I'm sorry. I cast an extremely skeptical eye on anything that tries to equate ancient Epicurean physics and modern quantum theory.
Epicurus was good, but he wasn't *that* good.
Granted, I say the same things about any Buddhist trying to pull the same trick btw (ex, The Tao of Physics)
Still one of my favorite memes...
Did you mean to upload twice? This is what I'm seeing on my podcast app:
For context, WP provides some background:
More examples...
U489
489. Nature teaches us to think nothing of what fortune brings, to understand that when prospering we are unfortunate and when not prospering we are fortunate, to receive undisturbed the good things that fortune brings and to stand ready for its seeming evils. For what is good or evil to most people is fleeting, and wisdom has nothing in common with fortune.
καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῆς τύχης μικρότερα (ἡ φύσις) διδάσκει νομίζειν, καὶ εὐτυχοῦντας μὲν γινώσκειν ἀτυχεῖν, δυστυχοῦντας δὲ μὴ παρὰ μέγα τίθεσθαι ὄν τὸ εὐτυχεῖν, καὶ δέχεσθαι μὲν ἀθορύβως τὰ παρὰ τῆς τύχης ἀγαθά, παρατετάχσθαι δὲ πρὸς τὰ παρʼ αὐτῆς δοκοῦντα εἶναι κακά· ὡς ἐφήμερον μὲν πᾶν τὸ τῶν πολλῶν ἀγαθόν ἐστι καὶ κακὸν, σοφία δὲ οὐδαμῶς τύχῃ κοινωνεῖ.
VS17
It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around by chance as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of.
οὐ νέος μακαριστὸς ἀλλὰ γέρων βεβιωκὼς καλῶς· ὁ γὰρ νέος ἀκμῇ πολὺς ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης ἑτεροφρονῶν πλάζεται· ὁ δὲ γέρων καθάπερ ἐν λιμένι τῷ γήρᾳ καθώρμικεν, τὰ πρότερον δυσελπιστούμενα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀσφαλεῖ κατακλείσας χάριτι.
VS67
67. A free person is unable to acquire great wealth, because that is not easily achieved without enslavement to the masses or to the powers that be. Instead, he already has everything he needs, and in abundance. But if by chance he should have great wealth, he could easily share it with his fellows to win their goodwill.
ἐλεύθερος βίος οὐ δύναται κτήσασθαι χρήματα πολλὰ διὰ τὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα <μὴ> ῥᾴδιον εἶναι χωρὶς θητείας ὄχλων ἢ δυναστῶv, ἀλλὰ συνεχεῖ δαψιλείᾳ πάντα κέκτηται· ἄν δέ που καὶ τύχῃ χρημάτων πολλῶv, καὶ ταῦτα ῥᾳδίως ἃν εἰς τὴν τοῦ πλησίον εὔνοιαν διαμετρήσαι.
Mathematical probabilities. There are a number of quotes from the Epicurean texts that address this idea, especially:
[133] "Who, then, is superior in thy judgement to such a man ? He holds a holy belief concerning the gods, and is altogether free from the fear of death. He has diligently considered the end fixed by nature, and understands how easily the limit of good things can be reached and attained, and how either the duration or the intensity of evils is but slight. Destiny, which some introduce as sovereign over all things, he laughs to scorn, affirming rather that some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency. For he sees that necessity destroys responsibility and that chance or fortune is inconstant ; whereas our own actions are free, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach. [134] It were better, indeed, to accept the legends of the gods than to bow beneath that yoke of destiny which the natural philosophers have imposed. The one holds out some faint hope that we may escape if we honour the gods, while the necessity of the naturalists is deaf to all entreaties. Nor does he hold chance to be a god, as the world in general does, for in the acts of a god there is no disorder ; nor to be a cause, though an uncertain one, for he believes that no good or evil is dispensed by chance to men so as to make life blessed, though it supplies the starting-point of great good and great evil. He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. [135] It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance.
Replace "chance" with "luck" and that's a pretty good summary of Epicurus's views.
So maybe I shouldn't take such a dim view of the collage -- if we could all receive a blood transfusion from Epicurus, we'd probably all be much better off! We may have to adopt that kind of imagery ourselves at some point!
I do hope you're being intentionally provocative, because I come to the opposite view. Epicurus is very clear that we have to do our own work. Too many commentators take Epicurus's "dogmatic" position to mean blind loyalty. I go back to its literal Greek use of taking a position vs remaining skeptical of everything. Using that "blood transfusion" metaphor, to me, plays into that erroneous stereotype, even in jest.
