Posts by Don

I'm revisiting this thread for my own peace of mind...ataraxia if you will.

This idea (as I understand it) of having a "good enough" explanation of phenomena is *almost* enough to make me question my commitment to Epicurean Philosophy. I'm looking for all of you to "talk me down."

AsI read the Letter to Herodotus (and other selections), I get the impression that an Epicurean only needs to have an explanation of phenomena that doesn't conflict with the senses and that doesn't cause them distress. If one's explanation of (for example) the size of the sun or why it thunders is corroborated by the senses and makes you less anxious, but doesn't equate with how we (now) know thunder happens now, that's alright.

Now, I know we know why thunder happens now and how big the sun is, but what about things like the size and age of the universe, how quantum physics works, how the brain works, and other topics of science research. I find reading and wondering about these immensely pleasurable. The contortions of my mind amuse me and make me more curious. I don't understand the how's and why's, but that doesn't make me question the material non-supernatural nature of the universe.

My question is primarily: If I'm going to call myself an Epicurean, do I have to "pick an explanation" for these phenomena and move on? Is curiosity an Epicurean trait? Or do I need to choose and declare (dogmatize)?

Help.

Pain (nociception) vs suffering! That's the distinction I was trying to get at! Thanks, Godfrey!

For me, it's important to remember that when Epicurus talked about freedom from pain, he couldn't have been talking about ridding oneself of nociception. The feeling/sensation of pain, as the video and Paul Brand article show, is indisputably beneficial in keeping us safe and healthy. It's seems to me that Epicurus had to be talking about our reaction to nociception. Aponia carried the connotation of not just freedom from "pain" but freedom from struggle, toil, trouble, labor. The Tetrapharmakos's last line stated that The Terrible (το δεινον "to deinon" (same as the dino- in dinosaur "terrible lizard"), referring to Pain, can be "easily" endured. So, we will still feel Pain (nociception) but we can make a conscious effort to endure it (our reaction to that pain). We need not struggle against it or dwell on it. "Endure" strikes me as "getting through" something. You don't stay with something. You get through it and know it will pass.

I think Godfrey is on to something but "atomic universe" sounds a little scary and radioactive Maybe in a material universe or a universe composed of only atoms and space.

Godfrey : Thanks for finding that article! Interesting reading! I found these pages very reminiscent of Epicureanism:

Quote

More physical activity (to build endurance); prayer or meditation (which calms the body and reduces pain); gratitude (an antidote to the pain-intensifying effects of anger and resentment); and a network of friends and family. “The best single thing I can do to prepare for pain is surround myself with a loving community who will stand by me when tragedy strikes,” Brand notes. He also says Americans need to embrace pain as a friend: “We silence pain when we should be straining our ears to hear it; we eat too fast and too much and take a seltzer; we work too long and too hard and take a tranquilizer. “Perhaps because I have had to repair so many physical problems caused by overindulgence, I take a long-term view of pleasure. [For example], gluttony may give short-term pleasure, [but] it sows the seed for future disease and pain. Hard work and exercise, which may seem like pain in the short term, paradoxically lead to pleasure in the longer term.”

I liked his characterization of pain and pleasure working together and seeing value in pain. Epicurus, too, while obviously valuing pleasure, seemed to see pain as a valuable stop signal and our awareness of it is part of our choice/avoidance process.

i found the latter paragraph reminding me of PD 10.

On the other hand, I didn't agree with this:

Quote

“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed--but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they have brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? “The cuckoo clock.”

This is the same fallacy of people saying Van Gogh was a tortured soul but how fortunate we are to have his artwork. No. If Van Gogh could have been treated and lived a pleasurable life free from mental illness, we could do without the sunflowers and starry nights. And Switzerland had not exactly had 500 years of democracy and peace. Napoleon had control of the Helvetic Republic in the 1800s, there have been internal conflict, but this Wikipedia excerpt makes me think the Swiss might be doing okay:

Quote

The sovereign state is one of the most developed countries in the world, with the highest nominal wealth per adult and the eighth-highest per capita gross domestic product. It ranks at or near the top in several international metrics, including economic competitiveness and human development. Zürich, Geneva and Basel have been ranked among the top ten cities in the world in terms of quality of life, with Zürich ranked second globally. In 2019, IMD placed Switzerland first in attracting skilled workers. World Economic Forum ranks it the 5th most competitive country globally.

