Posts by Cassius

We've recently been working on a new "Getting Started" page to feature here at the forum. When you get a chance please look it over and post below if you can think of suggestions for additions, clarifications, or corrections to any part. I think we currently have "most" of our major resources listed, but in going through them I'm pleased to say that we have so many that some of them may be missing.

Let us know any suggestions:

Getting Started - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

After we go through a couple of revisions we'll probably add a banner for a while to highlight the new page. The page will also always be findable as the first item in the "Home" drop-down menu.

I noted this morning thanks to joshua that the main forum logo was not centered on the home page for the "Colorplay Blue" style. I am not sure why that was the case as I thought I fixed it during the last style upgrade. I have fixed it now, but the fact i didn't fix it already makes me worry there might have been a reason why i didn't fix it before

At any rate, if anyone has any issues with the main logo placement (left-justified vs center justified) in any theme they are using, please let me know and I will fix that.

Most people are probably using cell phones most of the time and this isn't much of an issue, but on laptop or larger screen people might have a preference.

Here's an outline of where we are going in this and the next several episodes:

• It is wrong to allege that pure spirit can join with matter to produce the universe, because why would spirit mutilate itself by joining with mortal matter, if spirit were able to exist separately?
  1. Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject to mortality?
  2. [XI] Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.
  3. Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.
  4. Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?
  5. XII. Empedocles, who erred in many things, is most grossly mistaken in his notion of the Gods. He lays down four natures84 as divine, from which he thinks that all things were made. Yet it is evident that they have a beginning, that they decay, and that they are void of all sense.
• Allegations that infinity is an attribute of divinity are also wrong.
  1. Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.
  2. Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.
• It is useless to look to someone who says that he does not even know if gods exist.
  1. Protagoras did not seem to have any idea of the real nature of the Gods; for he acknowledged that he was altogether ignorant whether there are or are not any, or what they are.
• Those who say that gods are not everlasting destroy the true concept of divinity.
  1. What shall I say of Democritus, who classes our images of objects, and their orbs, in the number of the Gods; as he does that principle through which those images appear and have their influence? He deifies likewise our knowledge and understanding. Is he not involved in a very great error? And because nothing continues always in the same state, he denies that anything is everlasting, does he not thereby entirely destroy the Deity, and make it impossible to form any opinion of him?
• Those who attribute sense to formlessness are also wrong.
  1. Diogenes of Apollonia looks upon the air to be a Deity. But what sense can the air have? or what divine form can be attributed to it?
• The Academy, including Plato and Xenophon and Antisthenes held ideas of the gods that were inconsistent and unintelligible.
  1. It would be tedious to show the uncertainty of Plato’s opinion; for, in his Timæus, he denies the propriety of asserting that there is one great father or creator of the world; and, in his book of Laws, he thinks we ought not to make too strict an inquiry into the nature of the Deity. And as for his statement when he asserts that God is a being without any body—what the Greeks call ἀσώματος—it is certainly quite unintelligible how that theory can possibly be true; for such a God must then necessarily be destitute of sense, prudence, and pleasure; all which things are comprehended in our notion of the Gods. He likewise asserts in his Timæus, and in his Laws, that the world, the heavens, the stars, the mind, and those Gods which are delivered down to us from our ancestors, constitute the Deity. These opinions, taken separately, are apparently false; and, together, are directly inconsistent with each other.
  2. Xenophon has committed almost the same mistakes, but in fewer words. In those sayings which he has related of Socrates, he introduces him disputing the lawfulness of inquiring into the form of the Deity, and makes him assert the sun and the mind to be Deities: he represents him likewise as affirming the being of one God only, and at another time of many; which are errors of almost the same kind which I before took notice of in Plato.
  3. [XIII] Antisthenes, in his book called the Natural Philosopher, says that there are many national and one natural Deity; but by this saying he destroys the power and nature of the Gods. Speusippus is not much less in the wrong; who, following his uncle Plato, says that a certain incorporeal power governs everything; by which he endeavors to root out of our minds the knowledge of the Gods.
  4. From the same school of Plato, Heraclides of Pontus stuffed his books with puerile tales. Sometimes he thinks the world a Deity, at other times the mind. He attributes divinity likewise to the wandering stars. He deprives the Deity of sense, and makes his form mutable; and, in the same book again, he makes earth and heaven Deities.
• Aristotle and the Peripatetics, like Plato, were self-contradictory, and wrong in holding that a god has no body.
  1. Aristotle, in his third book of Philosophy, confounds many things together, as the rest have done; but he does not differ from his master Plato. At one time he attributes all divinity to the mind, at another he asserts that the world is God. Soon afterward he makes some other essence 222preside over the world, and gives it those faculties by which, with certain revolutions, he may govern and preserve the motion of it. Then he asserts the heat of the firmament to be God; not perceiving the firmament to be part of the world, which in another place he had described as God. How can that divine sense of the firmament be preserved in so rapid a motion? And where do the multitude of Gods dwell, if heaven itself is a Deity? But when this philosopher says that God is without a body, he makes him an irrational and insensible being. Besides, how can the world move itself, if it wants a body? Or how, if it is in perpetual self-motion, can it be easy and happy?
