I would agree with TauPhi in general that calling out climate change specifically isn't necessary as this falls under the study of how the universe works and of natural science.
I see where Kalosyni is coming from though about seeing it as a safety and security issue, but I don't think it necessarily needs its own call-out. Not to say it can't come up in discussions!
And it is often asked why there are so many Epicureans, there are other reasons as well, but this multitude is especially attracted by the fact that they think that to be told by him, whatever is right and honorable, to do them is in itself a joy, that is, a pleasure.
I would agree with this sentiment, that acting right and honorable itself is pleasurable. Isn't this basically what PD05 says?
In looking at the PDs for some ideas, I took a clue from Cyril Bailey's summary of the PDs. He categorized them as:
1-4: The tetrapharmakos, the four-fold fundamental principles necessary for a tranquil life
5: The relation of pleasure to virtue
6, 7: Protection from external disturbances
8-10: The selection of pleasures
11-13: The ethical value of physical science
14-21: The wise man’s life in relation to nature, his fellow men, and to true pleasure (can be sub-divided)
22-26: The tests and standards of moral (i.e., truly pleasant) action
27, 28: Friendship
29, 30: The classification of desires
31-38: Justice and injustice
39, 40: The wise man’s life in the Epicurean community
Now there are many things about which I don't agree with Bailey, but this list is helpful as a starting point.
PD01 and PD02 are the ubiquitous correct understanding of the gods and death.
PD05 gives the standard formula about living pleasurably entails living virtuously/ethically, and vice versa.
PD08 to PD10 talks about making the correct choices and rejections, the core of Epicurean day to day (moment to moment) practice. The practice seems to me to be brought up again in PD20 through PD26. Those are sections I need to investigate in my unending quest to re-compose Principle Doctrines as a text. PD29 (necessary, unnecessary desires, etc.) and PD30 are an important "how to do it" text as well.
PD11 to PD13 talk about the necessity of understanding "how things work" when it comes to allaying fears and superstitions about "astronomical phenomena and death and suffering," "myths," and "what is above and below the earth and in general about the infinite unknown." This conveys the importance of studying natural science and to understand how the physical, material universe works.
PD14 and PD15 talks about the fact that unlimited wealth isn't necessary to pursue a pleasurable life. Sufficient wealth is "limited and easy to acquire."
PD17 is a good reminder: "One who acts aright (δίκαιος) is utterly steady and serene (ἀταρακτότατος), whereas one who goes astray is full of trouble and confusion."
PD27 is our friendship one!
The Justice PDs are important from an ethical standpoint in that they say how people should treat each other, especially PD31 "Natural justice is a covenant for mutual benefit, to not harm one another or be harmed."
PD39 and 40 are not straightforward when trying to translate, but are potentially helpful.
that's an Epicurean position (that there are only two)
That's also a position of modern neuropsychology if you look at it as positive and negative affect (coupled with high or low arousal). We are *always* experiencing one affect or the other.
LOL. You do fly that flag often, and usually for good reason.
It sounds like you're asking for two things. One an easy way to copy paste Greek into scanned docs with bad OCR. The other a glossary.
I have no problem with the first, however that comes about.
The latter is the one I have problems with. Lists like that can provide a false sense of security. Even when a Greek word has an "obvious" English translation, nuance is still at play. Especially when it comes to philosophical discourse. It may not be a big deal to determine the exact shade of green meant by πράσινος unless you're an art historian or museum restorer, but even there, context is everything. The idea that there's an easy one to one correspondence between languages is specious.
Now, of course, we can read translations! We'd be the poorer for it. Of course, people speaking different languages can communicate.
But simply accepting that ηδονής means voluptas means pleasure gives one an assurance that one understands the meaning of a text when there's more going on than a surface meaning.
PS. I'd offer a permutation on your adage:
"Don't let the 'good enough' masquerade as the good."