And the Swiss have done okay in the arts and humanities, too, with Giacometti, Herman Jesse, etc., etc. And, oh yeah, they also gave us the Red Cross.

Sorry, my Swiss ancestry is showing a little in that last part there

Now that I have your attention with that provocative title I wanted to share this Ted-ED video about the feeling of pain: How do animals experience pain.

I found it fascinating, but especially its description of nociception vs the cognitive feeling of pain. And some animals appear to be making decisions about pain (as in the octopus both protecting an injured limb but also deciding to use it to catch prey).

And I don't think octopuses can be Epicureans... Or do I?

Enjoy.

Quote from LukeL

I then read Catherine Wilson's How to be an Epicurean, which I found informative, but lacking in its stated purpose, unfortunately.

Welcome, LukeL !

I had the same the same reaction to Wilson. Well stated!

As for the "cult" aspect of classical Epicureanism, I agree with Cassius in that you need someone to start a school to get a school going, although when you read about the busts, rings, etc. that his followers had + the celebrations of the 20th and other regular celebrations of persons in the Epicurean "pantheon" (We live like unto the gods, right?), there was a little of that cult of personality. But I do think it was more father figure/founder than cult leader with Epicurus. I don't see the stereotypical mind and behavior control of a cult in the texts. Friendship and mutual support seemed the order.

As for the Garden itself: Do we know if everyone lived full time in the Garden or did they visit to learn or both? In other words, was it a residential "compound" or more like an actual school where people came for lessons and went back home? Do we know for sure? And I'm assuming Epicurean communities all over the ancient world were more informal, not necessarily having a Garden of their own.

Your farm sounds idyllic! "EpicuriCon 2025" at LukeL 's farm (It seems like we need some sort of -con to compete with StoiCon and Stoic Week)

Ευ πραττειν! May you practice well!

Literally, just came across Mexican architect/artist Pedro Reyes:

Drawing of Epicurus , part of series of Philosophers and authors from ancient Greece.

Massive sculpture of Epicurus. I can see the furrowed brows and strong nose of the classical busts. Additional view and another.

I was digging around online and it looks like the Villa is not open to the public. On the Villa's Wikipedia article's Talk page I found:

Quote

16. May 2012: Removed touristic advice "When the Ercolano site was visited on 29th April 2012 the Villa was closed with no indication of when it would reopen." I don't think the site is open for regular visits at all. It might only be possibel to visit it by special appointments.

Would have been nice for at least a distant peak or a mention.

Looking forward though to watching the whole video. Even if no Villa visit, Philodemus and other Epicureans walked those streets!

I found this footnote in a book on Google Books referring to the anonymous manuscript (Rawl. D.314) which the author said dates to around 1660: R. Barbour, “Anonymous Lucretius,” Bodleian Library Record 23 (2010) 105–11; D. Butterfield has also worked to trace this manuscript and its attribution history. (Note: Link provides table of contents only for April 2010 issue.)

(Note: I tried to find the article in the databases from Kent State, but only the abstract and citation were available in MLA Bibliography).

We don't have an image of the actual manuscript but a transliteration of several pages. but the file is too big to upload. The Google Drive link is above are end in my previous post. If you can upload it somehow Cassius from that link, I'll delete the link. (Always a little uneasy about linking directly to my drive).

Quote from JJElbert

Thank you for your perspective, Don! It is a big request. On the other hand, I have to assume that digitization is a constant and ongoing project for them. It might be interesting to know how they go about selecting which texts to start with—as I mentioned above, they've already scanned at least one Lucretius manuscript!

Good points! It's certainly a "nothing ventured, nothing gained." I'm wondering if getting in contact with Hugh de Quehen would be fruitful. Looks like he's affiliated with Univ of Toronto (link). He included those 3.25 pages of the anonymous D.314 in his book. I wonder if he'd have access to a complete transcription.

( Cassius has uploaded the PDF below that I scanned)

I'm not sure a letter would work. There's maybe a mechanism on their site for requesting interlibrary loans which may include digitization requests. Or there may be other official channels. I'll dig around.

Butthat's a BIG request! There are 162 leaves of text from a rare manuscript from 1500/1600s. There may be all kinds of limits on that.

I'm getting that from a description of MS Rawl. D.314 in Quehen's book of Lucy Hutchinson's translation. I took a PDF of the translation of D.314's excerpt in that book of about 3.25 pages but I can't upload an attachment to the forum, can I?