  2. Xenocrates, his fellow-pupil, does not appear much wiser on this head, for in his books concerning the nature of the Gods no divine form is described; but he says the number of them is eight. Five are moving planets;85 the sixth is contained in all the fixed stars; which, dispersed, are so many several members, but, considered together, are one single Deity; the seventh is the sun; and the eighth the moon. But in what sense they can possibly be happy is not easy to be understood.
  3. The unsteadiness of Theophrastus is equally intolerable. At one time he attributes a divine prerogative to the mind; at another, to the firmament; at another, to the stars and celestial constellations. Nor is his disciple Strato, who is called the naturalist, any more worthy to be regarded; for he thinks that the divine power is diffused through nature, which is the cause of birth, increase, and diminution, but that it has no sense nor form.
• The Stoics were wrong in holding that “the law of nature” is a divinity, and they are otherwise wrong in thinking that the sky is a god, or that rationality is a god, and in defending the ancient myths as allegories, and in holding that the form of a god is inconceivable, and other ways too.
  1. [XIV] Zeno (to come to your sect, Balbus) thinks the law of nature to be the divinity, and that it has the power to force us to what is right, and to restrain us from what is wrong. How this law can be an animated being I cannot conceive; but that God is so we would certainly maintain. The same person says, in another place, that the sky is God; but can we possibly conceive that God is a being insensible, deaf to our prayers, our wishes, and our vows, and wholly unconnected with us?
  2. In other books he thinks there is a certain rational essence pervading all nature, indued with divine efficacy. He attributes the same power to the stars, to the years, to the months, and to the seasons.
  3. In his interpretation of Hesiod’s Theogony, he entirely destroys the established notions of the Gods; for he excludes Jupiter, Juno, and Vesta, and those esteemed divine, from the number of them; but his doctrine is that these are names which by some kind of allusion are given to mute and inanimate beings.
  4. The sentiments of his disciple Aristo are not less erroneous. He thought it impossible to conceive the form of the Deity, and asserts that the Gods are destitute of sense; and he is entirely dubious whether the Deity is an animated being or not.
  5. Cleanthes, who next comes under my notice, a disciple of Zeno at the same time with Aristo, in one place says that the world is God; in another, he attributes divinity to the mind and spirit of universal nature; then he asserts that the most remote, the highest, the all-surrounding, the all-enclosing and embracing heat, which is called the sky, is most certainly the Deity. In the books he wrote against pleasure, in which he seems to be raving, he imagines the Gods to have a certain form and shape; then he ascribes all divinity to the stars; and, lastly, he thinks nothing more divine than reason. So that this God, whom we know mentally and in the speculations of our minds, from which traces we receive our impression, has at last actually no visible form at all.
  6. [XV] Persæus, another disciple of Zeno, says that they who have made discoveries advantageous to the life of man should be esteemed as Gods; and the very things, he says, which are healthful and beneficial have derived their names from those of the Gods; so that he thinks it not sufficient to call them the discoveries of Gods, but he urges that they themselves should be deemed divine. What can be more absurd than to ascribe divine honors to sordid and deformed things; or to place among the Gods men who are dead and mixed with the dust, to whose memory all the respect that could be paid would be but mourning for their loss?
  7. Chrysippus, who is looked upon as the most subtle interpreter of the dreams of the Stoics, has mustered up a numerous band of unknown Gods; and so unknown that we are not able to form any idea about them, though our mind seems capable of framing any image to itself in its thoughts. For he says that the divine power is placed in reason, and in the spirit and mind of universal nature; that the world, with a universal effusion of its spirit, is God; that the superior part of that spirit, which is the mind and reason, is the great principle of nature, containing and preserving the chain of all things; that the divinity is the power of fate, and the necessity of future events. He deifies fire also, and what I before called the ethereal spirit, and those elements which naturally proceed from it—water, earth, and air. He attributes divinity to the sun, moon, stars, and universal space, the grand container of all things, and to those men likewise who have obtained immortality. He maintains the sky to be what men call Jupiter; the air, which pervades the sea, to be Neptune; and the earth, Ceres. In like manner he goes through the names of the other Deities. He says that Jupiter is that immutable and eternal law which guides and directs us in our manners; and this he calls fatal necessity, the everlasting verity of future events. But none of these are of such a nature as to seem to carry any indication of divine virtue in them. These are the doctrines contained in his first book of the Nature of the Gods. In the second, he endeavors to accommodate the fables of Orpheus, Musæus, Hesiod, and Homer to what he has advanced in the first, in order that the most ancient poets, who never dreamed of these things, may seem to have been Stoics. Diogenes the Babylonian was a follower of the doctrine of Chrysippus; and in that book which he wrote, entitled “A Treatise concerning Minerva,” he separates the account of Jupiter’s bringing-forth, and the birth of that virgin, from the fabulous, and reduces it to a natural construction.