Acceptance of good enough equivalencies are sometimes indeed good enough. Other times, good enough equivalencies paper over real complexities in meaning.
I would be very reluctant to endorse a simple one-to-one glossary of Greek/Latin/English terms. See my recent post on the notes from Dr. Gordon's book regarding ηδονη/voluptas/pleasure. Maybe a list connecting to entries in the LSJ or Latin equivalent, but not a simple word list.
PS. There's also the change that context can provide to certain words. Look at θεωρία itself:
1. sending of state-ambassadors (θεωροί)
2. embassy, mission
3. sight, spectacle, viewing
4. consideration, theory, speculation
My take on θεωρία (theōria)
Great find!
All these people seem to have been commenting and reacting to each other, and your find there seems to support that idea.
Notes from The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus; Chapt. 4: Virtus and Voluptas
by Dr. Pamela Gordon (2012)
I just finished reading Dr. Gordon's book and would highly recommend it for an interesting and oft-neglected perspective. It provides wonderful context for the variety of slurs and invectives thrown at the Garden since its very beginning up to the present.
In light of the upcoming discussions on Cicero's Epicurean attacks planned for the Lucretius Today podcast, I wanted to provide some ideas gleaned from Dr. Gordon's chapter specifically looking at Cicero's (and Romans') gendered attacks on the Epicurean school specifically.
The entire chapter looks at the juxtaposition of Greek ηδονη (hedone), translated into Latin as voluptas, against Roman virtus. Virtus can be slippery, and, as has been pointed out before on the forum, is directly related to Latin vir, the word for "man" (i.e., male human). So, masculinity, manliness, manly virtues, etc., gets at the general idea of virtus. English "virtue" is NOT an easy translation of virtus. Volputas is presented then as being the opposite of everything it means to be manly! How convenient.
Voluptas is routinely reviled by the Romans! The typical opposite of voluptas for Roman culture was dolor ("pain"). Gordon makes a point that Torquatus often makes the contrast between voluptas/dolor. Lucretius does this as well (e.g., 3.251-55; 2.967-68). Torquatus talks about choosing to endure toil (labor) and pain (dolor) for long-term voluptas. And for the Romans (and Cicero!), the ability to endure pain was a manly man trait! Cicero hits that hard in Tusc. Disp. (2.15, 2.46) where he talks about avoiding pain leads one to an "effeminate and unthinking" (effeminata ac levis) fear of pain. Whereas some (and even Cicero) have lauded Epicurus' bravery on his deathbed when he was facing the pain of his illness, Cicero calls him only forticulum "a little bit brave" in Tusc.Disp.2.45. He can't bring himself to think of Epicurus in a manly virtus light.
The decision to translate Greek ηδονη (hedone) as voluptas in Latin was not a foregone conclusion. The alliteration between "womanish" voluptas and "manly" virtus was irrestible to Roman writers though. Cicero asserts (because, of course, he does) that there's CLEARLY only one way to translate hedone, and that's voluptas (Fin.2.12-13) and yet he's even willing to leave a word in Greek when necessary (Fin. 3.15). Cicero concedes that voluptas can have two connotations: "gladness of mind" and "pleasing sensations in the body," (Fin. 2:13) and yet he stresses that only the bodily aspects are good usage. Again, how convenient.
To pull out our focus, the hedone/voluptas translation didn't have to be seen as a problem for Latin-speaking Epicureans as long as it wasn't paired with virtus. Lucretius embraced voluptas. Some simply didn't translate it, e.g., Gaius Cassius Longinus leaves hedone untranslated in letters to Cicero (Ad fam.15.19.2). Cassius, in fact, notes and seems to disregard Cicero's juxtaposition of voluptas/virtus in talking about the Epicurean general/politician Pansa (Ad fam.15.19.3). Cassius notably uses *virtutes* (the plural of virtus), which Gordon says sends the message that the Epicureans are not concerned so much with virtus itself (manly masculinity) as they are with upholding a range of "virtues," i.e., wisdom, justice, etc.
