I think that the pleasure that is having choice can be properly called freedom.
In that sense, the pleasure of having freedom is different from the pleasures had from doing things while free. In that regard, I might argue, then, that freedom is a katestamatic pleasure.
In Democritus we recognize not merely a keener intellect, but also, in almost every way, a nobler, fuller, and stronger nature than that of Epicurus. It is only the passionate sympathy of Epicurus with the suffering, with the ignorant, and those who through their ignorance are deceived and terrified, with all who are sore beaten by the storms of life, which alone relieves a system hardly deserving to be called a philosophy.
That's a bold statement about a historical figure for whom we have no original works.
Sounds like the author is projecting his own narrative onto history.
This is excellent and I love it! Thank you. This version is much better than Hicks and the recent Oxford translation (by Pamela Mensch).
It should not seem like a relief that Epíkouros says he wanted to eat the cheese in his potlet -- until we consider that others, while practicing tyromancy, were staring into their cheese pots like crystal balls!
minor notes:
"...of friends [is] public..." I don't think you want that "i" italicized.
"On Nature" is rubricated but the other titles are not.
Thank you so much for that compliment! I appreciate the feedback!
All right, the spirit moved me, so I took a shot at translating Book X of Lives of Eminent Philosophers (with the exceptions of the Epistles to Herodotos and Pythokles).
Find it HERE.
Unfortunately, I did something and deleted all of my footnotes. 
I'm re-building them now.
(I think I did a particularly fair job at re-rendering the poems in modern verse:)
"Farewell, and remember the doctrines" — Epíkouros [therewith ends,]
[He] said these final words [and] passed [among] his [dearest] friends;
For he went into a warm bathtub and drew [much] unmixed [wine],
Then drawn was [he to] frigid Hádēs [from which no one can climb].
DeWitt has a lot to say on the matter, but I feel like it's largely suppositional fiction.
I thought this might be better as a forum post.
I am very interested if anyone has specific evidence or documentation of Epicurus' time in Teos with Nausiphanes. Colophon is 16 hours on-foot from Teos, and just a short time in a boat to Mytilene, from which Praxiphanes hailed, his second teacher, a Peripatetic whom he may have been inspired to meet while Theophrastus spoke during his consciption in Athens ... all being pure speculation, because Praxiphanes spent most of his adult life in Rhodes. Still, it may have given Epicurus a reason to visit Mytilene in the first place, and then he decided that he liked it, and tried to teach there half-a-decade later, after he got fed up with Nausiphanes' skepticism.)
I sort of wonder ... was Epicurus repelled by Platonism as represented to him as a teenager by Pamphilius, but then re-invigorated by Philosophy when he heard Aristotelians speak against the Platonic gymnasiums during his two years in Athens? And then perhaps that compelled him to visit an Aristotelian after he completed his term of service. He rejected that as well, either in Mytilene, or Rhodes ... unless Praxiphanes was briefly teaching in Ionia ... it's interesting that Teos is really close in distance to Colophon. Epicurus may have accidentally found Nausiphanes on vacation.
Was there any kind of gathering of philosophers throughout the Hellenic area? I'm still curious if Epicurus physically relocated for a significant time to any of those cities on the West Coast of modern-day Turkey in his 20s.
Anyway, I am considering whether (1) Epicurus moved from his parents' property in Colophon to Teos for several months-to-years in his 20s to study under Nausiphanes, or (2) was Epicurus stationed with his family in Colophon, and made brief trips to Teos to hear Nausiphanes lecture, or (3) did Epicurus and his brothers back-pack monthly trips to Teos, and while they were there, they spent considerable time with Nausiphanes, before ultimately rejecting him. (There is also speculation that Epicurus travelled to Rhodes to study under Praxiphanes in his early-20s.). Or (4) did Nausiphanes come to him? Did Nausiphanes and/or Praxiphanes travel occasionally to other cities to lecture? (I'm not sure, but I'm looking into it). And if so, did Epicurus follow him back? Or were their interactions limited?