Agreed. My perspective is that, after reading some of his papers, I'm holding him to a higher standard now. I know he has the (academic) goods. I did genuinely find several of his points in this chapter fascinating and enlightening.

I'm getting closer to his exposition of doctrine, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I can be more generous overall.

A few thoughts on Chapter 6. Some very enlightening, some aggravating. How's that for a teaser!

Quote

QUOTE P. 106: [Epicurus's] objective was not the production of a good citizen but a happy and contented man. For practical purposes this happiness was defined as health of mind and health of body. The famous prayer for mens sana in corpore sano, "a sound mind in a sound body," recommended by Juvenal, is genuine Epicureanism.

This is another example of DeWitt's penchant for just stating something as fact with no back-up. He called "mens sana in corpore sano" (in English) an "Epicurean prayer" back in Chapter 2 and I addressed my misgivings about that elsewhere in the forum

Quote

QUOTE P. 107: [Epicurus] was genuinely pious and insisted upon employing of the gods only such language as was consistent with their perfection of happiness, which was to him a sort of majesty. The proper feeling toward them was reverence. Quite rightly, then, he is reported as saying: "The wise man will experience a higher enjoyment than the rest of men in the public spectacles." The pleasure here described is of the nobler sort; it is euphrosune; it is best understood as having reference to the emotional uplift, a sort of communion with the divine.

DeWitt writes this in a section where he is talking about Epicurus's preference for different musical styles . However, I addressed the "public spectacles" quote from Diogenes Laertius's Lives in my new translation of Book X.117-121. My research led me to believe that that phrase should be better translated as "The sage will also enjoy themselves more than others in contemplation, speculation, and theorizing" when looking at the other uses of the same Greek word within DL, Chapter X. I actually hate trying to go head-to-head with DeWitt when it comes to translation (He could without a doubt translate rings around me!), but I would beg to differ here. And, that being the case, this quote doesn't really address what he means it to here.

Quote

QUOTE P. 107: He assumed that poetry will be read, and

in the Epicurean school as described by Philodemus there is mention of a philologus, which means a teacher of literature.

DeWitt's source for "philologus" meaning "teacher of literature" is DeWitt: N. W. DeWitt, Classical Philology (1936) 207-208; Philonides at the court of Antiochus Epiphanes was surrounded by a throng of them: Rheinisches Museum 56(1901) 145.

It doesn't necessarily mean a "teacher of literature." In fact, that isn't one of the definitions in LSJ It can mean anything from studious, literary, student, scholar, or even "fond of speaking" when used in relation to Socrates. So, I'm dubious of the "teacher of literature" translation here.

Quote

QUOTE P. 109: The belief that according to Epicurean doctrine the soul was incapable of existing outside of the body was considered no obstacle. Instead, the thinker was thought of as projecting his mind into space.

This quote is in the section concerning Epicurean "orgies" and the "flight of the mind." I found this section very interesting, especially since Lucretius (I believe) uses this metaphor of flying through the universe to uncover the truth of reality. So, DeWitt is explaining that it's simply through your mind that you explore the universe. It's not supernatural! Just using your intellect to wonder, study, and muse. I think it's also interesting when he talks of the Epicurean "orgies." DeWitt does a good job of explaining that these are "orgies" (not as we think of them) but "mysteries" as in the mystery religions of the ancient world. The section goes on...

Quote

QUOTE P. 109-110: Here are the words of Metrodorus, which at the same time designate the teachings of Epicurus as "orgies," that is, mysteries, and indicate the heavenly trend: "Let us crown fine actions by another — only not sinking downward with feelings common to the mob — and, shaking free of this life upon the earth, rise to the divinely revealed orgies of Epicurus." 13

Citation 13 refers to Against Colotes: 13 Plut., adv. Colot. 1117b

Quote

QUOTE: And yet Metrodorus, writing to Timarchus, says: ‘Let us do some extraordinarily excellent thing, not suffering ourselves to be plunged in reciprocal affections, but retiring from this low and terrestrial life, and elevating ourselves to the truly holy and divinely revealed ceremonies and mysteries of Epicurus.’

’ ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ὁ μὲν Μητρόδωρος τὸν Τίμαρχον παρακαλῶν φησι ‘ποιήσωμέν τι καλὸν ἐπὶ καλοῖς, μονονοὺ καταδύντες ταῖς ὁμοιοπαθείαις καὶ ἀπαλλαγέντες ἐκ τοῦ χαμαὶ βίου εἰς τὰ Ἐπικούρου ὡς ἀληθῶς θεόφαντα ὄργια’

Perseus Digital Library gives definitions of ὄργια "orgia" I'm excerpting a section of the orgia defintion below to highlight Demeter. DeWitt mentions Demeter in chapter 5 in reference to the choice of the 20th. I wonder if this is yet another connection to the choice to celebrate on the 20th hiding in Metrodorus' choice of words? ὄργι-α , ίων, τά, A. secret rites, secret worship, practised by the initiated, a post-Hom[eric]. word ; used of the worship of Demeter at Eleusis; of the rites of the Cabeiri and Demeter Achaia; of Orpheus; of Eumolpus; of Cybele: most freq. of the rites of Dionysus. II. generally, rites, sacrifices. 2. metaph., mysteries, without reference to religion.

Quote

QUOTE P. 111: The title chosen for his famous collection of forty doctrines was Kuriai Doxai. The precise meaning of this has remained so uncertain that a variety of renderings are in circulation from the pens of the best scholars: Peculiar Propositions, Established Beliefs, Principal Doctrines, Fundamental Tenets, Cardinal Principles, Sovran Maxims, Authentic Doctrines, Pensees Mattresses. In this book they are being called Authorized Doctrines, an approximate rendering of Cicero's maxime ratae sententiae, "doctrines specially endorsed"; Cicero was near the truth in believing them so named "as being of supreme importance for the happy life."

It seemed to me that DeWitt is making more of this than he needs to. From my perspective, all these are - in one way or another - synonyms of each other: propositions, beliefs, doctrines, tenets, etc.; established, principal, fundamental, cardinal, etc. There was no question in Epicurus's mind. He called them Kuriai Doxai, so I think we should try and keep all those English synonyms in mind when we talk about them. Summary: They're important!

Quote

QUOTE P. 114: The nature of the memorial writings has been completely overlooked but they belong no less logically in the scheme than the two previous classes. One of their aims was to confer a new kind of immortality upon deceased members of the circle. It was the teaching of Epicurus that happiness was attainable; it was possible for mankind within the limits of mortal life to approximate all but completely to the happiness of the gods. This happiness embraced two elements, blissfulness and incorruptibility. Although the soul of man was corruptible, it was still possible for the memory of him to be made imperishable in the records and in the rites of the Epicurean brotherhood. It was with the aim of securing this new kind of immortality for himself and his associates that Epicurus established during his lifetime the regular celebration of the twentieth in each month and provided for its perpetuation in his will. These celebrations were memorial sacraments and the memoirs of deceased members are comparable to the Acts of the Apostles and the Lives of the Saints in the Christian church.

I found this section interesting... and maybe this is the ONE place I'll let DeWitt make his Christianity comparison with the Acts of the Apostles. The Epicurean and Christian writings do seem to have served similar purposes but one need not have been the inspiration of the other.

Quote

QUOTE P. 116: As a rare exception to this principle of dividing the labor may be mentioned the approval given to the brilliant courtesan Leontion in writing against the living Theophrastus, head of Aristotle's school. 39

While Leontion had to be educated, literate, and well respected by Epicurus, DeWitt's choice of "brilliant" just strikes me as his penchant for his historical fiction. No doubt the story of Leontion *would* make an interesting novel! But the citation itself gives the *barest* of details. Citation 39 refers to Cicero and Pliny (Cic., Natura deorum 1.33.93; Pliny, Historia Naturalis, Praefat.) Pliny states:

Quote

I, indeed, freely admit, that much may be added to my works; not only to this, but to all which I have published. By this admission I hope to escape from the carping critics, and I have the more reason to say this, because I hear that there are certain Stoics and Logicians, and also Epicureans (from the Grammarians I expected as much), who are big with something against the little work I published on Grammar; and that they have been carrying these abortions for ten years together—a longer pregnancy this than the elephant's. But I well know, that even a woman once wrote against Theophrastus, a man so eminent for his eloquence that he obtained his name, which signifies the Divine speaker, and that from this circumstance originated the proverb of choosing a tree to hang oneself 42.