Gordon also relates how Seneca was another Latin writer (almost 100 years later than Cicero) who made a big deal out of the voluptas/virtus pair.
Another interesting twist that Gordon highlights is that virtus is seen as particularly Roman and that voluptas is seen as foreign. Virtus is seen as a ROMAN trait of manly Romans being what it means to be Roman men. This is where Gordon also talks about Cicero's diatribes against the Epicurean consul Calpurnius Piso Caesonius, patron of Philodemus. Cicero does NOT like Piso, and has a whole speech against him ( https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+Pis.+1 ) and speaks against him in other speeches as well. Gordon goes on for awhile talking about Cicero's attacks on Piso. The takeaway for me is that Cicero can't assail Piso's virtus from a physical, outward sense. The guy exudes Roman uprightness, manliness; he walks right, looks right, talks right. He's big and hairy with stern bushy eyebrows. The model of Roman virtus. But Cicero takes the "looks can be deceiving" tack.
Gordon finishes the chapter noting how Cicero's hostility against voluptas and his use of the charged meanings of voluptas/virtus falls away in his letters to friends. He can use the forumla "I took great pleasure in your letter" without any irony or apology. "Manly virtue" and "pleasure" can sit side by side with no animosity. When writing to his Epicurean friends, he talks about taking pleasure in his integrity as consul and his taking pleasure in his virtue. He talks about missing the pleasure of his daughter Tullia's goodness. And even the virtus of his wife and daughter. The rhetorical cudgel of voluptas/virtus seems to be reserved for attacks on Epicurus and his school, and this evaporates when Cicero is out of the limelight and speaking about or with family and friends.
I truly dislike Cicero.
(CORRECTION: Cicero's attacks on Calpurnius Piso Caesonius also encompass a large chunk of Chapter 5, which is where the eyebrow comments come in. I appear to have conflated Chapts. 4 & 5, which just leads me to recommend reading the whole book 
)
I like the idea of "7 Steps" not for any mystical/metaphysical reason! because:
it's the number of days in a week
it's a manageable number to get one's head around
Even with the "7 days" analogy, it's like the "24 hours to..." book where "24 hours" wasn't one day, it was literally 24 hours as in 1 hour/day for 24 days and you can get through the book and its exercises.
I like the idea that this is "Seven Steps to the **Ethics** of Epicurus" because that's what lots of people are coming looking for.
Here are some specific thoughts from me from the current list.
1 is doing a LOT of heavy lifting, but I agree there has to be some Physics to serve as the Foundation (or should I say Phoundation, pun-spelling intended: Physics are the Phoundation; Physics are the Foundation of the Ethics). I wouldn't necessarily include the gods in the physics though.
I like 8 as emphasizing the need to study the natural world/science. Using Epicurus' quote of [DL 10.37] "Hence, since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this, have prepared for you just such an epitome and manual of the doctrines as a whole."
So, in your current list, I'd definitely agree with or augment/edit the following:
1 Yes! Definitely include some physics/fundamentals as the foundation for the ethics
2 Yes! Get Pleasure in there early and often
3 Yes! Choice and avoidance with the aid of practical wisdom, justice, "virtue" is the fundamental practice of an Epicurean life
4 Yes! Friendship - mutual support, etc. - are foundational
5 Not sure about this one, so I'd have to see more to know. Are 5 and 6 combinable? Are Safety and Justice two aspects of Justice writ large: The agreement neither to intentionally harm others nor to be intentionally harmed by others?
6 See 5
7 A right understanding of the gods has to be in there somewhere, same as a right understanding of death
8 see above for why I'd like to see the list kept to 7, but also why I think 8's sentiment has to be somewhere. Maybe within 1's foundation of physics. It's not enough to have that foundation but you also have to study and understand it and apply it.
