1. New
    1. Member Announcements
  2. Home
    1. Get Started - Activities
    2. Posting Policies
    3. Community Standards
    4. Terms of Use
    5. Moderator Team
    6. Site Map
    7. Quizzes
    8. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
      2. Blog Posts at EpicureanFriends
  3. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Physics
    5. Canonics
    6. Ethics
    7. Search Assistance
    8. Not NeoEpicurean
    9. Foundations
    10. Navigation Outlines
    11. Key Pages
  4. Forum
    1. New Activity
    2. New Threads
    3. Welcome
    4. General Discussion
    5. Featured
    6. Activism
    7. Shortcuts
    8. Dashboard
    9. Full Forum List
    10. Level 3+
    11. Most Discussed
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Sayings
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. Calendar
    1. Upcoming Events List
    2. Zoom Meetings
    3. This Month
    4. First Monday Zoom Meetings
    5. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    6. Twentieth Zoom Meetings
    7. Zoom Meetings
  9. Other
    1. Featured Content
    2. Blog Posts
    3. Files
    4. Logbook
    5. EF ToDo List
    6. Link-Database
  • Login
  • Register
  • Search
Forum

Welcome To EpicureanFriends.com!

"Remember that you are mortal, and you have a limited time to live, and in devoting yourself to discussion of the nature of time and eternity you have seen things that have been, are now, and are to come."

Sign In Now
or
Register a new account
  1. New
  2. Home
  3. Wiki
  4. Forum
  5. Podcast
  6. Texts
  7. Gallery
  8. Calendar
  9. Other
  1. EpicureanFriends - Home of Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  2. Elayne
  • Sidebar
  • Sidebar

Posts by Elayne

Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 22
  • Would An Epicurean Hook Himself Up To An "Experience Machine" or a "Pleasure Machine" If Possible?

    • Elayne
    • March 23, 2020 at 11:10 AM

    I think Cassius and Elli have put it just as I would.

    The only things I have to add are that I prefer to dwell in reality and not imaginary hypotheticals like this, because the devil is in the details. Let's say that such a machine exists. Who designed it? How much do you trust both their motives and their skills-- is it really wise to hand over your sensory input to a machine which could be taken over by someone else and used to torture you? What if the machine breaks? And you can't access reality to extricate yourself? I do not think an Epicurean would typically accept a hypothetical where those things couldn't happen, because that takes the scenario out of reality as we know it. A decision would have no relevance to us or bearing on our real life philosophy.


    Our ability to perceive through our senses is critical to being able to choose pleasure. In making this imaginary choice, a person typically tries to "double" themselves-- but they can't fully double. They can't really let go of the pre-machine condition of knowing that life would be going on without them-- that they wouldn't really be seeing their friends, only imagining it. That they would miss out on the pleasure of knowing they are really there for their friends-- the pleasure of _being_ a friend. That creates a pain in the imagination which can't be removed in the hypothetical. It has nothing to do with valuing something other than pleasure. It is an inability to believe there would not be a feeling of painful loss in the machine. A sort of anticipatory loss. And no matter how many times you reassure a person that they won't know they've lost reality, they can't imagine it. So a normal person will not choose the machine.

  • Consequentialism & Moral Relativism within the context of Pleasure-filled Philosophy

    • Elayne
    • March 14, 2020 at 1:24 PM

    And let me be clear-- just because our specific pleasures and pains developed through survival and reproduction advantages does not make survival/ reproduction our primary goal. There is no absolute good in survival and reproduction. I was just giving the descriptive background. Once a species has evolved the capacity for pleasure and can make choices, pleasure itself is the goal of life.

  • Consequentialism & Moral Relativism within the context of Pleasure-filled Philosophy

    • Elayne
    • March 14, 2020 at 1:14 PM

    I agree with everything Cassius has said, Eugenios, and I think this is an extremely important issue to understand, in order to thoroughly grasp this philosophy. Once you have fully gotten it, you won't have trouble recognizing when people aren't understanding it.

    One way people can accidentally slip into idealism on this subject is through using personifying language about nature. Epicurus did do that, but I am sure he made certain his students knew what he was doing. If that is tripping you up, you might want to avoid using metaphorical language and see if it is easier to avoid this trouble.

