The Ancient Greek word ἀσχολούμενος (ascholoumenos) is a middle/passive present participle meaning "being busy," "occupied with," or "engaged in an activity." [1, 2]
Key Linguistic Breakdown
Grammatical Form: It is the masculine singular present middle/passive participle of the verb ἀσχολέομαι (ascholeomai), which means "to have no leisure" or "to be busy." [1]
Literal Roots:
ἀ- (a-): The privative prefix meaning "not" or "without."
σχολή (skholē): Meaning "leisure" or "free time." (This is the ironic root of our English word "school", because the ancient Greeks viewed education and philosophical study as an activity meant for one's free leisure time). [1]
Literal Meaning: Combined, the word literally translates to "one who is without leisure time." [1]
In everyday Ancient Greek context, if you were ascholoumenos, you were actively tied up with work, an obligation, or business affairs.
In our current modern cultural environment, longterm relationships (whether co-habitating or married) are most often a main source for friendship (and we all know that PD27 says: "Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship.")
But, what does a healthy relationship look like? Of course you could say that a healthy relationship is also a pleasurable relationship. I just found this very good article which gives very good insights into this:
The following are the 8 points from the article, and the link to the full article follows below:
On the original topic, I wanted to point out the fun connection that the word for "school" is the same as "leisure" -- and the word in question is the negation of leisure -- i.e., occupation. This is why the translations diverge a bit at this point.
This came up in last night's Zoom, and if I remember correctly that Bryan said that one's work was what one had to do to provide oneself with essentials to stay alive, but when one wasn't working it was thought that they should be "in school" studying philosophy.
Bryan would you translate VS14 differently compared to the Epicurus Wiki translation?
I had religious education and was in an esoteric idealist bubble and the Internet was young and full pseudoscience and almost no one debunked it or it was hard to find.
Evidently right now and in recent years there is a surge of interest in tarot cards, and people use it to aid them in making decisions according to an NPR article. But I don't think that would be a good idea at all.
From a modern psychology perspective, here is a webpage with some very good reading regarding decision making:
Quote
Chocolate or strawberry? Life or death? We make some choices quickly and automatically, relying on mental shortcuts our brains have developed over the years to guide us in the best course of action, even as we deliberate over others almost endlessly. Understanding strategies—such as maximizing versus satisficing, fast versus slow thinking, and factors such as risk tolerance and choice overload—can lead to better outcomes.
Quote
What is informed decision-making?
The ability to think critically is key to making good decisions without succumbing to common errors or bias. This means not just going with your gut, but rather figuring out what knowledge you lack and obtaining it. When you look at all possible sources of information with an open mind, you can make an informed decision based on facts rather than intuition.
Chocolate or strawberry? Life or death? We make some choices quickly and automatically, relying on mental shortcuts our brains have developed over the years to…
I've just recently returned to researching more on the poetry of Omar Khayyam, and one aspect that does resonate with Epicurean philosophy is how he speaks about the physical nature of death and the finality of it. However, there is a strain of pessimism that comes with it, which in my opinion isn't "Epicurean".
My interest in this continued research, in spite of the many differences between his poetry and Epicurean philosophy, is to tease out further insights by comparison. Also, this is an attempt to investigate how to acknowledge and nurture the connection between the rational mind and the "felt sense of soul" that all humans have. This time of year as the seasons begin to shift toward shorter days, cooler weather, harvest and changing leaves, brings with it a feeling of turning inward and exploring the psyche (and more dreams at night).
From what you write, Fitzgeralds Rubaiyat sounds more Cyrenaic than Epicurean or, I'll bet Sufi.
Here is what I've found in some research:
Quote
Query: What are some differences between Khayyam’s literal celebration of wine versus the Sufis' metaphorical use of it, and what evidence specifically shows these differences?
Google AI:
The debate over whether Omar Khayyam was a literal hedonist or a hidden Sufi mystic has lasted for centuries. While Sufi commentators later "Sufized" Khayyam's verses to shield him from charges of heresy, modern scholarly consensus highlights a profound rift between Khayyam’s literal, existential view of wine and the Sufis' highly structured spiritual allegory.
The Core Differences
Dimension
Omar Khayyam's Wine
The Sufis' Wine
Nature of Wine
Material & Literal: Tangible juice of the grape that provides physical oblivion from life's cruelty.
