We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
For those coming across this thread later, here a link to my article about the size and location of the Kepos and a talk I gave at a 20th online gathering:
A word of introduction on this one: Not a moment is devoted to the discussion of "idealist" vs "realist" perspectives.
If y'all do decide to wade into that, let me know, and I'll gird my loins (and refresh my memory on the sources) and show up ready to... talk 
Thank you for asking Twentier and you now have that trophy.
Hey! Over here!
From a quick search at Perseus:
Diogenes Laertius, Lives 4.6.41
Arcesilaus
Diogenes Laertius,
Lives of Eminent Philosophers,
BOOK IV, Chapter 6. ARCESILAUS (c. 318-242 B.C.)
The most virulent attacks were made upon [Arcesilaus] in the circle of Hieronymus the Peripatetic, whenever he collected his friends to keep the birthday of Halcyoneus, son of Antigonus, an occasion for which Antigonus used to send large sums of money to be spent in merrymaking.
Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.8.101
Menippus
Diogenes Laertius,
Lives of Eminent Philosophers,
BOOK VI, Chapter 8. MENIPPUS
However, the writings of Menippus the Cynic are thirteen in number : [including]
A book about the birth of Epicurus ; and The School's reverence for the twentieth day.
Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales 8.1
Question I. CONCERNING THOSE DAYS IN WHICH SOME FAMOUS MEN WERE BORN
Plutarch,
Quaestiones Convivales,
Book 8., chapter 1
ON the sixth day of May we celebrated Socrates's birthday, and on the seventh Plato's; and that first prompted us to such discourse as was suitable to the meeting...
Posting for discussion, but I felt this piece on CBS Sunday Morning hit some valuable Epicurean themes. The worship of productivity and the virtue signaling of unceasing activity are opposed to an Epicurean attitude of rest and activity, at least from my perspective.
So apparently feasting and sacrifices were part of birthday celebrations for Plato and Socrates.
Evidently....
Their custom was to celebrate the birthday of Socrates on the sixth day of the month Thargelion, which by their reckoning coincided with his death day. And they celebrated by engaging in Socratic dialogue, which for them was the logos that was resurrected every time people engage in Socratic dialogue.
Gregory Nagy is an authoritative source, too. The Center has some great resources.
PS. And I'm going to do a little horn-tooting and put a link to my paper on Epicurus's birthday:
Ya'll have been active while I was asleep 
Some great posts.
practices that may seem cultish today may have served functions of which we are completely unaware.
Completely agree. Without the everyday cultural context, it's almost impossible to put ourselves fully in the mindset of an ancient person. As one example, what did Epicurus feel and think when he was participating in the city festivals (other than gaining pleasure from it)? And the "funeral offerings to my father, mother, and brothers" are specifically called ἐνάγισμα (enagisma) which one source describes as "enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are particular to hero-cults and the cult of the dead." (Lots of interesting info in that source for sacrifice and ritual. I may have referenced it in the past.)
I was somewhat interested to learn, after reading Cicero's condemnation on this point, that Plotinus--the founder of Neoplatonism in the 3rd century AD--was adamant that his birthday not be celebrated, and that his portrait not be carved or painted
Wow! THAT is a great find, Joshua ! That information is completely new to me and certainly does shed an interesting light on Epicurus's decision to celebrate his birthday, both during his life and in perpetuity after his death!
I think it is important (for me at least) to be clear that the areas where he would change his mind involve relatively insignificant speculations on operations of nature which he knew were open to revision. On the "more philosophical" matters of ethics and epistemology I don't think he would have any reason to revise much at all.
Agreed. My point was "If Epicurus learned modern atomic theory and related findings..." Epicurus's atomic theory and the modern Standard Model BOTH posit a material, non-supernatural universe. To me, Epicurus's ethics and epistemology rest on his physics (AND I have you, Cassius , to thank for that understanding!) which set out the general view that we live in that kind of universe. Even if the details of the physics are different, both Epicurus and modern scientists would agree - from my perspective - that we do indeed live in a world uncreated by gods, governed by understandable principles, and composed of matter and/or energy (depending on what level you want to concentrate).
