There isn't much in the extant texts about this truth: Any time you harm or kill another human there will be consequences - often unforseeable and potentially unpleasant.
PD5 is somewhat related to this: "It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously."
Here is a tough question: Can the killing of a another human being ever be justified under Epicurean philosophy? Thoughts?
Wishing you a Happy Birthday Joshua !
Tomorrow night, in our Zoom (Wednesday Oct. 25th) in addition to the Vatican Says 38 & 39, we will also have a chance to discuss the recent interview of Dr. Boeri:
Hoping we can start a new list here in this thread regarding the question of "How to live the Epicurean life in today's society".
(Another thread was started by forum member Eoghan Gardiner presenting this question to ChatGPT...which had some interesting points, but also some incorrect ones. You can find that thread here. Rather than react to correct ChatGPT, here we can start from scratch (and if we want to incorporate some of the previously discussed ideas also).
It might be important to consider:
What makes you an Epicurean? What do Epicureans do that others do not do?
And are there challenges to living an Epicurean life in today's society?
What is different in our current time compared to Epicurus' time or Lucretius' time?
If anyone wants to respond to the above questions, please do so. And I'll start thinking further on the "how to" list and post within the next week.
Perhaps this list could be made into a pamplet, or something good for new forum members to read.
ChatGPT...this paragraph was lol 
Remember that living an Epicurean life doesn't mean avoiding all forms of pleasure; rather, it encourages the pursuit of enduring and meaningful forms of pleasure while avoiding excessive and unnecessary desires.
How to live the Epicurean life in today's society...or...how to live according to the philosophy of Epicurus -- definitely would be good to create a list. The list should include study the philosophy with a like-minded friend...and other items from the Letter to Menoeceus, the PD's, and VS's.
I keep mulling this over...it seems that Humanism goes a step further than Epicureanism -- with an ethical goal of improving the greater good of humanity - so progressive politics, philanthropy, and on-going involvement in projects to make the world better according to conceived ideals of peace and equality would be part of Humanism. So while thinking/acting this way wouldn't stop one from "being Epicurean" (finding pleasure in philanthropy), not all Epicureans think this way (and pleasure is found in myriad things). And I think many Epicureans might consider that "perfect peace and equality" are impossible when clearly observing the root causes of inequality and war -- and we are animals with basic needs for food, shelter, and security -- and who have "animal" fears and anxieties. But so many people want to see humans as being something other than animals -- and that we must evolve into "perfect human beings" -- in spite of the stresses that civilization causes to human animals.
Perhaps this Principal Doctrine has some applicability with regard to Humanism/virtue/ideology:
PD22: "You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion."
(a reminder to "not put the cart before the horse").
The philosophy of Epicurus can't be humanism because it is already called Epicureanism, lol 
(Apples and oranges are both a fruit)...and maybe we need a chart comparing them.
"Humanism” is such a broad concept, with many – often conflicting (e.g. theistic and nontheistic) – strands, that I find it pretty meaningless as a catch-all philosophical term in itself. Better, perhaps, to speak of “humanisms” of different sorts.
Perhaps a chart with some common types of humanism listed.
The lecture was quite interesting as it reminded me of a popular stance on Epicurus which is predominant in modern German literature. Epicurus is understood as a philosopher who reaches for inner independence while also granting enjoyment of pleasure as long as the enjoyment doesn't collide with freedom from pain.
Just for clarity sake, wanted to point out this ( Titus you likely already know this) from the Letter to Menoeceus:
"And because this is the primary and inborn good, we do not choose every pleasure. Instead, we pass up many pleasures when we will gain more of what we need from doing so. And we consider many pains to be better than pleasures, if we experience a greater pleasure for a long time from having endured those pains. So every pleasure is a good thing because its nature is favorable to us, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen — just as every pain is a bad thing, yet not every pain is always to be shunned. It is proper to make all these decisions through measuring things side by side and looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, for sometimes we treat a good thing as bad and a bad thing as good."
I would definitely see them as allies, but I also recognise them as focused more on societally tasks than promoting the personal transformation through philosophy which I regard as the key point.
This is definitely a key difference between Epicureanism and Humanism. Within Humanism, I think there is nothing wrong with the attempt of societal transformation, but there is only so much time in life -- and it is quite a difficult task to actual do something rather than just talk about it (plus potentially more pain than pleasure). And ever since Epicurus, perhaps this is an issue (and virtue not being the goal) that detractors brought against Epicureanism.
