Epicurus got in (at least) one shipwreck.
There are texts in which Epicurus describes looking at a wrecked ship and which indicate that he took a ship at a season which was dangerous for travel by ship to flee from Mytilene. However, none of these texts indicate that he was himself in a shipwreck. What is the reference for him getting in a shipwreck?
https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/9341/4561
Link to Sailing to Lampsacus: Diogenes of Oenoanda, New Fragment 7 by Diskin Clay
"Go to his Garden and read the motto carved there: 'Stranger, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure.'
Seneca's Latin is:
HOSPES HIC BENE MANEBIS, HIC SVMMVM BONVM VOLVPTAS EST
I'd suggest the inscription would have been in Greek with maybe a Latin version later. In light of that, HOSPES is a Latin translation of ΧΕΝΟΣ (xenos). The concepts of the ΧΕΝΟΣ and ΧΕΝΙΑ (xenia) are applicable to this thread.
"Xenia consists of two basic rules:
"1. The respect from hosts to guests. Hosts must be hospitable to guests and provide them with a bath, food, drink, gifts, and safe escort to their next destination. It is considered rude to ask guests questions, or even to ask who they are, before they have finished the meal provided to them.
"2. The respect from guests to hosts. Guests must be courteous to their hosts and not be a threat or burden. Guests are expected to provide stories and news from the outside world. Most importantly, guests are expected to reciprocate if their hosts ever call upon them in their homes."
As "strangers" learn about Epicurean philosophy - as they metaphorically pass by the gate to the Garden - they should be welcomed, we should be hospitable, answer questions courteously, etc. We should practice philosophical χενια.
PS. Note also that Seneca specifically uses SVMMVM BONVM, so likely that would have been ΤΕΛΟΣ in Greek. So, that last phrase could be interpreted as "Here, pleasure is the telos."
MANEBIS is Latin for ΜΕΝΩ "stay, lodge, linger, remain"
BENE translates ΚΑΛΟΣ (kalos) that slippery word denoting well, nobly, beautifully, etc.
Has the idea that everyone pursues pleasure whether they admit it or not resulted in progress toward possible solutions to the problems listed in the bullet points?
If so, how?
A valid question; however, my first reaction is going to respond to this a little sideways.
As I stated and from my perspective, "Pleasure is the telos" a fact of the natural world - like gravity or evolution - that Epicurus discovered and articulated through his philosophy. It's the way living beings work and how they interact with the world and each other.
Christians believe they've discovered the way the world works and how humans need to act to have salvation and eternal life.
Muslims believe they've discovered the way the world works and how humans need to act to serve Allah and to please him.
Buddhists believe they've discovered the way the world works and how humans need to act to be released from this world of dukkha, of suffering and dissatisfaction.
Stoics believe they've discovered the way the world works and how humans need to act to align their lives to Nature and to live virtuously.
And so on.
Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Stoics and the rest don't water down their underlying principles. They believe what they believe. If one sees value in their worldviews, that person accepts the "tenets of the faith" (so to speak) and is accepted into the community.
I don't see any difference with Epicurean philosophy.
"Here are the fundamental core principles of the philosophy. Do they resonate with you? Do they make sense to you? They do? Welcome! All are invited to explore the way of life the school offers."
I'm not saying we should be combative or be argumentative or should beat people over the head or even start conversations with "You're wrong!" or "You're lying to yourself!" That is certainly not the way to make friends and influence people, as the saying goes.
But I also don't advocate a watered-down, kumbaya, join hands, we're all one approach either. Epicurean philosophy has to stand for something, and the current round of podcast episodes has been doing a good job of staking out some turf on the fundamentals. "Pleasure is the telos" is a fundamental, and I would say a fundamental of human existence and not just one option among many equally-valid options.
Epicurus' Garden had a welcome sign posted, but once you were inside the walls, everyone got taught that "Pleasure is the goal."
"Go to his Garden and read the motto carved there: 'Stranger, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure.'
So, to respond directly to:
Has the idea that everyone pursues pleasure whether they admit it or not resulted in progress toward possible solutions to the problems listed in the bullet points?
