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.
The first things I read on Epicureanism made me wonder if it would be as inspiriatonal as stoicism,
Hi Tim. Yes it is...not only as inspirational but even more so. I don't have much time left to explain it now (maybe tomorrow), but rest assured that Ryan Holiday of Stoic group has a lot of counter-parts here. 
My philosophy is no philosophy these days. Life becomes much quieter when you don’t have other people’s speculations bouncing about in your consciousness.
If you refer "philisophy these days" as the mainstream academic philosophy that reduces philosophy to Philology and historicism as though there is a market of philosophical thoughts to choose from, then, I am with you. I wouldn't philosophize in that sense.
But Epicurus would think of philosophy in a different way. As I understand it, philosophy for him is a living philosophy and not a list of dead appearances of the living. Here I quote from VS 54: "It is not the pretended but the real pursuit of philosophy that is needed; for we do not need the appearance of good health but to enjoy it in truth."
In my case, my philosophy is the pleasure of learning from my experience while applying my lessons of past experiences and testing all sorts of wisdom through practice.
Excellent choice. My experience is very little with people who talk about Buddhism, but the Stoics love the term "mindfulness" so "mindset" seems a good way to distinguish it. Or simply "attitude" as I think DeWitt generally uses.
Yes Cassius. Attitude is another simple word for it. ☺
I smell Neoplatonism cooking in here.
Yes. That's also what I observed from the sentences especially the fact that there is a higher level of ascension, and this is a typical epistemological element of Platonism and Neo-platonism.
"Minimalism" is the wrong goal for the obvious reason...
This is why I avoid using the term "mindfulness" the way Zen Buddhists use it. Instead, I prefer the word "mindset" to describe the state of mind while in the process of prudence.
For instance, I'd choose to be frugal only because my eagerness to reap a much greater pleasure out of it afterward sets my mind to keep being frugal. Therefore, I do it not because it's my ascent to frugality.
On the other hand, I'd put a limit on frugality not because of my ascent to self-control or freedom of choice but because a need for immediate pleasure sets my mind to do so.
In other words, nothing is divine in virtues like courage and temperance. They are just utilities for the pursuit of pleasure, hence nothing to ascend to.
Yes Cassius. DeWitt makes sense to me now. Now I understand why EAHP is highly recommended for beginners of Epicurean philosophy.
On the contrary for Epicurus, philosophy is not the appearance of good health but the enjoyment of its truth. Ascending to virtues only affirms the appearance of truth while sensation affirms the truth itself. This is how I understand VS 54 which I use as my signature below.
You're right Cassius. When I gave stoicism a shot, I used to ascend to such Virtue, and in fact there are four virtues to ascend to - these are wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance. Like what I told you, it didn't work for me. Ascending seems too ascetic for my passionate character.
What? Is this saying that there is a "Divine" law higher than nature? Is that not the inference or "ascend?"
Lol 
That sounds very familiar. As far as I know, it is only the Stoics who frequently use the word "ascend", and this is what they do to assign what to react on an indifferent circumstance. They ascend to a deterministic law as a way to exercise control of their mind and reason while in fact they are only submitting themselves to such laws that they consider divine.
Thanks Cassius. I'll keep that in mind. I just want to make my learning process as simple as I wish to apply it.
Thanks for the clarification. I have tremendous respect for DeWitt's scholarship and have found no reason to doubt him on fundamental issues even after many years of additional reading.
I also have high respect on your estimation of him as I know you have dedicated years of studying and investigating Epicureanism deeply as much as I respect the rest of you guys here. My aim is simple - to understand Epicurean philosophy correctly and bring it to lay audience in a down-to-earth language that can be understood and be applied by ordinary people the way I apply it in my practical daily life.
Does that address your question because I am not quite sure what part you think calls into question DeWitt's credibility.
Yes. Thanks Cassius. I find it more comfortable focusing on DeWitt to lessen the complexity of my learning. I only raised this question so the confirmation can make me go on and have complete confidence on the material I have.
The weight of the biographical evidence suggests to me that the Bailey translation is less accurate.
As far I learned, DeWitt, with similar views as yours, also used the Bailey translation as I read on the bibliography:
"Meanwhile a return to moderation becomes observable in R. D. Hicks' Stoic
and Epicurean (London, 1910), and to this virtue urbanity was added by Cyril Bailey
in his Epicurus and his Greek Atomists (Oxford, 1925 and 1928); but the amplification of fallacy still went on, culminating in the ascription to Epicurus of belief in
"the infallibility of sensation.""
Does it affect the credibility of his book Epicurus and His Philosophy?
Mike this is the never-ending theme. if you think Epicurus was a coward leading the charge to escape all pain, then you will interpret him one way. If you think he was a courageous conqueror leading the charge against false religion in the pursuit of pleasure as nature teaches it, then you interpret him totally differently.
That is actually my dilemma since I am still unaware which translation is authoritative. If I resort to DeWitt's interpretation, I am also unaware if the translation he used was authoritative, too.
I am still at a stalemate between these two statements:
The wise man will not marry....Occasionally, under certain circumstances in his life, he may marry.
(absolute but with exception)
Moreover, the wise man will marry and have children....But he will marry according to the circumstances of his life.(relative but with condition)
This is probably another time to remember the opening advice from DeWitt's book - to always remember that Epicurus was at the same time one of the most revered and REVILED of the Greek philosophers. And it is the REVILERS who won the culture wars, and who wrote almost all the books and commentaries that are left to us.
