We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
I never realized that Bailey's collection of fragments were selected from Usener's:
Thank you for the recognition! The contents are essentially copied from the Hedonicon, with several exceptions (such as the inclusion of Lucian's Alexander the False Prophet). I am also trying to get permissions to host translations of Philodemus and Diogenes of Oinoanda on the website. So far, it's just the works of Epicurus as contained within Diogenes Laërtius and De Rerum Natura. A number of sites contain Epicurus' works, but not De Rerum Natura, and I've connected them with links.
Again, though, I would really like to see anyone else's transpositions and advice about ... anything. Like, which of those symbols represents a Nu, because I am fairly familiar with Nus, and their very basic, ancient Greek miniscule ("v") ... I know they're in there, but none of those look a lowercase "v" to me, and that lets me know I have no idea what I'm talking about. 
I'd be curious what Bryan or Eikadistes or others make of the manuscript's πλειονος versus Usener's "correction." If we take the manuscript at its word, something like: we shall depart from life with/in the midst of/along with more beauty/nobility (μετα καλου πλειονος), exclaiming/proclaiming that we have lived well.
I have absolutely no idea. I genuinely can't transpose these fragments.
Here's my best attempt, which is utterly unhelpful:
This may as well be ancient Phoenician because I'm seeing Omegas with too many loops, and I don't understand why Kappas, Betas, and Taus are twice the height of the other letters, or why there seem to be spaces in the middle of words when there shouldn't be any spaces.
I'm curious what everyone else sees.
I clearly see a modern question mark [?] and one-half of a pair of parenthesis [ ( ] in the middle of a sentence with no sibling, and diacritics I've never seen before, and punctuation I cannot identify.
My conclusion is that Usener took MAJOR liberties, not only with translations, not only with his personal additions, but in the basic act of assigning symbols the wrong syllable.
"And [the sage] thinks it better to be unlucky in a rational way than lucky in a senseless way; for it is better for a good decision not to turn out right in action than for a bad decision to turn out right because of chance." (Epicurus, Epistle to Menoikeus 134-135)
What has "nature used to impress a notion of gods on our minds" if not the very images of the gods?
Drugs. And a few other things, but I'd like to start with drugs.
By definition, psychedelic chemicals are associated with the religious experience (from the ancient Greek ψυχή [psykhḗ]“mind" or "soul” and δῆλος [dêlos] “manifest" or "visible”). In addition to near-universal consumption of wine, as well as (what I deem to be) possible, recreational use of cannabis (as demonstrated by the Scythians according to Herodotus), the many Mystery Rites (such as the Orphic, Dionysian, and Eleusinian Mysteries) of Antiquity presented the average ancient Greek with a variety of ways to induce a religious experience, either through the inhalation or ingestion of psychoactive substances. The content of those experiences are categorically inspirational, and the experience, itself, can be psychologically and behaviorally transformational.
Dancing. It goes well with drugs for a reason.
Similar neurological patterns are activated through ritualistic dancing and/or drumming. In Islam, we see this with Sufi whirling, renown as inducing a mystical state. Dancing is a primary form of spiritual expression throughout the worlds cultures, too numerous to name. The repetitive, kinetic and acoustic rituals of rhythmic drumming and dancing are partners in inducing the religious experience. Dancing would have been a feature of Dionysian Mysteries, and the practice had a practical purpose, to induce the psychedelic experience, or, in Epicurean terms (so long as I am not conflating incompatible ideas), to "impress a notion of gods on our minds." Historically-speaking, getting high while dancing to rythmic music never gets old (and has never gotten old).
Meditation. It's another pathway to the gods.
Meditation yields similar neurological patters as drugs, dancing, and drumming. We can also throw chanting in this category (and, perhaps, singing). We find recorded examples in Tibetan Buddhism. For the same reasons that dancing and drumming induce psychedelic experiences, various forms of meditation, chanting, and breathing can facilitate psychological states in which lasting, psychologically-transformational impressions (such that we call them "divine") can be consciously apprehended. Focusing upon the icon of a deity can induce an experience that can lead to measurably-positive, behavioral changes. Here again, the Mystery Rites come into play.
Dreams. This is the big one in an Epicurean context.