Despite the school encouraged the study of nature, which is as 'scientific' approach as it possibly could be at the time, the same school attracted people with unscientific, pious, almost cult like behaviour towards Epicurus and his teachings putting him in a weird position of some kind of a saviour, god or something like that. I called it a concealed ideology as I suspect something I don't know, or understand, was going on behind the scenes. On top of that, what was completely on display, also leaves me scratching my head sometimes. (yes, I'm thinking 'the real gods' in intermundia, for example). Materialistic school with pious students? Eternal gods made of matter? I guess you can cook a duck and duck a cook at the same time but it's kinda weird
I'm not trying to belittle Epicureanism in any way, I simply try to understand what ancient Epicureanism was really like.
I think you raise some interesting and valid points, TauPhi . I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts and to give anyone interested a chance to add to the discussion.
My first thought as I read your post was: Although we can see "scientific" precursors in ancient Greek philosophy, they weren't *really* doing science. To me, science as a discipline has specific techniques and ways of experimenting and collecting data. The University of California Berkeley hosts a website, Understanding Science 101, which says: "all science relies on testing ideas by figuring out what expectations are generated by an idea and making observations to find out whether those expectations hold true. Accepted scientific ideas are reliable because they have been subjected to rigorous testing. But, as new evidence is acquired and new perspectives emerge, these ideas can be revised." They also have a nice diagram that shows the nonlinear "process of science"
Neither Democritus nor Epicurus nor Aristotle nor any other ancient Greek or Roman really followed a scientific process. I think they contributed to the lineage that would eventually lead to science as a discipline, but they didn't "do science." They tried their best to make sense of the natural world around them (Exploration and Discovery in the diagram?). However, they didn't try to get feedback or analysis. They maybe tested their ideas in a rudimentary way but certainly didn't run experiments. They gathered the facts as best they could and, through introspection, "thought experiments," and elimination of possible causes (in their limited understanding) came up with the best explanation. Now, that said, i think Epicurus came up with some of the best explanations for his time. His intuition and personal introspective analysis was closer to right than wrong more often than not... that's why we're here discussing Epicurean philosophy 2,300+ years later. We feel it still has value millennia later. But he still got a number of things wildly incorrect when measured against modern scientific understanding.
Do I think Epicurus would change his mind about some of his ideas given a chance to learn modern explanations? Sure. He can be applauded for getting it right, but that "getting it right" is relative to all the other explanations out there at the time. He was a novel thinker, and maybe he was closer to right more often than not because everyone else had come up with bad ideas (to which he was responding) and with which Epicurus didn't agree. He wanted a better solution, and it just so happens that his alternative solutions were closer (certainly not exact) to how we understand the world now... by virtue of being opposed to the common knowledge of his day. That doesn't take anything away from the value of his writings nor does it make light of his contribution to helping others - well past his lifetime - live a more productive and happy life.
Okay, so that's Epicurus getting his study of nature right even though he wasn't doing science as we think of it... his approach was at least science-adjacent or pre-scientific.
