“Women are the only exploited group in history to have been idealized into powerlessness.” Erica Jong
(I never really read her prose – e.g. her novel Fear of Flying – but I have her book of selected poems, Becoming Light, into which I delve for inspiration now and then. “I guess the thing that I'm most proud of is that I kept on writing poetry. I understand that poetry is sort of the source of everything I do. It's the source of my creativity.” Erica Jong)
Ah, ever the zealous romantic – I,
painting butterflies on philosophy,
whilst drawing on the Canon redes to keep
sane amidst the raucous insanity,
wonder on love: embrace, and laugh – and weep.
+++++++++++++++
“rede” – (archaic) counsel, advice, guide.
Epicurean or not, women's lives were circumscribed within the general Greek culture.
Epicurus pushed the edges of such circumscription within the Garden (it seems to me) – and that’s clearly all he could do. But that “that’s all” can serve as an exemplar for when circumstances change – and the Leontion’s and Themistas of our time (and other strong women) can be celebrated.
the argument that he was a strong opponent or he forbid it is to me just more evidence of how hostile much of the academic world is to Epicurus
Even among scholars who, for one reason or another, carved out for themselves a niche in Epicurean scholarship. Even if sometimes it's a subconscious bias that creeps in. I hope Sider's work on the actual poems of Philodemus is better! 
Whilst reading Sider on Philodemus poetry, I came across the following –
Sider (pp. 35-36):
“as both Chilton and Grilli agree, Epicurus does allow his followers to marry, although only in exceptional circumstances. This view is in line with the several other less than absolute strictures of Epicurus listed by Diogenes, including the general prohibition against writing poetry.38
“What these exceptional circumstances are neither Epicurus nor our sources spell out, but we may imagine that much would depend on the character of the woman. Since, moreover, women were welcome into the Garden for their intellectual abilities, these fellow Epicureans would seem to be obvious candidates for wives. Since, furthermore, women were appreciated for their bodies as well as their minds, sex being regarded as a providing a natural, albeit unnecessary, pleasure, sexual passion would not be expected to stop at marriage. …
“A woman who could satisfy both body and mind would make the ideal wife.”
Use of the phrase “allow … although only …” implies that Epicurus’ authority was such that he could also forbid (disallow) his followers from marrying.
++++++++++++++++++
Now the comments in this thread, including Cassius in post #8 and Don translations, indicate that no one here would be in agreement with such authoritarian innuendoes. Nor does Hick’s “Occasionally he may marry …” imply that.
But there seems to be some such authoritarian interpretation out there in the scholarly world.
++++++++++++++++++
I looked up the Chilton article, "Did Epicurus approve of marriage? A study of Diogenes Laertius 10.119" and found it here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181668…an_tab_contents
Chilton proffers the following interpretation: “In general the wise man will not marry but sometimes depending on the circumstances of his life, he will marry” – but then argues that it must be wrong.
Chilton also discusses the question of the wise man “turning away from his purpose,” etc., discussed in this thread above from post #5.
But Chilton does not – unless I missed it – suggest that Epicurus in some authoritarian manner allowed/forbade marriage unless some approved conditions were met.
+++++++++++++++
Chilton is also cited here, “Epicurus on Sex, Marriage and Children” by Tad Brennan: https://www.jstor.org/stable/270440?…an_tab_contents
Brennan says that Epicurus “advised against marriage … but permitted it in exceptional cases.” (p. 348-349) This could be taken as a somewhat weaker position than Sider’s – but seems a bit confusing.
He also says, referring to Epicurus’ will: "These texts, then, show that Epicurus did permit and indeed encourage marriage and child-rearing-not as a rule, but for certain Epicureans, in certain circumstances. And they also indicate what sort of circumstances these were.”
He concludes on marriage: “By and large, Epicurus will advise Epicureans not to marry, but sometimes, in exceptional circumstances, he will advise certain of them to marry.” (p. 350) Advise, not allow/permit/forbid.
All in all, Brennan seems at best sloppy on his use of language.
A quote from Sider’s book:
“In addition to the above considerations in the proper assessment of poetry, another important criterion requires that hearing or reading the poem in question provide its audience with pleasure of a correct Epicurean sort. In brief, as Asmis ably demonstrates, Epicurus, despite what later detractors said of him, was willing to accept poetry, although with reservations. In particular, the wise man could be trusted to have the proper attitude, able to listen to the recitation of poetry without succumbing to its Sirenic charms or accepting its claims to do anything more than provide harmless pleasure. Poetry, that is, can be classified in Epicurean terms as a natural but unnecessary pleasure. As such it was allowed a place at the banquets attended by Epicureans, where, at least originally, it was listened to but not subjected to immediate literary criticism, which would detract from the pleasure. … It is thus possible to apply Philodemos' general view of poetry to the epigram in particular, as the performance of epigrams at dinner parties (see above) fits perfectly into our picture of the symposia held in the Epicurean Gardens of Naples and surroundings.”