If so, how?
Not everyone is going to be attracted to Epicurean philosophy, and, in fact, many may be hostile to the philosophy. The only solution, from what I can see, is to be visible in the marketplace of ideas, to make the philosophy known, to welcome people who find themselves Epicurious.
I have a friend with whom I've raised my Epicurean leanings. He has shared some therapy methods like ACT and the positive psychology concept of "savoring" that he said remind him of what I've brought up about Epicurean philosophy. One thing I've mentioned is that there are a lot of Epicurean-adjacent ideas that don't get credited to Epicurus but that resonate with the philosophy. That has opened up a dialogue between us to explore some ideas. It's a way into the philosophy possibly for him. I didn't come out all barrels blazing with "Pleasure is the telos." But I'm not going to compromise. If at some point I bring it up and he pushes back (He's a very smart guy), I hope I can come up with cogent arguments, etc. for what I believe. If he comes up with better arguments, I remain open to exploring outside the school. For now, Epicurus makes the most sense and provides a guide for life that resonates with me.
I speak from a perspective of Epicurean "universalism".
I would argue that even if they say they pursue the afterlife and are not seeking pleasure they are lying or not recognising their reality. It's as obvious as water is wet and the sunlight at noon is bright to me.
I agree with you, that the stories may misguide them but on the other hand the force of our innate pleasure-pain-mechanism is immensely powerful. No-one can escape this reality.
I think some of this discussion revolves around the issue of "psychological hedonism" and I will be the first to admit that I have never found "psychological hedonism" to be a very helpful way to analyze things.
Saying that "You're doing what you're doing - whatever you're doing - because you think it will bring you pleasure" does not seem to me to be a very helpful way of looking at much of anything. I realize that many people that this helps them defend "hedonism," and if so than I suppose whatever floats one's boat is good.
But to me, it's an argument that smacks of circularity and even disrespect for the other person who is earnestly suggesting that whatever they are pursuing is not pleasure at all.
I'm all for a very wide perspective on what the word "pleasure" includes, but once you've come to the place in a discussion where you disagree with someone on their definition, it doesn't seem to me that anything helpful is achieved by saying "you really agree with and you're just not willing to admit it."
I'm going to go on record to say that I lean heavily toward what Titus wrote. From my perspective, Epicurus was not positing a philosophical position in that "pleasure is the telos." He was identifying a universal trait of human beings - in fact, a trait of all living beings.
I sincerely don't care if Epicureanism is defined as "psychological hedonism" or Axiological hedonism or Ethical hedonism or whatever-ical hedonism or hedonism at all. Epicurus had an insight into the motivation of all living beings that they move toward pleasure and move away from pain, and he used this starting point to shed light on how living beings interact with their world and ultimately what is the goal of life of living beings, with humans being able to take that information and to move toward eudaimonia.
The meaning of the telos or the "supreme good" is that thing which is the telos or the "supreme good" is that for which ALL actions are ultimately motivated by. One may say virtue is their ultimate motivating factor, but why? Keep asking why? And it is going to be that it gives them a sense of satisfaction that they're doing what's right. And what is a sense of satisfaction? It is pleasure. One can dress up their motivation and their rationalizations and their justifications. They move toward the supreme good which is pleasure.
People lie all the time to themselves to get through the day and through their life. People can convince themselves of almost anything!
I am not saying we MUST convince everyone we come in contact with that "Pleasure is the supreme good and why you do what you." We pick our battles. But the more I look at the world and how people act, I can see them trying to comfort themselves, to mask their insecurities, to belittle others to aggrandize their own self-image. They are in pain and are trying to move toward pleasure. The feelings are only two after all. BUT Epicurus calls us to make prudent choices, to live nobly, well, and prudently, to try to fill our lives with more pleasure than pain. That's what I believe ALL living beings are doing. And Epicurus was brilliant in his attempt to explain this. Not everyone is going to listen. Not everyone is going to be convinced. Not everyone is going to accept that universal truth. But that is exactly what I believe is going on in the psyche of every living being.
Whether we should try to convince them of that or whether they'll accept it... that is a completely different discussion. But truth is truth, and I think Epicurus squarely hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Thanks for pointing those out, Kalosyni !
