There are other interesting videos listed (but not sure if they require a subscription). One that caught my eye was "Did the Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius Help Spread Christianity"
For anyone interested in Roman history - I found this very long video which looks very good:
The Complete History of the Roman Empire (it appears that this is free, however other videos may require a subscription).
What is the difference between a remedy and a truth?
Snow is cold, honey is sweet - these both do not require much thought and these are both true factually. A remedy requires further thought beyond what is easily seen as true. Because death seems like such a difficult and fearful thing to think about, many people don't ever get to the point of thinking about the "truth" that if consciousness and sensation is not present then there will not be a sense of "I" after death. A remedy is truth that requires inductive reasoning.
Most people don't spend time contemplating the feeling of no pain present in either body or mind (yet with no active stimulation of the senses) as a peasant feeling. Most poeple label no pain and no active stimulation of the senses as being a neutral state -- but this is incorrect and leads to problems (making poor choices and avoidances).
Let me know if this makes sense.
In other words, are we confident why Cicero was wrong to insist that most people are experiencing neither pleasure nor pain?
I hypothesize that when Epicurus stated "the feelings are two: pleasure and pain" that it was a "remedy" not a "truth" -- and it is similar in nature to the "remedy" of contemplating that "death is nothing to us". Contemplation of there being only two feelings is a kind of "reframing" of how we think of the nature of pleasure.
And so Cicero had not understood this remedy.
A "neutral" feeling would not tell you if something is desirable or not.
Just in case anyone is curious about the progress on the trophy system update...I have this morning turned off all trophies except for "Active Member".
The old trophy system had:
-- "New member in the last 30 days" (however the "suitcase" icon would remain indefinitely so the setting wasn't working).
-- 10 posts trophy
--100 posts trophy
--1000 posts trophy
Discovered that the system uses the logic "greater than" so it was actually set at 11, 101, 1001.
And this morning since I had assigned a special color trophy for each level, I wanted turn off the earlier trophy and only display the highest level award....I didn't use the right field for it, and decided to turn off all the trophies, except for the "Active Member" - which even though I entered "1" it uses the "greater than" logic. If I enter "0" then everyone would get the award (even those who have not made any posts). Of course I could test this out...but then it may re-issue a whole new bunch of trophies.
*****
Edit: We now have a "Frequent Contributor" trophy, and this will be all the changes for now.
This trophy update will also make it easier to manage membership and follow through with deleting members who are both inactive and have not completed their first post.
Just an fyi...today I am in the process of updating the trophy system, so you will all see some new ones popping up 
It seems that this hypothetical could be made more simple and clear. And there could be multiple ways to do so. For example:
"Would you rather be Epicurus, living in pain on your deathbed surrounded by friends knowing that you have made great contributions toward understanding the nature of the world and helping others understand it as well"
or
"Live your last week on earth pain-free but all alone on a mountain as a shepherd, and then have a very quick death from a sudden heart attack from eating too much sheep cheese, AND leave no legacy."
The original hypothetical as stated in post 1, sheds light on the natural desire for good health (and why so many picked the shepherd), since the wording of the hypothetical was such that the shepherd was not in pain.
We cannot control what kind of death we will have, or if we will be surrounded by friends or die alone. AND this question: How much can we control what kind of legacy we leave, since a portion of that process occurs by chance?
Another good article, the full article has lots of good details.
Ancient Greeks enjoyed a varied diet of vegetables, legumes, and fruit as the mainstay. But, being a coastal country with many islands, fish and seafood were an important part of the diet and animal husbandry and hunting brought meats and game to the menu. However, the consumption of fish and meat varied in accordance with the wealth and location of the household.
On ancient Greek diet:
Greeks of that time were very fond of fish, perhaps even more than we are today. For lunch, they would routinely dine on any fresh fish that was available, including sea bream, mullet, sardines, and eels.
There was always an assortment of legumes from which to choose, including lentils, beans, chickpeas, peas and broad beans to accompany the fish.
The eternal European staple of bread was always part of the midday meal, accompanied by cheese, olives, eggs, nuts, and fruit.
https://greekreporter.com/2022/08/04/ancient-greeks-were-gourmands-with-a-preference-for-fish/
Tonight at 8pm, we will cover Vatican Saying 26 & 27, please join us. (Post here in this thread if you need to get the Zoom link).
VS26. You must understand that whether the discourse be long or short it tends to the same end.
VS27. In the case of other occupations the fruit (of one's labors) comes upon completion of a task while (in the case) of philosophy pleasure is concurrent with knowledge because enjoyment does not come after learning but at the same time (with) learning.
Thank you everyone for your contributions. I will digest these suggestions and add in some of them. It does seem that everyone has their way of slicing and dicing, so there really isn't one "right" formula. Anyone can contribute here...and/or create individual personal outlines over in that section (since I may not add in everything that has been suggested).
