How would you compare it to the Catherine Wilson books?
Although I enjoy and appreciate Wilson, I would likely not include her in the top half-dozen. For example, I would put Crespo ahead of her, and Frances Wright’s fictionalization, A Few Days in Athens. And also Epicurean Philosophy An introduction from the “Garden of Athens”, Christos Yapijakis Editor (maybe ahead of Crespo).
Is there some reason why Haris Dimitriadis’ book generally seems to get left out of these discussions? I really like it, and would surely recommend it, at least after (1) Austin and (2) DeWitt as a next-step presentation for modern readers. But maybe I’m missing something …
I agree with Don on the thumbs up for "Eye of the Tiger." But I am also partial to "Let It Go" from the film Frozen.
I don't think we can be aware of ourselves without something external to us
Further, we have no non-relative "view from nowhere" (a so-called "god's eye view" ) from which to be aware of anything. This is ultimately what is behind the existentialist dictum "existence precedes essence" -- i.e., we can not even consider how things "really (essentially) are" except from some relative perspective(s). I am thinking here of the existentialist perspectivism of Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gassett (but Nietzsche was also on to it).
An existence possessing such a power I have never seen; and though this says nothing against the possibility of such an existence, it says every thing against my belief in it. And farther, the power which you attribute to this existence — that of willing every thing out of nothing, — being, not only what I have never seen, but that of which I cannot with any distinctness conceive — it must appear to me the greatest of all improbabilities.
This reminds me of how I think Pyrrhonists and Epicureans (both ancient and modern) seem to often talk past one another (not to say there aren’t significant differences: they seem to have different understandings of “dogma” – and perhaps of “truth,” with the Pyrrhonists perhaps holding to what would now be called an “infallibist” version: that is, to claim to know truth about how the reality “really is,” one is claiming objective certainty – which a Pyrrhonist would say one cannot have about “non-evident” matters, even as one accepts inductive inference as the best guide we may have for agency – including further investigation). Epicurus’ position in the quote would I think be perfectly acceptable to a modern Pyrrhonist like Adrian Kuzminski (Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism). Here is a debate between two modern advocates of each camp:
+++++++++++++
Note: It also reminds me of Hume’s skepticism about causality (perceived correlation versus actual cause) – but I think he might have done well to draw on Epicurus’ early (original?) views on the possibility of any effect having multiple causes (causal over-determination), e.g. in the Letter to Phytocles.
http://www.academyofathens.gr/static/philosophy/Abstract-Handout_Tsouna_010421.pdf
There's an interesting paper "The Polytheism of the Epicureans" by Paul Terrence Matthias Jackson which may also be relevant here.
Additionally, if an idea synthesized in our mind does not accurately correspond to an external object, then it is an empty opinion.
And yet, our ability to imagine often leads to discoveries about the external, sensual world that may not have come about otherwise: theoretical science often becomes physical science.
There is also the aesthetic element: Mozart imagined (“heard"/synthesized in his mind) combinations of musical notes that became a score – and hence a symphony that can be played and enjoyed.
And the very ways in which we represent the sensual world to ourselves, and think about it, may invariably involve some imaginative activity (at least I don’t think that can be discounted; and I think there is some empirical evidence for it). For example, “Even when you use your imagination to remember something that actually happened to you, you’re creating a simulation of a time and place that no longer exists.” (Jim Davies. Imagination: The Science of Your Mind's Greatest Power. 2019. Pegasus Books.) Also, imagination can be employed therapeutically to discover and address things about ourselves we might otherwise have not uncovered.
Self-sufficiency seems to be relative to a host of circumstances.
When we lived in the country (our 15 years of pleasurable – even festive – life simplification), a month without the grid was thinkable and doable without tremendous effort. In a sense, our lifestyle kept us naturally prepared. Water that could be rendered potable was plentiful, as was our storage space, and the ability to cook outside with fire (we always had several cords of spit hardwood for winter, and there was always enough left to cook with in the other seasons).
Now we live in a small apartment in a small-city urban environment. That choice makes us more grid-dependent, and sets certain limits on how prepared we can be, relative to our former life. Also, now in our mid-70s with medical issues, camping out with backpacks and maps is a non-starter. Water might be the main issue. We can store canned goods and dried goods that do not require water for preparing. A month may be a bit much to hope for, but a couple weeks seems doable for sure. We keep a good supply of batteries for lanterns and electric candles. Any kind of fire (e.g. a charcoal grill) is forbidden under the terms of our lease – but a small gas grill would undoubtedly be overlooked in the kind of situation we’re talking about.