Since the letter to Menoikeus is our primary summary of Epicurean ethics, it can be broken down into the following points:
1. A correct view of the gods
2. A correct view of death
3. A correct understanding of desires and the goal of a happy life: Pleasure is the foundation and culmination of well-being.
4. How to choose between pleasure and pain and how to be "self-reliant."
5. Knowing the value of practical wisdom/phronesis, justice, and excellence
6. Knowing the place of Fate and chance in one's life
7. The value of studying with "those like yourself" (ὅμοιον σεαυτῷ)
According to Epicurus in his letter, who is better than someone who:
- holds pious opinions about the gods,
- is always fearless in the face of death
- has reasoned out the natural goal of life
- has understood that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to achieve, whereas the limit of bad things is either short-lived or causes little pain
- laughs at destiny and considers it better to be rationally unfortunate than irrationally fortunate
BUT this letter leaves out some significant topics, like friendship, so where' back to looking at other lists and texts.
First thoughts from me.
Letter to Themistius the philosopher - Wikisource, the free online library
Speaking of Julian: One of the "Live in obscurity" sources in a letter.
Its system of philosophy taught that, even if there are other Godlike beings, there is primarily one single all-encompassing ineffable Godhead, which is connected to the divine intellect. They were also concerned with the status of the soul of man in a divine hierarchy.
And that's one reason why Christian authors and evangelists were so willing to incorporate these ideas into their theology. The whole "the Word was God" stuff of the Gospel of John is unadulterated Greek philosophy. On Neoplatonism, WP has a nice article:
Neoplatonism and Christianity - Wikipedia
Edit: it appears there are some similarities in John 1:1 with the Wisdom literature of Hebrew theology, but there is also a huge strain of ancient Greek philosophy of the time. Stoicism could also be incorporated into Christian theology, so the Christian amoeba simply subsumed the Greek philosophy it wanted to and left the rest in its wake.
So, there's two topics here - as has been noted - there is the decline of the impact of the Epicurean school before the "triumph" 
of Christianity and after. However, it should be remembered that that fresco of the "triumph" of ("St.") Augustine was painted 1350-1400 so even that late, Epicurus was still a figure who held enough significance and allegorical meaning that he needed to be portrayed as someone who needed to be trod underfoot and subdued.
My translation: No pleasure is itself bad, but that which produces [some] pleasures can bring many times greater distress, annoyances, and disturbances than pleasure.
So we are supposed to be saying KIKERO?
No. The *English/American" pronunciation of his name is [SI-sa-ro]. If you're speaking his name in Latin, it's like [KI-ke-ro]. We don't speak Latin. We speak English, therefore, "Sisero." In Italian or Ecclesiastical Latin, it'd be "Chichero" I think.
I'll see your Rick & Morty and raise you a Luke Ranieri
Great find. I obviously need to try and get my hands on Obbink's translation of On Piety again.
I think your suggestion of this being a reaction to the Greeks' contact with other peoples' religions makes sense, although they would have been aware of the Egyptians and others since the time of Herodotus.