Did Epicurus structure the Garden as a cult to himself? Well... He did institute the celebration of his birthday during his lifetime. He did institute the 20th celebration each month as a celebration of himself and Metrodorus... like the other monthly celebrations of the gods like Apollo, Aphrodite, etc. The question would have to be asked if he instituted those celebrations at the request of his students or did his student request to celebrate him and he provided a structure for them. From the texts, especially the fragments (and larger sections) of On Nature, Epicurus was definitely THE LEADER of his school and the one who wrote a 37-volume lecture course with HIM as the lecturer. There's also "Honoring a wise one is itself a great good to the one who honors." (ὁ τοῦ σοφοῦ σεβασμὸς ἀγαθὸν μέγα τῷ σεβομένῳ ἐστί.) The word used there means "to be moved by awe, fear, or respect for others or for their opinions;" and can also be used in a religious sense as honoring a god; to revere; to worship. Epicurus didn't seem to discourage this kind of respect, awe, etc.; however, he also reciprocated from time to time (IF I remember correctly). He also practiced this reverencing/honoring in relation to the gods himself in his participation in the rites and festivals, both in the Garden and in the city. It was a natural result of this "honoring the wise one" that he was basically deified after his death... he wasn't around to stop his students from doing it ("Do all things as if Epicurus were watching.") But I think Cassius made a good observation in an earlier post that the Epicurean gods didn't interfere in human affairs. It's metaphor at least. And "true piety" is showing respect/awe for the correct reasons as opposed to showing respect/awe out of fear for divine punishment or desire for divine gifts.
Calling Epicurus a "savior" or "god" as Lucretius does, honestly, doesn't really bother me... as long as I interpret it metaphorically. Epicurus "literally" "saved" people from ignorance and fear. That makes him, by definition, a savior.
As for the gods... I'm still not convinced that Epicurus believed there were giant humanoids living between world-systems, replenishing their atoms continuously.
All that is another reason I don't think we'll ever recreate the Garden as the Garden was during Epicurus's time or during it's existence into the Roman era. We do NOT know nor can we know (without some wondrous trove of semi-complete papyri coming out of the new Herculaneum scroll-reading technology!) how the life of the Garden functioned and how students were recruited, taught, housed, etc. We have NO real idea what ceremonies were involved in the 20th celebrations. We have no idea how demanding Epicurus was in showing him (and Metrodorus and Hermarchus and Polyaenus) "reverence and awe." We really don't know how the practice of parrhesia (frank criticism) was carried out, although Philodemus (writing a century-and-a-half after Epicurus) does provide an invaluable text on that. There is too much we don't know.
What we do know - and what we have - is a systematic way of looking at the world and of living one's life to the fullest in pursuit of eudaimonia. I still think the substance of Epicurus's philosophy has something to say in the modern world. In some ways, I see our attempt at applying a 2-1/2 millennia old philosophy to our own lives as akin to the efforts by some "secular Buddhists" to rid that philosophy of its supernatural and religious accretions and apply it to their lives. With all respect to Cassius (and I know why he says it! and kudos for that), we're all in some ways "neo-Epicureans." There's no way we can really be "classical Epicureans" in every sense of that phrase. For me, we're trying to stay true to the "spirit" of Epicurean philosophy without being beholden to the "letter" of Epicurean philosophy.
I am an eclectic (and an Epicurean friend at the same time) and it works for me.
And if it works, that's what's important. You're getting pleasure from your search and your path. Who knows? I may end up walking the path of the eclectic in the future again. It's certainly been a long and winding road to get to the Garden Path: Christian Mystic, "Druid," Buddhist, etc... I've had various descriptions of the path I was on before I got here. So far... I like the view from the Garden and plan to put my feet up and enjoy a cold beverage for awhile.
I'll end by saying I enjoy your company here and appreciate your willingness to engage in friendly discussion and to challenge from time to time. That opportunity to think through some issues is very helpful.
PS. Oh my! That ended up way longer than I intended. Mea culpa.
Maybe Epicureanism was not intended as a guide for people trying to come up with their own recipes for their lives. Maybe Epicureanism was designed as yet another concealed ideology for people who are perfectly fine with buying a cookbook and never stray from its content.
Epicurus started teaching philosophy because he thought he had a system superior to all the others that were teaching during his time. He no doubt felt he had 'figured it out." I get the impression that one didn't join a school - did not seek out a school - to then "come up with their own recipes for their lives." To continue the metaphor, you liked the menu of the school. That's why you joined the school. You ate the food, learned the recipes, you tried to recreate the food at home, you got feedback from the chefs, repeat.
