Posts by Brandenoz

Those are some excellent points!

I can always find Marcus (often 3-4 versions of Meditations) and Epictetus in any bookstore so far. If Epicurus is suppressed despite being capable of offering more utility to human life, and if it is because he is disagreeable to the popular world view, then surely Nietzsche must be more so. Unless, the only reason I can think of, Nietzsche is protected by being eccentric and unclear. I wonder if Nietzsche has been safe despite being many times more disagreeable to the popular world view, because his conclusions are not nearly as clear in his writings as Epicurus. If so, the conclusion would be that if you intend to write philosophy that is against the popular world view, it is better that implied with hidden meanings and not fully clear. Adding an obstacle of work in comprehension seems to be a safety net to keep only the readers willing to go deep enough, to gain a true understanding of the works meaning. Since Nietzsche seems so difficult to understand, I cannot imagine an equivalent work for "Gateway to Nietzsche" where someone slyly tried to simplify then undermine, most likely to gain status by strengthening the values of the popular world view to the current majority. But this is only my guess. It could also be that Nietzsche continues to stick around because the current intellectual / academia community likes to read him as a status symbol while not agreeing or understanding what he is saying.

In my local Books A Million, this was the only book on Epicureanism, which I find misleading because the author's purpose is to mislead people away from the topic. In my local Barns & Nobles, I found Lucretius but nothing else on Epicureanism. It seems to me that the average person is not darting to the philosophy section of the book store, nor is very familiar with any of the ancient Greek philosophies. But none the less, there is always Plato and Aristotle. When I worked for a bookstore for a short time, I never recall anyone buying any philosophy books either. So it seems weird to me that the section is so selective given it doesn't seem to have much demand, yet seems to be purposeful selected to support one view. I can see why in a majority Christian society why people would make Epicureanism hard to find even on accident, but what surprises me is if that is the case, why is there always Nietzsche?

I had a question. This part from Thomas Jefferson on the virtues of Epicurus, did he just come up with this? I haven't seen them anywhere else. It seems Epicurus was bigger on a pleasant life cannot be lived without the virtues, but we don't live for the virtues like the Stoics.

Virtue consists in: 1. Prudence. 2. Temperance. 3. Fortitude. 4. Justice
to which are opposed: 1. Folly. 2. Desire. 3. Fear. 4. Deciept.

I'm guessing these would be seen as inaccurate? I know Epicurus said that prudence can be more important than philosophy, but Temperance and Justice seem like borrowings from Stoicism. It seems weird that Jefferson liked Epictetus and Epicurus and I find lately that more people I know prefer Epictetus out of the Stoics, but they seem to be contradictory.

I finished reading this book. I liked the selections from Lucretius and Newton. That was my first time reading Lucretius. Klavan does have commentary throughout the book, and otherwise only writes the preface, but he ends the book with Maxwell:

"They continued this day as they were created, perfect in number and measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them we may learn that aspirations after accuracy in measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they are essential constituents of the image of Him Who in the beginning created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist."

If I wasn't familiar with Epicurus already, and this was my reading on him, it would have been confusing. It does seem like there is some intellectual dishonesty in this work. Because it is not titled 'Against Epicurus' you would think the author is for the ideology they are writing about. The author essentially used Epicurus's science and logic to make a case for creationism in the end.

Klavan ended the preface of the book somewhat on a negative tone towards Epicureanism, I felt, but otherwise made a great case for the physics-based approach and on how 'We are all Epicureans Now' in many ways. The reason I wanted to read it is because while flipping through it, I found the 1-page Syllabus of the Doctrines of Epicurus by Thomas Jefferson. I thought it was really succinct and I liked his division of physical and moral rather than mental, emotional, etc. You can find a copy of that part here: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jeff…15-02-0141-0002

Hello, and thanks for having me. I especially was drawn into the graphic on the home page showing Epicurean physics + canonics = ethics. A book I was reading structured Epicurean ethics in that same way and I thought that made a lot of sense. The book was "Gateway to Epicureans". I will make sure to look over all of those resources and community standards!