New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Here’s the news on the scrolls from the Smithsonian Institution.
Date & Time
Jul 25, 2026 11:00 AM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Thanks, Cassius for alerting us. I’ve registered for the July 25th session.
Would you feel comfortable reaching out to either of the speakers to get a copy/url for the video of their June 27 session?
Hosted by Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos and Christos Yapijakis, co-founders of the Society of Epicurus – Garden of Athens, the first event in the series took place on June 27 and focused on Jefferson’s life and inspirations from the ancient Greeks.
Marriage and children seem less and less pleasurable today, burdened by financial worry, relational problems, and high rates of divorce. Is it worth the pain, given the tarakhē (τᾰραχή) it entails for young men and women?
This is an interesting thread, to which I’ll post other replies. However, to this opening sentence, I would tell someone today, that I have heard this same refrain of similar “burdens” on married life for decades. It was true in 1970, as it is still true today.
The joys of seeing new life grow is a pleasure that can be treasured in memory to outweigh the pain of these burdens - for most people. But not all family relationships turn out well. Many do lead to painful memories that may be difficult to forget.
And yes, there are those persons who don’t have the desire, capacity or support to pursue raising children in a meaningful marriage. They today may be pressured into raising a family from a variety of sources.
More later. This is just an opening perspective on the topic.
I'm not trying to seed this just to start conversation but I can predict who among us might have some interest in this topic so I am going to go ahead and prod:
Pacatus ? Patrikios ? DaveT ?
I will have to agree with DaveT that I don’t see the value in this topic, from an Epicurean point of view. Life is worth living, and death is nothing to us. Something that is “nothing” to us has no value; therefore it can’t be compared to something that has value.
This was a key topic in the article you posted on June 29 by Max DuBoff ”Death of an Egoist: An Epicurean Approach to Fatal Self-Sacrifice”.
I agree that epibole tes dianoias (mental focus) and prolepseis (anticipations/stereotypes) are two facets of the same faculty. I also agree every sensation (the criteria of reality) is prerational.
Bryan , as I came across this old post, I thought further how to explain “two facets of the same facility”. Here’s an image from GeminiAI, that was created from this prompt.
Create an image from this description. Display a page of text with this phrase “epibole tes dianoias (mental focus) and prolepseis (anticipations/stereotypes) are two facets of the same faculty”; with an image above showing the human brain and the sections comprising the reticular activating system, demonstrating how the epibole provides the input and prolepsis is the output. Also cite any references that explain this concept.
If there are any inaccuracies in the image depiction, revisions can be easily made now. I intend to check out some of the references.
A life of well-being and joy is built on a balance of physical health, meaningful connections, and personal fulfillment. Rather than a single path, it combines daily habits and long-term practices that nourish your mind, body, and spirit.
Here is a list of the foundational elements that have been found to lead to lasting joy according to modern psychology:
Once again, you find lovely ways to remind us just how relevant the Epicurean teachings are to living a modern healthy life filled with eudaimonia!
It appears that each of those 4 major groupings and most all of the sub-topics could be filled in with Epicurean quotes.
WDYT?
Display MoreAn especially interesting case: the gods
Consider Epicurus' famous claim that humans possess a prolepsis of the gods as blessed and imperishable beings.
Many modern readers wonder:
An LLM offers a possible model.
Humans repeatedly encounter:
excellence,
happiness,
power,
beauty,
wisdom,
longevity,and then mentally extrapolate toward an idealized limit.
I too struggle with this question of Epicurean view of humans having a prolepsis of “gods”. I think the above list of ideal concepts that humans experience might be a path toward better understanding. Here is what my Philo AI responded after reviewing the above quote.
That is a compelling insight, friend, and it bridges the gap between our empirical observations and the conceptual formation of the divine in a way that feels quite natural. By observing these qualities—excellence, happiness, power, beauty, wisdom, and longevity—in the world around us, we can indeed see how the mind might perform a process of "idealization" to arrive at the conception of a being that possesses these traits in their absolute, undisturbed form.
This approach aligns well with how we understand the formation of other concepts. Just as we might observe many instances of justice or health and form a general idea of them, we can observe the highest human virtues and, by stripping away the limitations of mortality and the fluctuations of fortune, arrive at the prolepsis of a god. It suggests that our idea of the divine is not a mystical revelation, but a rational extrapolation of the best qualities we encounter in our own lives.
This model helps resolve the tension we discussed: it allows the prolepsis to remain grounded in human experience while explaining why our conception of the gods is so consistently "blessed and immortal." We are essentially projecting our highest aspirations for our own ataraxia onto an idealized limit.