I don't think the "ideology" was concealed. I think the ideology - I'd say the teaching and tenets of the school - was completely on display, like a menu posted at the door of a restaurant. That's why people joined.
I want to state explicitly that there's nothing wrong with charting one's own course, taking a cafeteria approach to a life philosophy (to stay with the metaphor). Choosing dishes that work for the person. I took that approach myself in the past. However, I feel that starting with an established philosophy or religion or lifestyle gets you further down the road. It's not necessarily nefarious to want to use the cookbook from someone who appears to know how to cook.
At the very least one observation that goes along with the discussion is that Epicurus was long dead even when that was written, so he was not around to give orders, nor does there seem to have been a strict passing of "authority."
Well said, Cassius ! I see the αρχη "authority" as expressed in πειθαρχησομεν as more like "authoritative" in this case, like an "authoritative" research source. Even in Sic Fac Omnia Tamquam Spectet Epicurus "Do all things as if Epicurus were watching" the important word is tamquam "as if." Epicurus is NOT watching you. Epicurus has ceased to exist. You can read his texts (or at least some of them) and consider his advice as transmitted through his surviving texts. But we can't submit our choices TO Epicurus and have him pass judgement from some seat of authority.
I would also see an analogy to seeing Epicurus as "a god" or even a "father figure" as Lucretius discusses -- gods don't intervene to tell us what to do, they serve as examples that we emulate as best we can.
I also really like this observation. Even if Epicurus is seen as a "god" by Lucretius or the subsequent generations studying in the ancient Garden, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Epicurean gods don't interfere, interact, judge, etc. any aspect of human behavior. Another reason I like the "idealist" over the "realist" idea of the Epicurean gods. But I won't digress down that rabbit hole here.
At the same time, there is no doubt in my mind that some kind of uniformity of message is necessary if one is to be logically thought of as an Epicurean.
Yes. And to the rest of that paragraph
But if being considered an Epicurean means anything, it means some kind of agreement with core doctrines. And if one is running a school or any kind of organization, then it's inherent in the organization that there is going to be some kind of line between what is and what is not acceptable.
And so it's a matter of what the "core doctrines" are. We do a good job of hashing those out on this forum.
I want to add my opinion of one aspect of this discussion...
There is no way to have the Garden be reborn in the modern era. There is no way that any group that calls itself "Epicurean" in the 21st Century CE can be considered THE Epicurean Garden Reborn. Not this forum, not other fora, not any Facebook group, not any Discord group, nor any other group of people has any legitimate imprimatur to assign the label of The REAL Epicureans to themselves to the exclusion of others. It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, just philosophically applied: "Well, no TRUE Epicurean would do/say XYZ." Other than the ancient, fragmentary texts, there was no Epicurean "apostolic" succession of authoritative scholarchs throughout history from the death of Epicurus through to our time to which questions of legitimacy can be addressed. And "apostolic succession" doesn't guarantee adherence to the original practices and beliefs of the founder. Look at the multitude of sects calling themselves "Christian"! The best we can do is come together with τὸν ὅμοιον σεαυτῷ "those like ourselves" and discuss how to apply Epicurean philosophy as we have come to understand it to the conduct of our lives.
All that said, I think we can come to an understanding generally how those Epicurean principles are to be applied in a modern context, but we will NEVER EVER EVER have something that is exactly like the ancient Garden. Nor would we want to, from my perspective. For one, I hope no one would condone the institution of slavery that was ubiquitous in the ancient world and taken for granted inside and outside the Garden. Yes, Epicurus welcomed enslaved people into the Garden and freed several of his enslaved people in his will: "Of my slaves I manumit Mys, Nicias, Lycon, and I also give Phaedrium her liberty." But note he said "of my slaves" - plural - So there were more than those four. More than likely educated enslaved people were involved in the copying and dissemination of his writings throughout the ancient world. There's a fascinating recent book on the role of enslaved scribes in the development of Christianity. We live in a different culture and society from that in which Epicurus lived and died and what was there cannot be replicated here without some - maybe even a lot - of negotiation with the cultural context in which the texts were written. I don't advocate proof-texting using the ancient writings, i.e., knowing what we want the texts to say and picking and choosing excerpts that support that position; but we have to let the texts say what they say.