Metaphorical & Spiritual: The intoxication of divine love (‘ishq) that dissolves the ego.
The "Tavern"
A Real Refuge: A physical place of social gathering, rule-breaking, and temporary escape.
The Spiritual Heart: A metaphorical space where the soul undergoes transformation under a master.
The Purpose
Existential Oblivion: To forget the inescapable tragedy of mortality and the silence of the cosmos.
Mystical Awakening: To attain a state of higher consciousness (fana) and union with God.
Attitude Toward Time
Deep Pessimism: Time is a destroyer; the present moment (دم - dam) is all we have before turning to dust.
Divine Presentism: The present moment is the "eternal now" where the soul meets the Creator.
The Evidence: Comparing the Poetry
The structural and philosophical differences between literal and metaphorical wine become undeniable when evaluating specific textual evidence from Khayyam alongside his contemporary Sufi counterparts.
1. Evidence of Khayyam’s Materialism vs. Sufi Transience
Khayyam's poems consistently anchor wine to the physical reality of the human body decomposing into clay and pottery. For Khayyam, the wine cup is made of the dust of dead men, and literal wine fills it.
Khayyam’s Verse:
Quote
"This jug was once a lonely lover like me, trapped in the tangles of a beauty's hair. This handle that you see upon its neck was once an arm around a sweetheart's neck... Drink wine! For you will sleep long beneath the clay, without a companion, friend, or mate."
The Analysis: Khayyam's imagery relies on the inescapable finality of physical death. There is no afterlife mentioned here—only physical decay. Wine is a literal analgesic to numb the horror of returning to dust.
The Sufi Contrast (Rumi): Sufi giants like Jalal al-Din Rumi explicitly mocked those who needed literal grape wine to feel joy, emphasizing that a mystic is intoxicated by the Creator, not the vine.
Quote
"The Sufi is drunk without wine; sated without meat... We are intoxicated by a wine that never grew on vines, poured from a cup that was never shaped by a potter."
The Analysis: Rumi explicitly detaches his "wine" from biology and agriculture. Khayyam’s wine requires a grape and a potter; Rumi’s wine exists completely outside of creation.
2. Evidence of Khayyam’s Agnosticism vs. Sufi Certainty
Sufis use wine as a tool to gain divine knowledge (ma'rifah). Khayyam, conversely, uses wine precisely because divine knowledge is impossible to obtain.
Khayyam’s Verse:
Quote
"The secrets of eternity are known neither to you nor me; this riddle can be read neither by you nor me. Behind the veil is much talk of you and me; when the veil falls, neither you nor me remain... Fill the cup, for we know not when we shall breathe our last."
The Analysis: Khayyam looks at the universe, sees a closed door and a silent God, and gives up on theology. Wine is his answer to the futility of philosophy.
The Sufi Contrast (Hafez): While the later poet Hafez adopted Khayyam's skeptical style to attack hypocritical clerics, his "wine" is still a conduit to the divine throne room:
Quote
"Pour wine into my cup, for the Magian wine-steward tells me that the secrets of the universe are written upon the bottom of the chalice."
The Analysis: For the Sufi, the wine actually reveals the cosmic secrets that Khayyam laments are forever hidden behind a veil.
3. Historical and Biographical Evidence
The ultimate proof of Khayyam's literalism lies in how his contemporaries viewed him. Khayyam was fundamentally a scientist, mathematician, and astronomer—not a Sufi master.
The Testimony of Al-Ghazali and Najm al-Din Razi: The prominent 13th-century Sufi scholar Najm al-Din Razi openly attacked Khayyam in his text Mirsad al-Ibad. He explicitly classified Khayyam not as a mystic, but as a philosopher and materialist who had lost his way. Razi lamented that Khayyam wrote verses displaying "the height of blindness and confusion," proving that medieval Sufis themselves did not view Khayyam as one of their own.
Philosophical Treatises: In Khayyam's surviving prose treatises on philosophy, he categorizes seekers of truth into four groups: theologians, philosophers, Ismailis, and Sufis. He praises the Sufis for seeking purification rather than academic argument, but he writes about them in the third person as an outside observer, never identifying himself as a member of their path.
Or put another way: a collection of questions to ponder/consider while one studies Epicurus?