Rhodes also became a center of Epicurean thought, so Epicurus' early presence there would be contextually appropriate, if he planted the seeds for a future garden on that island. At the same time (as I recall), they were accused of being heterodox, Epicurean sophists, so the community there was not founded by Epicurus? Rhodes is pretty far away from the other locations. Then again, sailing was common. Epicurus got in (at least) one shipwreck.
Then again, then again, perhaps we should believe Epicurus in his claim of him being a self-taught thinker. I would like to better understand what sorts of resources he had at his disposal. He was not only an insightful thinker, but he was a true historian of several hundred years of philosophy, and deeply fascinated by each thinker's arguments. This doesn't necessarily require a teacher, but it does require a lot of literature ... which perhaps his father had as a schoolteacher? Or perhaps his father was the source, himself. Perhaps his time with Praxiphanes and Nausiphanes was very brief, and he disliked them within weeks, and the core of his learning had to do with personal study of each philosophers' literature. Perhaps his atomism wasn't inherited from Nausiphanes, but from much Democritus' literature. Perhaps his interest in Pyrrho had to do with the fact that orthodox, Indian philosophers were atomists, and they were (somehow) an influence. Perhaps his hedonistic ethics was inspired by some of the literature of Aristippus and his fellow Kyrenaiks. Maybe he just took Nausiphanes' "tripod" as a useful teaching model and rejected his Nausiphanes' physics, thus, representing himself as a unique thinker. I am sort of surprised that Diogenes doesn't mention more about Nausiphanes and Praxiphanes. I'd like to.
One more thing to add: According to Leonteus, Epicurus thought of himself as a “Democritean” as a younger man (Plutarch, Against Colotes 3, 1108e–f) before founding his own, dogmatic school. Thus, we note his simultaneous admiration of Pyrrho and his rejection of Skepticism. So I'm considering that, as well.
Has anyone identified as Epicurean in official surveys when asked by a pollster? Even the Census?
I wonder how many astrology-and-tarot "Nones" are going back to their childhood religion.
Out of curiosity, do you know what the general, demographic spread is of religious involvement in your area? I am so pleased with the response to your invitation, and surprised. I am mired in (as I think is the case with a few of us) a Southern Christian swamp (literally) near the genitals of the Bible Belt, and the ideological bubble in which I find myself is thick with criticism toward the Other.
The practice of memorizing the Doxai and other exercises of ancient Epicureans seems to parallel a certain human, religious behavior, cross-culturally that I equate (to an extent) with something like a Catholic rosary, and the memorization of certain prayers (even the "Serenity" prayer in AA), the idea behind it being employing remembrance of truths to overcome temporary obstacles.
I heavily used that when my wife was faced with death two years ago.
Not the rosary, of course. But when someone you love is dying, and you have done everything you can to solve the problem, the problem-solving facet of the human mind keeps on working, and you keep on believing there is a solution, and that naturally leads our minds to begin searching for answers beyond the logistically-possible, and the empirically-probable. The mind reaches for an ultimate, reality-overcoming answer that will change the conditions of mortality, and solve everything. I think it there is a tendency to explore the possibility of divine intervention.
Here's how Epicurean wisdom helped me in that situation: it removed fear.
Magical thinking feeds fear. It is also a crutch. If I held that agreement (between me, and the superstitious idea in my mind), it would have been me assigning human agency to an idea that would be incapable of any sort of intervention. I would be holding an idea in my head for the most important responsibilities in our lives, caring for our health and the health of our friends. That idea fails us, because ideas don't cure sepsis, antibiotics do. God doesn't cure the sick, MDs do. Mysticism doesn't reinforce physical health, practical decisions do. And when magical thinking becomes tantalizing because it offers a solution (albeit fake) for the fear of death, the teachings of Epicurus address that exact same fear, but don't rely on the crutch of magical thinking.
Truly, Epicurus saves us from the fear that comes from a collapse into superstitious thinking.