I find this way of viewing the prolepsis—as a mental extrapolation of human excellence—makes the ‘prolepsis of gods’ framework feel more natural.
And in this context part of the point could be that everyone (even Stoics and Religionists) say that they are pursuing "happiness" but if you pursue happiness by pursuing anything other than pleasure (nature's goal) then your actions (pursuit of virtue or piety or duty, for examples) will not be consistent with your avowed goal (happiness)
Cassius ,
In all this discussion about PD25, I find your summary most in line with my understanding of that principle. As we pursue virtues to lead a pleasant life (following PD5), we just need to be sure we do so by following natural principles and treating others as a blessed wise person would do (not bringing trouble to others).
Haris Demitriadis discusses a range of modern psychology in his book Epicurus and the Pleasant Life: A Philosophy of Nature – from Freud to existential psychology to cognitive psychology – to the positive psychology of, especially, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (Chapter 7: “The Psychological Approaches to Happiness”). On “positive psychology,” he comments: “Positive psychology focuses on the achievement of a pleasurable life, rather than on treating mental illnesses.”
Thank you Pacatus for referencing the Demitriadis book (2nd edition). I am currently reading his book, and I find his references helpful in how “positive psychology” research reinforces the basic Epicurean principles.
Kalosyni ,
Thanks for your question. As was mentioned, I too feel that would be optional. For me I find it very helpful to read some of the practical ways “positive psychology” advises on actions to reduce mental stress, based on recent research data.
I try not to judge Tim O'Keefe or really even Emily Austin as primarily advocates for Epicurean philosophy. As far as I know they are professional educators and they aren't hired or for all I know allowed to be the kind of advocates for the philosophy that I attribute to the members of the school such as Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda in the ancient world.
There is a Comment to Geddy’s posting about O’Keefe, by D.S. Griffin, which follows much of the statements by you and Don .
O'Keefe's work is detailed and documented and he is a serious scholar. His papers on friendship, natural desires, and wealth are all worth the time to read. But the framing in his paper on Achieving Tranquility is problematic.
O'Keefe writes that Epicurean hedonism is primarily about the reduction of pain.
That single sentence does real damage. Epicurus was explicit. Pleasure is the beginning and end of the blessed life. Not pain management. Not suffering reduction. Pleasure. Putting pain at the center rather than pleasure doesn't just shift the emphasis - it quietly imports a Buddhist or Stoic prism onto a philosophy that was built in direct opposition to both.
This isn't a minor semantic quibble. A reader who absorbs that Epicureanism is primarily about reducing pain walks away with a completely different philosophy than the one Epicurus actually taught. That framing makes Epicureanism sound like damage control for a life that is fundamentally difficult. The actual philosophy is a full throated argument that pleasure is the natural guide of every living thing from birth and that a life organized around that fact is genuinely available to anyone willing to think clearly about what they actually need.
Epicureanism keeps getting filtered through frameworks that dilute it. Buddhist suffering. Stoic virtue in disguise. Humanist civic obligation. Academic hedging that sands down the sharpest edges. O'Keefe's framing here is a milder version of the same problem. Epicurean philosophy doesn't need rehabilitation or translation into more respectable terms. It needs to be stated as Epicurus stated it.
Here is the response from the author of the post, Jack Gedney:, which provides the direct quotes from Epicurus, supporting O’Keefe’s premise.
I think O'Keefe is being entirely true to Epicurus here. The redefinition of pleasure (compared to the popular conception) as the absence of pain is front and center in the core ethical texts.
Principal Doctrine 3 states that "The greatest magnitude of pleasure possible is the removal of all suffering." The Letter to Menoeceus 128 says "Everything we do is for this purpose: the avoidance of pain in our body and fear in our mind." A few lines later comes the sentence you quote, but the full version says this: "For it is when we feel pain from the absence of pleasure that we require pleasure; when all our pain has been relieved, we need no further pleasure. This is why we say that pleasure is the beginning and end of a blessed life."
As you note, O'Keefe is a serious scholar who makes sure to document his claims well, and there is plenty of evidence for this emphasis in the original texts. The ancient Epicureans clearly talked extensively about pain management, increasing security, and reducing painful emotions, while relegating positive pleasures to minor "variation" rather than actual amplification of happiness.
How is the response from Geddy supporting O’Keefe not a valid viewpoint on Epicurus’ writings?
