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'm interested in all of them. Best times for me are 2pm-9pm Pacific time (5pm-12am Eastern) M-F; 11am-4pm Pacific (2pm-7pm Eastern) weekends. Available, but likely to be intermittent, for other times.
I plan to be more available than I have been for the last few months 
As I understand it, life is the greatest good. Pleasure is the guide to and goal of life.
Loved it! Great discussion, and the amount of text covered was just right in that I was able to review the material in several translations afterwards.
Lots of great insights. One comment I enjoyed was the idea that Lucretius had experience with people giving short shrift to the philosophy: a personal touch that I never would have picked up on.
Kudos for all the hard work 
Regarding Stenger: I've begun reading God and the Atom. He's a great source as he is coming from the Epicurean perspective. His book presents science as a 2500 year chain of theorizing, finding evidence, theorizing further, finding more evidence, etc. What this means to us laymen is that when we read a news story on the most current theory, we lack most of the building blocks leading up to it.
Which points to the difficulty of simplifying Stenger: how can you simplify this 2500 year chain?
Here's a companion piece to the article that Elayne linked to, this one dealing with the Big Bang:
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/…n-of-all-things
The author diagrams several types of "creation" scenarios, finally pointing out that knowledge of how things began is probably beyond our grasp. Although he says this shouldn't stop us from trying. Of course, I might add, only so long as it brings us pleasure!
When you are sick Godfrey are you actually completely oblivious to how bad you feel when you read?
Excellent question!
I just tried an experiment: I went outside and stood in the sun and watched my perceptions. I experienced the sensation of the sun's heat and the sensation of my sore throat simultaneously. In terms of the feelings of pleasure or pain, I experienced pleasure from the sun's heat, but only the sensation of the sore throat.
Another experiment: I've got a very stiff neck, which is more painful than my sore throat. I looked at a picture that brings me pleasure, then while continuing to look at the picture I turned my body into a very uncomfortable position for my neck. I still felt pleasure from looking at the picture, while I felt the sensation of a stiff neck. Continuing to move, I felt pain in my neck and just the sensation of the picture, without the pleasure.
Regarding reading, when I'm totally focused on reading I don't notice any pain, but often I'm in kind of a spacey midway point where I'm experiencing neither pleasure or pain.
What this suggests to me is that there's a subtle difference (which I can't put my finger on now in my spacey midway point) between sensations and feelings. Pleasure and pain are a response to sensations (and to anticipations and to thought) and it's possible to experience a sensation without experiencing noticeable pleasure or pain. If sensations are relatively mild, then feelings are only noticeable by the attention that we give to them. This can be misconstrued as a "neutral state".
Unfortunately I'm in a NyQuil haze so I'm not sure if I'm making any sense 
This brings to mind studies on multi-tasking. I've not read the studies, but summaries I've seen in articles from time to time generally state that we can only focus on one task at a time. Therefore "multi-tasking" is actually rapidly shifting attention back and forth from one task to another.
Similarly, a perception would include only pleasure or pain but as one's perceptions shift, so does one's experience of pleasure or pain. For instance, right now I've got the flu and generally feel pain. If I get engrossed in a good book I feel pleasure even though the pain of sickness is still there, I'm just not perceiving it.
Which brings also to mind the much more extreme example of Epicurus on his deathbed, where he was enjoying pleasurable memories even while dying a painful death.
My intuition about indivisibility is that without it, it might be easier to propose a "god of the gaps"-- a supernatural force whose effects are hiding out in the unmapped territory.
Elayne, I've never heard the phrase "god of the gaps", but that's exactly why I'm interested in this topic. Many of the terms thrown around from modern physics can lead the uninformed layman such as myself to consider such an idea. To address that I'm attempting to get more informed, and from what I gather Stenger's book takes that on pretty directly. We'll see!
Cassius I'll dive into God and the Atom after the new year, hopefully I won't drown! I'll post as I come up for air 
Oops I crossed posts with your last 2. Is the Epicurean Atomism essay online or just in the CCtoE book?
Jumping from the 20 tenets thread....
Cassius, I was curious about Victor Stenger from reading the SofE post that I indirectly linked to in the tenets thread. From browsing on Amazon, his book God and the Atom looks to be exactly what I'm looking for: a discussion of particle theory from an Epicurean perspective. I think I'll start with that book and see where it leads me.
Here's a link to a previous post on the subject:
First, fwiw I find this discussion quite valuable in challenging and clarifying my understanding.
Elli as one who knows nothing about Greek, I've been curious about that word autarchy so thanks for that clarification.
Objection to SOE6: There is a component to this that was essential to Epicurus and is controversial, and that is the issue about whether the elemental particles are themselves indivisible. Epicurus appears to have held that indivisibility is essential for a number of reasons, most apparently leading to to the need to point to something that is ultimately unchanging in order for the regularity we see in the universe to be grounded in nature and not in supernatural gods. I agree with him that the issue of indivisibility is critical and needs to be explicitly stated.
This is best split off into another thread: my sketchy understanding of atomic/subatomic particles ends at around 1978. What current sources of information are there on the subject that are comprehensible to a layman? I think some study of this would be useful in order to examine how current thinking aligns with Epicurus' conception of atoms. Much of the current understanding seems to be theoretical, as was Epicurus'. I don't want to become a nuclear physicist but I think it's a fertile topic for study and discussion. Particles, waves, energy, theoretical process... enough science to contribute to the philosophy. (I think we've touched on this elsewhere but I haven't tracked it down yet.)
Happy holidays to all! Cassius much gratitude to you for providing us with a place to study, interact and learn. Here's to a great 2020!
I'm out of commission until the new year. Spending time with in-laws through Christmas (trying not to go mental), taking a family road trip after that.
Happy Twentieth, all!
Maybe a more accurate description is "sloppily", "lazily" or"unknowingly" Epicurean.
From The Daily Extra on The Argyle Sweater daily calendar (a small daily pleasure):
Quote of the Day
"For me, human rights simply endorse a view of life and a set of moral values that are perfectly clear to an eight-year-old child. A child knows what is fair and isn't fair, and justice derives from that knowledge."
- Tom Stoppard
Stoppard is a playwright and screenwriter; I've probably seen some of his movies but am otherwise unaware of his views. This particular quote strikes me as pretty Epicurean however.
Is there any information showing that the Menoeceus letter could have been written significantly earlier or later than the other two, reflecting a development in Epicurus' writing style?
Just to add a totally non scholarly two cents worth: when I encounter an ism, I tend to ask "what are the fixed ideas that this contains". When I think of a philosophy, or when I'm operating from inside of an ism, I tend to think more in terms of a living and dynamic set of ideas with which to engage.
Joshua are your smartphone pics handheld? Do you use any tripod or lens attachments? They look really crisp in addition to their other virtues.