You could take a glance at this FAQ section, and ponder your own answer and then afterward click open to see what the answer is (answers are by Cassius or a section of the forum).
Patrikios had a very specific suggestion -- that it would be great to have a book of the title in this thread-starter. Such a book might be of interest to a wide group of young people, and would be a good way to summarize for ourselves some of the most important things we have learned.
In the (current) absence of such a book, it would be helpful to us and motivational to book/article/video producers if we asked for contributions in this thread suggesting points that such a work might contain.
Here are some suggestions off the top of my head, based on Epicurean principals:
-- Understanding the limits of pleasure and pain
-- Choices and avoidances - common everyday choices and also long-term lifestyle choices such as where to live, career, marriage, children
-- Importance of putting effort into "goods" which lead to the best life (friendship, sufficiency, etc.)
-- How to navigate through and avoid troubles caused by the "modern religious landscape" and also "unnatural" worldviews such as pessimism, extreme skepticism, harsh stoicism, perfectionism, hyper-consumerism, etc.
-- Moral choices based on that which is instrumental for creating the best life (non-harming).
Here is a website article which summarizes the Hellenistic period this way:
Quote
The Hellenistic Period, spanning roughly from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC to the rise of Roman dominance, was an era marked by profound social, political, and cultural upheaval. The collapse of the Greek city-state system and the emergence of vast empires radically altered how individuals understood their place in the world. Traditional civic identities weakened, political participation diminished, and daily life became increasingly unstable and unpredictable. In this context of uncertainty, philosophy shifted its focus from abstract speculation to the practical problem of how to live well amid disorder.
Philosophical schools such as Stoicism, Epicureanism, Cynicism, and Skepticism emerged as direct responses to these conditions. Stoicism, founded by Zeno of Citium, taught that inner peace could be achieved by aligning one’s will with reason and nature, accepting what lies beyond one’s control, and cultivating virtue as the only true good. Epicureanism, developed by Epicurus, offered a different path, advocating for modest pleasure, freedom from fear, and the cultivation of friendship as defenses against anxiety and political chaos.
Cynicism pushed this practical orientation to its limits, rejecting social conventions, wealth, and status altogether in favor of radical simplicity and independence. Skepticism, particularly in its Pyrrhonian form, responded to uncertainty by suspending judgment, arguing that tranquility arises when one abandons the futile search for absolute certainty in an unstable world.
Despite their differences, these schools shared a common goal: securing personal tranquility in an unpredictable environment. Philosophy became a form of therapy, aimed at protecting the individual rather than reforming the state. By shifting attention from external power to inner stability, Hellenistic philosophers provided tools for resilience that remain relevant today. Their work reflects a timeless insight: that when social structures fail to offer security, wisdom must be sought within the self.
This article covers the recent law that passed in the state of Illinois, and further aspects.
Quote
In recent years, the practice of allowing doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives with medication has been legalized in several countries, with many more considering it. In the U.S., New York and Illinois recently became the latest states to join an accelerating pace of such legislation.
Through-out this forum there are number of ways in which virtue is listed, including "no absolute virtue" which I think can come across as unclear.
I think a more clear way would be to say:
Virtues are entirely instrumental and inseparable from the happy life.
*****
Also just a note for future "to-do" list...it looks like some re-organization of the ethics sub-forum is needed regarding the various virtues. (And that also there is a section by Philodemus that is not under ethics but is under texts and persons).
At yesterday's Twentieth Zoom, I gave a short presentation on aspects of the symposium, and this was a slide, with further info.
We don't know exactly what occurred at historical Twentieth gatherings...but here is some speculation:
There was either a large gathering at the Kepos gardens (perhaps no more than 50 people, and not as a "symposium") and/or there were small gatherings at various private homes which may have been up to 12 attendees plus their hetairai (female companions, as was the ancient Greek custom) and which followed the cultural format of a symposium.
Here is a bit more from yesterday's presentation:
Written records and literary accounts of symposia in Hellenistic Athens do exist, though they are largely fragmentary and frequently preserved as quotes within later Roman-era texts. While the most famous complete accounts of the Athenian symposium come from the Classical period (most notably the works of Plato and Xenophon), prominent Hellenistic philosophers, playwrights, and historians continued to write about and record the evolving nature of these drinking parties in Athens.
