Posts by Cassius

**THIS WEEK IN EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHY - 05/30/2015***

** This is the one hundred and eighth 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!"

**This week I am posting on time and will return to my traditional format after a couple of important points:

**First, this is a good time to review the options available for those who wish to discuss Epicurus within any of several custom frameworks. This past week we had many discussions on the same topic, and it's clear to me that things are shaping up in this general direction:

1- If you are someone whose views are fully formed, and you've combined several disparate viewpoints into your own personal mix, and you mainly want to talk casually to other people of the same eclectic type, there are several excellent facebook groups including EPISTOBUZEN and "Epicureanism for Modern Times" that you can find by searching facebook.

2- If you are focused primarily on Epicurus, and you want to participate in a forum where people will defend Epicurus strongly from all challenges, then you have two Facebook options. Our open and main group, entitled simply "Epicurean Philosophy," is the home base of this post. Anyone can read the posts there, and all you have to do is ask in order to join. (Note that there is an "About" and a "Sticky" post with our forum rules.)

3 - If you prefer to post in a "private" group where your posts are not readable by outsiders, last week we set up just such a group, "Epicurean Private Garden" and that is now getting off the ground. Because it is a private group, you cannot find it by searching, and you have to email one of our admins in the open group if you wish to join. Please note that our About and Sticky Post rules in the private forum are the same as the open forum, and the private forum will be moderated to the same standards as the open forum (or perhaps slightly tighter!)

4 - If you are not only focused primarily on Epicurus, but you wish to assist with a forum platform where pro-Epicurean activists can build for the future, check out https://www.epicureanfriends.com/www.EpicureanFriends.com. I am working on a FAQ list there, and setting up the forum in such a way that it can be used for reference material in the future. Anyone can read the posts, but only approved members can create new posts or comment.

The second general comment is that recent debates continue to sharpen the issues that separate our Epicurean Philosophy Facebook group from other groups, which are the same that separate Epicurean philosophy from other philosophies. If you are the sort person whose primary emphasis is Stoicism, Buddhism, or some similar philosophy, and you have concluded that "nothingness" or "escape from pain" is your primary focus in life, then you are going to be more at home in one of other groups listed above, and not in the Epicurean Philosophy Group. You are welcome to read and participate in the Epicurean Philosophy Group, but you are going to find that those views will be challenged vigorously, as the Epicureans challenged them in the ancient world. Unfortunately, we are finding on a fairly regular basis that people who are committed to opposing viewpoints wish to come into the main group and argue their anti-Epicurean positions for purpose or argument, and not because they are genuinely interested in supporting Epicurean views. Such posts are in violation of our "About" section, and in the end such people will be removed from the group. The reason for that is simple: We are dedicated to providing a reliable source of EPICUREAN philosophy to those who come by with a sincere interest in learning. We are not going to allow anti-Epicurean arguments to remain unanswered in the group, and after a while it simply becomes too distracting to reply to them all. Check out either of the groups mentioned above and you will see an eclectic combinations of ideas with little way to differentiate them if you are not already familiar with Epicurean philosophy. If you come to the main group you should not have that problem.

*** Much of the division comes down to this: Some people - MANY people, in fact - are happy to endorse Epicurus and study him, but they do so because they believe that his "absence of pain" remarks make him a kind of Super-Stoic, more ascetic even than the famous philosophers of Stoicism. Such people believe that Epicurus preached that we should pursue only "Necessary" pleasures, which they define as little more than breathing, drinking water, and eating bread while locked in their cave.

The administrators of the Epicurean Facebook Page differ in the finer points of their positions on this issue, but they uniformly reject the characterization of Epicurus that I just mentioned. In general they hold to a view stated well by Thomas Jefferson and quoted today by Alexander Rios from Jefferson's "Head and Heart" letter:

**** Let the gloomy monk, sequestered from the world, seek unsocial pleasures in the bottom of his cell! Let the sublimated philosopher grasp visionary happiness while pursuing phantoms dressed in the garb of truth! Their supreme wisdom is supreme folly; & they mistake for happiness the mere absence of pain. Had they ever felt the solid pleasure of one generous spasm of the heart, they would exchange for it all the frigid speculations of their lives, which you have been vaunting in such elevated terms.****

The Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group, and the web pages set up by its core administators, are dedicated to pointing the way back to an understanding of Epicurus that gives full effect to his philosophy, and does not stand it on its head through an out-of-context reading of a few passages in the letter to Menoeceus. All of us are happy to explain why those passages do NOT mean that Epicurus was an ascetic or a Stoic, but our primary goal is to explain that to people of good faith who really want to know, and not to people whose primary goal is to argue for argument's sake, and otherwise distract us from the work that we are doing to research, write, and reinvigorate the Epicurean movement.

--- End of sermon ---

This week Hiram continued with a series of good background posts on Epicurean theory. These included:

Reasonings About Philodemus on the Stoics - https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…34248633290765/

The Pleasure - Aversion Faculty https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/the…n-introduction/

A Notice that the Partially Examined Life Website will be reading "A Few Days In Athens" https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…35105996538362/

A post on the "Book of Community" https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…34770049905290/

Reasonings about Philodemus on Music https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…36031499779145/

Epicurus' Instructions on Innovations: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…36074026441559/

*** This week has also been an excellent one for "memes" put together by Panagiotis Alexiou and Elli Pensa. Here are a few:

On Friendship - https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…34327403282888/

On the Categories of the Desires - https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…34328083282820/

On Death is Nothing To US - https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…34751746573787/

On Diogenes of Oinoanda's passage on "Shouting to all Greeks and Non-Greeks that PLEASURE is the end of life" https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…33478563367772/

On Principal Doctrine Four: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…35473289834966/

On Principal Doctrine Five: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…36008823114746/

On Principal Doctrine Three: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…35473183168310/

On Epicurus Replies to Zen: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…35969573118671/

On Vatican Saying Eleven: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…36075223108106/

------

*** I also want to mention a post that Dragan made this week about marriage, which contains some good commentary, especially by Elli - https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…35121579870137/

There's more that I did not capture here, but this post is too long already -

**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

Quote from Hiram

One reply I can come up with is in PD 39, where we are invited to remove ourselves from the presence of this person, to ostracize a sociopath or psychopath, which our legal and prison system already does. The words used as "so far as it is advantageous, exclude them from your life" - because friendship should be, and is by nature, mutually advantageous. A psychopath provides no advantage by his friendship.

Hiram I think that is exactly on point and is the key to the answer. We can also cite PD6. "In order to obtain protection from other men, any means for attaining this end is a natural good."

Also, this from the Torquatus section of Cicero's "On Ends": "Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation."

This is a very important topic.

Quote from Hiram

It's been said that Epicurean philosophy treats the mind in its healthy, natural state, like positive psychology does, but what happens when people are so sick and broken, psychologically, that they take pleasure in masochism, sadism, and cruelty? What happens when people take pleasure in horrible things?

One answer to "What happens when people take pleasure in horrible things?" is to observe that in regard to gods, virtue, platonic forms, essences, etc -- the same thing happens - NOTHING. Gods, virtue, platonic forms, essences, etc., do not exist in themselves to provide any remedy for people who suffer from the acts of psychopaths. The potential victims of the psychopaths must act to protect themselves from that conduct, or they will not be protected from that conduct. Our thinking that the situation is bad will not change the facts that there is no outside force to protect us from psychopaths, any more than there are outside forces to protect us from tornadoes or meteors.

**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