And that such worlds are infinite in number we can be sure, and also that such a world may come into being both inside another world and in an interworld, by which we mean a space between worlds; it will be in a place with much void, and not in a large empty space quite void, as some say: this occurs when seeds of the right kind have rushed in from a single world or interworld, or from several: little by little they make junctions and articulations, and cause changes of position to another place, as it may happen, and produce irrigations of the appropriate matter until the period of completion and stability, which lasts as long as the underlying foundations are capable of receiving additions. For it is not merely necessary for a gathering of atoms to take place, nor indeed for a whirl and nothing more to be set in motion, as is supposed, by necessity, in an empty space in which it is possible for a world to come into being, nor can the world go on increasing until it collides with another world, as one of the so-called physical philosophers says. For this is a contradiction of phenomena.

Sun and moon and the other stars were not created by themselves and subsequently taken in by the world, but were fashioned in it from the first and gradually grew in size by the aggregations and whirlings of bodies of minute parts, either windy or fiery or both, for this is what our sensation suggests. The size of sun (and moon) and the other stars is for us what it appears to be; and in reality it is either (slightly) greater than what we see or slightly less or the same size: for so too fires on earth when looked at from a distance seem to the senses. And every objection at this point will easily be dissipated, if we pay attention to the clear vision, as I show in my books about nature. The risings and settings of the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies may be due to kindling and extinction, the composition of the surrounding matter at the places of rising and setting being such as to lead to these results: for nothing in phenomena is against it. Or again, the effect in question might be produced by their appearance over the top of the earth, and again the interposition of the earth in front of them: for once more nothing in phenomena is against it. Their motions may not impossibly be due to the revolution of the whole heaven, or else it may remain stationary, and they may revolve owing to the natural impulse towards the east, which was produced at the beginning of the world . . . . . by an excessive heat owing to a spreading of the fire which is always moving on to the regions nearest in succession. The tropics of sun and moon may be caused owing to an obliquity of the whole heaven, which is constrained into this position in the successive seasons; or equally well by an outward impulsion of a current of air, or because the appropriate material successively catches fire, as the former fails; or again, from the beginning this particular form of revolution may have been assigned to these stars, so that they move in a kind of spiral. For all these and kindred explanations are not at variance with any clear-seen facts, if one always clings in such departments of inquiry to the possible and can refer each point to what is in agreement with phenomena without fearing the slavish artifices of the astronomers.

The wanings of the moon and its subsequent waxings might be due to the revolution of its own body, or equally well to successive conformations of the atmosphere, or again to the interposition of other bodies; they may be accounted for in all the ways in which phenomena on earth invite us to such explanations of these phases; provided only one does not become enamoured of the method of the single cause and groundlessly put the others out of court, without having considered what it is possible for a man to observe and what is not, and desiring therefore to observe what is impossible. Next the moon may have her light from herself or from the sun. For on earth too we see many things shining with their own, and many with reflected light. Nor is any celestial phenomenon against these explanations, if one always remembers the method of manifold causes and investigates hypotheses and explanations consistent with them, and does not look to inconsistent notions and emphasize them without cause and so fall back in different ways on different occasions on the method of the single cause. The impression of a face in the moon may be due to the variation of its parts or to interposition or to any one of many causes which might be observed, all in harmony with phenomena. For in the case of all celestial phenomena this process of investigation must never be abandoned - for if one is in opposition to clear-seen facts, he can never have his part in true peace of mind.

The eclipse of sun and moon may take place both owing to their extinction, as we see this effect is produced on earth, or again by the interposition of some other bodies, either the earth or some unseen body or something else of this sort. And in this way we must consider together the causes that suit with one another and realize that it is not impossible that some should coincide at the same time. Next the regularity of the periods of the heavenly bodies must be understood in the same way as such regularity is seen in some of the events that happen on earth. And do not let the divine nature be introduced at any point into these considerations, but let it be preserved free from burdensome duties and in entire blessedness. For if this principle is not observed, the whole discussion of causes in celestial phenomena is in vain, as it has already been for certain persons who have not clung to the method of possible explanations, but have fallen back on the useless course of thinking that things could only happen in one way, and of rejecting all other ways in harmony with what is possible, being driven thus to what is inconceivable and being unable to compare earthly phenomena, which we must accept as indications.

The successive changes in the length of nights and days may be due to the fact that the sun’s movements above the earth become fast and then slow again because he passes across regions of unequal length or because he traverses some regions more quickly or more slowly, (or again to the quicker or slower gathering of the fires that make the sun), as we observe occurs with some things on earth, with which we must be in harmony in speaking of celestial phenomena. But those who assume one cause fight against the evidence of phenomena and fail to ask whether it is possible for men to make such observations.

Signs of the weather may occur owing to the coincidence of occasions, as happens with animals we can all see on earth, and also through alterations and changes in the atmosphere. For both these are in accordance with phenomena. But under what circumstances the cause is produced by this or that, we cannot perceive.

