REMINDER: SUNDAY WEEKLY ZOOM - April 5, 2026 -12:30 PM EDT - Ancient text study and discussion: De Rerum Natura - - Level 03 members and above (and Level 02 by Admin. approval) - read more info on it here.
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
But the walls need to remain reinforced as purely Epicurean.
(Let's call those last two "big toes up!)
Oh yeah! Fully agree! By definition, if there was a sign near the *gate,* that means there had to be walls for the gate to be in. It was The Garden, not The Field 
Matt and Cassius , I think you've identified Fundamentalism/Absolutism in all its many-tentacled form as the problem. Whether it's religious or secular in nature, any institution that holds up any non-evidentiary dogma as THE way to live *or else* is going to, shall we say, present problems. I'm not sure if that covers the Temple of TikTok (good one!), but it covers those who are bent on shoving their virtue on everyone.
t does not allow us to withdraw to our own communities and live in peace to ourselves.
I don't think that's a fair description of the Garden (or, I'll say, should be a goal of any modern incarnation of the Garden). The Garden was/is/should be open to all as a refuge and retreat to which people can visit, learn, rest, and refresh then go back out into the world to walk the walk and talk the talk. The Garden wasn't/isn't/shouldn't be a commune, cut off from society. Epicurus explicitly said we don't hold communal property. People can come and go as they needed to. By Zeus! The original Garden was on one of the most traveled roads of ancient Athens directly outside the city walls!! With its sign posted outside (per Seneca) welcoming strangers to stop in, it was basically a billboard for Epicurean philosophy on Main Street.
I feel certain I would experience an increase of pleasure. What am I missing here?
That's because you're a human being living in the material world:
"Two sorts of happiness (eudaimonia) can be conceived: (A) the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented; the other (B) admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures."
That scenario you play out sounds great! If you could make choices to achieve such a day, that would be a pleasureable day. The gods - completely filled with blissful happiness and confident in its incorruptible continuation - experience Happiness A. I think the goal of the mortal is to see that kind of happiness *as a goal* and to make choices and rejections that can get the arc of our lives as close to that as possible. To live the most pleasureable life possible. That's why I'm drawn to Sedley's "idealist" position on the gods. I won't go into details here, but that makes more "sense" to me than beings living between universes.
To continue, even Epicurus couldn't escape pain and was in excruciating pain near his death, but he was happy, filled with all the pleasure he could muster, embracing an appreciation for all the pleasures he had experienced in his life, surrounded by friends who cared about him, and imagining the continuation of his dream of the Garden (whether or not he would see it).
That's my take on your question. Others may have different responses.
Keep the questions coming!
This reminds me of VS11:
For most people, to be quiet is to be numb and to be active is to be frenzied.
I'm not aware of the specific source of this, but it does seem to reinforce Don's post above.
Thanks for the reminder. My own translation of VS11 is:
For the majority of people, to be at rest is to be bored stiff; but to be active is to be raving like a rabid dog. [It seems to be saying that there needs to be a balance or that stillness is important and that most people don't recognize this. Plus they're just running around to appear important or just simply to do something, they can't be alone with their own thoughts… they're not self-reliant.]
I found it interesting that the word used to describe the active people could also refer to rabies: λύσσα I. rage, fury, esp. martial rage, Il. 2. after Hom. raging madness, raving, frenzy; II. canine madness, rabies.
PS: This is Bailey's commentary on VS11:
XI. There is no close parallel to this sentence, but it is obviously a striking contrast with the life of the Epicurean philosopher, for whom both rest and activity are a part of his αταραξία [ataraxia].
A lot of very good people ARE in danger of looking only to "tranquility" - to "rest" - to passivity, and to other and more darker forms of resignation that border on "giving up" everything in life just for the sake of "absence of pain."
While I agree that some may misinterpret "tranquility" and equate it with passivity, that does a disservice to idea of rest, relaxation, and re-energizing. That's not Epicurus's fault. I agree that that's a Stoic and Academic (in both senses of the word) misinterpretation. Epicurus's "tranquility of the mind" is not a passive numbness or unconsciousness or anesthesia. It's a *pleasurable experience* not a lack of feeling. It is experienced with the mind, just as aponia is experienced as relaxation and "freedom from pain" and experienced by the body. That's why Epicurus touts:
The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life. For the sake of this, we do everything in order to neither be in bodily or mental pain nor to be in fear or dread; and so, when once this has come into being around us, it sets free all of the calamity, distress, and suffering of the mind, seeing that the living being has no need to go in search of something that is lacking for the good of our mental and physical existence.