Great post Onenski

Quote from Onenski

Now, for more clarification, the paragraph you quote form Wikipedia takes the metaethical sense of the naturalistic fallacy. The basic idea is that in a naturalistic ethical project (like the Epicurean one, for example), holding that pleasure (or any other natural entity) is good, implies that there's something in pleasure that makes it good. The question is, which property is that and why pleasure has it? For them, it implies that pleasure is a privileged entity, because it has the property of being ethically good. Here, people like Pigliucci may say that pleasure has an evolutionary and instrumental origin, so it can't have the privilege of being the entity with the property of THE Good.

As you may see, this approach looks suspicious, because is taking the naturalistic Epicurean theory in a kind of platonic terms. And then, for surprise of no one, falsify it.

For most of my life if I had read a paragraph like that - even your explanation of it, and not just someone like Pigliucci asserting it - I would have cursed under my breath and walked away convinced that such a person had nothing worthwhile to say whatsoever.

Nowadays my attitude is very different. I see that the word games involved are leaving probably 98% of the people of the world totally defenseless against the arguments of supernatural religion, nihilism, and all sorts of other depressing perspectives. And given that that is my firm conclusion that those arguments cause great practical harm, I don't think "cursing under my breach and walking away"is the appropriate response at all.

The proper response involves (1) recognizing that it doesn't matter whether the arguments are prompted maliciously by fraud or innocently in error, and (2) working appropriately to clearly state an articulate response.

That's where Epicurus comes in.

Welcome to Episode 231 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

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

For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it.

Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not the same as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.

Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In the Epicurean theory of knowledge, all sensations are true, but that does not mean all opinions are true, but that the raw data reported by the senses is reported without the injection of opinion, as the opinion-making process takes place in the mind, where it is subject to mistakes, rather than in the senses. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.