    The actual way we got to develop both the capacity for pleasure and specific preferences is through evolution. Humans who followed their desires to pursue pleasure and avoid pain survived and reproduced-- but it is not that the sweet fruit which was life-supporting was designed for us and the poisonous fruit not. We evolved together. The sweet fruit propagated by having us eat it and evacuate its seeds, so those fruits which matched our tastes most closely were propagated more, and we learned to continue to eat them-- humans who had a taste for them and could get those calories survived. The poisonous fruit which does not spread that way survived humans eating it by mutations which killed or repelled through taste --- the fruit without that taste and/or poison mutation didn't survive, if our eating it killed it off. The humans who ate food tasting that way didn't make it. None of this was according to any kind of design.

    The typically shared pleasures of our species were evolved, such as a tendency to empathy and cooperativeness... but the "cheater" niche, which includes sociopaths, is a consistently filled niche in most if not all species. It isn't unnatural. It has advantages and disadvantages, and a member of the cheater niche is going to feel pleasure and pain from different stimuli than the rest of us. Their subjective pleasure can only be sensed by them. Species with cheaters also evolve ways among the typical members to detect and contain cheater activity within a certain range-- or else that population tends to die off. Unchecked cheating is not a successful evolutionary event.

    In the last two paragraphs, I have gone beyond what Epicurus said, because he did not have all the evolutionary science available to him which we have now. But I think what I have said is coherent with the philosophy. I have not yet found any observable material phenomena to conflict with his philosophy, because it is based in reality.

  • Translation and Commentary: VS 11

    • Elayne
    • March 14, 2020 at 12:15 AM

    Interesting-- I thought he was saying that most people don't do either rest or activity pleasurably, rather than that rest was preferable. For pleasure you would do best to rest or sleep when tired and be active when activity is more pleasurable. People get sore when they sit around all day, and it feels good to take a walk.

    A person who doesn't realize pleasure requires getting out of bed in the morning would be in a stupor... a person who doesn't realize pleasure requires taking breaks and also sleeping could get manic. A certain percentage of the population does get hypomania when sleep deprived.


    If the person can remember that neither rest nor activity is the main goal but only a means to pleasure, then that person could enjoy both.

  • Epicurean Attitudes Toward Emotion

    • Elayne
    • March 14, 2020 at 12:05 AM

    I had taken the word "vain" here to be the less commonly used English definition of futile. We usually say "in vain" for that, but "vain" alone can be used the same way. Vs the other meanings of worthless or prideful.


    It wouldn't seem in character for Epicurus to call desire worthless or prideful, or even the object of desire-- but as Elli said, it's simply something that has no existence and thus cannot be obtained. We would desire it in vain because it doesn't exist-- say, infinite power, inexhaustible money, etc.

  • Consequentialism & Moral Relativism within the context of Pleasure-filled Philosophy

    • Elayne
    • March 13, 2020 at 10:59 PM
    Quote from Cassius

    It's early in the morning and i don't have time to continue but i think in Eugenios' post THIS part will bear further elaboration:

    Quote from Eugenios

    We REALLY have to define what we mean by "living pleasurably" I think. Almost by definition, someone who derives "pleasure" - and I deliberately put that in quotes - from their heinous crimes isn't living pleasurably by almost any rational societal understanding

    Eugenios, we must remember pleasure is strictly a feeling, _not_ a rational understanding that we define. It isn't defined other than by the feeling itself. So not only don't we need to define it further, doing so would be counter to Epicurean philosophy. We all know what the feeling is.

    Some people will have pleasure in activities that most of us would abhor. We share most of our genomes-- it shouldn't surprise us that humans agree on many pleasures and pains. We aren't clones, though, and we have unique life experiences, so we'll also have some differences in pleasure.

    Because there is no absolute standard of what "should" bring pleasure, only the person having the feeling knows if they are living pleasurably or not. Pleasure cannot be measured from the outside, only subjectively.


    To my mind, Epicurus was speaking of a normal, typical person, who would live in fear of being caught (and I would add for myself, in dread of the grief due to empathy for whoever I harmed).


    A sociopath often does not experience the same kinds of worries we would, and certainly not empathy/remorse. If sociopaths get pleasure from acts that harm us, it's real pleasure for them. Some of them do get away with it in the long run and have pleasurable lives hurting others.


    There is nothing about this philosophy that says the pleasures of people won't come into opposition. It's not a philosophy that will cause every person to adhere to the same practices. But because we care about our pleasure, we would be wise to do our best to avoid dealing with sociopaths and if necessary, we can attempt to restrain them. If we structure things wisely, we can increase the chance that a budding sociopath _would_ realize a benefit from not murdering, etc.