I think that nocturnal dreams are the best example, not only because they are mentioned by Epicurus, but because they are the only psychedelic experience that occurs without consciously initiating it. Very rarely do we chose our dreams, and we are usually only observers of our dreams, much as, throughout the day, we are observers of sensations. A strong analogy can be made between the images our eyes apprehend in the day and the images our mind apprehends at night. Both are received without the bias of the rational mind, and can therefore be trusted as sources of data. As with optical illusions, it is up to the intellect to formulate a practical interpretation, but those images are already there for the intellect to consider when it awakens.
Those are some general ways of inducing transformational mental states that illicit the "perception of deities" and inspire the "divine nature". The Epicurean connection between piety and ethics reinforces to me the proposition (I'm making) that Epicurus' description of the gods (as impressive objects of a dreamy mind) can be expressed as a function of needing to provide a naturalistic explanation for psychedelic experiences, experiences that would have been common among ancient Greeks as demonstrated by the plethora of Mystery Rites.
Epicurean Philosophy is always practical, and Epicurean theology should be no different: sober vocabulary is required to ground theology in physics, or, in other words, to ground the religious experience within the framework of a universe that is made from particles dancing in void. Unlike the gods of metaphysicians, who were purely theoretical, the Epicurean gods were apparent, and the religious experience was not only accessible, but, through ritual, repeatable and reliable.
I can imagine a couple of questions here:
1. Do the terms "good" and "evil" even apply to elements/ atoms / void / matter, or are those things "neutral" in some way?
I think we can address this by acknowledging that Epicurus reserved "good" and "evil" for the domain of Ethics; on the other hand, Plato infused morality into his metaphysics as though "evil" was a property of physical objects that could be weighed and measured. (Here's a weird analogy: consider Romance languages that assign a gender to nouns, especially inanimate objects. It can be semantically misleading to apply a sort of personification to sexless objects that lack reproductive organs). Likewise, from an Epicurean perspective, the only measurable qualities of an atom are size, weight, and shape, and compound objects are only described by sensible properties (like color); matter, itself, does not have a moral dimension. I hesitate to even call particles morally "neutral" because we cannot measure the unconditional morality of a chair, or, for that matter, instruments of war, or harmful drugs.
Case in point, when my wife got out of the hospital (after 8 surgeries with 1 more to go), everyone was horrified that she was taking Oxycodone to manage the pain of those surgeries (this is heavily a consequence of the politicization of medical practices in the US). Too many were concerned that she was going to become addicted, and vocalized that concern ... and not enough people were concerned about that fact that she was in such excruciating pain she was at risk of a cardiac event. They weren't concerned with the (Epicurean) consequences of taking opiates, with weighing the advantages (decreased pain, a lower heart rate, etc.) against the disadvantages (constipation, fogginess, etc.). Rather, they engaged a (Platonic-Stoic) evaluation that we should abstain from opiates because they are fundamentally, categorically evil. This is a mistake, and caused us unnecessary grief.
Is he correct at the 2:20 point in the video to say that "matter in the Platonic worldview is EVIL?"
Plato proposed that one's immortal soul becomes trapped in the body like a prison at birth. Consequently, he saw death as the liberation from the soul's imprisonment in a cage of matter. In that regard, Plato saw the matter as being antithetical to the truth that is the Form of the Good.
He saw the material world as being a corruption of a realm of universal concepts, so the natural world and the particular objects within it are seen as cheap copies of a higher truth. In this regard, his propositions are parallel to many ancient Indian notions of ethics, which equates goodness with knowledge, and equates ignorance with evil. (Note the word "guru", which is derived from "gu" and "ru" which is translated as "dispeller [of] darkness", and note that Plato uses the light of the Sun as a metaphor for the the Form of the Good that overcomes the darkness of matter; neo-Platonists recognized this and found Platonism to be compatible with ancient Indian philosophies).
Based on that, I think it is correct to say that Plato saw matter as being evil.
Possible: that which is consistent with our senses.
Impossible: that which contradicts our senses.
But is that sufficient to deal with matters which we at any particular point we have not seen in the past, but which do not contradict the physics of what we have seen in the past, such as men flying? How do we know the limits of physics in situations that have not been tested?
