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.
It also is important to remember that Epicurus's problem was with indoctrination within the Platonic educational system: paideia παιδεία is the word he consistently uses.
Right, but if that it is the only issue, then you could look to the "uneducated" for ethical guidance.
Well... Sometimes that might not be such a bad idea.
Cassius brings up good points in #43.
It also is important to remember that Epicurus's problem was with indoctrination within the Platonic educational system: paideia παιδεία is the word he consistently uses.
And why do they want to do that? What is their motivation?
Fear and lack of true friendship.
Exactly! They are in pain. How do humans relieve pain? By moving toward what gives them pleasure.
Some people do make choices out of how they want to appear to others, so as to gain respect
And why do they want to do that? What is their motivation?
ground it into something purely Epicurean
Hmmm... So that's the issue then. To be "purely Epicurean" hints at there being some "essence" of Epicurus's philosophy whereas Epicurus tried to use nature (and human nature) as it is found to serve as the foundation. There are definitely technical, specific terms used in Epicureanism like prolepsis, but "pleasure" is meant to cast a wide net and to be grounded in the natural feeling of pleasure vs pain. Epicurus's whole thing was to expand the definition in contrast to the Cyrenaics and Platonists.
To narrowly define pleasure or to constrain it would be a step in the wrong direction I believe.
Though in some respects, maybe they have a point, not in their rhetoric attached to such lifestyles, but acting in according to their desires in their own non-Epicurean way.
Well, Epicurus said it's better to follow the religious beliefs of the hoi polloi than be subject to determinism.
Perhaps it's less "happiness and contentment through my free will and contemplation" and more "pleasure is the active and passive sensation I experience from my study of nature and rejection of the supernatural on top of making choices and avoidances according to my desires."
Ok, I think I can see where you're going.
I'd add that Epicurus only allowed for two primary categories of feelings: pleasure and pain. All our sensations are supposed to fall into one of those (with obvious gradations and variations).
Plus from my perspective, Epicurus's philosophy is based on making skillful choices as to what to act upon and what to reject as to live a pleasurable life.
Oh you were still pursuing pleasure or acting on your desires; you just didn't know it."
I would also say that they *know* it, they just can't admit it to themselves because "pleasure" is seen as a "four letter word."
I find it to be extremely reductive and almost gimmicky to reduce a lot of other ways of life and decisions on the grounds of "Oh you were still pursuing pleasure
Ah! But not all pleasure should be chosen. Do those pleasures I have listed lead to a life of secure pleasure or can they lead to anxiety about the future or how one is perceived by others?
Pleasure could be defined as what anyone chooses.
What anyone chooses that does not cause mental or physical pain (in the widest sense)?
I admit that I like the "babies and animal" argument as well as "it's as obvious as snow is cold, fire is hot."
However, I always come back to why anyone does anything. For Stoics, being virtuous - or being perceived as acting for virtue - provides them with a sense of satisfaction. To me, satisfaction = pleasure. For Christians, believing in an afterlife appears to bring them joy. Joy = pleasure. For Buddhists, ridding oneself of desires brings contentment. Contentment = pleasure. And so on down the line. To me, there's no escaping it.
I feel like I want a theory. A theory grounded in reality, of course, but still a theory. This is might be a corrosive desire.
This is an interesting way to phrase that (and I'm meaning that as a positive thing not a criticism).
Could you share what you think of when you say "theory"? Would you have an example from another philosophy or religion (not that you necessarily agree with; just an example)? Or what you'd want the theory to be in Epicurean philosophy.
It seems that number comes from here:
https://www.thoughtco.com/number-of-atoms-in-the-universe-60379
and there's this:
It's important to look at what that second one says: "And yet, those numbers don’t accurately reflect how much matter the universe may truly house. As stated already, this estimate accounts only for the observable universe which reaches 46 billion light years in any direction, and is based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed."
Even so, I don't get my science from a 2,000+ year old text. However, Epicurus was headed in the right direction. For all intents and purposes from a human perspective, the difference between those estimates and "infinity" are academic. The word Epicurus used was άπειρος "without limit" often translated as "infinite."
My perspective on Epicurus's philosophy doesn't rise or fall on determining an unimaginable number of atoms. There are also other cosmos (cosmoi) to consider in the infinite All. When considering that, the number is atoms is unlimited.
PS. There's also the question of how to translate Epicurus's άτομος (atomos) into modern physics. Can we use it to refer to an "atom" as we define it? Is it a molecule? Is it a quark? Meson? Wave function? Again, Epicurus did not have access to our methods and tools, but he "got" that the cosmos is material and composed of matter and had no supernatural origin. That's the important point rather than trying to find a "Gotcha!"
Thanks, @Faunus , for the question!
Welcome back, Todd!
"THE ELDER PLINY ON PHILOSOPHERS." MIRIAM GRIFFIN. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement. No. 100, VITA VIGILIA EST: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF BARBARA LEVICK (2007), pp. 85-101 (17 pages)
Excerpt p.91:
Pliny 's philosophical stance
There is not need here to describe and analyze the philosophical or quasi-philosophical views of the Elder Pliny, since that difficult task has been done very well by Mary Beagon and others.28 There is a consensus that Pliny is not an adherent of any one philosophical doctrine, but that his mental landscape features strong Stoic elements, notably on cosmology, non-anthropomorphic conception of the divine (with HN 2.14, cf. Sen. Nat. 2.45), the existence of divine Providence, and man's centrality in the universe. There is also a clear debt to Epicureanism, notably in the rejection of belief in the after life (HN 7.5), belief in astrology and various forms of divination (2.23-24, 2.28, 11.273), and, at one point, belief in direct providential concern for individuals (2.20): superstitions from which the rational study of nature can free us (2.54).
(HN = Natural History)
I checked, and Pliny was staying for some time in Misenum (modern Miseno) with his sister and nephew (Pliny the Younger) and was there when Vesuvius erupted. That's literally only a 7-8 hour *walk* from Herculaneum (modern Ercolano), arguably one *the* hotspots of Epicurean activity in ancient Rome. So, yeah, Pliny easily saw, talked to, and had first-hand knowledge of Epicureans while writing his Natural History.
So yeah, that first draft paper I posted is going to have a substantial revision that includes Pliny's text in addition to other points discovered. All in all, I keep seeing a stronger case for Gamelion 20 as THE day of Epicurus's birthday.
Also Don what do you take Pliny's point to be in this discussion? The "thus?"
We don't live on after we die. The portraits (to which he was referring in the previous section) simply display the wealth of the dead people, not their character.
And this is important for the 20th discussion because Pliny was not Epicurean but he reported what he saw and what he was told. The fact that his villa was close enough to Pompeii and Herculaneum that he could get to the doomed city while the eruption was happening tells me he undoubtedly had contact with Epicureans. He didn't celebrate the Eikas but he could have easily seen people celebrating it. Same goes for Pliny the Younger of someone wants to say that her added this to book 35. Either way, we're covered!
From my perspective, this is big. I just found this in Pliny 's Natural History, 35.2:
Thus it is that we possess the portraits of no living individuals, and leave behind us the pictures of our wealth, not of our persons.
And yet the very same persons adorn the palæstra and the anointing-room4 with portraits of athletes, and both hang up in their chamber and carry about them a likeness of Epicurus.5 On the twentieth day of each moon they celebrate his birthday6 by a sacrifice, and keep his festival. known as the "Icas,"7 every month: and these too, people who wish to live without being known!8 So it is, most assuredly, our indolence has lost sight of the arts, and since our minds are destitute of any characteristic features, those of our bodies are neglected also.
The footnote - from John Bostock in 1855! - says "6 In reality, his birth-day was not on the twentieth day of any month; but, for some reason which is not known, he fixed upon this day.—B. He was born on the seventh day of the month Gamelion."
LOL!! 
Although later parts were published posthumously by Pliny the Younger shortly after Pliny's death during the destruction of Pompeii, Pliny's Natural History is from the 1st century CE **when there were still practicing Epicureans right in Herculaneum near where Pliny actually had a villa!!!*** Pliny no doubt knew Epicureans first-hand!! For me, I'm going to take the word of Pliny over a 19th century scholar!
In Latin:
iidem palaestras athletarum imaginibus et ceromata sua exornant, epicuri voltus per cubicula gestant ac circumferunt secum. natali eius sacrificant, feriasque omni mense vicesima luna custodiunt, quas icadas vocant, ii maxime, qui se ne viventes quidem nosci volunt. ita est profecto: artes desidia perdidit, et quoniam animorum imagines non sunt, negleguntur etiam corporum.
I wonder if Epicurean possibly, or Stoic.....
My guess would be Aristotelian because he obviously liked to make long lists of things