Clouds may be produced and formed both by the condensation of the atmosphere owing to compression by winds and by the interlacing of atoms clinging to one another and suitable for producing this result, and again by the gathering of streams from earth and the waters: and there are several other ways in which the formation of such things may not impossibly be brought about. And from them again rain may be produced if they are squeezed in one part or changed in another, or again by a downward current of wind moving through the atmosphere from appropriate places, a more violent shower being produced from certain conglomerations of atoms suited to create such downfalls.

Thunder may be produced by the rushing about of wind in the hollows of the clouds, as happens in vessels on earth, or by the reverberation of fire filled with wind inside them, or by the rending and tearing of clouds, or by the friction and bursting of clouds when they have been congealed into a form like ice: phenomena demand that we should say that this department of celestial events, just like them all, may be caused in several ways.

And lightnings too are produced in several ways: for both owing to the friction and collision of clouds a conformation of atoms which produces fire slips out and gives birth to the lightning, and owing to wind bodies which give rise to this flash are dashed from the clouds: or compression may be the cause, when clouds are squeezed either by one another or by the wind. Or again it may be that the light scattered abroad from the heavenly bodies is taken in by the clouds, and then is driven together by the movement of the clouds and wind, and falls out through the clouds; or else light composed of most subtle particles may filter through the clouds, whereby the clouds may be set on fire by the flame and thunder produced by the movement of the fire.
Or the wind may be fired owing to the strain of motion and its violent rotation, or clouds may be rent by wind and atoms fall out which produce fire and cause the appearance of lightning. And several other methods may easily be observed, if one clings always to phenomena and can compare what is akin to these things. Lightning precedes thunder in such a conformation of the clouds, either because at the moment when the wind dashes in, the formation of atoms which gives rise to lightning is driven out, but afterwards the wind whirls about and produces the reverberation; or because they both dash out at the same moment, but lightning moves at a higher speed towards us, and thunder comes after, as in the case of some things seen at a distance and producing blows.

Thunderbolts may occur because there are frequent gatherings of wind, which whirls about and is fanned into a fierce flame, and then a portion of it breaks off and rushes violently on the places beneath, the breaking taking place because the regions approached are successively denser owing to the condensation of clouds, or as the result of the actual outburst of the whirling fire, in the same way that thunder may be produced, when the fire becomes too great and is too violently fanned by wind and so breaks through the cloud, because it cannot retreat to the next regions owing to the constant condensation of clouds one on the other. And thunderbolts may be produced in other ways too. Only superstition must be excluded, as it will, if one successfully follows the lead of seen phenomena to gain indications about the invisible.

Cyclones may be produced either by the driving down of a cloud into the regions below in the form of a pillar, because it is pushed by the wind gathered inside it and is driven on by the violence of the wind, while at the same time the wind outside impels it sideways; or by wind forming into circular motion, while mist is simultaneously thrust down from above; or when a great rush of wind takes place and cannot pass through sideways owing to the surrounding condensation of the atmosphere. And when the spout is let down on to the land, whirlwinds are produced in all the various ways in which their creation may occur owing to the movement of the wind, but if it reaches the sea it produces waterspouts.

Earthquakes may be brought about both because wind is caught up in the earth, so that the earth is dislocated in small masses and is continually shaken, and that causes it to sway. This wind it either takes into itself from outside, or else because masses of ground fall in into cavernous places in the earth and fan into wind the air that is imprisoned in them. And again, earthquakes may be brought about by the actual spreading of the movement which results from the fall of many such masses of ground and the return shock, when the first motion comes into collision with more densely packed bodies of earth. There are also many other ways in which these motions of the earth may be caused.

....

The winds may be produced when from time to time some alien matter is continually and gradually forcing its way in, or owing to the gathering of a vast quantity of water. The other winds arise when a few (currents of air) fall into many hollow spaces, and cause a spreading of wind.

Hail is produced both by a powerful congelation, when certain windy bodies form together from all sides and split up: also by a more moderate congelation of watery bodies and their simultaneous division, which causes at one and the same time their coagulation and separation, so that they cling together as they freeze in their separate parts as well as in their whole masses. Their circular shape may possibly arise because the comers melt off all round or because at their conformation bodies, whether watery or windy, come together evenly from all directions part by part, as is alleged.

Snow may be produced when fine particles of rain are poured out of the clouds owing to the existence of pores of suitable shape and the strong and constant compression by winds of clouds of the right kind; and then the water is congealed in its descent owing to some conformation of excessive coldness in the clouds in the lower regions. Or else owing to congelation in clouds of uniform thinness an exudation of this kind might arise from watery clouds lying side by side and rubbing against one another: for they produce hail by causing coagulation, a process most frequent in the atmosphere. Or else, owing to the friction of congealed clouds, these nuclei of snow may find occasion to break off. And there are many other ways in which snow may be produced.

