New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Yep I think it is a combination of SIMPLE plus (to many) "distasteful," and I think probaby the "distaste" outweighs the "simplicity" issue.
In the US at least, distrust and distaste of pleasure was baked in from the 1600s with the Puritans and Pilgrims.
Anchoring and lleaving the discussion at the "Follow pleasure" level guarantees that most people won't give a second thought to taking you seriously.
Additionally, I contend we need to be careful even with the slogan "Follow pleasure" not being caricatured* or cliched into "if it feels good, do it." It easily veers into a Cyrenaic path in people's minds (not that they know who Cyrenaics were). Epicurus did not deal in Platonic ideals, but he did recommend paths that - through observation - would lead to more pleasurable lives overall.
Epicurean philosophy is really a comprehensive view of the nature of the universe that when followed to its logical conclusions totally invalidates the absolutist approach.
Well, people generally don't like ambiguity. They like simple answers to complex questions. Black and white, not grey. Epicureanism makes you do the work.
There's definitely a list of attributes that can be identified, though, and among them would be the degree to which a person values thinking independently from the larger group.
I suppose a natural audience would be secularists, humanists, and freethinkers. But that's a very diverse group and fragmented (like our sources).
The modern Stoics seem to have targeted the "go-getter" business-type and plugged into the "warrior ethos" thing and leaned into that in their philosophy and promotion. The whole "rugged individualist" would appeal to an American audience, too.
I do want to say that it appears to me that many of the modern Stoics truly practice what they preach and appear to be sincere in their drive to resurrect and rebuild Stoicism, and seem to have plugged into a need out there in the world. Now, there are probably dozens of relatively well-selling and popular Stoic "self-help" books, Stoicon-type events and resources, etc. They definitely got a headstart on the Epicureans in that respect. There are way more relatively well-known Stoic authors and speakers than there are Epicurean ones. Who is it on our side? Hiram Crespo and Catherine Wilson? That's about it. With Hiram, I'm specifically referring to his chapter in "How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy" by Massimo Pigliucci (Look at that, a leading Stoic voice!) Those two are probably the go-to "Epicureans" now if the popular press would want to include an "Epicurean" perspective on something.
Interesting thread. I also saw the other techniques thread. Here are some thoughts off the top of my head...
Stoicism (along with Aristotle) got accepted and rationalized into the Christian club early on. The whole first chapter of the Gospel of John talks about Jesus being the Logos/Word, a concept straight out of Stoicism and Greek Philosophy. In some ways, Stoicism glorifies the bearing up against suffering and pain, the stiff upper lip, even voluntarily undertaking painful experiences to "train" yourself (Stoics) or "purify" yourself (Christianity). Stoics also saw pleasure as dangerous, and this also was the view of the Christian Church Fathers. This all could fit in with the Christian worldview and so Stoicism could "go stealth" and its tenets could never really die out as a dominant Western worldview. Look at the connotation of "stoic" - it's generally deemed positive by society: bearing up under pressure, not succumbing to emotional reactions, rational.
Now, consider"epicurean": decadent, fussy, snobbish, elitist. It's becoming more positive in a foodie culture, but overall I'd say it has a more negative connotation in society at large. Christians and thus Western culture have had more than a millennia and a half to denigrate the memory and philosophy of Epicurus. And Epicurus's physics have gone mainstream since the renaissance (thanks in large part to Lucretius), but not under Epicurus's name. They've taken the bathwater but left the baby behind.
Because of this established connotation of small e "epicureans" it creates a hurdle to get people to think they might be capital E "Epicureans." Stoics could also capitalize on the macho, tough-guy, warrior stereotype and target that audience. What's the natural audience for Epicureans? (I genuinely don't have an answer. Thoughts?)
I also think the penchant for referring to Epicurean philosophy as EP is off-putting. It's very in-group jargony with no semantic content to a wider world. It reminds me of TM or EST. I may be reopening the can of worms by saying this, but I see no issue with using the terms Epicurean and Epicureanism. It makes a much more immediate contrast with Stoicism in people's minds. We're not Epicureanists anymore than they're Stoicists. Practicing Epicureanism vs practicing Stoicism sets up a definite choice for people. Both, in my opinion, are philosophies of personal responsibility. Both offer definite life paths and ways to set your priorities. But one glorifies overcoming pain (Stoic); one emphasizes seeking pleasure. There are also a number of "techniques" that can be gleaned from Epicurus, Lucretius, Philodemus, and the fragments. But more on that later...
I need to take some time and look where I'm getting things from. 
Thanks for catching that, Joshua !
Don I went to your profile to look at that one but it looks like all one can see is a part of it on the profile, so maybe post a full copy somewhere(?)
Oh! Mea culpa! That's a different one than I found and put on my account.
The painting on my account is Antal Strohmayer, The Philosophers Garden, Athens, 1834.
I may have to change that now.
LOL! That's the painting I put on my account page here at the forum! All I knew was that it was called (where I found it) The Philosopher's Garden. I wasn't even sure if it was Epicurean. And I didn't delve into the artist.
Thanks for posting this!!
Just finished listening to this one. Seen to have skipped over it before 60.