Some people feel that ... ugh, what did George H. W. Bush say ... "There are no atheists in foxholes", implying that everyone, when faced with death, has a "coming to Jesus" moment. A family member of mine suffered the death of one of their best friends, and that incident persuaded them, after many years, to go back to church and find peace. And they did. And they (believe that they) found peace. I believe it is just a bandaid. It doesn't actually cure us of fearing death. It's just a comfy narrative to deal with the overwhelming, existential fear that we all face. I felt that same fear, and that same, strong desire to put my faith in "Everything happening for a reason", beyond the realm of scientific understanding. At that time (and those times, previously) I go out of my way to practice everything I know to be true: materialism, hedonism, empiricism: reject superstition.
At the end of the day, those things reinforce true confidence, not just a spiritual bandaid.
The practice of memorizing the Doxai and other exercises of ancient Epicureans seems to parallel a certain human, religious behavior, cross-culturally that I equate (to an extent) with something like a Catholic rosary, and the memorization of certain prayers (even the "Serenity" prayer in AA), the idea behind it being employing remembrance of truths to overcome temporary obstacles.
I heavily used that when my wife was faced with death two years ago.
Not the rosary, of course. But when someone you love is dying, and you have done everything you can to solve the problem, the problem-solving facet of the human mind keeps on working, and you keep on believing there is a solution, and that naturally leads our minds to begin searching for answers beyond the logistically-possible, and the empirically-probable. The mind reaches for an ultimate, reality-overcoming answer that will change the conditions of mortality, and solve everything. I think it there is a tendency to explore the possibility of divine intervention.
Here's how Epicurean wisdom helped me in that situation: it removed fear.
Magical thinking feeds fear. It is also a crutch. If I held that agreement (between me, and the superstitious idea in my mind), it would have been me assigning human agency to an idea that would be incapable of any sort of intervention. I would be holding an idea in my head for the most important responsibilities in our lives, caring for our health and the health of our friends. That idea fails us, because ideas don't cure sepsis, antibiotics do. God doesn't cure the sick, MDs do. Mysticism doesn't reinforce physical health, practical decisions do. And when magical thinking becomes tantalizing because it offers a solution (albeit fake) for the fear of death, the teachings of Epicurus address that exact same fear, but don't rely on the crutch of magical thinking.
Truly, Epicurus saves us from the fear that comes from a collapse into superstitious thinking.
Some people feel that ... ugh, what did George H. W. Bush say ... "There are no atheists in foxholes", implying that everyone, when faced with death, has a "coming to Jesus" moment. A family member of mine suffered the death of one of their best friends, and that incident persuaded them, after many years, to go back to church and find peace. And they did. And they (believe that they) found peace. I believe it is just a bandaid. It doesn't actually cure us of fearing death. It's just a comfy narrative to deal with the overwhelming, existential fear that we all face. I felt that same fear, and that same, strong desire to put my faith in "Everything happening for a reason", beyond the realm of scientific understanding. At that time (and those times, previously) I go out of my way to practice everything I know to be true: materialism, hedonism, empiricism: reject superstition.
At the end of the day, those things reinforce true confidence, not just a spiritual bandaid.
Just a few holiday and seasonal-themed Waning Gibbouses I've been using.
Today in the podcast recording Joshua brought up the letter to Idomeus, and one phrasing caught my eye, the underline
The disease in my bladder and stomach are pursuing their course, lacking nothing of their natural severity:
This is interesting, because the way this is translated suggests "lacking nothing of their natural severity" as a dependent clause, descriptive of "The disease in my bladder and stomach are pursuing their course." The original does not have a dependent clause quite like that. Here's the phrase:
στραγγουρία τε παρηκολουθήκει καὶ δυσεντερικὰ πάθη
ὑπερβολὴν οὐκἀπολείποντα τοῦ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς μεγέθους.