Well...I think that's the safest way for me to endeavor now. I have started reading it but still at the very beginning part which is the synopsis. Speaking of synopsis, that I think is the method to handle all such contradictions - by going back to the basic map that is crystal clear.
Also it is disappointing to me to see her take the side of the flat assertion that the wise man will not marry and have children, without even noting any possibility of ambiguity:
Yes. This is very alarming especially to newbies like me who are only beginning to ascertain which are authoritative sources and which are not. I'm not a linguist, but I find it strange that a translation (or transliteration) could have been either affirmative or negative statement. Moreover, I learned many times from several Youtube lectures and series of podcast that Epicurus discourages marriages and even having children since he himself exercised such teaching. I heard it said by some known philosophy figures like Alain De Botton and Dr. Gregory Sadler. But by seeing Bailey's translation for the first time that presents an opposite truth, I feel like I am suffering from cognitive dissonance. Which is true? Is there any other way for newbies like me to determine which translation is correct especially for non-linguists? Is marrying and having children discouraged by Epicurus? I'm not just curious. I'm getting confused as well.
Just a quick question. Is EP monistic for holding the sole substance of matter and its absence: void? Or dualistic for recognizing matter and void? I feel like I knew the answer at one point but Im failing to recall it.
Nice question. I'd like to add a question on top of it. If it's not monistic or dualist, is it pluralist?
Philologists were one of the categories of members of the Epicurean community mentioned in Philodemus’ scroll on frank criticism, as attested by DeWitt in “Organization and procedures in Epicurean communities”.
Just like my reply to Godfrey, I acknowledge that Philology is important not only in the study of Epicueanism but also in the study of everything. But my question is "Did Epicurus think of Philology whenever he mentioned philosophy? We know how Epicurus reiterates the importance of philosophy.
The reason why I asked is because of my comment in the other thread that categorization, logic, and abstraction are indispensable especially when communicating with others our subjective experience and the knowledge we get out of it. Besides, Epicurean philosophy is also a knowledge that must be understood by us with similar precision. Therefore, the element of similitude and categorization can not be eliminated for the sake of relativism and indeterminacy which are the by-product of the atomic swerve.
For instance, you perceive a "horse" or "horses" to be different from what I sense, but we understand each other when we communicate and talk that a "horse" is there at the ranch. For sure you wouldn't think of a dragon-like creature, and I wouldn't surely think of a cat. We abstract, categorize, and generalize it so we can convey to others our similar sense experience. And we can not deny the importance of communication since it is useful not only in friendship but also in being part of a larger society. This abstraction is impossible without philosophy.
My point is that despite the precedence of sensation over rationality, reason and philosophy are still important for the purpose of grasping what is generally true., and I'd like to understand that abstraction is still necessary since Epicurus expressed that philosophy is also important.
Therefore, my question is "Did Epicurus think of logic whenever he mentioned 'philosophy'?" I am curious, but I doubt he was thinking of Philology to mean philosophy.
For better or for worse, there is a necessary philological component to this particular philosophy. In modern philosophy the complete original works of various philosophers can be read. Only a small fraction of Epicurus' original works survive. Much of what we have to work with are secondary sources and fragments, so it's important to understand the context of this and that in order to properly address the abstractions.
Yes. But did Epicurus think of Philology whenever he mentioned philosophy? And if not, what do you think Epicurus would think of philosophy? Logos? Logic? Metaphysics? Or what?
ADMIN EDIT BY CASSIUS 1/23/20: Because Mike's comments here are pretty technical I have moved this part of the discussion to a new thread. It originally came from the thread: Feedback From A User
Also: Epicureanfriends is primarily a forum for generalists, and I hesitate to let the public discussion go too deeply into highly technical issues that would leave the general reader behind. If someone wants to explore these issues more deeply, I would appreciate that person providing summary definitions of the terms rather than using them and expecting readers to know them already.
Here is a list of terms that probably should be defined before going further. Rather than simply giving a link it would be preferable to be able to summarize what they mean in a couple of sentences. I don't have the time to do that right now myself but brief definitions of these would need to be provided for the conversation to be meaningful; otherwise it would be better if the people involved discussed them privately using the "conversation" feature: Cartesian dualism; Kantian idealism; Solipsism; Philology
NOW HERE IS MIKE'S POST:
I have noticed that the discussion circled around "innate ideas" and "indeterminacy." All these sound like Cartesian dualism and Kantian idealism. I have not yet read DeWitt deeply so I don't know whether or not he had Cartesian and Kantian root. But even so, DeWitt might be right if he finds proper to resort to abstraction and similitude for the sake of categorization since our sensation must be expressed in words in order for our subjective sensation and experience to be communicated with others. Otherwise, Epicureanism is nothing but one form of Solipsism which I don't think to be the case. Besides, we can see across the works of Epicurus that the importance of reason and philosophy has been repeated and emphasized.
And philosophy involves abstraction. It's not something like this philosopher said this, or this is said elsewhere in a particular passage of the text of this and that scholar or thinker with a particular quote of a context of this and that... That is not philosophy. That is Philology which is a study of what has been said of something. When Epicurus mentioned philosophy, I think he was referring to some sort of abstraction and not to an activity of sharing the ideas of philosophers.
The stoics were pretty clear about what they clearly were getting at, and what they were getting at was pretty repulsive, even in the form that it is used today covered over as "Therapy."
The problem with their notion of therapy is that they want people to become numb with the reality. It's a total suppression of sensation.