And, I'll end with...
So that's my position, as of 11:57 AM on April 26, 2024... As Cassius always say, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
He genuinely makes the claim that Lucretius believed in an intelligent creator, someone who set the atoms into motion.
Well... That should be interesting.
The word specifically used by Philodemus is πειθαρχησομεν and translator of "On Frank Criticism" translates it as "obey (one in authority)" which is in line with the LSJ definition. However, the word is related directly to:
πείθω
to convince, persuade
to succeed through entreaty
(mediopassive, πείθομαι, and Epic future, πῐθήσω, with dative)
to obey, yield
to believe, trust
(second perfect active, πέποιθᾰ, with passive sense) to trust, rely on (with dative of person or thing)
(perfect passive, πέπεισμαι, post-Epic) to believe, trust (with dative)
Which, I believe, adds necessary nuance to that "obey" and gets closer to being convinced there is a reason to trust, believe, rely on the person or school or "authority" (αρχή) by which one chooses to live one's life.
Thanks, Eikadistes !
It makes sense that there was a demarcation point in ancient Greece and Rome when someone declared themselves a member of the Garden and declared themselves an Epicurean and follower of Epicurus's philosophical School. There are numerous examples in the texts - Cicero and elsewhere - of people deciding to join or leave the Epicurean School. So, there had to be something "official" to mark the point in time when one joined the school, "forsaking all others" as the traditional marriage vows say.
It also strikes me that, since the Garden was open to all to attend lecturs, there could have been any number of casual Epicurean-adjacent folks.
The schools did function as membership organizations and schools vied against each other for "converts" so to speak.
That said, we don't have any authorities or hierarchies or apostolic succession now. It seems to me that one could make a personal commitment to "obey Epicurus, according to whom we/I have chosen to live..." And the Philodemus does use πειθαρχέω "obey one in authority." This doesn't mean "blind faith" to me. It seems to me that that gets at the ideas that "I believe Epicurus knew what he was talking about." As modern Epicureans would not accept without testing against reality, the best findings of science, but to also withhold judgement if multiple explanations were available... Like how the universe came into existence or if it's eternal or eternally cyclical or... And so on.
I realize I've strayed is far from the main topic! Feel free to branch this discussion off to another thread. But I find this thread very interesting.
I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"? There are several people on this forum who have expressed that they were living an "Epicurean" life before they knew about Epicurus.
The more I think about this, I think it could be possible to be an "accidental Epicurean." There are so many "common sense" beliefs today with science and all that one could maybe carry on a substantially Epicurean lifestyle and outlook without thinking of oneself as "being Epicurean."
That said, I think it highly unlikely that one could be an accidental Christian or accidental Jew or accidental Muslim. Maybe an accidental Buddhist - at least secular Buddhist maybe?
Or not? Thoughts?
This conversation between Dawkins and Dennett hits, probably inadvertently, a number of Epicurean themes. This seems to dovetail with the thread on what Epicurean philosophy offers in April 2024. We live in a time when Epicurus is present more often than not, often unacknowledged.
There have been some great responses to your original list of questions, Cassius . Here's my take fwiw:
Don't you have to be rich to be an Epicurean?
No, but... It seems to me you have to have your basic needs met. You don't need to be "rich" (however one defines that), but you can't be starving, homeless, in fear for your life or for when your next meal might be to be living with eudaimonia. If we look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs or the revision of Maslow by Diener and Tay, we find there are some basic needs that need to be met, but (as Diener and Tay show in their research) you can also be working on fulfilling different needs at the same time and still experience well-being (or subjective well-being - SWB - as they term it).