Words mean something. When you accept (1) that if you are aware of anything at all then what you are aware of is either pleasure or pain, and (2) someone has said that their life is "free from pain," then (3) the realization that what they have said is that they are at maximum pleasure follows like night follows day.
It may be important to acknowledge that occasionally we feel something that seems like neither-pleasure-nor-pain (a kind of nothingness) but this rarely happens and also it shifts into either pleasure of pain fairly quickly (perhaps upon reflecting on it one becomes aware of it feeling painful).
Regarding "freedom from pain is the height of pleasure" - I would say this is a kind of remedy which is similar to "death is nothing to us". Without a thourough contemplation and using the mind to reason through them, then both of these do not appear to make sense - so it takes thinking in order to see the application of these two points.
I found this website which has directions for making an "ancient" scroll. It shows an example of Chinese characters but could be simply made with ancient Greek text. (Or some fancy fonts of English words could be fun too...perhaps the PD's?
From all of the above postings it seems that "live unknown" can relate to the following list of ideas:
--Don't try to make a name for yourself
--Don't do things that put you in the spotlight such as becoming a politician
--Don't teach Epicurean philosophy publically
--Don't get involved in politics (political activites or political debates)
--Don't be concerned with being known after you die
--Don't take on (espouse) the groundless ideas of the crowd
And there are reasons for "why" for all of the above are important to consider, although it should be understood that there isn't some kind of absolute rule against these. If your life is beginning to move into a "hellish" direction, you may choose to do something to prevent it from getting worse.
If your life is going well and there isn't any extremely pressing reason to publically engage in politics, then take heed, because you are highly likely to end up creating a "hellish" life for yourself, and you will have ruined your chances for enjoying this one life. (Perhaps in modern times we have more room for consequence-free expression of opinions because of the internet).
In addition to the above, I see "live unknown" as the start of the consideration of whether or not we "owe" time and energy to upholding the well-being of the city-state/nation/commons. If that kind of action gives you pleasure, then go ahead (but you will likely encounter difficulties). If it isn't something that comes naturally, then don't feel that you are doing something wrong by not getting involved. If things around you are going downhill and you need to protect your life necessities, then of course take action. And since everything is politically polarized, don't be surprise of bad consequences that you encounter when you do take action.
Found this which has lots of interesting tidbits:
Everybody understands that the pleasure of ice cream is different from listening to music, but they don't understand that pleasure includes both "exciting" pleasures and "all normal non-painful experiences of life."
The pleasure that comes from ice cream is different because the part of the body involved, and perhaps the jolt of sugar has a greater intensity...but perhaps doesn't last as long as the pleasure of music (enjoyable to the ears and perhaps tied to happy memories). Yet, another thing to think about is that the underlying "state of being pleased" is actually the same for both of these, therefore you could substitute one for the other (if necessary).
… in Classical Era Athens, the purchase of all fish by a wealthy citizen was considered an undemocratic act since he left nothing for the rest of the people.” https://greekreporter.com/2022/08/04/anc…rence-for-fish/ cited by Kalosyni in post #43 above.
I somehow didn't see that in that article, and it is a little bit confusing because that same article says this:
As for processed fish, such as preserved tuna and anchovies, they were widely consumed by all social classes and were the product of a very flourishing trade throughout the Mediterranean and the adjacent seas.
One additional point on this from the letter to Menoeceus: "And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality."
Maybe...when we come to label things as either pleasure or pain, and that absense of pain is a pleasure, then it takes away the craving for unlimited pleasurable stimulation?
Some questions:
Is there ever any benefit to deciding to label something as being "neither pleasure nor pain"? Does the experience of "neither pleasure nor pain" happen spontaneously or do we decide to label it that way after the fact?
Also, 100% pain is very rare but might occur while physically experiencing something catastrophic (a car accident or being hit by a bomb).
How much of our experience (and how much of the time) is there an equal mix of both pain and pleasure? (A1 + B2) or (A2 + B1) ...and might there be times when these are considered "neither pleasure nor pain" since they cancel each other out?
How often is the sum of our experience just what we decide to tell ourselves (or label things as being either "good" or "bad")?
This article brings up some interesting ideas in modern psychology, which may be helpful for thinking about "two feelings: pleasure and pain". The article talks about nuetral affect (a long article and haven't read it all yet).
seqstrat welcome to the forum - a section you might like is the FAQ section:
