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.
As to Goodreads perhaps we create an Epicurean section?
I'll admit I'm still a novice Goodreads user, but if you create an account (using a general Epicurean Friends email?) you can create lists. Not sure how helpful that would be, but throwing it out there.
Haven't listened to the podcast yet but I just finished binge watching The Rings of Power. I enjoyed it immensely even though I'm not a serious Tolkien fan: particularly enjoyed all of the design work that went into it. And I kept thinking of the Tolkien fans here!
I certainly won't hijack this thread, but just wanted to say, in response to Godfrey , that I, too, have watched the first season of Rings of Power and, let's say.... I have... thoughts. 
If anyone wants to start a private conversation, I'd be happy to share my pains and pleasures watching the show 
& would be curious to read others'.
I have to give a shout out to Joshua 's Tolkien reference in his final comments 
Could we use GoodReads somehow?
I'm also torn on whether we could have a library of PDF papers we downloaded from Academia.edu or if we'd have to link to them and let people download them from there.
Nate's library of electronic files is a good idea if we make sure that no copyrights are violated.
Ditto. My thoughts exactly.
Blast from the past (2020) and my initial takes on chapter 1
In the US, we call those "bookcases" Little Free Libraries:
That might be a place to leave pamphlets/booklets, too.
Citations and links to some of DeWitt's papers
The discussion of virtue dovetails nicely with my reading of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.
Book 2 starts his investigation of what virtue (Αρήτη "excellence, virtue") is. For all his words, I don't know if he really ever defines what virtue is. He dances around it and entertains some notions but never nails down s hard and fast rule.
I'll let anyone interested read my commentary to see my thoughts on Aristotle's attempts at defining it.
Therefore if you have any trouble logging in from any device, let us know and we can arrange to remove you from that list, and that should fix any problem anyone has.
Logistical question: If we get a 404 Error and can't access the site, how do we contact you to tell you we can't access the site?
Nah, it's all good. Just wondered what happened to Garden! 
Yep. Happened to me
Don't you see Nature requires no more than the body free from pain, that she may enjoy the mind easy and cheerful, removed from care and fear?
That seems to me a good description of katastematic pleasure as defined above.
My take on lines like this in the texts is that, if we have that - IF for some reason (medical, etc) that pleasure was all we had left to us - we could still have eudaimonia/happiness/ well-being. That does NOT mean that we LIMIT ourselves to that! When we are able, we have the entire spectrum of pleasure open to us.
This description of kinetic and katastematic from The Faith of Epicurus by Benjamin Farrington (1967) is spot on from my perspective:
I need to read this book. Only recently became aware of it. Does anyone else have a review?
The key takeaway of Epicurus's and Metrodorus's mentioning of kinetic and katastematic pleasure is to drive home the all-encompassing spectrum of hedone, inadequately pinned merely to one English word "pleasure." Hedone encompasses the joy experienced through physical activities we engage in with the world and other people like eating, drinking, conversing, dancing, sex, singing, viewing theater performances, viewing beautiful natural vistas and artwork, and so on. But it also encompasses pleasure experienced from inside ourselves like contemplating philosophy, recollecting past pleasurable memories, anticipating future pleasure, experiencing tranquility of mind and freedom from anxiety. That's the significance of embracing both katastematic and kinetic pleasure. Yes, there are different kinds of pleasure, but it's important to allow both in your life for a maximum pleasurable existence. The Cyrenaics didn't admit katastemstic pleasure into their definition. Epicurus embraced all pleasure in his philosophy. That said, we have much more control over katastematic pleasure and so can be more assured of its continuance as a source of pleasure. It's not A OR B it's A AND B with an understanding that one is always available even when the other might not be. That's why Epicurus could say he was experiencing pleasure even in the midst of pain nearing death. He had ready access to katastematic pleasure from within himself even if his pain prevented him from partaking in physical activities that would bring him joy.
I will continue to soapbox the fact that katastematic and kinetic come directly from Epicurus in On Choices and Avoidances:
The words of Epicurus in his work On Choice are : "Peace of mind and freedom from pain are pleasures which imply a state of rest ; joy and delight are seen to consist in motion and activity."
ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουρος ἐν τῷ Περὶ αἱρέσεων οὕτω λέγει: "ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναί: ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται."
I will continue to soapbox that Metrodorus stated there were pleasures of activity and those of "rest/states/stability":
"Metrodorus, in his book On the Source of Happiness in Ourselves being greater than that which arises from Objects, says: 'What else is the good of the soul but the sound state of the flesh, and the sure hope of its continuance?'"
Metrodorus in his Timocrates, whose actual words are : "Thus pleasure being conceived both as that species which consists in motion and that which is a state of rest."
Metrodorus's quote is: νοουμένης δὲ ἡδονῆς τῆς τε κατὰ κίνησιν καὶ τῆς καταστηματικῆς. Right there, again, is κίνησιν (kinēsin) and καταστηματικῆς (katastēmatikēs).
This, to me, points to the "source" - "the sound state of the flesh" (to sarkos eustathes *katastema*) - being a more confident source -- according to Metrodorus himself -- of pleasure than "objects" (kinetic pleasure) outside of ourselves. It does NOT say the source "in ourselves" is "better (more value)" just that we can be more "sure" of its continuance because we have control over it.
It's not change vs "non-change".
It's pleasure taken in activity from outside ourselves and pleasure taken in states which originate only in our minds through recollection, contemplation, introspection, etc.
I have to agree with Gray that Aristotle "often loses himself in little trifleing Distinctions & verbal Niceties, & what is worse leaves you to extricate yourself as you can."
I expected to be overwhelmed and intimidated by Nichomachean Ethics, but I've just been disappointed. Aristotle has been this all-powerful bugaboo of Western Civilization, I expected to be in awe or something. I'm not getting that vibe. It's just a slog sometimes to work through his verbage.
Oh, and Socrates is still a jerk in my opinion. Just saying.
THE Thomas Gray!?
Thomas Gray Archive : Texts : Letters : Letter ID letters.0139
for my Part I read Aristotle; his Poeticks, Politicks, and Morals, tho' I don't well know, wch is which. in the first Place he is the hardest Author by far I ever meddled with. then he has a dry Conciseness, that makes one imagine one is perusing a Table of Contents rather than a Book: it tasts for all the World like chop'd Hay, or rather like chop'd Logick; for he has a violent Affection to that Art, being in some Sort his own Invention; so that he often loses himself in little trifleing Distinctions & verbal Niceties, & what is worse leaves you to extricate yourself as you can. thirdly he has suffer'd vastly by the Transcribblers, as all Authors of great Brevity necessarily must.
There is some well known characterization I which readinf Aristotle is like eating straw, right
"Reading Aristotle is a bit like eating dried hay."
Thomas Gray (1716 – 1771)
At least you could lie down in a pile of hay and take a nap.
Okay, I've finished up my take on Book 2:
I had to break it up into 2 parts (Part 1 and Part 2). There's a lot going on, but, as you'll see I've come away thinking "I'm not seeing much more than obfuscation and some nice-looking word salad made up mostly of celery and lettuce and not much nutrition."
I'm still finding it interesting, especially Aristotle tying himself up in knots trying to talk trash about pleasure.
Enjoy.
Martin 's post is spot on. I especially like:
The truth Plato and probably most ancient philosophers had in mind concerning the world does not exist or is unavailable.
The only edit I would suggest (and I could just be misinterpreting what he wrote) is when he writes:
What we can get from observations are tentative facts by using logic as a tool.
I would suggest: What we can get from observations are tentative facts which can be expanded on and refined by using logic as a tool.
Which seems to me about what Cassius is getting at.
When Cassius uses what I interpret as "scare quotes" around
"science" and "logic"
Or modifies science and logic as
true science and true logic .
is superfluous and sets up the wrong dichotomy. The divisions aren't "true" science or "science." There's science and theoretical science (like string theory) which may or may not be verified in the future but is currently untestable. There's science and pseudoscience (like creation science or flat-earthers) which is just making stuff up or wildly misinterpreting actual findings and ignoring data that don't support your position. Then there's science and just misinformation and propaganda that twist scientific findings out of all proportion for political or nefarious end.
We don't follow science. Scientific discovery arrived at through the scientific method can be either accepted or rejected based on the validity of the research, the soundness of observations, the credentials of the researcher, etc. Science backed up by research, observation, etc. is just science.
For example, I had the opportunity this week to view Saturn and Titan as well as Jupiter and its 4 Galilean moons through telescopes set up for an astronomy event. I find it breathtaking to literally see those celestial bodies for myself. BUT I need science to help me understand what I'm seeing, what I'm observing. Epicurus himself advocated understanding the natural world as contributing "more than anything else to the tranquillity and happiness of life."
Same with logic. You have to define your terms before you can talk about "logic" or "true" logic. Epicurus engaged in formal logical arguments. You just have to know what logic is being used, if sound propositions are being used, etc.