For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here. The text which we include in these posts is the Yonge version, the full version of which is here at Epicureanfriends. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.

Additional versions can be found here:

• Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of Liberty
• Lacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)
• PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by Rackham
• Gutenberg.org version by CD Yonge 

A list of arguments presented will be maintained here.

Today's Text

XII. Empedocles, who erred in many things, is most grossly mistaken in his notion of the Gods. He lays down four natures as divine, from which he thinks that all things were made. Yet it is evident that they have a beginning, that they decay, and that they are void of all sense.

Protagoras did not seem to have any idea of the real nature of the Gods; for he acknowledged that he was altogether ignorant whether there are or are not any, or what they are.

What shall I say of Democritus, who classes our images of objects, and their orbs, in the number of the Gods; as he does that principle through which those images appear and have their influence? He deifies likewise our knowledge and understanding. Is he not involved in a very great error? And because nothing continues always in the same state, he denies that anything is everlasting, does he not thereby entirely destroy the Deity, and make it impossible to form any opinion of him?

Diogenes of Apollonia looks upon the air to be a Deity. But what sense can the air have? or what divine form can be attributed to it?

It would be tedious to show the uncertainty of Plato’s opinion; for, in his Timæus, he denies the propriety of asserting that there is one great father or creator of the world; and, in his book of Laws, he thinks we ought not to make too strict an inquiry into the nature of the Deity. And as for his statement when he asserts that God is a being without any body—what the Greeks call ἀσώματος—it is certainly quite unintelligible how that theory can possibly be true; for such a God must then necessarily be destitute of sense, prudence, and pleasure; all which things are comprehended in our notion of the Gods. He likewise asserts in his Timæus, and in his Laws, that the world, the heavens, the stars, the mind, and those Gods which are delivered down to us from our ancestors, constitute the Deity. These opinions, taken separately, are apparently false; and, together, are directly inconsistent with each other.

Xenophon has committed almost the same mistakes, but in fewer words. In those sayings which he has related of Socrates, he introduces him disputing the lawfulness of inquiring into the form of the Deity, and makes him assert the sun and the mind to be Deities: he represents him likewise as affirming the being of one God only, and at another time of many; which are errors of almost the same kind which I before took notice of in Plato.

This is to provide a link for people finding this forum to know that we began a series of podcast discussions of "On The Nature of the Gods" here:

Thread

Episode 226 - Cicero's On The Nature of The Gods - Epicurean Section 01 - Introduction

Welcome to Episode 226 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread…

Cassius

April 21, 2024 at 11:31 AM

I could find ways to nitpick, especially in the area of where she is more willing to link Epicurus to current politics in ways that could be argued in multiple ways, but yes I agree it is up to her normal standards of very pleasant and interesting delivery.

Listening now. I am hoping for the best and will report back - but I always find Catherine Wilson's voice and method of presentation to be attractive - and she's usually pretty negative about the Stoics too.

Interesting to hear her say that she's more into the history of science than in general classical philosophy - not sure i have heard her say that before.

Good catch kochie. It wasn't clear to me whether he meant something like "true Epicureanism is so ascetic that it isn't possible for a normal person to follow," or rather "if you don't have the thread of hell or the promise of heaven hanging over your head then the normal person doesn't have the willpower to follow it" or rather something else. Maybe if I had seen his facial expression I would have a better idea but I was just listening at the time.

My take from listening was that he genuinely did not sound hostile to Epicurus, more on the order of "mystified" about what certain things meant. There was one part in particular where he said that there was something about the situation that he didn't understand and that he asked the professor to explain to him, but I can't recall exactly the context. But even if my memory is wrong on that, it was interesting to me that he didn't come across to me as a "true believer" either of CIcero's own viewpoint or of the Stoic viewpoint. Given that he's not a professional academic himself, he might well fit the mold of a lot of people who drop in around here, who find these topics fascinating and yet they know they've been told all their lives that they are not supposed to like Epicurus.