As Epicurus wrote, THΣ AΛHΘEIAΣ EINAI TAΣ AIΣΘHΣEIΣ, "the truth is the sensations..." the foundation of knowledge. Whatever is left must be coherent with documented observations. Anything else leaves us without a point of reference to test false beliefs.
Possible: that which is consistent with our senses.
Impossible: that which contradicts our senses.
I've been reading more on the subject, and I found a few interesting anecdotes to share:
“Many scholars argue that these speculations were influenced by revived interest in ancient atomism, particularly that of Lucretius, the ancient Roman philosopher-poet. While Lucretius’s didactic poem On the Nature of Things was not translated into English until after Shakespeare’s death, his work was available in Latin, and was likely familiar to educated Elizabethans, as was the broader tradition of atomistic thought of which he was a key figure. Scholars also suggest a number of sixteenth-century interpretive intermediaries through whom Shakespeare might have known of Lucretius, including Christopher Marlowe, Michel de Montaigne, and the Italian scientist and poet Girolamo Fracastoro. Crane herself argues that contemporary atomism probably arose not out of engagement with the ancients but out of novel recognition of theoretical problems posed by the prevailing Aristotelian theory, which held that matter can be infinitely divided, and which denied the possibility of empty space.” (Elliot, Natalie. “Shakespeare’s Worlds of Science”. The New Atlantis, No. 54 (Winter 2018), pp. 39-40)
“Such learned and venturesome Elizabethans as Bacon, Burton, and Milton read Lucretius in Latin editions from the Continent, but the vernacular collections of sayings of the philosophers that were popular throughout the age of Shakespeare pointedly omitted Epicurus and Lucretius, while quoting and praising the Stoics.” (Freehafer, John and Miner, Earl. “Stoicism and Epicureanism in England, 1530-1700”. PMLA, Vol. 88, No. 5 (Oct., 1973), pp. 1181)
“Once again it is impossible to determine whether in fact Shakespeare read Lucretius [If Shakespeare read Lucretius it must have been in Latin...], but the Lucretian tenor of the Shakespearean passage, if purely coincidental, is extraordinary. We do know that Shakespeare was familar with much classical literature, and the close association of language, image and idea here seems to indicate a literary connection.” (Catto, Bonnie. “Lucretius, Shakespeare and Dickens”. The Classical World, Vol. 80. No. 6 (Jul. - Aug., 1987), pp. 427)
There are a few other source that I’d really like to dig through, Lucretius and Shakespeare on the Nature of Things by Richard Allen Shoaf (2014) as well as “Shakespeare, Lucretius, and the Commonplaces” by L. C. Martin, published in the Review of English Studies (Vol. 21, No. 83, 1945) but both are a tad on the rare and expensive side at the moment ($51.00 for a 9-page article, and the book is only printed in Hardcover and currently unavailable on Amazon).
As I shared above, I found one stanza in Othello that could indicate that he had access to a Latin copy of De Rerum Natura, because the syntax and imagery of the stanza seems too similar (to me) to be a coincidence, but ... he wrote a lot, and I didn't find that much, and he could very well have been echoing the words of his contemporaries, who, themselves, may have had source documents.
I came across an interesting stanza in the Tragedy of Julius Caesar evident of Shakespeare's fluency in the philosophical positions of figures from the late Roman Republic: “CASSIUS: Be thou my witness that against my will, | As Pompey was, am I compell'd to set | Upon one battle all our liberties. | You know that I held Epicurus strong | And his opinion: now I change my mind, | And partly credit things that do presage.” (Julius Caesar 5.1.2430-2435; c. 1599-1600)
Of course, Shakespeare was a dramatist, and not a historian. Regardless, from what I can gather (and from what I collected), he was fascinated with Roman history, fluent in philosophical discourse, inspired, to at least some, notable degree by De Rerum Natura, sympathetic to Lucretius, but not a convinced Epicurean who struck a blow for the Sage of the Garden.