Herodotus, 10.38 (Hicks)
Next, we must by all means stick to our sensations, that is, simply to the present impressions whether of the mind or of any criterion whatever, and similarly to our actual feelings, in order that we may have the means of determining that which needs confirmation and that which is obscure.
"Ἔτι τε44 τὰς αἰσθήσεις δεῖ πάντως τηρεῖν καὶ ἁπλῶς τὰς παρούσας ἐπιβολὰς εἴτε διανοίας εἴθ᾽ ὅτου δήποτε τῶν κριτηρίων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα παθη, ὅπως ἂν καὶ τὸ προσμένον καὶ τὸ ἄδηλον ἔχωμεν οἷς σημειωσόμεθα.
I can't confirm the Greek, but, for example, it seems important in this passage that the phrasing would be "perceptIBLE" (able to be perceived) rather than "that which has already been perceived.
That passage doesn't seem to do what you want. I read it as:
τὰς παρούσας ἐπιβολὰς "the present impressions"
παρούσας is "of things, to be by, i.e. ready or at hand; to be present in or at." These are the impressions of the mind being experienced. So, it seems to me to be neither "perceptIBLE" (able to be perceived)" nor "that which has already been perceived" but what is present at the moment, at least in this particular passage.
τὰ ὑπάρχοντα παθη (ta hyparkhonta pathē) "the actual feelings"
ὑπάρχοντα is "to be already in existence; to be laid down, to be taken for granted." We need to take our feelings - pathē - of pleasure/pain into account.
This passage says to me we need to use what we have experienced or are experiencing to determine the nature of that which needs additional evidence or that which is unseen or not evident to the senses.
In deference to the author, I'm sure they had nothing to do with the illustration. Some Guardian staff artist used a composite of Getty Images they found. Sloppy. At least it wasn't AI??
The illustrator used a bust of Epicurus for an article about wanting to live forever throughout history. I can't think of a more inappropriate historical figure to use for an illustration than Epicurus 
I'm still not clear at all as to the original intent of the statement - as to how broadly it was to be applied.
Only way to find that out is to read Faulkner's Wild Palms 
(also published as If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem)
Summary:'Between grief and nothing I will take grief'. In New Orleans in 1937, a man and woman embark on a headlong flight into the wilderness of illicit passion, fleeing her husband and the temptations of respectability. In Mississippi ten years earlier, a convict sets forth across a flooded river, risking his one chance at freedom to rescue a pregnant woman. From these separate stories Faulkner composes a symphony of deliverance and damnation, survival and self-sacrifice, a novel in which elemental danger is juxtaposed with fatal injuries of the spirit.-Publisher's description
See also...
...when she became not then half of memory became not and if I become not then all of remembering will cease to be.—Yes, he thought, between grief and nothing I will take grief. Harry Wilbourne, in (Ch. 9) "Wild Palms"; p. 324 (Faulkner's italics)
The full context appears to be about forgetting someone you care about. The grief is better than the nothing, than the absence of the person's memory. I could easily think of contexts that Epicurus might lean toward that sentiment.
[ U213 ]
Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 28, p. 1105D: If then, "the memory of a dead friend is pleasant on every count" as Epicurus said, we need no more to make us see the great delight that they renounce when, although they suppose that they can receive and capture the apparitions and likenesses of dead companions {in dreams?} – images that have neither mind nor feeling – they do not think they will ever again meet those friends themselves, or ever again see a dear father or dear mother or perhaps a gentle wife, and have not even the hope of such company.
Cf. Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 63.7: Thinking of departed friends is to me something sweet and mellow.
Welcome aboard!
You'll find a lot of discussion around here on the practical application of Epicurean philosophy along with deep dives into the finer points of the philosophy. The forum has something for everyone with a curiosity about the topic.
One point I've come to appreciate over the years - especially though Cassius's perspective - is that the the ethics don't stand alone. Epicurus built his philosophy from the ground up, so the ethics is firmly grounded on the physics and the canonic faculties of pleasure/pain, sensations, and anticipations (although there's still plenty of discussion on what that last one entails!). Epicurus stands firm that we live in a completely material universe, governed by natural forces. That for me is the foundation, the starting point.
Have fun! Look forward to your contributions to the conversation.
Welcome aboard, Eric! I think you'll find this a welcoming community. I, too, tend not to "proclaim" my Epicureanism much outside this forum, other than to occasionally mention topics to my wife in general conversation on walks or while enjoying time at a local brewery. This is a great outlet for discussion, research, questions, etc.
