I don't think "lathē biosas" is a goal. I would characterize it as a strategy... Or is it a tactic? I get those two confused. It seems to me to be more of a skillful means to navigate the vicissitudes of the opinions of the hoi polloi and to assess what is important and what is not in living a pleasurable life.
The phrase is misunderstood and mistranslated as some kind of call to being a hermit or recluse, and I vehemently disagree with that.
Fwiw, here's a thread started in 2020 on this topic...
Happy Hogmanay everybody!! Here's to remembering the pleasant memories of "auld lang syne" and looking forward to the pleasures awaiting in 2024.
This assumes that all people have a special gift or talent waiting to be discovered and nurtured. This is an old Western humanist notion that I personally don't think is as true as we'd like to think. Some (probably most) people just don't have any hidden talent and that's ok. This mentality is liberating because it stops us from pressuring kids to 'prove themselves' or 'make something of themselves'. What if just accept that the most valid reason to stick around is to just be: to give pleasure and to take pleasure.
I should probably rephrase my original rephrasing again in light of your objection, but I'll just forge ahead. Upon reflection, I don't think every person has some innate, hidden "God-given" "special gift" or talent that needs uncovering. I do think everyone is interested in something, but without exposing students to a broad range of topics, they may never have another opportunity in having a glimpse of a wider world that's available to them, especially in smaller, rural communities. Speaking from a US perspective, as that's my background and experience.
I would agree that providing an education in the value of pleasure in one's life would be positive.
I don't think a strictly vocational education that it sounded to me like you were advocating is a positive direction. Are you implying only a select elite should be educated? You've also used the term "real talent," but are you referring to the select few who have "real talent" with the hoi polloi somehow being given a lesser education:
it would be better to pick those that have real talent and focus on educating them so that they can assume upon maturity those jobs and responsibilities that require specialization and education.
once I am finished with the book I have started
By the way, we all highly recommend Dr. Emily Austin's book Living for Pleasure as an excellent and very accesible introduction to the philosophy. We had the pleasure of interviewing her:
Welcome aboard, tariq . Thank you for sharing your story.
You'll find a number of us here found Epicurus after involvment (some more, some less) with Stoicism. I "discovered" Epicurus's philosophy via Marcus Aurelius and some general intro to philosophy books.
There's no mobile "app" but the forum software works very well on a browser on a mobile phone or tablet. In fact, the vast majority of my posts have been via mobile.
In the meantime, glad to have you here. Check out the threads and resources here, and looking forward to your contributions to the discussion.
The forum logo no longer appears at the top of the Home Page on mobile.
I'm seeing the logo. Using an Android (Pixel 6) and a DuckDuckGo browser. See image.
There are millions of insignificant events that can't possibly be predetermined.
The predetermined nature of all our choices is exactly what the current crop of the "no free will" crowd says. Their contention is that if we knew the position of every atom and the physical laws that pertained to them, it would be possible to accurately know what would happen next ad infinitum. Just because we don't know how to do that yet doesn't negate the "fact" that there's no free will.
Here are some videos to react to...
It's also a great reference work for questions about the content of On Nature.
This video explains the fate of the universe depends on "the stuff in the universe" (atoms? 
) and "empty space" (void? )
Also... To boggle everyone's mind a little more...
Per this one... It's not "the speed of light", it's the "speed of causality"...
It appears that it's "the speed of light for something with mass is constant in a vacuum."
Yes, tweak agreed to! Good catch. 
I would only add that the possibility still could be that the number isn't infinite but could just be "infinite" relative to us. The difference between 10100,000,000,000 or 101,000,000,000,000,000 or more makes little difference to me.
Jury is still out on that as far as I'm concerned, but it doesn't keep me up at night.
Honestly, I don't think we have to reinterpret or reconcile Epicurean philosophy with the theory of relativity or modern quantum physics, or vice versa.
Both Epicurus and Einstein were doing thought experiments with the knowledge and information they had available at the time, 3rd c. BCE and early 20th c. CE, respectively.
Epicurus's idea of a material universe composed of uncuttable "atoms" moving in a "void" was revolutionary. Einstein's discoveries of general and special relativity were groundbreaking. As scientific discoveries advance, we should not be tied to the literal texts but to their spirit. Epicurus himself was a proponent of waiting for evidence to come to a "final" decision. We can do the same and still think of ourselves as Epicureans.
*The* important takeaways from Epicurus's "atoms and void" are:
Are (1) the illustration of dropping the penny from the train and (2) Einstein in this context, correct, or incorrect?
From the point of view of the person standing on the ground, the stone dropped inside the moving train travels in a curve.
From the point of view of the person dropping it inside the moving train, the stone travels straight down.
The is no ultimate "correct" perspective. It's all relative.
That seems a good analogy/metaphor for some of Epicurean philosophy's position.
A couple mind blowing videos:
(Train explanation at 3:00)
I certainly can't say I disagree with TauPhi 's overall thoughts. It would certainly make for an interesting alternative history novel!
For reference:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , ἐπιβολ-ή , ἐπιβολ-ή
Bryan 's description of "focus" seems a good way to think of it. The basic definition in LSJ of "throwing or laying on" gets at that same idea.
Welcome aboard!