None of this detracts from Julia ‘s points at all; on the contrary, they are appreciated.
Julia How much water do you estimate you need to stock for a month per person?
One can enjoy every other pleasure more if one's mind isn't troubled and one's body is in (reasonably) good working order.
Yes, that seems to be the author's general point. And I found it to be an enlightening one (probably means I haven't been paying close enough attention to you! 
).
Not on point to the questions asked, but a plea for a revitalized Epicureanism for the modern day:
“’The wasteland grows,’ wrote Nietzsche over a century ago. 'Woe to him who hides wastelands within.' Since then, the wastelands have grown ever more indiscriminately, both within and without. Our social and spiritual lives wither on our cell phone screens. Our cities, habitats, and public arenas suffer from a blight whose causes remain obscure while the effects are all-too-evident. The “little garden” of the human spirit falls into disrepair.
“The term ‘little garden’ alludes to Ho Kepos, or the small privately owned garden where in 306 BC Epicurus started one of the most influential and long-lived schools of antiquity. He lived in darkening times similar to ours, when the public and political spheres of Athenian democracy had fallen into decay and degradation. Greek philosophers before him—starting with Aristotle—believed that human happiness was possible only within the polis and the activities of citizenship. Epicurus instead believed that happiness had to be sought far from the folly and factionalism of the public realm. That is one reason he founded his school just outside the walls of Athens.
“Our age is badly in need of a strong dose of creative, revitalized Epicureanism, for Epicurus offers us a philosophy of how people can, on their own initiative, create little wellsprings of happiness in the midst of the wasteland.”
Robert Pogue Harrison, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/epicurus-for-our-time/
In my random surfing, I found the essay cited below, from which I include the following quotations:
“Our body enjoys doing what is healthy. And this may be a key to Epicurus’ view. What Epicurus terms katastematic pleasure is much like Aristotle's unimpeded activity of a natural state; it is the natural pleasure experienced when the organism is functioning smoothly. It is the pleasure of being alive; living and functioning in a healthy way feels good because it is good.”
“Lack of disturbance does not mean lack of sensory perceptions, and lack of pain does not imply lack of feeling or pleasure. Since we are hylomorphic beings––beings of animate and sensate flesh––pleasure requires involvement of the body and senses. To enjoy sensory pleasure we need to have a healthy constitution; therefore, we can most enjoy sensory pleasures when we enjoy them in moderation.”
“To summarize, it is clear that Epicurus believed that the highest pleasure is the stable pleasure of complete calmness of soul and lack of pain. Human beings in that state can enjoy the kinetic pleasures that sweeten the senses: music, art, nature, sensory delights. Pleasure comes from sufficiency, not lack. … However, Epicurean wisdom teaches that in fact we do not need much to live a rich and fulfilling life. When we experience a state in which we are satisfied and complete, we can enjoy all the variations that life brings.”
https://cup.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Philosophies-of-Happiness-Appendix-6.pdf
++++++++++++++
The author seems to commit the same “higher pleasure” error mentioned by Cassius above – but does seem to succeed in arguing against the notion that a state of katastematic pleasure somehow obviates the natural, healthy desire for varying kinetic pleasures – on the contrary. And pleasure is pleasure.
Late Note: I found the author of the above -- Diana Lobel, associate professor of religion at Boston University. The above comes from her book Philosophies of Happiness.
++++++++++++++
As a personal aside, re the italicized sentence above – A therapist friend once asked why I continued my particular indulgences in tobacco. I said: “Because I enjoy it.” His response: “Your body doesn’t.” 
But Epicurean philosophy not only does not teach that there is no need to wish for "more" life, it teaches that life is desirable, because life is absolutely necessary for the experience of pleasure. Life is so desirable, and so important, that every aspect of life which is not specifically painful is worthy to be considered pleasurable.
And the natural fact that pleasure is linked to well-being (physical and mental), while pain is linked to ill-being (with the occasional exceptions where a temporary pain must be endured – e.g., a trip to the dentist – to ensure continued pleasurable well-being). And well-being is conducive of a longer, healthier, happier (more pleasurable) life; ill-being, the opposite. Of course, there are nuances in the real complexities of living and choosing – but I remain amazed at how these simple, clear concepts have gotten so corrupted.