    As a side note, sociopaths appear to respond to rewards more than punishment. Punishment is not a highly effective deterrent for them, partly due to typically high impulsivity.. If they see a path to pleasure that involves following laws, they do sometimes take it.

  • Tranquility v Pleasure

    • Elayne
    • February 25, 2020 at 1:27 PM

    Mike, the most coherent explanation is that ataraxia is not itself a full description of a state-- it is merely the absence of disturbing conditions, fears, and the like, which would impede pleasure. And yes, if there's no pain, there's pleasure, for sure!

    What has happened is that modern understandings of the word tranquility, instead of "without disturbance", imply a very passive state of muted pleasure, so people have gotten confused and think that's the goal.

    There is no such thing as too much pleasure, because then it would be pain, at the moment it is felt to be "too much"... a person will have fluctuating energy levels and intensity levels that will suit them best. Less than that intensity will leave them searching for more, due to remaining pain, and too much intensity of a stimulus will be painful, causing them to back away. It's not a balancing act of pleasure-- it's finding the maximum pleasure point in the action that we want.

  • Does Baloo Speak for Epicurus In the Song "Bare Necessities" from "The Jungle Book" Movie?

    • Elayne
    • February 18, 2020 at 9:35 AM

    Of course, the joke in that song is that while singing it, Baloo, a bear, is demonstrating "bear necessities" to Mowgli. It's obvious Baloo is completely missing that Mowgli can't make use of bear necessities, because he is human-- Mowgli fumbles when trying to copy Baloo. Bagheera is watching them and gets what is going on.


    Baloo's necessities, despite being presented with the play on "bare", are as luxurious as a bear could imagine, which is also part of the joke-- that he's going on about simple, etc, while he is eating delicious food and playing. Who wouldn't want to eat pawpaws and swim in a beautiful river? It's like a person on an expensive tropical vacation bragging about their simple life. We are supposed to get that this bear is _not_ living a restricted life. He has a pleasurable life. Pleasure itself is shown as the bear necessity.

    If you take it beyond the species-specific message, you could say that the individuals have their own pleasures-- just as a bear pleasure necessity is not a human pleasure necessity, one person's pleasure is not always another's. Bagheera knows that, and that pain is the result of not getting the message. Mowgli lets pleasure guide him at the end, not just his species pleasure but his own.

  • The Neglect of Metrodorus’ Economics

    • Elayne
    • February 17, 2020 at 4:40 PM

    "Nature" is what has caused the phenomena of keeping up with the Joneses and working to impress others. It's not an artifact of civilization. Social status in human groups is a serious issue for health-- it's even an issue for less advanced primates. So nature won't help a person make those decisions, which are quite natural, unless the person has fully absorbed the primary lesson that pleasure is the goal. By taking pleasure as the goal, a person would avoid getting caught in unpleasant social competition but could engage in it strategically if necessary to serve pleasure.


    When I go for a job interview, I make sure my clothes and typed CV are in condition to make a good impression on strangers-- for the pleasures I will use my income for. I'm aware of competing with others for the position. If it were necessary to do that "constantly" to gain pleasure and prevent pain, there are times that would be the wisest choice. It would only be unwise if there were more pleasurable alternative choices.

  • The Neglect of Metrodorus’ Economics

    • Elayne
    • February 16, 2020 at 10:18 AM

    If he meant this as anything other than "pleasurable measure", he was wrong. IF, Hiram. IF. I do not think he meant it the way you are running with it.

    I do not think he was talking about some kind of Buddhist-like happy medium of wealth either. In many settings, extremes are unpleasant, but it is not because they are extreme that we avoid them, merely because they are unpleasant.

    I don't think you are deliberately leading readers away from pleasure. I just don't think you understand the big picture.

  • The Neglect of Metrodorus’ Economics

    • Elayne
    • February 16, 2020 at 7:42 AM

    Hiram, let me be more clear-- I don't believe Metrodorus was promoting a "natural measure" of anything, as different to or opposed to a "pleasurable measure." I said "if" he had done so, I would have told him he was wrong. I am not calling Metrodorus wrong or silly. I am calling the way this material is being interpreted wrong-- and the concept of "natural" as a goal for measurement in place of pleasure is absolutely silly. I doubt Metrodorus did it.

    You have a repeated tendency to glom onto words in the philosophy that are not pleasure and start elevating them as criteria instead of pleasure. Happiness, wellbeing, natural-- it goes on and on. I really think you should check yourself on this. Why, oh why, are you reluctant to stick to pleasure as your single goal? You are leading your readers in all kinds of unhelpful directions.


    When we point out what you are doing, you start prooftexting. But this invariably has been taking single phrases out of the context of the whole, which has made me think you don't understand the whole. You don't understand how differently you are using these words than how they are used by Epicurus.


    The income studies aren't measuring "natural"-- they are measuring pleasurable. And income and wealth are different anyway-- related, but different.


    Instead of the focus on natural, if you instead wrote about the economics of pleasure, directly, it would be both true to the ancient writings and applicable to modern life. It's a real shame that you are not being direct about pleasure and instead constantly reframe.

  • Feedback From A User

    • Elayne
    • February 15, 2020 at 7:57 AM

    To elaborate on another aspect of what I said above-- infants don't appear to "figure out" that a shape like a cow moving against a background represents an object separate from the background. That is part of their innate rudimentary physics. They act surprised when objects don't behave according to gravity, etc.

  • Feedback From A User

    • Elayne
    • February 15, 2020 at 7:07 AM

    There's clearly no innate specific word for cow-- but there is an innate recognition of the cow as distinct from the other matter in the field. The visual system, including the brain, has to perform work when presented with light reflections-- what is an object? Where are the boundaries of the object? Etc.


    I don't know that anyone has specifically studied cows-- but humans do appear to have innate recognition of snakes and spiders as dangerous. The fear of snake-shaped objects appears whether a baby has been bitten by one or not. https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nati…nakes-video-spd

    This inborn pattern recognition doesn't include language and is not a symbolic concept-- it is an example of what I believe Epicurus meant by the prolepses. It's definitely what I would include in my own Canon-- it's like a species encoded memory of certain patterns.

  • The Neglect of Metrodorus’ Economics

    • Elayne
    • February 14, 2020 at 4:23 PM

    Did you know reading is not innate? Language is an innate skill, but learning to read requires using brain functions evolved for other purposes. It's likely why we have far more reading disabilities than we do language disabilities.


    Reading is a great pleasure to me. And writing. It's not "natural", though, so if I'm supposed to only value natural desires, I should not care if my library burns up-- I should not care about making enough money to buy books, which are manufactured and require unnatural activity, reading.


    This is the kind of thing obsession with natural leads to, and I picked a silly example to demonstrate the silliness of the whole idea as a criterion, instead of pleasure.

  • The Neglect of Metrodorus’ Economics

    • Elayne
    • February 14, 2020 at 4:04 PM

    From your article:

    "There is a natural measure of wealth (as opposed to the corrupt, cultural measure of wealth), which is tied to natural and necessary desires. Understanding this will provide us with serenity and indifference to profit and loss."


    I recommend wealth "necessary for pleasure" ... and I don't advise cultivating "indifference"-- that's Stoic. I prefer to retain my feelings as a guide. If I lose all my resources tomorrow, I'm not going to be indifferent.


    "2. There is social wealth in addition to the wealth of things and possessions."

    Social capital is well studied, and many of Epicurus' words refer to the same thing. I agree.


    "3. Philodemus plainly stated it: the philosopher does not toil. However, we must always remember that toil is evil, not productivity."

    You've said similar things in the past-- you like the idea of effortlessness. I enjoy a lot of activities involving toil. I toiled to give birth, twice, and it wasn't an evil to me. I will toil this weekend helping sick kids feel better, and that's not an evil to me. I find this idea unhelpful. There's no effort after death, nor pleasure. Put pleasure first and you can do effort when you want to.

    "4. Association is important in labor. We must choose our company prudently." I choose my company according to the hedonic calculus, yes.


    "5. Our revenue must more than meet our immediate needs: it must facilitate a dignified life of leisure." I advise deciding the type of life you enjoy most and then fund it, in addition to funding for emergencies.

    "6. It’s always prudent to cultivate multiple streams of income, among which deriving fees from the Garden’s teaching mission, rental property income and business ownership, which includes gainful employment of others, have special priority." I advise giving priority to the types of income stream best suited to give you personal pleasure. No need for someone who doesn't want to be a landlord or business owner to do that. We have NO idea what Metrodorus would advise in todays's economic climate. It's risky to extrapolate like that. If everyone in a group is Epicurean, and they are all advised to rent out property, who is going to be the renter, lol? Who is going to be the employee, if they are supposed to be employers? What if they don't enjoy managing employees? What if they enjoy a paycheck and want to unionize? There are multiple ways to arrange things.


    "7. It’s also prudent to have fruitful possessions. The various forms of ownership of means of production is another way to independence that can potentially relieve us of toil."

    I would advise just including that decision in one's hedonic calculus. If you've got an all-Epicurean group, and they all think they've got to each own their means of production and all be owners, they will either stick to very small businesses (because they'd all avoid being employees) or decide to co-own. And if none of them are going to do any work, eventually, then I'm not sure how you apply this on a large scale. This scheme requires a whole bunch of non Epicureans to do all the toiling, so you probably want to limit who you spread the philosophy to, if you want it to work. 😉

  • The Neglect of Metrodorus’ Economics

    • Elayne
    • February 14, 2020 at 3:30 PM

    This also happens to be a topic I've spent significant time thinking about over the years-- this whole obsession with "natural", which has acquired a bizarre mystique. People use it to mean "not manufactured" or "innate", and they equate it with being inevitably desirable. I see this in my medical practice. I'll be working this weekend seeing patients, and it's a given that several parents will say "we want to use something natural." Well, you know, arsenic is natural.


    Of course, I do not call them silly-- I actually feel sorry for them and for the kid. Because what the kid wants is to not be in pain.


    The same thing applies to economic decisions. We want to not be in pain-- we want to have pleasure. Sometimes that _requires_ manufactured items or non-innate behaviors, depending on the culture. There's no reason to give priority to any quality of a thing or action other than its relationship to pleasure.

  • The Neglect of Metrodorus’ Economics

    • Elayne
    • February 14, 2020 at 3:06 PM

    😂 Hiram. None of us has any duty to agree with everything a philosopher says, no matter who they are. If Epicurus had said something I found inconsistent with reality, I would tell him so, if he were alive today. I did not put words in anyone's mouth-- I spoke for myself.

    I do not consider saying someone would be wrong or that an idea is silly to be an attack on someone. I have myself said wrong or silly things-- this doesn't happen to be one of those times. Metrodorus isn't here, so he can't be insulted. But I have my doubts that he would have framed things as you are doing. That's why I said "if he said it." It should have been obvious that I don't think he would have agreed you've understood his economics.

    If all that is meant by "natural wealth" is "the amount of wealth that will facilitate your pleasure in your specific circumstances"-- which includes the reality of your culture and personal tastes-- then that's fine, but it's not how people today are using the word "natural", and it adds zero information to just using pleasure. Your repeated insistence on focusing on other measures of how to live than pleasure is a problem. It indicates to me that there's something about pleasure that bothers you.


    One cannot measure "natural" but one can easily and immediately know whether one is having pleasure or not.

  • The Neglect of Metrodorus’ Economics

    • Elayne
    • February 14, 2020 at 1:53 PM

    If Metrodorus thought there was such a thing as a "natural measure of wealth", I would say he was wrong. That's a silly idea, and it will get people obsessed with trying to assess and maximize some abstract quality called "natural", lol, instead of maximizing pleasure.


    Culture itself is entirely natural. The alternative is supernatural, and there's no such thing. Some of culture is not _innate_, meaning an infant could be raised in different cultures and absorb them, within a range of biology. But I wouldn't get caught up in trying to find the amount of wealth I "innately" need. That can lead to a futile effort trying to unravel nature and nurture, and humans always develop some sort of culture. There's no single culture we are born to fit.


    Dropping those overly complicated ideas, I would tell Metrodorus to stick to maximizing pleasure and leave off distractions. Unless he enjoyed all that, lol.

  • Researchers Prove Altruism Begins In Infancy- is this an anticipation?

    • Elayne
    • February 14, 2020 at 1:38 PM

    on the issue of developmental sharing behavior, yes, a well documented phenomenon. It is "programmed", a prolepsis, not taught.

  • Researchers Prove Altruism Begins In Infancy- is this an anticipation?

    • Elayne
    • February 14, 2020 at 1:36 PM

    Sorry, have been busy lately, but Lee-- I do not see it as sometimes putting the "wellbeing" of others ahead of my own, even if it might look like that to an outsider. It's still always my own pleasure I'm choosing for. Even if I do something that looks superficially like self-sacrifice, it's because my happiness is fully entangled in the happiness of those I love. Not separate, not competing. So to withhold help to a beloved friend when it's within my capabilities to help would cause me immediate and ongoing pain.


    I think this is critical to be clear on. Otherwise you risk having competing morality rules that will leave you confused. Trying to balance self and other. It makes a mess, and it understates the depth of human friendship.

  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 22

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply
    1. Daily life of an ancient Epicurean 5

      • Like 2
      • Robert
      • May 21, 2025 at 8:23 PM
      • General Discussion
      • Robert
      • May 22, 2025 at 12:01 PM
    2. Replies
      5
      Views
      138
      5
    3. Eikadistes

      May 22, 2025 at 12:01 PM
    1. ⟐ as the symbol of the philosophy of Epicurus 93

      • Like 2
      • michelepinto
      • March 18, 2021 at 11:59 AM
      • General Discussion
      • michelepinto
      • May 22, 2025 at 7:52 AM
    2. Replies
      93
      Views
      9.4k
      93
    3. Julia

      May 22, 2025 at 7:52 AM
    1. "All Models Are Wrong, But Some Are Useful" 5

      • Like 3
      • Cassius
      • January 21, 2024 at 11:21 AM
      • General Discussion
      • Cassius
      • May 20, 2025 at 5:35 PM
    2. Replies
      5
      Views
      1.3k
      5
    3. Novem

      May 20, 2025 at 5:35 PM
    1. Analysing movies through an Epicurean lens 16

      • Like 1
      • Rolf
      • May 12, 2025 at 4:54 PM
      • General Discussion
      • Rolf
      • May 19, 2025 at 12:45 AM
    2. Replies
      16
      Views
      927
      16
    3. Matteng

      May 19, 2025 at 12:45 AM
    1. Is All Desire Painful? How Would Epicurus Answer? 24

      • Like 1
      • Cassius
      • May 7, 2025 at 10:02 PM
      • General Discussion
      • Cassius
      • May 10, 2025 at 3:42 PM
    2. Replies
      24
      Views
      1.3k
      24
    3. sanantoniogarden

      May 10, 2025 at 3:42 PM

Latest Posts

  • Daily life of an ancient Epicurean

    Eikadistes May 22, 2025 at 12:01 PM
  • New "TWENTIERS" Website

    Bryan May 22, 2025 at 11:42 AM
  • ⟐ as the symbol of the philosophy of Epicurus

    Julia May 22, 2025 at 7:52 AM
  • Epicurean Rings / Jewelry / Coins / Mementos

    Eikadistes May 21, 2025 at 4:17 PM
  • Episode 281 - Is Pain The Greatest Evil - Or Even An Evil At All?

    Cassius May 21, 2025 at 6:30 AM
  • Happy Twentieth of May 2025!

    Don May 20, 2025 at 9:07 PM
  • "All Models Are Wrong, But Some Are Useful"

    Novem May 20, 2025 at 5:35 PM
  • Article: Scientists in a race to discover why our Universe exists

    kochiekoch May 20, 2025 at 1:26 PM
  • Sabine Hossenfelder - Why the Multiverse Is Religion

    Eikadistes May 19, 2025 at 3:39 PM
  • What Makes Someone "An Epicurean?"

    Eikadistes May 19, 2025 at 1:06 PM

EpicureanFriends - Classical Epicurean Philosophy

  1. Home
    1. About Us
    2. Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  2. Wiki
    1. Getting Started
  3. Frequently Asked Questions
    1. Site Map
  4. Forum
    1. Latest Threads
    2. Featured Threads
    3. Unread Posts
  5. Texts
    1. Core Texts
    2. Biography of Epicurus
    3. Lucretius
  6. Articles
    1. Latest Articles
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured Images
  8. Calendar
    1. This Month At EpicureanFriends
Powered by WoltLab Suite™ 6.0.22
Style: Inspire by cls-design
Stylename
Inspire
Manufacturer
cls-design
Licence
Commercial styles
Help
Supportforum
Visit cls-design
  • Everywhere
  • Forum
  • Articles
  • Blog Articles
  • Files
  • Gallery
  • Events
  • Pages
  • Wiki
  • Help
  • FAQ
  • More Options
foo