The Fragmentary Symposium of Epicurus: The most notable native written record from Hellenistic Athens is the lost Symposium written by the philosopher Epicurus. While the original text has not survived intact, extensive fragments and descriptions are preserved by later authors:
• Athenaeus of Naucratis provides critical commentary on Epicurus' work in his encyclopedic text, the Deipnosophistae ("Doctors at Dinner"). Athenaeus notes that Epicurus broke traditional conventions by featuring a dialogue composed entirely of philosophers (pejoratively dubbed "atom prophets") and skipping traditional structural preliminaries like formal libations to the gods.
• Plutarch also explicitly references Epicurus' Symposium, noting that the dialogue moved away from political theory to debate the physiological and scientific effects of wine and sex.
Kraters were central to the symposium both literally and culturally. The Krater or "mixing bowl," used for mixing wine and water, was placed at the center of the room. The Symposiasts, or the participants, reclined on their couches around the krater. Their couches were placed along the wall of the room, and this limited the number of men attending to between eight and twelve. Tables on which the wine and food was served, were slightly lower and placed in front of the couches. The symposiarch would oversee the symposium. The main focus of his job was the dilution of the wine. It was up to him to decide how strong the wine would be depending on the type of discussion or entertainment that was expected for the evening Kraters were quite large, so they were not easily portable when filled. Thus, the wine-water mixture would be withdrawn from the krater with other vessels, such as a kyathos, an amphoreus, or a kylix.
Before dilution, wine in ancient Athens typically had an alcohol content of 9% to 15% ABV (alcohol by volume), though some sweet or concentrated varieties could reach up to 16% to 18% ABV. Dilution and Consumption • Ancient Athenians almost never drank wine neat. Drinking unadulterated wine was considered a barbaric habit fit only for ruining one's mind or health. Wine was mixed with water in a large vessel called a krater before being served.
• Common Ratios: Typical mixing ratios ranged from 3 parts water to 1 part wine (3:1) to 5 parts water to 2 parts wine (5:2).
• Final Alcohol Strength: This heavy watering-down meant the actual cup of liquid consumed during a symposium or meal had a much lower alcohol content, usually resting around 2% to 5% ABV- similar to a modern light beer or cider.
• Athenians enhanced their wine to balance or mask off-tasting flavors, using three primary methods: Infusion during fermentation - herbs like thyme, oregano, or mint were bundled into porous linen cloths, weighted down, and submerged in the grape must. Amphora linings and sealants of sticky pine resin from the Aleppo pine were used. And when needed they also added fresh herbs or floral perfumes directly into the krater shortly before consumption.
Since this is a specific thread on AI, and I keep succumbing to it's siren song, just a bit more...regarding this by ChatGPT, which fessed-up with this phrase: "It would be misleading to give you a precise age."
Also of interest is that it suggests a different (and seemingly much better) translation of the last line, but I'll need to double check that. ( Bryan you might be interested).
Quote
You said:
is the following poem really written by philodemus of gardara or is it by someone else? If by Philodemus, how old was he when he wrote it? What does the part "cast your eyes on me" mean? Poem: "To-morrow, dearest Piso, your friend, beloved by the Muses, who keeps our annual feast of the twentieth invites you to come after the ninth hour to his cottage. If you miss udders and draughts of Chian wine, you will see at least sincere friends and you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians. But if you ever cast your eyes on me, Piso, we shall celebrate the twentieth richly instead of simply."
ChatGPT said:
Yes. The poem is generally accepted as an authentic epigram by Philodemus of Gadara, and it is preserved as Greek Anthology 11.44 (also numbered 27 in David Sider's edition of Philodemus). The attribution is not merely a modern guess: the Greek Anthology itself identifies Philodemus as the author, and modern reference works and editions treat it as one of his poems. A
Anthologia Graeca+2
When did Philodemus write it?
There is an important limitation: we cannot date this particular epigram precisely, so we cannot say with certainty, for example, "Philodemus wrote it when he was 47."
Philodemus is generally dated to approximately 110–40 BCE (some scholars give a slightly later possible death date). David Sider, whose major scholarly edition of the epigrams is still fundamental, places his birth at about 110 BCE. O
OUP Academic+1
The poem is addressed to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the Roman statesman who became consul in 58 BCE and was Philodemus' patron. O
OUP Academic The poem therefore belongs to the period when Philodemus was established in Italy and associated with Piso, but we don't have a secure year for its composition.
