Posts by Elayne

Now, how does intensity relate to fullness of pleasure? My experience is that intensity is not required for fullness of pleasure—only the absence of pain. Depending on how the neuro research goes, this could be me saying “even one endorphin-receptor interaction, in the absence of pain, registers as pleasure”, but I think it is more likely that we need a certain threshold level of pleasurable neurotransmitter activity going on or we will have pain. This suspicion is based on research I have seen and need to dig up about people who are deficient in endocannabinoid production, who tend to have pain but without obvious cause. Our bodies are undergoing internal movement and contact with the environment, and I suspect that our basic state would be pain if we had no pleasure processes at all going on. So the better wording would be “if there is exactly enough endorphin activity going on to counteract all the pain of the body, the result is pleasure. If there is only slightly less, the result is pain. There is no in between.” If I am correct, this would be biological evidence to support what Epicurus said about the impossibility of a neutral state. My experience already agrees with him.

There is an experiential difference between a less intense but still fully pleasurable sensation and an intense one, but it does not feel like a difference in completeness/ fullness of the pleasure cup. This is something I rely on others to know from experience, since I can’t prove it. I do not consider highly intense pleasure to be more or less preferable to less intense. The reason I know this is that if I am in a state of even mildly intense pleasure, sitting with friends after a satisfying meal, I have zero desire to jump up and bike down a nearby hill to increase my pleasure. (This is similar to what the “rat park” and related human studies have found about addiction—that neither rats nor humans are interested in drug-mediated pleasure if they are in an otherwise pleasant environment. It’s not really the substance itself that creates the addictions but the underlying lack of ordinary pleasures). Nor do I want to stop mid-hill on my bike so I can go have a less intense pleasure. Anyway, I would not call intensity an increase of pleasure, but it is nevertheless at least a characteristic of pleasure that it can be more or less intense.

The next thing I would say from personal experience is that highly intense pleasure-producing stimuli can become painful if prolonged, but I suggest this is NOT related to the pleasure itself—rather, I perceive that it is related to the intensity of the stimulation and/or the intense biological response to an intense stimulus. It is hard to sort these things out as they are experienced simultaneously, but that is my proposal. Being tickled very briefly can feel pleasurable, but if it goes on and on, it is too much and is no fun—in that case, the pleasure itself vanishes and the intense stimulus persists. If the pleasure I am feeling is internal ecstasy—when I was younger, although I didn’t experiment with drugs, I experimented with some bliss-promoting meditation practices—the biological demands on my body, including my brain, required to sustain that level of intensity can be exhausting and become uncomfortable. Even the sensation which one second ago felt blissful begins to feel like pain. However, I do not say it is the pleasure itself that causes this, but the intensity of biological response, because once a sensation becomes painful, it is not pleasurable by definition. I wonder what this would look like, at the molecular level in the brain—what changes, at that instant when a stimulus becomes painful? This type of intense pleasure can be followed by a “let-down” instead of an afterglow which I suspect is similar to coming down off an intoxicant. I found the aftermath of these meditation practices so unpleasant that I quit doing them years ago. I have wondered if internally stimulated intense pleasure can possibly have a similar effect to exogenous opiates—do the receptors down-regulate?

Another example of intensity would be pharmaceutical opiates, which bind to our endogenous receptors in a tighter manner than our own endorphins, stimulating us more intensely than we are biologically evolved to cope with, at least on an ongoing basis. In response, our bodies down-regulate the receptors, to escape the excessive stimulation. And then when the opiates are removed, that person for a time will have difficulty experiencing endogenous pleasure, because the receptors must recover first. Our bodies regulate intensity of response to a stimulus, to restore the homeostasis necessary for survival. ** I need to double check the research and add references for this section, since it is just what I remember reading.

In the psychiatric literature, an argument is made that we can have “too much pleasure” based on disorders such as mania in bipolar disease, where the extreme joy is not related to external stimuli but has become unhinged. I would say here they are really commenting on intensity, plus disconnection from reality. I think they are making an error to believe that what happens in a disease state refers to pleasure in the absence of such an illness—as if they are saying “don’t get too happy, or you might come down with bipolar mania and give away your car to a stranger in a fit of happiness.” We have no evidence to my knowledge that intense enjoyment causes bipolar disease. There are several possibilities for the cause of bipolar, one of the more interesting ones having to do with the multiple body “clocks”, various circadian rhythms, getting out of time with each other. But if intense neurotransmitter hits are unsafe for the body in some other way, the usual warning mechanism is pain. So I don’t think it is unreasonable to imagine that there is possibly a danger in highly intense/ condensed ordinarily pleasure-producing stimuli for prolonged periods, although the specifics of intensity thresholds and durations would likely vary from one individual to another, because there are a lot of genetic differences, such as at the receptor level.