Note 42: "Suspendio jam quærere mortem oportere homines vitæque renunciare, cum tantum licentiæ, vel feminæ, vel imperiti homines sumant, ut in doctissimos scribant;" Hardouin in Lemaire, i. 29. We learn from Cicero, De Nat. Deor. i. 33, that the name of this female was Leontium; "...sed meretricula etiam Leontium contra Theophrastun scribere ausa sit."

meretrīcula ae, f dim. of meretrix, a prostitute, courtesan (Lewis, Charlton, T. An Elementary Latin Dictionary)

Quote

QUOTE P. 117: One curious title, the Corner in the Atom, would remain mysterious were it not known that Plato had accounted for the phenomena of old age by postulating the detrition of the sharp edges of his angular atoms. 44 To Epicurus such an assumption would have been preposterous, his atoms being indestructible.

I also found this section interesting. Having seen Epicurus's work On the Angle of the Atom (Περὶ τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀτόμῳ γωνίας) listed in DL, Chapter X, I admit I did find that title odd. The γωνία (gōnía) of the title can mean: (geometry) corner, angle; joiner's square; cornerstone. So, angle and corner are both feasible translations. However, citation 44 references The Timaeus which does talk about triangles τριγώνα. So, kudos to DeWitt for shedding some light on this work of Epicurus's!

On p. 118, DeWitt indulges in some more of his historical fiction writing when he writes about "the plodder Hermarchus" and "the more sprightly and vigorous talents of Metrodorus." And also on p. 119, where he talks about "a youthful disciple named Hegesianax." As far as I know, we only know Hegesianax's name from the list of Epicurus's works (that's the citation DeWitt gives). On p. 120, he describes Polyaenus as "outstanding for his friendly and sympathetic nature." I don't believe DeWitt has any idea what these men were like or what their situations were.

Quote

QUOTE p. 118: When St. Paul spoke of "many members, yet but one body," 52 he was addressing Epicureans and making capital of their own coherence as a sect.

No! No! No! I Corinthians 12:12 (citation 52) talks about being one in Christ. There is ZERO need to read this as an Epicurean thing.

Quote

QUOTE P. 119: When St. Paul wrote, "O death, where is thy sting?" he was purloining the word "sting" from the Epicureans and also the sentiment. 54

There's no way I can accept this. Citation 54 is to Lucretius, 3.874 and 3.1019 . So, we're to believe that Paul knew De Rerum Natura well enough in Latin, that he was able to pick out one the Latin word stimulum which can mean prick, goad, sting, torment, pain, etc., translated into his letters in Greek, and THEN later English translators just knew to translate it as "sting"?? Color me skeptical at best. And the idea of death being a "sting, torment, pain" is NOT exclusive to the Epicureans. In fact, if I remember, death is nothing to us.

Again, I see bits of flashes of genius in DeWitt and bits of "You have got to be kidding me!".

I still maintain that I enjoy his academic articles better than his writing style in this work, but - if I understand - this book was more a labor of love and a project he undertook after his retirement from academia. So, maybe he felt freed up and let fly all his pent up flowery prose and urge to write historical fiction. I freely admit that he has provided a service with this book.

So, now onto the next chapter!

Quote

P5 There is a mention about "the thirty-seven books on Physics". What is this referring to?

This is an easy one before I head of to bed this evening

In the 10th book of Diogenes Laertius' Lives, he gives the list of Epicurus's books he's written. In that list (starting in section 27), the first work written by Epicurus is:

Quote

Of Nature, thirty-seven books

The Greek is Περί Φύσεως "Peri Physeōs" "On Nature" and since the second word looks similar to Physics, some translate it that way.

It is theorized that Lucretius based his poem De Rerum Natura "On The Nature of Things" on the outline of Epicurus's On Nature/Physics.

I'm sure others will weigh in on your questions, and I'm looking forward to contributing as well.

Mathitis Kipouros , I certainly sympathize with your uneasiness about the use of the word "dogma" and its religious baggage. I believe this also goes to (partially, at least) Epicurus's opposition to the Skeptics. In my translation of the characteristics of an Epicurean sage, I translated the usual translation "a sage will dogmatize..." as...

Quote

(the sage will) Declare their beliefs and not remain in doubt

Similar to my reply in that last post, I think this means the Epicurean puts trust in the picture of reality painted by Epicurus, declares those beliefs trustworthy, and doesn't remain in doubt - going through life in want or need - of an explanation of reality.

At its most basic, dogma just means a settled opinion or someone firmly established. It doesn't *need* to be something taken on blind faith. Epicurus has reasoned out his "dogma" and built it on a firm foundation, that's why we can trust it or, if you will, have "faith" in it.