So, if we assume the usual dates:
Philodemus was born: c. 110 BCE
Piso became consul: 58 BCE
Philodemus' poem is associated with his relationship with Piso
Therefore, he was probably an adult, perhaps middle-aged, when he wrote it, but his exact age cannot be established.
It would be misleading to give you a precise age.
There is another clue, however. In another epigram, Philodemus says:
Quote
"Seven years added to thirty are gone already..."
That poem indicates that he was about 37 when he wrote that particular poem. A
Attalus But there is no evidence that the Piso invitation was written at exactly the same time.
What does "cast your eyes on me" mean?
This is the most interesting part of the poem, because the English translation can make it sound more mysterious or romantic than the Greek necessarily is.
The Greek is:
Quote
ἢν δέ ποτε στρέψῃς καὶ ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα, Πείσων "But if ever you turn your eyes toward us too, Piso..."
The important expression is ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα — literally something like "your eyes toward us." The verb στρέψῃς means "turn," "turn toward," or "direct." The same passage is translated by another modern rendering as "if you ever turn your gaze on us too." A
Anthologia Graeca+1
So "cast your eyes on me" does not necessarily mean "look at me lovingly" or "fall in love with me." It's essentially an idiomatic invitation:
Quote
"If you will turn your attention toward us and actually come to our gathering..."
or, more naturally:
Quote
"If you honor us with your presence, Piso..."
That makes much more sense in context.
The joke in the final line
The whole poem is actually a little piece of Epicurean social humor.
Philodemus is essentially saying:
Quote
"Come to my humble little dinner tomorrow. I don't have the expensive food and Chian wine that you're accustomed to. But you'll have good friends and pleasant conversation. And if you actually decide to come, your presence will make our humble celebration a splendid one."
The final couplet says:
Quote
"But if ever you turn your eyes toward us too, Piso, we shall celebrate the twentieth richly instead of simply."
The contrast is between λιτή (litē), "simple/frugal," and πιοτέρην (pioterēn), "richer/more substantial." A
Anthologia Graeca
In other words, Piso himself is the "richness."
That's particularly witty because Philodemus is supposedly inviting his wealthy patron to a modest Epicurean meal. Piso doesn't have to bring the feast; his presence transforms the feast into a rich one.
And what is "the twentieth"?
This is important to understanding the poem.
"The Twentieth" refers to the Twentieth day of the month, an important recurring Epicurean celebration associated with Epicurus. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy specifically identifies this poem as an invitation to Piso to an Epicurean dinner celebrating Epicurus' birthday on the twentieth. S
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
So the situation is roughly:
Philodemus: "Dear Piso, tomorrow is our Twentieth. Come to my humble place at about 3 p.m. I know you may be accustomed to fancy food and Chian wine, but you'll have good friends and delightful conversation. And if you actually come, it'll be a splendid celebration despite our humble circumstances."
There's also a lovely Homeric joke in the reference to the Phaeacians. In the Odyssey, the Phaeacians are famous for their lavish hospitality. Philodemus is saying that although his dinner won't compete with the Phaeacian banquets, the conversation will be sweeter than anything found in that legendary land. D
dokumen.pub
One small translation issue
I'd actually translate the final sentence a little differently from the version you quoted:
Quote
"And if ever you turn your eyes toward us too, Piso, we shall celebrate a richer Twentieth instead of a simple one."
That makes the social meaning clearer than "if you ever cast your eyes on me."
"Cast your eyes on me" in English can sound flirtatious or even erotic. The Greek doesn't require that interpretation. It is much closer to "turn your attention/gaze toward us" — i.e., come and join us.
So, in short: yes, this is Philodemus; it is Greek Anthology 11.44; its exact date is unknown; and we cannot reliably calculate his age when he wrote it. The "cast your eyes" phrase is basically an elegant way of saying "if you will turn your attention toward us / honor us by coming."A
Anthologia Graeca+1
If you'd like, I can also go through the original Greek line by line and show exactly what each Greek word means, including why ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα is better understood as "turn your gaze toward us" than "cast your eyes on me."