I think this is important to clarify, because it is part of the fear of pleasure people have. If we can make it clear that the pleasure is not dangerous but that intense stimulation can sometimes have painful effects, we can encourage people to drop their worries that if they engage in pleasure all the time, they will be sorry later. There is still a natural limit to desire for intense stimuli, in that pain will begin when a stimulus is too intense for too long, for a given person.

There are some people who are biologically less responsive to a range of stimuli. It takes more to achieve the same internal response. These are people who like very hot pepper, sky diving, horror movies, etc. Some of them have to go very nearly to the point of escaping death on a regular basis before they are able to notice pleasure, and indeed many of them do die, such as with base jumping. Some of this can be combated by teaching them to slow down and pay attention to less intense pleasures, because it can partly be a habit—personal experience with patients. But there are actual genetic differences that seem to correlate with this as well. A lower responsiveness to stimuli can correlate with lower conscience and higher sociopathy. (** again, I need to supply references to medical literature for all these points).

The way in which I see Epicurus addressing this is simply with avoiding pleasures that bring along more pains. And that seems quite sufficient for me, but I also think that it would help reduce fears by specifically addressing stimulus/response intensity as an issue, with science-based correlates.

************************

Lacking further knowledge about additional words of Epicurus, I will now move on to my personal experience and medical research. DeWitt’s first conclusion, about intensity being related to timing, seems to hold up reasonably well on personal testing. If I do a number of pleasurable things in a short period, one after another, the sensation of pleasure I have is often more intense.

At first, however, I was not sure that simply more pleasures in a shorter time was the _only_ way to achieve intensity of pleasure. Examples of highly intense pleasure for me personally would include extremely palatable foods, orgasm, and thrilling physical sensations such as coasting down a steep hill on a bicycle. The speed, I supposed, could be considered a shortening of the pleasure duration of coasting down the hill, but I am not sure that is right, because just going very slowly down a hill does not provide me with any particular pleasure. DeWitt would have to say I am having pleasure but not noticing it, and then we are in the realm of fantasy. It’s also hard to see how to apply that to a bite of chocolate or orgasm—I don’t know how to make those less intense by slowing them down. On the contrary, both seem even more intense that way—eating slowly/ savoring, etc.

But... then I thought—what would be the underlying mechanism for condensing a pleasure into a shorter time period? Wouldn’t there have to be a brain activity going on? Pleasure isn’t a disembodied event—there is matter/energy and void only. Now I will need to look at neurotransmitter production, binding to receptors, and re-uptake to see if there is research on that related to qualitative intensity of pleasure. This is an area of neurology I have minimal knowledge about. I do know that it is possible to block the experience of pleasure with activities like sunbathing, by administering naloxone to block our opiate receptors. (If I recall correctly, the researchers used this to conclude that sunbathing was an addiction and therefore bad-- omg, really, people? An example of our societal fear of pleasure!) I do not know what has been done to find out how our brain achieves intensity of feeling. I think this will be important to understand what is happening with condensation of pleasure. If we can correlate feelings of pleasure intensity with something like number of hits of endorphins on our endogenous receptors per time period, that would fit perfectly with the idea that intensity is related to timing—not of the bike ride but of the brain events. An extended pleasure might be the same number of endorphin- receptor contacts but over a longer period of time. But this is entirely conjecture on my part, so far.

I also know there are proposed to be a number of different pleasure neurotransmitters—dopamine, serotonin, endorphins (there are several), oxytocin and endocannabinoids (our own internal cannabis). To back up the idea that pleasure is one category of thing, there needs to be some commonality of event going on in the brain, despite these different neurotransmitters, which is underlying pleasure. This could either be at the neurotransmitter level, such that one of the neurotransmitters is the “real” pleasure molecule, or something afterwards—some common effect of those neurotransmitters which is felt as pleasure. Otherwise I do not see how we can say that all pleasures are ultimately the same if equally intense (condensed)/ equally distributed in the body. Is there an alternative to thinking this way?

My guess is that endorphins are one key, because when these are blocked with naloxone, there is not pleasure, from what I’ve seen. I know that for me, when my daughter was an infant and I was on my newborn nursery rotation in medical school, hearing other babies cry would sometimes trigger an oxytocin mediated milk letdown—but this was not pleasurable, more so annoying, lol. So I don’t think oxytocin alone is sufficient for pleasure. I will see what I can find out in the neuropsych research. It’s quite possible we don’t know enough to say, yet. But if endorphins are what trigger the feeling of pleasure, it’s possible that actual biological event happening that corresponds with the feeling of pleasure is not the endorphins but the next step, when the endorphins bind the receptors and cause a cascade of events with ion channels. If there are convergent process of different neurotransmitters resulting in some common event, this would make sense—for such a critical process as pleasure, it seems unlikely that we would have no kind of backup systems.

I know there is a difference between the subjective feeling, the qualia, and the observable events of matter. However, in other cases, there is correlation—there are wavelengths of light perceived by us as red, subjectively. That is why I would expect a similar correlation in the brain when it comes to feelings of pleasure.

**********

Condensed Pleasure

This is my work in progress on condensed pleasure, with several parts remaining to be filled in. I thought maybe before I go too much farther, it would be good to get some outside evaluation, in case I’m headed down a dead end somewhere. It’s long so I thought this was a better place for it for now than FB.

I am aware writing this that it may be longer than it needs to be. I am having to divide in sections because of the word count limit. My ultimate goal is to make this as simple as possible, for the clearest communication—but not simpler than necessary (paraphrase of quote which may or may not have been from Einstein https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/). I My apologies for this messy intermediate state of things!

PD 9 states “If every pleasure were alike condensed in duration and associated with the whole organism or the dominant parts of it, pleasures would never differ from one another.” Is there another quote in which Epicurus uses that word "condensed"?

DeWitt says “condensed” refers to “intensity” (Epicurus and His Philosophy, p 233). DeWitt also says “at one time the pleasure is condensed, at another, extended. In other words the same pleasure may be either kinetic or static. If condensed it is kinetic; if extended, it is static.”

DeWitt gives this as an example of condensed pleasure “[t]hat which occasions unsurpassable joy is the bare escape from some dreadful calamity” and this as the corresponding extended pleasure, “the stable condition of well-being in the flesh and the confident hope of its continuance means the most exquisite and infallible of joys for those who are capable of figuring this problem out.” DeWitt says “[n]evertheless, the two pleasures differ from one another and it was in recognition of the difference that Epicurus instituted the distinction between kinetic and static pleasures.” (Epicurus and His Philosophy, p 233). DeWitt also says that static pleasure “describes the return to normal after the joy of escape from the peril of life” (p. 243). Does Epicurus say this himself?

One thing that confuses me when DeWitt contrasts those pleasures is that using the word “exquisite” for the static pleasure seems like a fairly intense pleasure. Not knowing the Greek, I do not know whether Epicurus used words for that second example of pleasure which would imply less intensity, but at least in the English translation DeWitt uses, both sound intense.

This is all that I have seen so far about condensed pleasure, and I hope some of you will have some additional quotes to add.

There appear to be two conclusions DeWitt is making. First, about intensity and second about static vs kinetic. Do you agree these are two separate conclusions? Must one follow from the other?

All I see clearly said in PD 9 is condensed referring to duration. DeWitt is adding on the idea of intensity as if that follows inescapably from condensation of duration—I take this as something like: take the pleasure you might have over 24 hrs and experience all of it in an hour, and it will be more intense. Does anyone know if there is further evidence to substantiate this conclusion, that this was Epicurus’ meaning?

The application of condensed and extended to mean not just intense and less intense but also kinetic and static is a second assumption that does not necessarily follow from the first. Is there any text evidence that this must be the case?

****************************

Although I typically prefer a less hierarchical way of interacting in social life (I have no trouble taking charge in critical medical situations)-- more of a consensus based process-- I can see that this would not work in a group unless each member was thoroughly on board with the philosophy, understood it, etc. So in my local group, I have found it necessary to be in a leader role.

Thanks! I will do that.

My first attempt at a local Meetup is scheduled for Jan 20. I have 10 people signed up so far for the group, most of whom I know, and 5 coming to the first meeting, at a local coffee shop. Two are family members whom I know will come, and based on past experience with meetup, 1-2 of the others will come.
In advance of the meeting, I am messaging with the members I haven't met personally, so they understand what we will be doing.

