if you just avoided it or are remembering a time that you almost stubbed your toe
You would have to remember stubbing your toe badly to gain any pleasure from not stubbing your toe.
Good point. Although you could also remember seeing someone else badly stub their toe.
tackle the wikipedia editors
We are ALL (potential) Wikipedia editors. Just throwing that out there.
Great discussion, and one that can never be revisited too many times. This topic is always an opportunity to revise, rethink, and refocus. Here's my perspective (as of, checks clock, 7:02 am on a random Wednesday morning):
Epicurus places a correct understanding of the gods in a place of paramount and foundational importance in his philosophy. It is the first Principal Doctrine. It is discussed first in the Letter to Menoikeus. And so on.
However, what is shown to be paramount and foundational is the firm knowledge and conviction that:
Epicurus reasons all these out, but this is specifically to get rid of the fear of the gods so prevalent in so many people, both in ancient times and still in our own.
That said, whether you take a realist or idealist position on Epicurean gods is secondary - in my opinion. David Sedley is the main popularizer of this position, but I believe it was floating around prior to his and A.A. Long's exposition of it. I usually go to Lucretius point about "you can use Bacchus to refer to wine, Ceres to refer to the grain harvest, etc, but know you're using metaphors" kind of thing. I can walk into a cathedral and be awed by the grandeur. That doesn't mean I need to accept the theology inherent in the architecture. I can enjoy religious music but don't need to believe in gods. I probably think of myself as a functional atheist. I find it unlikely there are gods of any kind with an objective physical existence. Are there aliens more intelligent than humans? Sure, I can believe that. But they are not "gods" but simply other beings in the infinite universe.
As an avid fan of Wikipedia
Agreed. WP is a wonderful tool, and I highly encourage anyone - especially librarians and educators - interested in it to edit the online encyclopedia to understand how it works in practice.
I've dipped my toes into Buddhism, Taoist, Christianity, Absurdism, and Stoicism, among other ideas. And yet, nothing has ever felt quite right, at least not for extended periods of time.
You're in good company. Many who found their way here have "dipped their toes" in all those streams, especially Buddhism and Stoicism.
Currently I'm reading Austin's book Living for pleasure as recommended here
Great introduction. Austin's book, in my opinion, is the most approachable and practical introduction to the philosophy in print right now.
Honestly, I wasn’t planning to post at all
That's how I started out here, too. It didn't take long until I started taking part in the forum and asking questions and offering my perspective. We all try to be welcoming, and I continue to see this forum as a unique place online where open, frank, thoughtful discussion of Epicurus and his philosophy is taken seriously.
As I said above, welcome aboard!
The Wikipedia article is a mess. If you have the time to edit with supporting citations, go for it. I've been editing Wikipedia off and on for - checks userpage - yikes! - 15+ years, but haven't had the chance or inclination to wade into the potential edit battles that would ensue in trying to steer that specific article into a better direction.
Hmm, related question I’m pondering this morning: Is NOT stubbing your toe pleasurable?
I would say thinking about not stubbing your toe is pleasurable, for instance, if you just avoided it or are remembering a time that you almost stubbed your toe or if your friend tells you about their painful stub you realize you're glad you didn't stub yours (at the same time commiserating with your friend). I don't think there's a state of non-stubbing that somehow exists outside of specific contexts.
If he really meant that the goal was an ascetic, zombie-like state of painlessness, it would make no sense for him to talk about the enjoyment of luxuries right before.
Well stated!
Okay, as an experiment, I've added Epicurist as the translation of ΕΠΙΚΟΥΡΕΙΟΣ on my avatar. Just trying it on for size.
I had the thought that I kind of like the parallel with "scientist." Epicurist philosophy? Epicuric philosophy? I realize this wordplay swims against centuries of usage of "Epicurean" so I don't expect it to "catch on." But play is pleasure so let's play a little. Let's be real: the name of the website is EpicureanFriends after all 
Citations from Oxford English Dictionary (earliest 1579):
1579 Which fantasie that good man Epicurus, and all Epicuristes [Dutch Epicuristen] haue likewise followed, and stoutlie defended.
G. Gilpin, translation of P. van Marnix van Sant Aldegonde, Bee Hiue of Romishe Church 107
1610 Were not the Epicurists [Latin Epicurei] in great accoumpt at Athens?
J. Healey, translation of St. Augustine, Citie of God xviii. xli. 729
1787 I was ready to cry out with the Epicurist.
W. Wallbeck, Fables Ded. p. xxi
1860 He did not pause with the speculative Epicurists, who care to follow an idea only so far as it makes things easy.
Dial April 259
1967 The Epicurists and some Stoics condoned suicide because they embraced the point of view that death is the cure for all ills.
Psychoanalytic Review vol. 54 424
2011To concentrate on the present, a practice the Stoics and Epicurists valued greatly.
C. Dunker, Constit. Psychoanalytic Clinic v. 121
Epicurist also echoes ΕΠΙΚΟΥΡΕΙΟΣ (Epikoureios) more than Epicurean to my eyes/ears.
And Latin Ĕpĭcūrēus
epicurist - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
PS. I'm not actually actively advocating for using "Epicurist" as an alternative to "Epicurean." Just pointing out the potential. I like Godfrey 's co-opting of the co-opting. 
QuoteAs Lucretius summarizes in book two of On The Nature of Things, Epicurists believe the ultimate good for human nature is as follows:
To avoid bodily pain, to have a mind free from anxiety and fear, and to enjoy the pleasures of the senses.
I'm curious to read the whole article, but I saw this quote above and found it intriguing.