Joshua and I discussed some of this briefly before at RE: Introduction---Joshua's Notes on "The Good Poem According to Philodemus", by Michael McOsker
Another interesting comment by Sider in a footnote: “Like Aristotle, Philodemus demands ordinary human values. Differently from Aristotle, however, Philodemus clearly distinguishes the ‘thought’ of the poem as a whole, as presented by the poet, from the thought of the characters."
Anything significant you think worth discussion about that, please post a new thread - perhaps in the subforum on Philodemus
Will do. I'll keep this thread on topic to Philodemus' poetry.
While working on my Philodemus poem, I just stumbled on the book The Epigrams of Philodemos: Introduction, Text, and Commentary by David Sider. Now I feel the need to read it before continuing. But, in the early pages, he broaches a very interesting topic: that the relationship between various sub-schools of Epicureanism was not all peace and light. Philodemus was loyal to his teacher Zeno of Sidon, and engaged in “much internecine polemic” with the Epicureans of Rhodes (where Philodemus may have also studied for awhile).
The esteem of others is outside our control; we must attend instead to healing ourselves.
I really like this rendering. "Improving" is good -- and perhaps better in breadth -- but, for that very reason seems to me (personally!) more abstract. 
"I will be obedient to Epicurus, according to whom I have made it my choice to live.”
I actually hate that oath – and any similar oaths. If something does not resonate, there is no reason to cling to it like some immutable creed. (Did that enough times in my erroneous past.) I do not commit myself to the idea that Epicurus must have been right about everything – and so will not “troth” myself to any such oath or vow. Epicurean philosophy (and therapy) does provide a kind of lodestone now for me in guiding my life – richly so. But any “religio” – in terms of binding myself to some creedal requirement – that I reject (again, been there). If it works for you, under your own understanding, that’s great. No judgment on that. Truly.
I also am steeped in the idea of the evolution of language, and such things as metaphorical and analogical usages (as well as the vagaries of translation). (And one of my pleasurable games as a poet is to find and resurrect archaic usages in English from time to time.)
Note: Not only (as I noted earlier in this thread) have I thumbed-up posts on both side of this discussion (including yours), I appreciate your work – especially relevant to here, in the Hedonicon. So any interpretation of what I say here that might imply less than a high personal regard would be just wrong.
Kalosyni (from post #16 above, which I already quoted): “2. If you are dealing with very troubling issues, you visit a therapist rather than rely upon Epicurean teachings (and rather than relying on religious rituals or potentially relying on "teachers" who are not therapists).”
I just wanted to add a few comments to this particular point:
Many therapists (if not most) are also teachers; mine (who also later became a friend) was – even as he disclaimed the usage that Kalosyni seems allude to here: he said, “I am not, and will not be, your ‘guru’.” There are, of course, many theories and styles of therapy. My guy was pretty eclectic, rather than dogmatic (in the modern, generally pejorative, sense).
Also, from my experience in 12-Step rooms (which I will not detail): a few were quite religious in nature; the one in which I was most comfortable was not. Many of the people were religious (in a “higher power = god” sense) – but a number were not; and there was no pressure at all. Also, the steps were generally seen (in that room) as suggestions, not rules – and a number of “old-timers” freely said that they drew on them to make their own, personal “program,” taking what was useful and leaving the rest. I still draw upon a 12-Step daily meditation source that is geared toward agnostics and atheists (but without rejection of the more religious).
Finally, I see Epicurean philosophy as a therapeutic source to draw upon for my own ongoing “recovery” (from whatever – in the 12-Step usage of that term).
With that said, I repeat that I found Kalosyini’s points in the above-referenced post to resonate the most to me – in words that I cannot improve upon.
Display MoreHere are a few benefits of seeing Epicureanism as a philosophy rather than a religion:
1. Your personal understanding comes first rather than having to depend on interpretations outside of yourself - you interprete the extant texts as it pleases you, because you apply them to modern life and your own unique situation.
2. If you are dealing with very troubling issues, you visit a therapist rather than rely upon Epicurean teachings (and rather then relying on religious rituals or potentially relying on "teachers" who are not therapists).
3. You are free to test Epicurean philosophy and reject the parts that do not work for you.
4. You are not expected to do any rituals or attend any meetings, and you will still be respected if you don't participate, and your respect will be based on your understanding rather than adherence to "religious goals" - and there are no religious goals or rituals, rather only personal goals which you freely choose for yourself.
5. It feels safe, free, and open for those who are atheists to participate in studying the philosophy of Epicurus - because there is no group requirement regarding the "gods/god" and this is something to be considered for each person privately.
I find that I have thumbed-up several posts here that are somewhat in disagreement with one another. 