[I hasten to admit that I am not particularly disciplined re the so-called “hedonic calculus” on a day-by-day basis – but that is my responsibility, and I will not hide it “under the bushel” of some obfuscatory philosophy.]
Welcome, Julia!
By Zeus, Don , what an impressive, well-written work of scholarship!
I was particularly caught by this: “ … large enough to attract the attention of Memmius, a well-to-do Roman citizen, who wanted to raze the property and construct his own villa on the site.” Now, Epicurus’ abode may not have been as extensive as a villa, but this would indicate that either (1) a significant portion of the plot on which his house existed was the grounds (cultivated? how?) , and/or (2) Epicurus’ house may have been a bit more than a humble cottage.
After Khayyam
“And, as the Cock crew, those who stood before
The Tavern shouted—'Open then the Door.
You know how little while we have to stay,
And, once departed, may return no more.’"
– Omar Khayyam, Rubaiyat III, translated by Edward Fitzgerald (from his First Edition)
~ ~ ~
And so, to the tavern at dawn make haste,
that lively vintage tapped this morn to taste –
for yesterday’s run dry, tomorrow’s fruit
unpres't – and deign not this hour sour to waste
whilst wishing what mayest thou savor when
fortune’s flavors favor your taste buds’ ken,
from imagining and memory bruit:
fancies and dreams – once dreamt, must drowse again.
The past draught, once drunk, shall be drawn no more;
and next year’s sherry – yet to bloom with flor,
in oaken casks to ferment – still, doth wait.
This day’s quick wine thus quaff, while it may pour –
and lose not thyself in portentous lore;
nor scorn merry mirth, vain creeds to adore.
++++++++++++++
“flor” – a yeast that is used in the production of sherry (from Spanish for flower).
Written in the form of Edward Fitzgerald’s quatrains (except for the closing couplet).
Image from an illustration by Edmund Dulac from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, 1909
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"?
Or who gets to declare if the proper and necessary criteria are met to be an Epicurean – and what those criteria are for anyone/everyone? It’s for questions like these that I am loath to call myself an Epicurean (or a/an anything along those lines). I prefer just “Epicurean” – as an adjective, and even that with some reservation.
In the end, I try to fit the philosophy to my life, so far as it seems reasonable, true and helpful (Epicurean philosophy just seems to provide that, generally, better than others). I do not try to bind my life (thoughts and behavior) to the demands or protocols of a philosophy in order to call myself a [ … ]. {Procrustes’ bed comes to mind. 
}
In the end, I may not be an Epicurean – let alone a “good Epicurean”. And that’s okay. 
The meaning of this 'meaning of life' is as elusive as the claims of the snake-oil salesman, because that's exactly what it is; an imaginary cure to what is not, in fact, a disease. The 'disease' is explicitly atheism and hedonism, and to sell the cure one must first sell the idea that the disease is real and shameful. When they tell you that your life without gods is without meaning, they are you telling you to feel ashamed.
Don't.
Boom! 
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?
Even a simple, bite-by-bite imbibing of Epicurean principles can (in my opinion) be helpful in getting one’s life together (just as in many therapies). A deep, time-consuming dive into scholarship or even popular sources (such as Emily Austin) is not necessary – and for many people may not be possible. This site is a very good resource for those people, who can tap in as they need and wish. It has been for me.
[This question could merit a whole thread of its own – as could some of the others no doubt.]
+++++++++++++++++
VS 27 (Bailey version): "In all other occupations the fruit comes painfully after completion, but, in philosophy, pleasure goes hand in hand with knowledge; for enjoyment does not follow comprehension, but comprehension and enjoyment are simultaneous." Effective therapy (in my experience) does the same: once, when I was going through a really rough time, I went into my first meeting with a therapist (who later became a friend) scared, anxious and depressed – I left laughing. Was that the end of it? No. But that was the process that kept me coming back for some time.
Same for here.
The science shows everyone IS a psychological hedonist , and the science is what is empirically known. He or she may deny the science, like a creationist denying evolution, but that's what's actually true.
Or the Stoic denying that feeling pleasure at her accomplishments (a good self-pat on the back?) guides her pursuit of virtue?