It's not numbness that is the goal here, it is that feeling of complete pleasure that comes from being free of all distress and suffering of body and mind. To be filled with pleasure, head to toe, body and mind... The limit of pleasure, as if living the life of a god. We take personal responsibility to make choices and rejections to bring this about. To paraphrase, when the health of the body and the tranquility (ataraxia) of the mind has "come into being," that is, when we are filled with pleasure (which is what aponia and ataraxia are!), we are free of all distress and suffering precisely because we are filled with pleasure. That's not something to hide under a bushel. That's a feature, not a bug.
I also have to say your "war footing" sounds exhausting! 
Whew! I know where you're coming from - and I applaud your efforts - and providing an alternative to the Stoic manly-man look-at-my-virtue i-take-cold-showers mindset is a laudable goal, but I go back to some of the characteristics of the sage when this comes up. I do agree we're "fighting" an "uphill battle" against the minimalist, 'freedom from pain' academic interpretations, but all those struggle, battle, war, fighting metaphors are making me tired. I will say I can't believe "resistance is futile" (There's your Star Trek reference 
) or I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of writing up my Menoikeus notes and posting them. But even Epicurus took rest in the Garden from time to time, took time to celebrate festivals, to commemorate friends at shared meals... Then took up pen and papyrus and fired off diatribes against rival schools and wrote encouragements to friends and students. Breathe in and out, attack and retreat, rest and engage.
First, Epicurus's "limit" or "boundary stone" of pleasure seems eminently practical to me. If your mental and physical being is completely imbued with pleasure, by definition, you are feeling no pain. If you are feeling as much pleasure as possible with no hint of pain, there's no way that could be increased. You could feel different kinds of pleasure at that point, but you can't feel "more" pleasure if you're experiencing an absolute lack of any pain. This could be complete relaxation and calm or some other kind of all-encompassing pleasurable experience.
Now, that being said, I don't think that's *humanly* possible: to experience that limit of pleasure. Diogenes Laertius provides commentary on this (X.121): "Two sorts of happiness (eudaimonia) can be conceived: (A) the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented; the other (B) admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures." Only the gods can experience happiness that cannot be ἐπίτασιν "augmented" or "increased in intensity or force." The pleasures of the rest of us can be προσθήκην καὶ ἀφαίρεσιν "added/supplemented and taken away/removed." (These two words are the opposite of each other, i.e., plus and minus.) Theoretically, humans could enjoy the happiness/pleasure/good that cannot be increased. Theoretically. But as a practical matter, that's going to be difficult. However, that goal is maybe what is provided by the idea of a god (or maybe the sage, the sophos): "And never, neither awake nor in sleep, throw yourself into confusion, and you will live as a god among humans; because no person who lives among eternal pleasures is like a mortal being." (End of the letter to Menoikeus)
All that being said, I think pleasure is sometimes conflated with desire in those dialogues and these discussions. Full disclosure: I have not read Philebus. On my list, not read yet. From what I have read, it seems this conflation may be part of the problem. A *desire* for wealth or fame can never be satisfied. There's always more money to get. There's always more fame to acquire. Somebody on Earth will have money you don't have and somebody won't know who you are. That's why those *desires* are empty/vain/κενός. Now, the *pleasure* you get from getting a taste of fulfilling those *desires* is real and good. But those *desires* lead to frustration and so they are not to be recommended.
Finally, pleasure is the telos because it is what everything else points to. Why do we act virtuously? Because we feel pleasure when doing it. Some do it because they like to be seen acting virtuously. They take pleasure in being seen acting virtuously. Virtue is a means to an end, the end, which is pleasure. "Why do we feel pleasure?" seems to me to be a nonsensical question. That's how nature evolved us! I know this argument doesn't/didn't convince everyone, but it seems patently obvious to me. Pleasure is the telos not because it's "perfect." It's the telos because it's what everything else works towards. In the game of life personified as Old MacDonald's Farm, pleasure is the cheese. It stands alone. Okay, not the best metaphor but we'll leave it there.