For additional context of that excerpt from Philodemus:
DCLP/Trismegistos 62400 = LDAB 3563
Column 23
P.Herc. 1077 col. 15
Engraved 1817-1822 by Giovanni Battista Casanova
[ ̣ ̣ ̣]μενη̣[ ̣] ἐναργει-
[ ̣ ̣ ἀ]ν̣αμενοῦντος
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]να, καὶ πάν-
τας [κ]α̣τ' ἀνάγκας
5 [οἳ ταὐτὸ]ν̣ ἔγραψαν ἀ-
[ξίους] γε προαιρέ-
σ[εω]ς ἕνεκα θαυμά-
ζεσθαι καὶ μὴ διὰ τὴν
<ἀ>δυναμίαν ἀνοσίου̣[ς]
10 νομίζεσθαι· πάντας
δὲ ἀνθρώπους ὥ-
ρα{ι} λέγειν ἀνοσίους, ἐ-
πειδήπερ οὐδεὶς
εἱκνουμένας πε-
15 ρὶ τ[οῦ θ]ε̣οὺς ὑπάρ - ›
χε[ιν τὰς ἀπο]δ̣είξεις
εὐπ̣[όρησ]ε̣ν· ὅμως
δὲ [σέβ]ονται πάν-
τε[ς εἰ μὴ παρ]άκοποί τι-
20 νε[ς αὐτούς, κα]θάπερ
ἡμ̣[εῖς· ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]κ[ ̣]α
με[- ca.10 -]λ̣ιψαι
το[- ca.11 -]νη
τ[- ca.13 -]
25 κα̣[ ̣]μεν[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]νως
[οὕ]τως [- ca.10 -]
[ ̣]ω γ̣[- ca.13 -]
[οὐ]χ ὑπ̣[- ca.10 -]
[ ̣]ο πρὸς τα[ ̣ ̣ ̣] παρ
Edit: Oh, I forgot to add that Hiram posted several essays on On Piety, including:
Reasonings about Philodemus’ On Piety (Part I) | Society of Friends of Epicurus
I don't necessarily agree with all his conclusions, but he also gives the full quote:
It would be fitting to describe all men as impious, inasmuch as no one has been prolific in finding convincing demonstrations for the existence of the gods; nevertheless all men, with the exception of some madmen, worship them, as do we.
Edit 2: Since everyone can see the holes, I want to give a better idea of the reconstruction of the text, so I'm going to replace the educated guesses of Obbink with O below...
[ ̣ ̣ ̣]μενη̣[ ̣] ἐναργει-
[ ̣ ̣ O]ν̣αμενοῦντος
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]να, καὶ πάν-
τας Oα̣τ' ἀνάγκας
5 [OOOOOOO]ν̣ ἔγραψαν ἀ-
[OOOOO] γε προαιρέ-
σ[OO]ς ἕνεκα θαυμά-
ζεσθαι καὶ μὴ διὰ τὴν
δυναμίαν ἀνοσίου̣[O]
10 νομίζεσθαι· πάντας
δὲ ἀνθρώπους ὥ-
ρα{ι} λέγειν ἀνοσίους, ἐ-
πειδήπερ οὐδεὶς
εἱκνουμένας πε-
15 ρὶ τ[OOO]ε̣οὺς ὑπάρ - ›
χε[OOOOOOOO]δ̣είξεις
εὐπ̣[OOOO]ε̣ν· ὅμως
δὲ [OOO]ονται πάν-
τε[OOOOOOOO]άκοποί τι-
20 νε[OOOOOOOOO]θάπερ
ἡμ̣[OOOOOOOOO]κ[O]α
με[OOOOOOOOOO]λ̣ιψαι
το[OOOOOOOOOOO]νη
τ[OOOOOOOOOOOOO]
25 κα̣[ ̣O]μεν[OOO]νως
[οὕ]τως [OOOOOOOOOO]
[ ̣]ω γ̣[OOOOOOOOOOOOO]
[οὐ]χ ὑπ̣[OOOOOOOOOO]
[OO ̣]ο πρὸς τα[OOO] παρ
Just curious: Did you see the post on the other thread about "Marius the Epicurean" being a favorite of Oscar Wilde's; or is it just coincidence that you found this now? 
A far as comforting or not, the refutation of the fear of the gods and of death is consistently cited as primary in the philosophy. Those are the first two "doctrines" in Principal Doctrines, Diogenes of Oenoanda's inscription, the "Vatican Sayings" (ie, The Voice of Epicurus), the first two lines of the Tetrapharmakos, etc.
Those two doctrines are not necessarily comforting to those who hold tightly to being looked after by a god and loving eternally with said god.
So I'll add to the list: "Possibility that the texts were not translated into Latin or local languages in sufficient numbers to penetrate deeply enough into common culture."
You also have to take into account literacy rates back then.