In the first meeting, I plan to give a basic overview and invite attendees to talk about why they joined and what they would most enjoy doing to learn about and practice EP together. How often they think they could meet, where, etc. Because there is so much misunderstanding and controversy out there, I am going to right off the bat tell them that I am taking the position described here, and why-- because I have no interest in belonging to a group of stoic types and agree personally with the principles as described here. If someone wants to start a different group for the other, they can do it. I'm going to tell them how EP is different from the other philosophies-- why it isn't stoicism, humanism, buddhism. I'm going to tell them that although I'm new at EP, I've actually been practicing my own version of it for long enough to be certain it is the best way to live-- but that because I have not read as much as experts have, we will also be learning together. I do think I have a pretty good intuitive sense of when something is veering off in the stoic/ platonic/ buddhist/ etc weeds-- it will sound wrong. But I will also come here and double check. I never mind saying "I don't know but I will see if I can find out", and I will use that phrase liberally!

The materials I would like to use for that first meeting are the summary handouts from this site, the comparison with stoics, and the full cup.

The longest running, most successful reading group I belonged to met weekly for about 3 hrs. The first 1.5 hrs were discussion about a short section of reading-- 50 pages or so. And then we went to a different location for the social part and to eat. Having those two parts be in different locations really helped us stay on track for the first segment, because we knew we would get a chance to talk about whatever subject we wanted to bring up afterwards. It helped us become more bonded as friends. We had game nights every so often as well. The main coordinator moved away, and unfortunately the rest of us did not pick up the slack. I was working 80-90 hrs a week at that time-- never again!

So my proposal to them is that we will take 45 min to 1 hr to discuss particular topics, which will involve some reading in advance but not necessarily using one book from start to finish. I obtained permission from the publisher to copy DeWitt and lend one section at a time to members who are not able to purchase their own copies. And then have time for just socializing, getting to know each other better.

I had initially thought to start with the Principal Doctrines, singly or in small groups. But now I am thinking it is better to start with the Canon. So the second meeting would be 15 min or so on the basics of the Canon, for which I would like to read some of what you have written here, if that is ok. Then some discussion in the group on their reactions and if they have had life experiences which relate to the topic. The second meeting on Physics. The third on Ethics. By then I think we will have some idea how the group is going to do-- how deeply they want to go. I have looked at the topics for the Sydney meetup and that will be very helpful. It would be awesome if at some point we all read DeWitt together. Also would be great to do our own philosophy outlines and share them with each other. Or we can just circle back then and spend time on elements of the Canon in depth over several meetings, Physics, Ethics.

As we get new members, I think I will need to meet with them separately first, to give the beginning handouts and some overview.

In general, I want the group to learn together, to relate the principles to our lives in the present and discuss how we are practicing EP/ support each other in that practice, and to have pleasure while doing so. I am doing this because it matters in my life-- it affects what and how I decide to do things. So it always needs to stay attached to what we are each doing day to day.

This site is incredibly helpful, and I hope it is ok to print the handouts/ articles and read appropriate sections out loud. Until I have educated myself more fully on the subject, I feel it is wiser to use material from people who know it better. Maybe one day I will have something to contribute! I'll encourage them to join this site too.

Thoughts?

I like the dark theme-- I think partly because the contrast is better and less glare. I have read some studies that most younger people prefer dark text and light backgrounds but as we age it can be easier to have a dark background. Contrast sensitivity often decreases with age, and even mild cataracts can create more glare.

So... maybe part of the answer depends on the age group you think most new members will be in?

http://www.afb.org/info/reading-a…ore-readable/35

Y'all can probably see why I was so excited to find out about Epicureans. The prevailing ideas around me, even for non religious people, include that we are somehow "one consciousness", that we can be enlightened by losing our sense of self, that the ego is undesirable...that we "create our own realities" instead of that we are participating in reality. All sorts of stoicism too. Consequentialism. Various rule-based ethics where proponents can't admit they are using their feelings-- they say they don't trust "arbitrary" feelings and need rules instead.

The main atheist group in town has a rule on their FB page that all posts must be based entirely on rational thinking. I said it was irrational to think that was even possible for typical humans to do, but I had no takers, lol.

Thanks for reading all that, and for the comments!

For each point, I had a lot more to say but putting it in skeleton form was very helpful. For the vestigial/spandrel point, this has been on my list of important concepts for a long time when teaching medical students.