I think we have to be careful not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Epicurus writes fairly often about the health of the body and the tranquility of the mind. He is concerned with both our physical and mental well-being. There's nothing wrong with having a calm, tranquil mind. I would argue it's much easier to enjoy any pleasure if your mind is calm or is able to return to being calm and tranquil. I equate that calmness with re-energizing, with calm seas and safe harbor. I would not enjoy being always in a state of elation or excitement. That sounds exhausting! I also am more and more coming around to the idea that biological homeostasis is what equates to ataraxia, and it was this kind of balance, calm, tranquility in our minds and bodies to which Epicurus was - correctly, in my opinion - able to identify as a pleasure. Not THE pleasure, but a pleasure.
I recently heard a science podcast (source amnesia for which one) that said, contrary to popular belief, humans are not rational creatures that feel emotions, we are emotional creatures that sometimes employ rationality. That doesn't do the episode justice, but I found that formulation intriguing.
Sounds similar to a good ole συμπόσιον symposium
I was going to waffle, but the reality is that I've released the work into the wild and posted it to your forum. So, if you think it's worthwhile, go for it.
Okay, as teased way back in October 2020 and excerpted a few times since then, I am officially releasing my new in-depth translation and commentary of Epicurus's Letter to Menoikeus into the wild.
96-page PDF available for download here:
Epicurus's Letter to Menoikeus - A New Translation and Commentary
I plan to make this a work-in-progress and will revise it in the future. For now, I hope it provides a starting point for discussion, but, more importantly, I hope it serves as an inspiration for others to go back to the original ancient texts.
Enjoy!
40 is from Bailey's The Greek Atomists and Epicurus 557.1.
I would reply - off the cuff here - that the components of the Canon - Sensations, Pathē, and Prolepseis - have to give us an accurate picture of reality upon which we then build our concepts which can then be either true or false or maybe valid or empty might need better. The pre-rational components on the Canon have to register reality or they're meaningless as a starting point. The idea that the oar is bent is an invalid concept built on the image reflected on our retina. Where the prolepseis fit in is more difficult but I have to think they also register reality before we begin to build concepts on them.
Liked I said, off the cuff.
No, that's not my interpretation of that section at all going back to the text itself.
The only valid - "true" - conception of the gods is through our prolepsis of a blessed and incorruptible being.
The beliefs of the masses, the hoi polloi, are what are false when they say the gods provide blessings to the good and punishment to the wicked.
(btw we cross posted. This was between your two.)
the observation that Epicurus makes that the views of the gods are anticipations but also are false (?)
Wait. Where does that come from?
Welcome, Scott !
I like the idea of just having 366 quotes not pegged to specific days plus I like Marco 's idea of themes.
It might be better to set it up by sources (Pads, letters, DRN &c) instead of months, at least for the collecting of quotations. Then once there are 365 or more they could be sorted into months. This should make it easier to avoid duplicates.
Agreed.
Also, would this need to be older sources that are out of copyright? Newer translations might be more relatable as long as using them doesn't create copyright issues.
Public domain (1926 and older) would be best to avoid any unnecessary entanglements, but I think we could make a fair use argument for in copyright works for educational purposes as long as we weren't selling the "calendar." Once there's an economic angle, then it gets tricky.
I'm concerned because I'm reading now the PDs as the closing text of Diogenes Laertius's work, as is suggested in the core texts' reading list, and some things are not making sense, or at least don't seem as applicable as I'd expect, which is my main goal (applicability) at this stage.
Should I read something else before I keep going down these PDs?
I can appreciate your frustration, but I encourage you to stick with the PDs. There's only 40 of them (and I would argue several of them need to be read together. The original text wasn't divided into 40 items, there were continuous paragraphs). They're building blocks. I'd also encourage you to ask questions about specific PDs in that section of the forum.
I also fully appreciate your looking for direct applicability. Some of the PDs can be put into practice, others need more context. One big overall takeaway is that our choices and rejections are our own responsibility. Not even Epicurus can tell us what to do in every situation. It is up to us to weigh the consequences and decide.
Keep reading! Keep asking questions!! Your curiosity is welcomed!