A vibe very similar to that other podcast I posted recently from the Florida "Madisonian" professor who chose to focus on Hume but in doing so seemed to be surprised how much he agreed with Epicurus and Hume.

I actually find both of these last two podcasts encouraging, in that neither are overtly pro-Epicurean, and probably both are oriented in favor of other philosophic positions, and yet both seemed to treat Epicurus in an unexpectedly (to them) favorable way.

Has anyone seen any studies or well-founded recommendations on how many items in a list can be comfortably handled at one time? I am thinking i have hear recommendations as to how long a list of things is manageable, but maybe that's in relation to how high crows seem to be able to count rather than humans

At the moment I think we should enforce a limit of 15 categories in any single forum list, and if we get up to 15 we combine one or more of the others so that the number never gets higher than 15.

But it's possible that it would be better for the number to be 10 or less.

Anyone have any ideas or links or "gut feels" as to how long a list can be before it becomes too irritating to scroll through?

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

I will broaden the "Lifestyle" title

Attempting to keep the forum organized where posts are findable is a never-ending task. We've made some more updates to forum structure today with a goal (admittedly arbitrary!) that there be no more than 15 items in any category. That means at the top level there will be no more than 14 forums, and each subforum will have no more than 15 subcategories - we will group categories together anytime they exceed 15 in number. This is to prevent interminable scrolling in any one listing.

The forum software is very good at making automatic adjustments, but one downside of forum reorganization is that existing links can break. If you run into broken links let us know here in this thread and we'll fix them as quickly as possible.

At present, the top level structure of the forum will be:

1. General Information And Discussion - Start Here
2. Private Section - Includes Level 03 And Above Discussions and 20th Zoom Meeting
3. The Lucretius Today Podcast and other Projects
4. Events, Outreach, and Activism, Including EpicureanFriends Zoom Meetings
5. Physics - The Nature of the Universe
6. Canonics - The Tests of Truth: The Five Senses, Anticipations, and Feelings of Pleasure and Pain
7. Ethics - How To Live As An Epicurean
8. Epicurean Historical Figures - Biographies of Epicureans from Epicurus To The Present
9. Ancient Epicurean Texts - 300 BC to 300 AD
10. Material Of Special Significance (Commentaries and Textbooks)
11. Materials After the Classical Epicurean Period (300 - 2000's)
12. Comparisons With Non-Epicurean Philosophies
13. Epicurean Lifestyle, Culture, And Places of Interest

14. Epicurean Symbolism in Art, Music, Literature, and Poetry

    *****

    *Admin Note: Forum category names and order have been changed - 01/05/2025

It's looking great, Twentier. You do excellent work.

Great video and comments Julia.

Very interesting Pacatus! To extend my comparison from post 22 above, here is the first paragraph from Chapter one of "Epicurus and the Pleasant Life." I note that this is a total rewrite from the first edition"

"If we were to describe the Epicurean Philosophy in a single word, it would be "pleasure." And if we were to sum it up in a sentence, it would be this excerpt from the letter of Epicurus to Menoeceus: "Pleasure is the beginning and the end of the happy life." With this simple statement, Epicurus establishes the emotion of pleasure as both the means and the purpose of life, in contrast to all other philosophies that introduce rational means and ends such as achievement, success, wealth, morality, social justice, and so on."

From here I am going to move or copy these over into a thread on Haris' book so we can continue this. Based on what I am seeing I might want to affirm that this would be my third suggestion for new readers.

I'll combine it with this thread too:

Thread

Second Edition of Haris Dimitriadis' "Epicurus And the Pleasant Life" Now Released

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3135/

It has just come to my attention that Haris has released a second edition of his "Epicurus and the Pleasant Life." His detailed preface is available on his website here. The following is an excerpt:

[…]

I have been an appreciative fan of Haris for the many years that I have been in (unfortunately sporadic) communication with him over at Facebook. In fact we have at least one article from him featured here on Epicureanfriends:

…

Cassius

December 15, 2022 at 9:13 AM

Yes I agree Pacatus - of the books I recommend I would probably rank his as third as well.