στραγγουρία - (n. nom. sing.) "strangury"
τε - (conj.) "both"
παρηκολουθήκει - (v. perf.) "had followed", "had understood"
καὶ - (conj.) "and"
δυσεντερικὰ - "dysentery"
πάθη - (n. nom. sing.) "feeling", "suffering"
ὑπερβολὴν - (n. acc. sing) an "overshooting", "excess", "extremity", "hyperbole"
οὐκ - (neg.) "not"
ἀπολείποντα - (v. pres. act. part.) "leaving [behind]", "deserting", "departing", "remaining"
τοῦ - (art. gen. sing.) "of the"
ἐν - (prep.) "in", "within"
ἑαυτοῖς (pron. dat. pl.) "themselves", "yourselves", "ourselves"
μεγέθους (n. gen. sing.) "greatness", "magnitude", "size"
I would translate it something closer to something like (literally) "[The] suffering [that] has followed [from] both strangury and dysentery is not abating in extremity of their greatness."
If Lucretius reflects of the attitude of ancient Epicureans, it's more like "Wisdom and Courage":
"62When human life to view lay foully prostrate upon earth crushed down under the weight of religion, who showed her head from the quarters of heaven with hideous aspect lowering upon mortals, a man of Greece ventured first to lift up his mortal eyes to her face and first to withstand her to her face. 68Him neither story of gods nor thunderbolts nor heaven with threatening roar could quell: they only chafed the more the eager courage of his soul, filling him with desire to be the first to burst the fast bars of nature’s portals. 72Therefore the living force of his soul gained the day: on he passed far beyond the flaming walls of the world and traversed throughout in mind and spirit the immeasurable universe; whence he returns a conqueror to tell us what can, what cannot come into being; in short on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deep-set boundary mark. 78Therefore religion is put underfoot and trampled upon in turn; us his victory brings level with heaven." (Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 1.62-79; translated by H. A. J. Munro)
I may be pushing it, but are full-brim hat types a possibility?
Absolutely! I'll throw SFOTSE and the Leaping Pig on the full-brim style.
Thank you for asking. 
There's a strong similarity between Pythagoras and ancient Indian philosophies. I want to suggest that Pythagoreanism is Vedic mysticism processed through ancient Greek Philosophy (in the same way I argue that Pyrrhonism is Ajñana processed through ancient Greek Philosophy), except that I do not believe that we have record of Pythagoras going further East than Mesopotamia, as was the achievement of Alexander III and those (Pyrrho) who followed him into India.
I continue searching for a historical connection (though there may not be one).
just floods in general.
The way I'm thinking about it ... imagine a writer living a few miles North of Portland in 1980. Let's say the writer has a passing interest in volcanism, specifically the Ring of Fire for which the Pacific is known. Of course, there are thousands of regular of seismic events that inhabitants of the Pacific coast and Pacific islands anticipate. Supposing our writer sets his stories in the Pacific Northwest, he would likely incorporate this theme of volcanism. But if, say, in 1993, he published a story about a stratovolcano that exploded, ripping the top of the mountain off, with a pyroclastic flow that kills a few dozen people ... I would have to guess that the specifics are not an amalgamation of the regular seismic activity: the specifics are available because the author would have personally experienced the event, and borrowed the realistic specifics from his proximity to Mt. St. Helens in 1980.
I would be surprised if Plato were writing an amalgamation of shared cultural experience, rather than borrowing some of the details from his own, personal experience. Though, I could be wrong.
The MEGA hats, honestly, give me pause even though I get the tongue in cheek aspect.
Is it possible or even desirable to get the piglet or SFOTSE or even a graphic Epicurus on a hat?
I feel similarly about the hats.
I'd be very happy to add those designs! Thanks for asking. I will jump on that tonight. 
All evidence points to Plato making Atlantis up for rhetorical purposes. Everybody points back to him.
Yep, yep, yep! Plato is the singular author of that allegory, and Aristotle confirms it.
On thing I'd like to add:
Only 13 years before Plato published the Timaeus (c. 360 BCE) while living in Athens, the city of Helike literally became "submerged" in the ocean due to a rare seismic event (c. 373).
If Plato didn't witness it with his own eyes, he almost certainly would have felt the seismic shock, followed shortly thereafter by the news of a horrific event just miles East of him. And if he didn't feel the shock, he definitely would have spent the next few months discussing the narrative of a known, friendly city that sank into the sea, (so long as that event captured public interest).
I maintain Helike was the inspiration behind the fate Plato assigns to his allegorical city.