Dew may be produced both when such particles as are productive of this kind of moisture issue from the atmosphere and meet one another, and also when particles rise from moist regions or regions containing water, in which dew is most naturally produced, and then meet together and cause moisture to be produced, and afterwards fall back on the ground below, as (is) frequently (seen) to be the case in phenomena on earth as well. (And frost is produced by a change) in the dew-particles, when such particles as we have described undergo a definite kind of congelation owing to the neighborhood of a cold atmosphere.

Ice is caused both by the squeezing out from the water of particles of round formation and the driving together of the triangular and acute-angled particles which exist already in the water, and again by the addition from without of particles of this kind, which when driven together produce a congelation in the water, by squeezing out a certain number of the round particles.
The rainbow is caused by light shining from the sun on to watery atmosphere: or else by a peculiar union of light and air, which can produce the special qualities of these colours whether all together or separately; from it as itreflects back again the neighbouring regions of the air can take the tint which we see, by means of the shining of the light on to its various parts. The appearance of its round shape is caused because it is perceived by our sight at equal distance from all its points, or else because the atoms in the air or those in the clouds which are derived from the same air, are pressed together in this manner, and so the combination spreads out in a round shape.

A halo round the moon is caused either when air is carried towards the moon from all sides, or when the air checks the effluences carried from the moon so equably that it forms them into this cloudy ring all round without any gaps or differences, or else when it checks the air round the moon uniformly on all sides so as to make that which encircles it round and thick in texture. This comes to pass in different parts either because some current outside forces the air or because heat blocks the passages in such a way as to produce this effect.

Comets occur either when fire is collected together in certain regions at certain intervals of time in the upper air because some gathering of matter takes place, or when at certain intervals the heaven above us has some peculiar movement, so that stars of this nature are revealed, or when they themselves at certain seasons start to move on account of some gathering of matter and come into the regions within our ken and appear visible. And their disappearance occurs owing to the opposite causes to these.

Some stars ‘revolve in their place’(as Homer says), which comes to pass not only because this part of the world is stationary and round it the rest revolves, as some say, but also because a whirl of air is formed in a ring round it, which prevents their moving about as do the other stars: or else it is because there is not a succession of appropriate fuel for them, but only in this place in which they are seen fixed. And there are many other ways in which this may be brought about, if one is able to infer what is in agreement with phenomena.

That some of the stars should wander in their course, if indeed it is the case that their movements are such, while others do not move in this manner, may be due to the reason that from the first as they moved in their circles they were so constrained by necessity that some of them move along the same regular orbit, and others along one which is associated with certain irregularities: or it may be that among the regions to which they are carried in some places there are regular tracts of air which urge them on successively in the same direction and provide flame for them regularly, while in other places the tracts are irregular, so that the aberrations which we observe result.

But to assign a single cause for these occurrences, when phenomena demand several explanations, is madness, and is quite wrongly practiced by persons who are partisans of the foolish notions of astrology, by which they give futile explanations of the causes of certain occurrences, and all the time do not by any means free the divine nature from the burden of responsibilities.

That some stars should be seen to be left behind by others is caused because though they move round in the same orbit they are carried along more slowly, and also because they really move in the opposite direction though they are dragged back by the same revolution: also because some are carried round through a greater space and some through a lesser, though all perform the same revolution. But to give a single explanation of these occurrences is only suitable to those who wish to make a show to the many.

What are called falling stars may be produced in part by the rubbing of star against star, and by the falling out of the fragments wherever an outburst of wind occurs, as we explained in the case of lightning-flashes: or else by the meeting of atoms productive of fire, when a gathering of kindred material occurs to cause this, and a movement in the direction of the impulse which results from the original meeting; or else by a gathering of wind in certain dense and misty formations, and its ignition as it whirls round, and then its bursting out of what encloses it and its rush towards the spot to which the impulse of its flight tends. And there are other ways in which this result may be brought about, quite free from superstition.

The signs of the weather which are given by certain animals result from mere coincidence of occasion. For the animals do not exert any compulsion for winter to come to an end, nor is there some divine nature which sits and watches the outgoings of these animals and then fulfills the signs they give. For not even the lowest animal, although ‘a small thing gives the greater pleasure,’ would be seized by such foolishness, much less one who was possessed of perfect happiness.

All these things, Pythocles, you must bear in mind; for thus you will escape in most things from superstition and will be enabled to understand what is akin to them. And most of all give yourself up to the study of the beginnings and of infinity and of the things akin to them, and also of the criteria of truth and of the feelings, and of the purpose for which we reason out these things. For these points when they are thoroughly studied will most easily enable you to understand the causes of the details. But those who have not thoroughly taken these things to heart could not rightly study them in themselves, nor have they made their own the reason for observing them.