Here and there, I've done research on the ancient Greek symposium, and since we would guess that Epicureans were prudent and serious-minded folk, then we could speculate that they made sure to dilute their wine sufficiently, and thereby allow the philosophical discourse to continue longer into the evening.
As for research, found this but access requires purchase:
This paper will focus on drinking and dining at Athens using ceramic evidence from the excavations of the Athenian Agora to explore the shift from wine-soaked Archaic and Classical symposia to food-rich Hellenistic banquets and possible explanations for the change.
I find this to be an interesting development regarding AI search results talking about its own use of evidence (it said that its first response overstated the evidence), as well as talking about the lack of reliabilty of a particular source (in this particular case, SoFE).
Of course, there are still errors as you will see that it says "cup" when Epicurus asked for cheese. And the idea that there was only bread to eat all of the time, but that may have only been during a time of food shortages.
Quote
Query: was Epicurus' twentieth gathering a large feast or a small symposium
DuckDuckGo Assist:
Epicurus' twentieth gathering could not be confirmed; however, the Society of Friends of Epicurus describes the Kepos as a communal non-profit organization that fed strangers monthly, suggesting larger feasts rather than small symposia.
Follow-up Query: what evidence is there that large feasts happened at the kepos
GPT-5.6 Luna: There is no good evidence that large feasts took place at Epicurus’ Garden (the Kepos). My earlier answer overstated the evidence.
The strongest ancient evidence points in the opposite direction:
Diogenes Laërtius says Epicurus and his associates lived simply, drinking water and eating plain bread. He preserves a letter in which Epicurus says that, although he normally wants only bread and water, he would like a cup so that he could have a feast when he wished. This suggests occasional, modest special meals—not regular large banquets. Attalus
Diogenes also says that friends came from many places to live with Epicurus in the Garden. That supports the existence of a sizable community, but it does not establish that they gathered for large feasts. Attalus
Epicurus’ will provided for his birthday to be celebrated annually and his memory monthly. These commemorations may have involved communal meals, but the surviving evidence does not specify their size, menu, or location. Encyclopedia Britannica
Modern descriptions of the Garden generally characterize it as a private household and philosophical community; they do not provide archaeological or textual evidence for large-scale dining events. University of Tennessee at Martin
The claim about the Garden “feeding strangers monthly” appears to come from a modern Epicurean organization’s interpretation, not from evidence for ancient events at Epicurus’ Kepos. “Feast” in Epicurus’ own usage can simply mean a better-than-usual meal, not a large symposium.
So the cautious conclusion is: the Kepos was a communal household with shared philosophical and social life, and probably occasional commemorative meals, but there is no secure evidence for large feasts. A small symposium—or even an ordinary communal meal—is better supported than a mass banquet.
For example, one trains really hard in the gym in order to get the pleasure of being admired, or of proving themselves capable, or of living healthy lives, etc.
"being admired" -- I don't think that Epicureans (those that truly follow the philosophy of Epicurus) spend too much time on this, because they are surrounded by good friends who value them for other reasons.
"proving themselves capable" -- I don't think that Epicureans would spend much time on this one either...because the main focus would be for concrete benefits that result such as feelings of good health.
Basically, they live pursuing pleasure, while also condemning the thinker who encouraged the search for pleasure and praising the thinkers who would call these people's pursuits petty or futile.
I'm unclear on the paragraph, likely because it is refering to a much older post...
"Basically, they live pursuing pleasure"
"condemning the thinker who encouraged the search for pleasure" -- I assume you are refering to the stoics here.
I'm adding here something further with regard to the introduction of the article on the Determinents of Happiness mentioning Aristotle's definition of happiness ("Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim, and the end of human existence.”- see post 2 above). Most people haven't been educated about Epicurus' take on happiness, (and if they are, their understanding is often over-simplified). Letter to Menoeceus says: "We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it." Perhaps Epicurus had other succinct definitions (perhaps in his book "On Life Courses" which is lost to us). But we do have the Cicero's Torquatus section and the Wall of Diogenes of Oinoanda.
There are a number of threads discussing what is happiness, such as this one as well as whole sub-forums. These may all need to be sorted and refreshed, and then I'll add more links so that we can all clearly reference Epicurus' take on happiness.
Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
(And that also there is a section by Philodemus that is not under ethics but is under texts and persons).