“HOSTESS QUICKLY: Thou atomy, thou!” (Henry IV: Part II 5.4.3584; c. 1592-1592)
“MERCUTIO: “She is the fairies' midwife, and she comes | In shape no bigger than an agate-stone | On the fore-finger of an alderman, | Drawn with a team of little atomies | Athwart men's noses as they lie asleep” (Romeo and Juliet 1.4.553)
"FORD: What a damned Epicurean rascal is this! My heart is ready to crack with impatience. Who says this is improvident jealousy? my wife hath sent to him; the hour is fixed; the match is made. Would any man have thought this? See the hell of having a false woman! My bed shall be abused, my coffers ransacked, my reputation gnawn at; and I shall not only receive this villanous wrong, but stand under the adoption of abominable terms, and by him that does me this wrong. Terms! names! Amaimon sounds well; Lucifer, well; Barbason, well; yet they are devils' additions, the names of fiends: but Cuckold! Wittol!—Cuckold! the devil himself hath not such a name. Page is an ass, a secure ass: he will trust his wife; he will not be jealous. I will rather trust a Fleming with my butter, Parson Hugh the Welshman with my cheese, an Irishman with my aqua-vitae bottle, or a thief to walk my ambling gelding, than my wife with herself; then she plots, then she ruminates, then she devises; and what they think in their hearts they may effect, they will break their hearts but they will effect. God be praised for my jealousy! Eleven o'clock the hour. I will prevent this, detect my wife, be revenged on Falstaff, and laugh at Page. I will about it; better three hours too soon than a minute too late. Fie, fie, fie! cuckold! cuckold! cuckold!” (The Merry Wives of Windsor, 2.2.1073)
“OTHELLO: Never, Iago: Like to the Pontic sea, | Whose icy current and compulsive course | Ne'er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due on | To the Propontic and the Hellespont…” (Othello, 3.3.2139; roughly corresponds with De Rerum Natura Book 5, Lines 506-508)
“LEAR: Why, no, boy: Nothing can be made out of nothing.” (King Lear 1.4.659)
“GONERIL: As you are old and reverend, you should be wise. | Here do you keep a hundred knights and squires; | Men so disorder'd, so debosh'd, and bold | That this our court, infected with their manners, | Shows like a riotous inn. Epicurism and lust | Make it more like a tavern or a brothel | Than a grac'd palace. The shame itself doth speak | For instant remedy.” (King Lear 1.4.759)
“MACBETH: Bring me no more reports; let them fly all: | Till Birnam wood remove to Dunsinane, | I cannot taint with fear. What's the boy Malcolm? | Was he not born of woman? The spirits that know | All mortal consequences have pronounced me thus: |’ Fear not, Macbeth; no man that's born of woman | Shall e'er have power upon thee.' Then fly, | false thanes, | And mingle with the English epicures: | The mind I sway by and the heart I bear | Shall never sag with doubt nor shake with fear. […] The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon! | Where got'st thou that goose look?” (Macbeth 5.3.2246)
"POMPEY: Tie up the libertine in a field of feasts, | Keep his brain fuming; Epicurean cooks | Sharpen with cloyless sauce his appetite; | That sleep and feeding may prorogue his honour | Even till a Lethe'd dulness!" (Antony and Cleopatra 2.1.639)
"ANTONY: With the health that Pompey gives him, else he is a very epicure." (Antony and Cleopatra, 2.7.1430)
Shakespeare usually employs words like "epicure" as was already common by his time, as a negative descriptor for an undisciplined glutton, an effeminate wimp, or, as was the case with "Epicurism", the philosophy of an extravagant pervert. While The Bard is celebrated for his collection of idioms and metaphors, his employment "epicurean" was regular for the usage of his audience.
I think parts of Shakespeare's last will are worth considering:
"In the name of God, Amen. I, William Shakespeare [...] in perfect health and memory, God be praised, do make and ordain this my last will and testament in manner and form following. That is to say, first, I commend my soul into the hands of God my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through the only merits of Jesus Christ my Saviour, to be made partaker of life everlasting, and my body to the earth whereof it is made." (25 March 1616).
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!
To refine that response, "Yes, Shakespeare already published poetry about 'atomies' and a 'damned Epicurean rascal' before Pierre Gassendi ever learned to read, and yes he was 'Lucreatian' in several of his verses, and 'Classical' in his overall aesthetic, and yes he had insight into the history of the Epicurean school, which informed some of our greatest heroes and villains ... but also, no, not like Philodemus was an Epicurean, nor Lucretius, nor Lucian. He probably didn't have a shrine to the Sage of the Garden in his bedroom as much as he was probably just an educated Elizabethan."
1) Create a "sister-site" which gives a quick overview. We already have NewEpicurean.com...however...