But the above by Kalosyni (from post b#16) particularly resonates with me. In fact, I have copied it into my own files for reference – as I couldn’t state it any better. 
(I have been part of religious communities that would largely affirm her points – but my experience is that they are rare indeed.)
but maybe you could send a sample to Joshua and he could share with the other moderators.
Will do, as soon as I get a bit closer to completion. Thank you.
I’ve been laboring for some weeks on a poem called “An Ode on Philodemus and His Loves.” The poem has references to at least most (if not all) of the women Philodemus wrote about as lovers, and allusions to how he wrote about them. A translation of those poems is available here: https://www.attalus.org/poetry/philodemus.html. (Also in Nate’s Hedonicon.)
I tried my hand at a couple of free renderings into modern verse (with poetic/metaphorical license) of a couple of Philodemus’ erotic poems here (above) in this thread. My “Ode” is no more erotically explicit than Philodemus (but likely not less so either). My plan (when I have “finished” it) is to publish it either here or in the “Poetry in Honor of Epicureanism” thread. But if it is likely to cause offense (and the guide may be my renderings above), then I just will not.
Guidance sought …
Happy birthday, Onenski!
Ultimately if we follow that which brings both short-term and long-term pleasure, we will naturally arive at a "meaningful" life - one in which we do not have to prove that we are good or smart or talented in order to try to get approval from others. So Epicureans have a much different understanding of the word "meaningful".
Don Lest my laughy emoji be misconstrued, I applaud your search. It's among such "strangers" that I would prefer to be.
Some comments on this question of “meaning” herein:
First, for Viktor Frankl, meaning was just what enabled you to perdure – to get through, perhaps to flourish (given the contextual possibilities). His immediate context was his interment in a Nazi concentration camp. His personal “meanings” there were (1) the hope that he would be reunited with his wife (both of them surviving) and (2) that he would have the opportunity to complete and publish his theories of psychotherapy (logotherapy). Nothing more idealist or esoteric to the word “meaning” than that (and his understanding was likely more therapeutically powerful for that reason).
Second, I have seen Camus contraposed to Frankl. But Camus didn’t say that the world is (existentially or metaphysically) absurd: what (for him) is absurd is the attempt to locate some exogenously-given meaning by a universe that discloses only facts and patterns. Deriving any “meaning” from those is up to us. The notion of being “given” meaning by the universe is what is absurd.
Third, when such down-to-earth ideas of “meaning” are seriously considered, the notion that Epicurean philosophy offers no means to (or opportunity for) personal meaning itself seems absurd.
With that said, Kalosyni is right: the term is broad, and needs to be pinned down – else any idealist/esoteric conception might be had.
If being certain is being used to me "I know this as well as an human can know it" then that definition of certainty is practical and usable.
So I think that's what Epicurus was talking about when he was using his canon.
Yes.
So I think I would be concerned about granting to deductive logic or pure mathematics the status of "objective certainty" either.
Ah! Well-caught! One might say they are only "logically certain" -- in terms of the conclusions following necessarily from the premises. But not "objective" in terms of the real, empirical world (a deductive syllogism can be valid while leading to a result that is -- not logically, but empirically -- false). [Wittgenstein, for example, distinguished between what he called "logical space" and empirical space.]
I wonder if there are any!
I probably danced around skepticism for awhile – though closer to Pyrrhonian skepticism than Academic skepticism. Never hard determinism.
I left long ago what I would call a “hard dogmatism” (in the more modern, pejorative sense) that demands a strict attitude of certainty, as opposed to a pragmatic confidence.* (DeWitt seems to veer there.) [I came to the conclusion that Sextus Empiricus simply confused Epicurus’ use of dogma with that of the Stoics and the Academics.]
As you put it in Ante Oculos: “Epicurus also saw that man’s natural fear of the unknown is seized upon as a tool by false priests, professors, and politicians who demand obedience through the call for ‘certainty.’ The call for ‘certainty’ in human action is a false standard which can never be met, and the real evil of those who call for it is that they are aware of the trap which they lay for the unthinking. The only remedy for this abomination is for men to acknowledge that their knowledge and their lives are limited to the scope to the bounds established by Nature.”
– Cassius Amicus, Ante Oculos: Epicurus and the Evidence-Based Life
We draw on senses (observations), feelings and intuition (my shorthand translation of prolepsis**) – and reasonable inference – to achieve a level of confidence that allows us to form opinions and act. Confidence is necessary, but absolute objective certainty is only available in deductive logic and pure mathematics. (Of course, sometimes we might say “I’m certain that …” as a subjective expression of high confidence; not generally a problem.)
++++++++++++++++
* Don and I discussed the changing usage of “dogma” here: RE: Philodemus of Gadara - Main Biography
** As per these definitions from Merriam-Webster:
1a: the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference
b: immediate apprehension or cognition
2: quick and ready insight