That's a little more encouraging. I hadn't dug that far into the report.
We got some work to do 
Interesting study from Pew Research.
Welcome aboard, Ken ( yankee )!
I'm celebrating my 5th year on the forum today. Supportive, curious group here.
Congratulations!! That looks like a great success! Thanks for the debrief of the event. That really sounds like an inspiration for others. Well done! Keep us updated on future meetings.
Εἰ κατεπυκνοῦτο πᾶσα ἡδονή, καὶ χρόνῳ καὶ περὶ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα ὑπῆρχεν ἢ τὰ κυριώτατα μέρη τῆς φύσεως, οὐκ ἄν ποτε διέφερον ἀλλήλων αἱ ἡδοναί.
Εἰ κατεπυκνοῦτο πᾶσα ἡδονή > "If every pleasure could be condensed"
κατεπυκνοῦτο is an interesting choice.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Κκ , καταπτερ-όω , καταπυκν-όω
The connotation includes "to stud thickly" or to plant closely together or stars packed together in the sky. Hence, it also means "to force into a small compass, compress, condense." It's almost like saying "If all the stars in the sky could be condensed..." Or "If all the plants in the field could be condensed..."
If every pleasure could be condensed in both body or mind, pleasures would never differ from one another.
Epicurus Wiki has a good commentary:
Epicurus presents here a logical defense for his belief that the various pleasures are in an important sense independent: if, he hypothesizes, all pleasures could be somehow "condensed", so that their sum total could be experienced all at the same time, then one pleasure would not differ from any other. Yet the pleasures do differ, Epicurus implies, since they cannot be thus condensed -- another syllogism by negative hypothesis, demonstrating that the opposite is in fact true.
The clause e ta kyriotata... is somewhat confusing; the disjunctive preposition it begins with does not stand amidst a clear, either/or construction. The logically most plausible reading is that this clause is disjunctive to the earlier holon, meaning that, hypothetically at least, all pleasures could be condensed and thus be experienced by the "entire" human, sentient being, or (alternatively) by the "principal parts of his/her nature". The confusion stems from the (perhaps deliberate) parallel construction, by which the sum total of pleasures is related to the sum total of the sentient human.
Welcome aboard!
I do think Epicurus knew the difference between pleasures that last a short time vs. a long time. But on the other hand, long pleasures are not necessarily the most pleasant. So it really makes a difference how you phrase what it is you are talking about.
I didn't see this as referring to individual pleasures. To me it reads as the length of the life itself.
Again, I think Cicero is conveniently switching terms and ideas: pleasure, pleasures, length of life, duration of pleasure, etc.
Google Translate again:
But for, as you were saying, Epicurus denies that the length of time contributes anything to living happily, nor that less pleasure is perceived in the shortness of time than if it were eternal.
I wanted to break this down:
Epicurus denies that:
1. the length of time contributes anything to living happily
I believe that I could agree with this if it's an accurate translation. You can live a "happy" short life or a "happy" long life. The length of the life doesn't necessarily equate to one's overall happiness.
2. less pleasure is perceived in the shortness of time than if it were eternal.
This again hinges on the impossibility of eternal pleasure. Pleasure, as Cicero conceives of it, is by definition fleeting. He appears to imagine an infinite and eternal banquet. That's not the pleasure Epicurus is working with. It seems to me that "Torquatus" and Cicero are talking past each other, with Cicero of course being the author of the conversation. He's deliberately interpreting Epicurus and Plato via Philebus for his own ends.
FWIW... clunky Google Translate
88] These things are said most inconsistently. For when he places the highest good in pleasure, he denies that pleasure can be greater in an infinite period of life than in a finite and limited one. He who places all good in virtue can say that a happy life is perfected by the perfection of virtue; for he denies that the highest good brings increase day by day. But he who will think that pleasure can make life happy, who will he be if he denies that pleasure increases with length? Therefore, not even pain. Does the longest pain make any miserable person, and duration makes pleasure less desirable? What is it, then, why does Epicurus always call God thus happy and eternal? For, taking away eternity, Jupiter is in no way happier than Epicurus; for both enjoy the highest good, that is, pleasure. ‘But for here also pain.’ But he makes him nothing; for he says that if he were to burn, he would say, ‘How sweet this is!’