When I was in training, we were taught that the appendix was vestigial. Now we know it serves as a reservoir for beneficial gut flora, to replenish the gut after something like a viral illness. The umbilicus was described as a spandrel, just a leftover feature from the cord. But it, also, is a reservoir for skin flora. The foreskin, in the US-- it's astonishing how many physicians are unaware of its functions and of our bizarre historical origins of circumcision here (the hygiene movement, whose adherents thought circumcision prevented masturbation and insanity). There's a pretty long list of this kind of thing.

So I tell students to be wary when they hear a feature or behavior commonly found in humans has no current advantage. Reasoning can lead them far astray.

I have been working on this for years but it was kind of in a chaos state. Organizing it according to headings helps a lot. This is a very rough draft and the first time I've tried to do it as a skeleton-- most of the pieces I've had for a long time, so I've got pages of elaboration that you probably don't need and maybe I didn't need, lol. I've done some editing on it since starting to learn about Epicurus.

The Nature of the Universe

1. There is absolutely no evidence for universal meaning, god(s), or a supernatural realm.

2. For phenomena which are not yet clearly understood, we gain no further knowledge or utility by inserting a god of the gaps as a placeholder. Or witches, or whatever.

3. I am a materialist monist. Matter and energy compose the universe and everything in it and interact according to laws of physics which are properties inherent in the matter/ energy, not superimposed from outside.

4. At the subatomic particle level, unexpected events occur which appear as random or chance. It is not yet clear what this really represents.

5. Time is directional, which has not been fully explained. I am most inclined to agree with Lee Smolin, who asserts that time is real, not illusory.

6. Humans, other animals, and inanimate objects are composed of matter/energy and are temporary and interdependent. The matter which composes us is not static but is interchanging constantly with the environment.

7. Human behavior is due to genetic/ epigenetic starting material interacting with the environment. Consciousness itself has not been fully understood.

8. It is best to be cautious about assuming any widely present human characteristic is vestigial or a “spandrel”, something left-over from or incidental to our evolutionary past with no current function.

9. Because the universe is material, other humans are REAL. They are not projections of my mind, and we are not all one universal being. They have individual consciousness, as do I.

10. Free will is a very difficult concept to think about correctly. There is no reason to think we will choose otherwise than according to our nature, absent temporary impairment—our choices show us and others the nature of who we are at that moment. Our present nature has been formed through a combination of our genetic starting material and subsequent events, and thus we are not self-created. There is no supernatural being within us doing the choosing or influencing our development. It's not an illusion that we are choosing, just because we choose according to who we are, nor is it fate. This does not seem problematic to me. It bothers some people. I don’t really understand what it is that they think could happen instead.

The Nature of knowledge

1. All human knowledge is obtained from specific vantage points.

2. We cannot observe our world from a non-human perspective. The human perspective is fundamentally NOT rational but sensory and emotional.

3. Reason is an evolved, more recently appearing brain function which has a social/ persuasive role. It is subject to errors and confabulation, but it is also beneficial to survival.

4. Our specific vantage points/ physical qualities mean that we never observe events from a purely objective position, as if we were machines.

5. However, our species has learned to use tools for measurement as well as to compare notes with each other, so that we can make more accurate measurements and predictions.

6. The communal examination of reality is a huge tool in deciding what is real and what is illusion.

7. No expert, group, or philosophy should be considered immune to questioning and examination for how well their ideas agree with experiences.

8. In isolation, each way of perceiving the environment can lead to errors of understanding the world. Then reasoning, both fast and slow, can add more errors of interpretation, both individually and in groups.

9. Despite these potential routes of error, we have so many different means of experiencing the world that it is pragmatically reasonable to accept certain redundantly confirmed conclusions as factual. I agree with Gould that a “fact” Is something so likely to be true that it would be silly not to accept it.

10. Take care not to confuse language with the information it points to. Language is not a substitute for qualia and will never fully contain qualia. For this reason, language can be endlessly deconstructed and thereby be made useless for communication. Confusion over language is the main source of paradoxes.

11. A lot of people who congratulate themselves on being scientific are not being scientific. They are assigning credibility to groups or individuals, because of social affinity.

12. People who have meditated extensively or done other practices to change their brain functioning will often tell others that now they know the truth and that typical human brains operate under an illusion or delusion. In fact, these people have inactivated some of their brain functions. This does nothing to invalidate ordinary human experience or knowledge.

The nature of living well/ethics

1. An ethics cannot be derived from entirely consistent and rational rules, because of the irrational nature of the human brain. Even when a person pretends to have a rational basis for ethics, they will twist the rules as needed when their preferences arise, and they will have internal inconsistencies. Watch and see.