I know in my case you are pointing out an oversight I am making personally. I have a copy of Harris' first edition, but I understand it has been updated and improved significantly since that edition. When the upgrade came out, for some reason my Kindle edition did not update, and I don't think I have seen the new edition.

You post is going to motivate me to fix that.

Even given my current memory, I do agree that I would rate this highly. How would you compare it to the Catherine Wilson books?

I see that our friend Eikadistes has launched a brand new website where he collects much of his outstanding research into many aspects of Epicurean Philosophy. I have not had a chance to go through it yet so I can't comment on specific sections, but I thought I would go ahead and post this link for those who might be on the internet on Memorial day. I'm sure it will be excellent quality.

Here's the link:

Twentiers

Hogs from the Herd

twentiers.com

I am glad you posted further to give me a chance to clarify a few things:

Quote from Don

I agree that Dewitt was a "fanboy" of Epicurus, but I don't see that as necessarily a negative.

Actually i predicted to someone else here on the forum that that would be exactly your take on it! And of course I agree. "Reverence" for the sage is of great help to those during the "reverencing."

Quote from Don

He obviously gave them lots of thought, but it seems he didn't feel her could write them as part of his academic career.

It occurs to me that that observation applies not only to DeWitt, but I suspect it has very personal application to someone we've had the privilege to interact with on the podcast - Emily Austin - who may undertake other work on Epicurus in the future. Becoming known as a defender of Epicurus could get your head chopped off some recent centuries ago, it was a guaranteed way to fail to win friends and influence people in the last century, and it's entirely unclear to me what the future holds. Anyone who undertakes that job could be forgiven for thinking that have decided to emulate Don Quixote.

Quote from Don

To TauPhi 's assertions...

There's always some tension between what needs to be said in context and what might be misunderstood by new readers who skim over threads. TauPhi is a longstanding and respected member of the forum who attends many of our zoom meetings, and as a result those of us who know him know him to be extremely constructive and helpful. I would not normally have responded quite so directly, but we just had an exchange with recent member @Josh about books to read, so I wanted to make an important point.

Since writing that post, I've thought of a better way to make the point.

Here's one way to decide whether someone should read "Living for Pleasure" first or DeWitt's book first (in my estimation anyway).

Below is the first paragraph from the first chapter of both books, and the difference gives you an excellent hint of what to expect:

---

Living For Pleasure, Chapter One, Paragraph One: "Imagine yourself on vacation. Not everyone enjoys beaches, and some people would rather eat sand than sleep in the woods. Maybe you prefer to vacation in your living room. Now that you've figured out where you are, who's there? You, obviously, but people rarely want to be entirely alone for all that long because we're social creatures. You might be with your romantic partner, or maybe your children or some close friends. Maybe you're there with George Clooney because why not?"

Epicurus And His Philosophy, Chapter One, Paragraph One: "This book attempts to present for the first time a fairly complete account of the life and teachings of Epicurus. At the very outset the reader should be prepared to think of him at one and the same time as the most revered and the most reviled of all founders of thought in the Graeco-Roman world."

---

If that doesn't help someone pick which book to start first, I don't know what will.

BOTH approaches are legitimate and important, but they appeal to two entirely different segments of readers. BOTH segments are important to and well represented on this forum, and we want to be responsive to the interests and friendship desires of both. And i have both books and recommend them both, sometimes in one order and sometimes in another, depending on what I know about the person who is asking for a place to start.

I would say both are "best in class" for (1) the generalist reader who may be entirely new to Epicurus, and (2) the reader who probably already knows a considerable about about Epicureanism, Stoicism, and other classical philosophy, and who wants to begin to learn more about where Epicurus fits into that picture.

Episode 230 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available, with Velleius attacking misplaced ideas of divinity expressed by other philosophers.