I have to go back to PD9
If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one’s nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.
Εἰ κατεπυκνοῦτο πᾶσα ἡδονὴ, καὶ χρόνῳ καὶ περὶ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα ὑπῆρχεν ἢ τὰ κυριώτατα μέρη τῆς φύσεως, οὐκ ἄν ποτε διέφερον ἀλλήλων αἱ ἡδοναί.
But pleasures can't be condensed and present at the same time, therefore they differ in time/duration and what parts are affected.
However, every pleasure is the same in that they are pleasurable. That might be the thing that's getting conflated.
That said, IF one is filled entirely with pleasure, different pleasures provide variety but not more pleasure. So, the fact that they differ in variety also means they differ in duration and parts affected.
Well, if so, we need an analysis of that decision which does not end with "duration of time makes NO difference" - because I can certainly tell the difference between a minute and a year. And not simply because I am afraid of opportunities lost.
Of course, duration in this life matters. Epicurus talks about a life filled with pleasure. That's both physically and temporally. We live akin to the gods when we live in pleasure.
My grievance (?) is with those who only talk about the loss of pleasure if or when one dies. We, the living, have NO idea what a life unlived had in store for the person who died. Chances are it wouldn't have been all wine and roses. Our own lives have some pain, but we're living. Life is meant to be lived, as pleasuraby as possible. What about the pain the person who died would have experienced? What about the potential misfortunes? Focusing on the "what might have" is pointless. Epicurean philosophy stresses that the bite of pain of someone dying is real. But the philosophy also says not to dwell on the loss but to celebrate and remember the life.
Let's be honest though. For the person who dies, death is a loss of life. That's it. You're done. That is the end of all sensation and feeling and experience. But I still don't see how we can say what they've missed or what they potentially could have experienced. Would their life have been overwhelming pain within a day of their actual death date? Would they have died a day later? A week? Ten years? There is no way to know. What we do know is that we're mortal and that is never going to change. I don't believe we'll ever be able to upload ourselves nor do I think that would be preferable to actually dying.
It's a legitimate question to ask, separate and apart from fear of loss: Does longer length of time necessarily make something preferable?
It's not necessarily fear of loss alone. It's fear of the unknown: Will I be punished when I'm dead? Will I be aware of anything?
The only duration that means anything is the duration in this life. Less pain/more pleasure for longer time in this life is preferable. Talking about what could have been after one dies is pointless.
Whether a person dies young or dies old, a person dies, one can't say "Oh they could have seen/done etc.." Yes, maybe they could have gotten married, seen their grandchildren, etc. Yes. They could also have gotten cancer, broken their neck and become paralyzed, gotten drunk and killed someone while driving, etc. The "death is loss" crowd seems to often talk of positive pleasurable experiences but never talks about negative painful experiences that could have been experienced.
My interpretation of this whole concept is that it is specifically the fear of death that makes us unable to take pleasure in the life we have here and now.
We cannot be dead. We can't experience death. As Epicurus says, when death is, we are not. No one is dead. My father is not dead. He no longer exists. I have my memories and there are those memories held be family and friends. Death is not a state of existence.
Another aspect is Epicurus' unflinching facing up to our mortality, indeed the mortality of everyone and everything, including the cosmos itself. The Universe is eternal, but everything within it is always changing, evolving, dissolving, rearranging. We may want infinite time, may desire it, may long for it. We are not going to get it. We're dying at some point, and then we won't exist. Saying that death deprives us of experiences, while true, but I also cannot experience 2nd c Greece or the 24th c settlements on Titan. Proximity in time to my life whether in the past, future, or the day right before or after my first or last breath has no impact on what I experience here and now.
I cannot have infinite time. Longing for it robs me of pleasure during my one and only life.
This was too good not to share, from the upcoming Odyssey movie starring Matt Damon:
TĒS THDPSSSSPS 
Coming to theaters in 2026