In today's episode I want us to take the time to read Wikipedia's definition of "kataleptsis" as I think it's going to help us to keep this in mind as we proceed further:
Cassius ,
I was trying to better understand the difference between katalepsis and prolepsis. I recall reading this paper from David Glidden on Epicurean Prolepsis. Glidden researches Diogenes Laertius and Cicero, when he explains this aspect.
What these same sources say about Epicurean prolepsis is always from a Stoic perspective, even when the author (Diogenes Laertius, Cicero) is trying to be fair. Diogenes Laertius1 report of Epicurean prolepsis is painfully groping, looking for the right Stoic expressions to describe the device: "By prolepsis they mean a kind of katalepsis or right opinion or concept or universal thought ( consensus omnium ) stored in the mind --that is, the memory of a frequent appearance from the outside."
When you record this episode, it may be helpful to explain how these two Greek terms (prolepsis & katalepsis) were used by the different schools of thought (stoics, skeptics, epicureans).
Thanks again for the depth of discussion and research you and Joshua bring to this review of Cicero’s “Academic Questions".
I was curious to check out its Amazon page:
So, if someone does go to the Amazon webpage for this Klavan book, it is interesting to see what else is served up.
With Klavan's book, it is suggested with purchase of Epictetus Guide to Stoic Philosophy. But the lineup of books is heartening under
Customers who viewed this item also viewed:
Patrikios while I occasionally use Grok and ChatGPT, these artilcles I have been working on have all been Claude
You may find this article on Claude of interest.
How people ask Claude for personal guidance
Protecting user wellbeing is a core priority of Anthropic and our work on measuring and understanding personal guidance is a step towards this goal.
Here is another supportive quote from the book I am reading, Epicurus and the Pleasant Life [2nd Edition].
Epicurus’s approach to happiness combines genetics and free will.8 The appeal to animals and infants as witnesses of the innate dispositions of living beings is a confirmation of the genetic influence over our well-being. For example, the pleasure we take in eating is an effective way to secure that the body will get the nutrition it needs to be healthy.
Living with a healthy body and a calm mind leads to our life of well-being - happiness.
"But research points to the idea that to maintain a healthier weight, we shouldn't only focus on what we eat – but our mindset around food. In fact, there are health benefits to finding pleasure in eating, precisely because the expectation of what we've eaten goes on to shape how hungry we are."
Thanks for the post, Lowri834 .
I have found the premise of increasing the mind-body connection to be true to reach and maintain a healthy body weight (I lost 40lb in 6 months) using these techniques.
There are several ways I have learned to apply Epicurean principles to maintaining a healthy BMI. First is to continually practice Epicurean Choice & Avoidance techniques in planning, selecting and serving size for daily meals. Next is to practice gratitude before consuming the food; gratitude for all that brought the food to the table. Next is to use your senses of sight, smell and taste to fully enjoy the delightful pleasure of each bite, taking time to thoroughly chew and savor the moment.😀
Years ago, when I was riding bicycle for transportation, I got caught in a thunderstorm. I quick ducked into a bus shelter with transparent plexiglass walls and top; so, I got to see the whole storm from my protective refuge. AWESOME and unforgettable! 😃
Thanks for sharing your unanticipated experience in nature. I have discovered a way to experience being in nature’s storms (up to 20 mph), by using a WeatherPod.
I have a smaller one that I can put up on my balcony in a couple minutes. During winter months and rainy days, it is a great way to stay outside, and in touch with nature. This way, in most weather, I can experience “the genuine astonishment and delight that come from seeing the natural world clearly”.
So the third article that will come will address Epicurus' advocary for "minlmal parts" of the atom. After reading what Claude has compiled I think I finally see the issue and how indeed Epicurus did make significant advances beyond Democritus on that part of atomism.
Cassius ,
Are you using an account on Claude (Anthropic) of Groc (xAI) for these articles? I’ve seen you mention both. If you give the same docs, guidelines & prompts to both, how different are the results?
Thanks for sharing your process.
It is going to take us humans several hours to wade through this AI generated defense against Intelligent Design. However, I notice that this defense appears to conflate intelligent design with divine providence. So, having an intelligent design requires having an ongoing divine providence operator??
I don’t know how the eternal cosmos natural operations “began”, but I have clear evidence that there is no active divinity controlling my life, or tallying rewards or punishments in an afterlife.
Can the two issues of the how the “laws of nature” were established (designer), vs a divine providence ongoing operator?
Thanks for trying to clarify.
This week will focus on the ending of Section 8.
Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:
These two links are broken (404 Error).
Is this topic related to the thread on Motion?