...it would be nice to have something a bit more streamlined like a regular website which is geared toward modern times and is focused on practical aspects of applying Epicurean philosophy.
Besides https://epicureanfriends.com there are a number of sites with Epicurean resources:
(For what it's worth, Cassius I'd love to represent myself with that "I Too Am an Epicurean" badge as shown beneath your profile picture in these threads.)
I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"?
Or who gets to declare if the proper and necessary criteria are met to be an Epicurean – and what those criteria are for anyone/everyone?
In a fragment, Philodemus writes, "...we shall admonish others with great confidence, both now and when those {of us} who have become offshoots of our teachers have become eminent. And the encompassing and most important thing is, we shall obey Epicurus, according to whom we have chosen to live..." (On Frank Criticism, 45; translated by Konstan, Clay, Glad, Thom, and Ware).
There seem to have been at least a few criteria of formal membership to the Epicurean school:
That is not to say that that there cannot be epicurean spirits who sympathize with the Epicurean school, while simultaneously denying their identities as students, but there is a significance to one's formal recognition, like "how many years have you been sober ... from addiction to metaphysics?" or "how old were you when you 'came out' to your parents ... that you reject their traditional religion?" As I often reinforce, the modern world, itself, is generally epicurean in outlook, since it makes assumptions and takes for granted beliefs that are evident of the Epicurean school.
In the end, I may not be an Epicurean – let alone a “good Epicurean”. And that’s okay.
In the end, none of us are (i.e. none of us will exist).
Don't you have to be rich to be an Epicurean?
Not at all. The Notorious B.I.G. said, Mo Money, Mo Problems, and Epicurus would have agreed. As Lennon-McCartney wrote, "I don't care too much for money, 'cause money can't buy me love." And as Epicurus, himself wrote, "Poverty, when measured by the natural purpose of life, is great wealth, but unlimited wealth is great poverty" (VS 25).
Epicureanism doesn't offer anything "positive" like Stoicism or Buddhism offers. What do you offer to compete with those?
Epicurean Philosophy offers freedom. It champions choice and rejects fate. It liberates us from turmoil by rejecting superstition. It offers a worldview that recognizes friendship as the greatest pleasure in life, and also, our surest source of security.
What if your life isn't "together" and you don't have time to read philosophy? Why would someone like that spending any time discussing Epicurus?
There is no better time than now to prioritize the pursuit of happiness, "for no man can ever find the time unsuitable or too late to study the health of his soul." (Ep. Men. 122).
Life can be excruciating sometimes, but to enjoy true happiness, "We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy." (VS 41).
Why don't you ever discuss "meaningfulness" because I've been convinced that's what I should want out of life?
The "purpose" or "goal" of life was of prime importance to Epicurus. As Lucretius recognized, "Mankind therefore ever toils vainly and to no purpose and wastes life in groundless cares because sure enough they have not learnt what is the true end of getting and up to what point genuine pleasure goes on increasing" (DRN V:1430).
Your purpose is to live your best life (through the pursuit of pleasure).
How do you expect me to understand Epicurus when he approaches so many things so differently than what I am familiar with at church or in the workplaces?
You already understand Epicurus.
When you wonder if it will rain, do you ask a Priest? Or a meteorologist?
You already understand Epicurus.
You believe in extra-terrestrial life?
You definitely understand Epicurus.
Do you like Science Fiction?
It came from an Epicurean.
You were required by society to embrace at least twelve years of a scientific education. If you remember any of Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics or Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there's a good chance your outlook is fundamentally Epicurean.
If you believe in the pursuit of happiness and the importance of friendship, you already appreciate Epicurean Ethics. If you acknowledge that Swiss scientists are smashing atoms together, and that nuclear weapons exist, you already accept Epicurean Physics. If you listen to your belly when you're hungry, grab a blanket when you're cold, and take a nap when you're tired, you already practice Epicurean Epistemology.
Much happiness to you on this, the anniversary of your birth!
I just wanted to add to this thread two of my wife's reconstructions of Epicurus. She based those renderings on the attached picture I took of Epicurus' bust in the Vatican back in 2008.
At this point, this entire thread has been amusing and theoretically obtuse.
Epicureanism is my religion, and there's not a goddamn thing anyone can do about it.