2. Feelings are the main way typical humans make our decisions, and then we explain them with reasons. We avoid actions that cause us to have a net painful feeling and seek actions which result in a net positive feeling, a feeling of pleasure.

3. Feelings are more important to typical humans than living longer.

4. Taking time to examine what actions are most likely to produce a net positive feeling will increase our chances of happiness.

5. Although there is no universal, absolute meaning, there is a sense of meaningfulness most humans experience that seems necessary for their happiness.

6. A sense of meaninglessness and a desire to pin down meaning into specifics does not arise unless life is otherwise distressing in some way. Unhappiness precedes and creates existential crises, but happy people are already enjoying life.

7. It is possible to enjoy life fully, and to be satisfied after attaining a desire. Desire is not fundamentally insatiable. There is no good reason to try and eliminate desires.

8. If a desire appears to be insatiable, it is likely because a person is otherwise unhappy or because the desire is for something impossible.

9. When a person is focused on an impossible desire, such as to live forever, the poor fit of substitute pleasures makes them feel their ordinary desires are insatiable.

10. Although there is no absolute, universal morality, there are instinctive basic desires most humans have about how they should treat and be treated by others. For instance, most humans prefer not to be assaulted or robbed.

11. Most typical humans have affection for at least certain other humans, which can range from mild to intense. They will experience unhappiness if they treat these others unkindly. This is true for me to a high degree. It is true for others in a spectrum of degrees and for some, it is not true at all.

12. It is an error to confuse preferences and behaviors we have evolved that made us “fit” with the sensed motive for those preferences and behaviors. Constantly inserting an evolutionary cause instead of the natural, felt, and often enjoyable motive appears to remove the sense of meaning for people and can result in unhappiness.

13. Adoration and hero worship is painful to endure, because it substitutes an image for me, and I am deprived of a real relationship. Temporary, task-associated and consensual hierarchies are acceptable.

14. Honesty and forthright communication is preferable for many reasons, including the relative ease compared to the difficulty of keeping lies straight.

15. Another reason to be honest is that it helps one avoid the anxiety-provoking “imposter syndrome”, where one is afraid one does not deserve the positive evaluations others assign.

16. I give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong or unless I have strong instinctive urges to avoid them, which I do not ignore.

17. There is no merit in stoicism and martyrdom, and these behaviors are unpleasant.

18. If you are standing in an anthill, don’t stay on and get bitten if you have the means to escape. If you cannot step out and will have inevitable pain, turn your attention to something pleasurable, such as the beautiful sky, a memory, or a good smell. Train your brain to always notice pleasure and you will have more pleasure.

19. Anger is a useful clue that your boundaries are being crossed in a way that may harm you, similar to physical pain.

20. Avoid extended, bitter anger, as it can become a habit that interferes with your happiness.

21. Remember that although you may have typical or increased empathy, some humans are exploiters/ intra-species predators.

22. Prefer amends to punishments. Amends and restorative justice are both statistically more effective and emotionally more satisfying.

23. Sometimes it is necessary to do painful, difficult, and strenuous things if not doing them would lead to more pain, or if doing them will lead to great pleasure. Be careful of the arrival fallacy, and seek to make steps towards a goal enjoyable, not just the goal.

Thank you, Cassius! This is an amazing site-- so much information.

Ok, I am a 54 year old pediatrician, raised atheist from birth by a physicist father and mathematician mother, in Alabama. In the past, I have gotten misled by those who interpret Epicurus as being more like Stoics or Buddhists, philosophies which don't resonate with me. So I had a bad impression of the whole thing. I read Hiram Crespo's book, because a friend lent it to me, and it had a fairly different approach. When I started looking around, I found a FB page and then this site.

All my life, I have been an outlier philosophically-- not only with the religious people in the South but with most of the other atheists I know. To the point where some friends have said "maybe you just tend to disagree with whatever you see." I knew that was not true-- I knew it was because there were conflicts between my core perspectives and theirs that were just very different. Most people didn't even seem to understand what I was talking about.

When I found out there was this entirely different way of understanding Epicurus, I was thrilled, because almost all of his philosophy seems right to me. That has never happened to me before. I am so so glad to find out there are others out there who think and live this way as well.

My philosophy education is pretty much nil. I read a lot, but not systematically. I am currently reading DeWitt, as advised by Cassius.