1. I never thought of the word "Epicurist" but it's certainly more compact than "student of Epicurean philosophy."
2. I was initially reluctant to endorse that summary, but, on reflection, that's not a bad summary. Let me explain my perspective:
To avoid bodily pain - As long as this is interpreted to mean "avoid" and not eliminate. "Epicurists" make choices to experience pain to avoid more future pain.
to have a mind free from anxiety and fear - I may get pushback, but I still see this as an essential part of the philosophy. A mind free from anxiety and fear is a baseline to make prudent choices and to fully experience sensual pleasures.
to enjoy the pleasures of the senses - Yep, in all their multifariousness.
This is all with the caveat that ANY summary is reductive and comes with issues, ex. the Tetrapharmakos. I remain an advocate for that summary while also acknowledging its shortcomings.
Joshua asked about the Greek word for "weight" in the characteristics of the atom: βάρος (baros). From which we get words like barometric, barometer "instrument for measuring the weight or pressure of the atmosphere," barophobia "an abnormal fear of gravity."
ὁ γενναῖος περὶ σοφίαν καὶ φιλίαν μάλιστα γίγνεται, ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστι νοητον ἀγαθόν, τὸ δὲ ἀθάνατον.
"One who is noble in mind (ὁ γενναῖος) most of all depends upon wisdom (σοφίαν) and friendship (φιλίαν) — one is a good perceptible to the mind, thinkable, and imaginable; the other, everlasting and perpetual."
ἀθάνατον literally means "un-dying" or "not subject to death." I've taken than as the wisdom we acquire dies with us; but friendship with others has ripples that outlive us. The impact we have on our friends lives on after we die.
Welcome aboard
"Is Cicero Right That Death a Better Place?"
I'm not saying Cicero uses the word, but if anyone tries to say something like "the afterlife is a utopia" remember that utopia literally means "no-place." Coined from Ancient Greek οὐ (ou, “not”) + τόπος (tópos, “place, region”). It's not spelled eutopia "good place." The afterlife is not a place, it does not exist. We do not exist after our death other than in the memories of the living. Make an effort to be memorable to your family, your friends. Be the best parent, partner, and friend you can be. That is your afterlife.
"ag dul siar ar bhóithrín na smaointe"
The Irish (Gaelic) phrase for reminiscing.
Literally, "going back down the little lane of thoughts; going back on the road of ideas"
bhóithrín "a small, quite often badly maintained track or lane, commonly found in rural areas."
Think of English "taking a trip down memory lane" but I like that idea that, even if the road is badly maintained, you're still going travel down it to visit a cherished memory.
(VERY roughly pronounced : ag dool she-ar air vo-run na shmin-cha)
That's fascinating, Joshua . You could very well be on to something, if for no other reason than (relative) safety in numbers.
That meme, though
οὐδὲν γίνεται ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος
nothing comes into being out of what is non-existent.
Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus 38
There's also the sentiment expressed by things like "football is my religion"
If it's an Epicurean argument, was Cicero extending it to the existence of souls on his own, without precedent from Epicurean texts, or is it likely that the Epicureans reasoned this way in regard to souls as well as gods?
I'm not convinced that the prolepsis of the gods includes their blessedness and incorruptibility. The prolepsis has to do with their existence. The blessedness and incorruptibility are the proper "beliefs" that we should assign to them. When Epicurus says (in the letter to Menoikeus):
believe that the god is a blessed and imperishable thing as is the common, general understanding of the god. You, [Menoikeus], believe everything about which a god is able to preserve its own imperishability and blessedness for itself. Do not attribute anything foreign to its incorruptibility or incongruous with the blessedness of the god!
He's using the word "believe" and "general understanding" and "attribute" not prolepsis. Then later:
Gods exist (θεοὶ εἰσιν), and the knowledge of them is manifest to the mind's eye.
That "enarges ἐναργὴς" or "manifest to the mind's eye" to me says that the existence of the gods is the readily discernible "knowledge" and nothing more. Then, by reason, we assign the proper common, general understanding of the god as incorruptible and blessed.
On the other hand, the "soul" (shudder... I *really* dislike using that loaded term) is apparent because we're alive. BUT *remember* neither Epicurus nor Cicero uses our Christian-laden term "soul."
Epicurus consistently talks about the ψυχή (psykhe - psyche) which is akin to the Latin anima. Both can refer to "the animating principle of a human or animal body, vital spirit, soul, life." The ψυχή can also be thought as the "mind" or where reason happens. It seems the big argument - then and now - was whether this seat of reason or the principle that gave animation and life to a body, human or animal, existed separately from the body or whether it came into existence with the physical body. Did it exist prior to the body or can it exist after the body decays? Or is it inextricably interwoven WITH the body, arising together and decaying together at death?
The difference between gods and the soul/ψυχή/anima is that we can see the latter at work every time we look at a living body... or sense our own existence for that matter! No prolepsis is needed. A body is animate, it has an anima/ψυχή. A body is dead, something happened to the anima/ψυχή.
Key to this analysis is that I think most of us agree that the faculty of prolepses leads toward formation of opinions, but that a prolepsis is not itself an opinion. Cicero doesn't seem to accept this, and he seems to think that an Epicurean prolepsis is a fully formed opinion, and since all men have the opinion that gods exist and that souls survive death, that makes it true. I also think most of us agree that Epicurus would say that it doesn't matter how many people think a thing to be so, that's not sufficient evidence of its truth - we should require sound reasoning based on observations from the senses, prolepsis, and feelings, and these are not subject to majority vote.
Agreed. That's why I content that the prolepsis of the gods does not cover their blessed and incorruptibility.