Your discussion of snakes and baseballs immediately brought to mind Lisa Feldman Barrett's work. I'm still working through her How Emotions Are Made (that's the problem with having 12 books going at a time!). Seems I'm slowly becoming a Barrettian Epicurean when I've implied some other people are DeWittean 
According to Barrett's research, all of our experiences are counterintuitive to our understanding. With the snake, our mind compares our senses to our preconceptions and prior experience. We could never "respond" fast enough if we actually had to "react" after we consciously senses what our senses were showing us. And the whole system is built on our internal pain/pleasure and level of arousal of those, what Barrett refers to as our interoception and affect. Fascinating stuff!
And he said that is a process of deciding to see the thing and that image is instantly available. Not that the memory of what a cow looks like comes from inside a storage in the mind!
But isn't that how some academics describe the prolepseis? We know we're seeing a cow because we "have" a prolepsis of the concept of a cow in our language? Where do we "have" that Prolepsis?
I'm not attempting to imply I have answers... Just questions.
And to add to this mix of confusion in my mind I can't help but this this could be related to the process of forming anticipations, but on the other hand I remember from the first time I read DeWitt's book (i would have to now look for the reference) that DeWitt didn't think that Lucretius addressed anticipations anywhere at all in the poem, so apparently DeWitt himself didn't relate this section to anticipations.
I think you're onto something here, Cassius . The anticipations seem to clearly reside in the individual somehow.
something that is so dramatic that - if true - would have been documented extensively by every ancient and subsequent critic of Epicurus who ever lived, not just in the private joking of Cicero and Cassius!
Well, those quotes you have are intriguing! Plus there is the fact that there is SO many lost Epicurean texts, I'm not willing to say that an alternative memory mechanism isn't out of the question.
There's also the Sedley idea of one sending images *to* the gods which sounds like we can create images in our minds. I don't think he'd say this without substantiation.
Cassius , I'm willing to entertain that there may be more here than I originally thought.
I agree with the contention that the images enhanced the mind's ability to perceive similar images and that is what constitutes memory. There is no storage from what I can see.
This makes sense to me. Epicurus was arguing against any inborn memories like Plato so he needed the mind to perceive existing images. Even the prolepses appear to have been based on repeated exposure to concepts and things. This grooves those mind passages to be able to recognize justice, a cow, Plato ( my phone autocorrected there as "potato"!). Now, this ability could take place as infants even... I don't know if a text says this, but that would allow infants to acquire prolepses and memory without their being born with those things from a previous life or from some supernatural soul corral. Epicurus needed a fully physical procedure for memory with NO supernatural input and this seems to be what her hit on.
It seems to me two things are getting conflated here. Let me sort them out, for myself if not for anyone else.
What is good or bad for me personally is determined by whether the action or thought elicits pleasure or pain for me, either in the short or the long term. There is no absolute Good or absolute Evil for me personally apart from my reaction of Pleasure or Pain.
What is good or bad for society is determined by whether actions are just or not. Whether something is just or not is if it (a) keeps others from harming me, or (b) keeps me from harming others (and so in turn keeping them from harming me). My not being harmed is pleasurable for me. That's, by definition, Good.
There are no absolute virtues determined by God. Virtue is instrumental to pleasure.
There is no universal justice determined by God. "Justice" is instrumental to my not harming you and my not being harmed by you. That keeps me safe and society stable to my being able to experience pleasure.
Thinks people think of as "universal human rights" could be just because they keep people from harming each other and keep people from being harmed. They're not God-given rights. They are conducive to my experience of Pleasure. Your experience of pleasure is advantageous to me. If you're experiencing pleasure, you're less likely to feel the need to harm me. And vice versa.
Everything -- everything!! -- points ultimately to mental and physical pleasure. That's why Epicurus says pleasure is the end-goal, the telos.
Yes Don and while I have the highest respect and gratitude for your translations,
I appreciate that. I'm giving it all she's got, Captain
The word in question is ἀναίσθητος anaisthētos. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l…sqhte/w#lexicon
Look like any English word? It's the basis of "anaesthesia" when we don't feel or sense anything.
I think you're on the right track with the complementary Canon.
Another pertinent fact is the word διαλυθὲν dialythen which has the connotation of being dissolved or broken up into pieces or into elements. So, once death breaks us up into our constituent elements, there's nothing to sense, to feel, to think, to reason... No us. *We* don't exist.
Here's the Greek:
Ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· τὸ γὰρ διαλυθὲν ἀναισθητεῖ· τὸ δ’ ἀναισθητοῦν οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς.
Ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· literally "Death is nothing for us."
διαλυθὲν - passive aorist of διαλυω 2. to dissolve into its elements, to break up
ἀναίσθητος I. unconscious, insensate, unfeeling; senseless
Here's my translation:
"Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved into its elements is without consciousness, and that which is without consciousness is nothing to us."
I see it was a year ago today that I joined the forum. So, 799 posts later, it appears time certainly flies! On this day, I want to express my gratitude for @Cassius's efforts in maintaining this platform, and to all my Epicurean Friends for pleasurable intellectually-stimulating conversation this past year. Here's to another year of Epicurean exploration! Carpe annum! Ευ πράττειν και σπουδαιως ζην!
Tasting History had a great episode on garum of you haven't seen it:
That's also some other great Greek and Roman food covered in his channel.
I think any Southeast Asian fish sauce would be a possible alternative. I don't think Worcestershire sauce would be!