I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"? There are several people on this forum who have expressed that they were living an "Epicurean" life before they knew about Epicurus. Epicurus posited that an "Epicurean" life was a natural life, informed by one's natural state of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. There are details and more, of course and no doubt, that constitute an Epicurean life (e.g., material universe, indifferent gods (if one wants to say they exist physically), no afterlife, etc.) but you can be living "like an Epicurean" without maybe even realizing it.
Epicureanism doesn't offer anything "positive" like Stoicism or Buddhism offers. What do you offer to compete with those?
I think Eikadistes said it well: "Epicurean Philosophy offers freedom. It champions choice and rejects fate. It liberates us from turmoil by rejecting superstition. It offers a worldview that recognizes friendship as the greatest pleasure in life, and also, our surest source of security." That all sounds pretty positive to me!
What if your life isn't "together" and you don't have time to read philosophy? Why would someone like that spending any time discussing Epicurus?
Again, I would stress that Epicurus calls one to a "natural life." You don't need to immerse yourself in the philosophy to understand the basics and to reap benefits. It is natural to seek pleasure and avoid pain. It is natural to want an untroubled mind in a healthy body. Question your choices: Will what I'm doing lead to more pain or more pleasure? Realize that you have control over your life, you are responsible for your life. You are the captain of your own little boat... and seek out friends who can help, assist, support, and guide you.
That said, if you're life isn't "together" to the extent that you need professional counseling or medical assistance, seek out the counseling or medical attention!
Epicurus's advice to Menoikeus says it well: One is never too young or too old to love and practice wisdom. It is never out of season or untimely to seek well-being. The time for you to seek happiness is now, here.
Why don't you ever discuss "meaningfulness" because I've been convinced that's what I should want out of life?
What convinced you of that, and what do you mean by "meaningfulness" or "purpose". There is no meaning to life other than to pursue pleasure in all its multiplicity. Monty Python said the "meaning of life" was "try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations." Not bad, as far as it goes for a comedic film. The Universe does NOT provide a "meaning" for each individual life or for itself. There is no Great Meaning behind it all. To me, that is freeing! We make our own "meaning" when we decide what impact we will have, what we will focus on, how we treat others and in turn how we want others to treat us, and so on. Pursuing well-being by pursuing pleasure and avoiding unnecessary pain is a purpose.
How do you expect me to understand Epicurus when he approaches so many things so differently than what I am familiar with at church or in the workplaces?
Maybe a fresh perspective is necessary. What do you believe you get of value from the approaches at church or the workplace? It sounds like you may be finding those things unsatisfactory if you're still seeking answers. The Christian church is built on a foundation of Greek philosophy anyway - mostly Stoic and Platonic principles. It pays lip service to Jesus's apocalyptic message, but the ancient Greek influence is strong. So, you're already following a philosophy if you're taking your cues from church.
I would again point to Eikadistes 's list of things you already understand from an Epicurean perspective. By and large, we live in an Epicurean world now. Epicurus was a prelude and precursor to science, an acceptance of a material world, a curiosity about extraterrestrial life, and more.
Epicurus also taught the importance - the vital importance - of friendship. Friendship is like dancing in a chorus, clasped hands, twirling round and round. Each dancer supports the other. Epicureanism is a philosophy of friendship linked with personal responsibility for one's life, a life lived in a material world free from the fear of gods and free from anxiety about death. That sounds life a pretty good alternative to the "common knowledge" found in church and in the workplace.
Here's the beginning of the text from Xenophon:
I can't help thinking that this is the reason why Lucretius seems to me to be saying the same thing over and over in various passages, just using different words, as if that's not just poetry but the way to triangulate on precise meanings:
Do I remember correctly that Lucretius specifically writes about having difficulty translating Greek words/ideas into Latin... Or am I thinking of Cicero?