Quote

P5 "Faith was recognized for the first time as a factor in happiness". I guess this will be expanded upon later in the book, but... why does faith play such an important role in Epicurean Philosophy? How is this not contradictory to its materialistic ontology and its empiricist epistemology?

In my opinion, this use of the word "faith" is a relic of Dewitt's Epicurean Christianity habits. I don't like the use of faith here (I went back and looked at Dewitt, too). It's a fine word, but it has far too much religious baggage attached to it.

I think what Dewitt is trying to say is that Epicurus put trust (a synonym for faith) in his certainty that knowledge could be obtained. The sentence before the one you quote:

Quote

At the same time the objective of study is stressed, which is ataraxy, the quiet of mind that arises from faith in the certainty of knowledge. Incidentally, faith was recognized for the first time as a factor in happiness.

... Leads me to believe that Dewitt is contrasting Epicurus with the classical Skeptics who didn't believe one could say anything for sure about reality. The Skeptics said one couldn't have "faith" or trust in one's senses or say definitive things about reality. Epicurus trusted in (or "had faith in") his pursuit of knowledge and that he could arrive at a true understanding of reality.

You raise some great points here, Mathitis Kipouros , and I can see some echoes of my reaction to DeWitt. I'll try (and I'm sure others will as well) to respond to some of your questions. First one...

Quote

P4 "The universe consists of atoms and void" so the soul is composed of atoms. Is somebody willing to ellaborate on this point?

*Everything* is atoms and void. Everything. Period. The use of the word "soul" is a little misleading here. That word in English implies an immortal aspect of one's identity. The word Epicurus used was ψυχή psyche which could mean what we think of as "soul" but also "the conscious self or personality as centre of emotions, desires, and affections." So,it had a wider connotation. Granted, the Greeks did use this word to mean an immortal entity, but not Epicurus.

In any case, even if it did mean "soul" (as in the innermost core of one's personality and mind and emotions), Epicurus taught that the "soul" was still material. Composed of atoms and void. And when one died, the soul died too, returned to its constituent atoms back to the universe to be reused again. The "soul atoms" may be extremely fine and move quickly (to account for sensation throughout the body), but it was still composed of atoms like everything else.

There is NO immortal soul in Epicureanism. After death, there is Nothing to feel, to sense, to experience eternal reward or eternal punishment. That's why "death is nothing to us." We don't experience it.

I hope that helps.

Quote from camotero

This also brings to mind something I've been grappling with lately... since pleasure and pain are things you can only experience yourself, it makes it very clear that things can start to become less absolute (and thus less comfortable - hence the resistance) and more relative... ... so how can you say he is bad if he is even ignorant of the pain he's causing to said third party... If he does it after it has been brought to his attention the pain his suffering to someone else, then he would be bad, but not before?

Excellent questions and points to consider, Mathitis Kipouros .

This, too, is something I grapple with. This is how I'm beginning to reach a conclusion for myself. I hope this helps to see i too am struggling.

We grow up in and live in a culture that wants to have absolutes. Religions want to have god-given absolute laws of right and wrong. Some people want to insist on universal rights like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The US Declaration of Independence states that there are "inalienable" rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At times, I would like to believe that, too.

Epicurus disagrees.

To Epicurus, justice is what is decided on among human communities to procure safety from others and to not allow people to harm other people. When those contracts and agreements are violated, the violators must be punished (by ways agreed on within the community) to keep everyone else safe from harm.

It seems to me there probably are some negative actions that are or should be considered injust through time (since humans appear to have an innate sense of justice and fairness according to some research on toddlers and young children I've seen). Agreeing on all those may be difficult, but I think a consensus could be arrived at. But it will be subjective and mutually agreed on. There is no universal law giver or source of The Good in the universe. If we want a just world, we have to work to build it ourselves. And we have to live by "neither harm nor be harmed" in our own lives.

People are neither good nor bad. Their actions are neither intrinsically good or bad. Have they harmed someone and gone against the social contract? If so, they deserve punishment. Have they done something "bad" but no one's come to harm. Then it doesn't matter. I can say I think their actions are ill-advised and won't lead to lasting pleasure for them. But, I don't think, I can call them "bad."

In your example, if someone harms or slights someone else knowingly, chances are that other person can potentially make the life of that person that harmed them difficult in the future. That is not a direction to go for lasting pleasure. If one is "good" and just to others, chances are you will be treated well and justly by others. That's a reason to be "good." Not because God says so or it's a universal law.

As I said, my Epicurean understanding continues to evolve.