Yeah, I'm probably not going to read the book. However, "not taste of death" only seems to occur in the three canonical synoptic gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke (in that chronological order):
It's Jesus failed prophecy that the end of the world was coming before some in his audience died. That didn't happen. Bart Ehrman had a great podcast episode on this failed apocalyptic prophecy recently:
The Gospel of Thomas uses the phrase, but it's so cryptic that anyone can say it means almost anything. The only full manuscript we have of Thomas is much younger than the canonical and in Coptic. There are earlier Greek fragments, but only fragments.
The "death taste" occurs in Logion 1, 18, 19, and 85, and is again so cryptic that it's like a Rohrschach inkblot: "What do you see?"
So, from the description, I'd agree with Titus that Hannah was...creative, maybe bordering on speculative fiction.
Additional resources:
The Gospel of Thomas Collection - Translations and Resources
What are your thoughts on this revision?
The Epicurean will be moral as well as prudent. Morality and prudence directs us to try to minimise harm to others. It is imprudent to engineer sex by force, or by offering a quid pro quo to someone who finds you unattractive, as the subsequent experience is bound to be exceedingly unpleasant for them and detrimental to the perpetrator in the long run. It is imprudent to raise false expectations of permanence in another to obtain sex for a short run. It is imprudent to try to control another person’s behaviour while enjoying a secret freedom oneself. It is imprudent to turn a spouse into a wage slave or a domestic servant.
From my perspective, substituting "wrong" with "imprudent" puts a different spin on each of those behaviors. Those things are imprudent in that there may very well be negative consequences for the perpetrator. The perpetrator's reputation will most likely be negative, so social consequences. The wife (and let's be honest, the majority of perpetrators in these scenarios is male!) will likely become angry (and, imho, rightfully so) and lash out in unexpected and harmful ways. It is simply prudent to treat people honestly, justly, and honorably. As the old saying goes: What goes around, comes around.
btw, I'm using the definition of "imprudent" as "unwise, by failing to consider the likely results of your actions."
Note that I'm not saying that I personally find any of those behaviors any less repugnant by substituting "imprudent", but calling them "wrong" doesn't seem the best way to convey, Epicureanly-speaking, why they aren't generally optimal behaviors.
Nice find, Bryan ! Thanks for sharing.
And I agree, Cassius , those two share some common themes.
I tried to compare the Latin of the two, but Petronius doesn't seem (to my untrained eye) to have cribbed from Lucretius (Lucretius Born c. 99 BC - Died c. 55 BC (aged c. 44); Petronius Born c. 27 AD - Died c. 66 AD (aged c. 38–39)), although I'm sure Petronius knew Lucretius's poem. Maybe it was a Zeitgeist thing with the images that Petronius uses? Or maybe he was riffing on De Rerum Natura to show off his erudition? Here is the beginning of each poem/section:
Lucretius
Et quo quisque fere studio devinctus adhaeret
aut quibus in rebus multum sumus ante morati
atque in ea ratione fuit contenta magis mens,
in somnis eadem plerumque videmur obire:
causidici causas agere et componere leges,
induperatores pugnare ac proelia obire,
nautae contractum cum ventis degere bellum,
nos agere hoc autem et naturam quaerere rerum
semper et inventam patriis exponere chartis.
Petronius
Somnia quae mentes ludunt volitantibus umbris,
non delubra deum nec ab aethere numina mittunt,
sed sibi quisque facit. Nam cum prostrata sopore
urget membra quies et mens sine pondere ludit,
quidquid luce fuit tenebris agit.
Don any comment on the "evil-doer"?
"Evil-doer" in the Greek is how Bailey is translating ἀδικοῦντα "one who is committing an injustice." Epicurus Wiki uses "wrongdoer." Saint-Andre simply uses " to commit an injustice." The word is from ἄδικος (ádikos, “wrong, unjust”) = ἄ "not" + δικος "just"
So, Bailey has "It is hard for an evil-doer to escape detection, but to be confident that he will continue to escape detection indefinitely is impossible."
Saint-Andre has "It is easy to commit an injustice undetected, but impossible to be sure that you have escaped detection."
Epicurus Wiki (EW) has "For a wrongdoer to be undetected is difficult; and for him to have confidence that his concealment will continue is impossible."
I do not know where Saint-Andre is getting it is easy! The word is δύσκολον which means difficult, troublesome, etc. Bailey and EW have it correct.
Would someone who follows Epicurus' teachings commit injustices if they were never seen?
I would comment with VS7...
7. It is easy to commit an injustice undetected, but impossible to be sure that you have escaped detection.
ἀδικοῦντα λαθεῖν μὲν δύσκολον, πίστιν δὲ λαβεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαθεῖν ἀδύνατον.
PS. I'm crossing out easy because that isn't what the Greek says. It's *difficult* to commit an introduce undetected, but impossible to be sure that you've escaped detection.