Epicurean Philosophy Happy Hour is coming up Monday evening 8pm - open to all forum members. Let's celebrate summer with an opportunity to share about happy memories or enjoyable experiences (if you feel like it would be enjoyable to do so). Then we'll follow that with open discussion on Epicurean philosophy.
Thanks for the RSVPs so far!
Any other RSVPs?
8. Study natural science and practice the Epicurean ethics together with those of like mind.
This would also include application of "canonics".
And perhaps for modern day Epicureans this would also include studying climate change so as to understand the rate in which climate is changing (for the sake of understanding safety).
Edit Note: See post 10 below for an updated version.
**************************************************
I am in the process of brainstorming...and would especially appreciate any ideas for "steps" or descriptions (and maybe it needs more than 7 steps?) from Joshua, Don, Godfrey, Martin, TauPhi, Onenski, and kochiekoch.
The following "Seven Steps to the Ethics of Epicurus" is a work in progress:
1. The nature of the world, the soul, death, and god(s) - The basis of everything is atoms and void and nothing comes from nothing - there are no supernatural elements or forces, no afterlife, and no angry gods. Death is natural and not something to dread.
2. Pleasure is the guide of life. Pleasure is good and pain is evil. But at times the painful is chosen if it prevents a worse pain or leads to a greater pleasure or to the health and happiness of the soul. The virtues are useful when they lead to pleasure and health.
3. Choices and avoidances according three categories -- natural & necessary for health of the body and the soul; natural but not necessary (a variation of sensation); unnatural and unnecessary.
4. Friendship
5. Safety
6. Justice
7. The gods are blissful beings who are to be emulated
8. Study natural science and practice the Epicurean ethics together with those of like mind.
I can't believe even the staunchest ancient Epicurean really thought that **everything** Epicurus said was blindingly unique. We all know much of what Epicurus taught he learned from starts others had made, such as Democritus. So it's only natural that smart people do regularly hit on similar thoughts. The uniqueness of Epicurus comes through in certain particular ways, and it's probably most helpful for us to think about those particular ways and the reasons for them. That's the obvious way to sniff out when someone who's talking - for example - about "virtue" is speaking as an Epicurean or Stoic or whatever.
It does seem that having a basic knowledge of all the ancient philosophies could be helpful.
Perhaps...the uniqueness of Epicurus is deconstructing and replacing the "perfect" and the "ideal" and properly placing pleasure (together with the removal of pain) as the best guide to a good life. If you think about it, it is only the wealthy who can try to buy perfection (or vain opinions) in the lifestyle that they pursue. (And then sometimes others who erroneously envy the wealthy). But the necessary pleasures required by nature are easy to procure.
He references the similarity to VS54:
54. Do not pretend to love and practice wisdom, but love and practice wisdom in reality; for we need not the appearance of health but true health.
There is also the reference to health in the Letter to Menoeceus, in the opening:
"Let no one put off the love and practice of wisdom when young, nor grow tired of it when old. For it is never too early or too late for the health of the soul."
You can view a modelling of the architecture, which shows it was a stoa:
A good article covering ancient skepticism -- There were two distinct traditions or movements of skeptical thought: Pyrrhonian and Academic.
While ideas that can loosely be called skeptical may be found from very early in Greek philosophy, skepticism as an organized method of thinking in Greco-Roman antiquity appears in the post-Aristotelian period. There are two distinct traditions or movements of skeptical thought: Pyrrhonian and Academic. The hallmark of ancient Greco-Roman skepticism, in both traditions, is suspension of judgement, brought about by the juxtaposition of equally persuasive opposing views on any given question. In the Pyrrhonist version, but not the Academic, this is claimed to have a practical benefit: ataraxia or tranquility. In both traditions, however, skepticism is understood not merely as a topic of theoretical reflection, but as something to be lived. The Pyrrhonian tradition claimed inspiration from Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360–270 BCE), who is usually considered the first Greek skeptic. However, the exact nature of Pyrrho’s thinking is very hard to reconstruct, given the scarcity of the evidence. Pyrrho’s direct influence seems to have been short-lived. But shortly after Pyrrho another skeptical movement arose in the Academy, the school founded by Plato. The first head of the Academy to take the school in a skeptical direction was Arcesilaus of Pitane (316/5–241/0 BCE). Whether Pyrrho was an influence on him is a disputed question. But some aspects of Socrates’ activity, as Plato portrays him, might seem to encourage skepticism, and Arcesilaus is said to have acknowledged this influence. The skeptical Academy lasted for roughly two centuries, its other major figure being Carneades of Cyrene (214–129/8 BCE). By the early 1st century BCE the skepticism of the Academy seems to have moderated considerably, and it was at this point that the Academy itself, as an institution, came to an end. But in reaction to this softening of the skeptical attitude came a new skeptical movement led by Aenesidemus of Cnossos (dates uncertain, but active in the early first century BCE), repudiating the Academy and instead identifying itself with Pyrrho. This later Pyrrhonian movement continued for roughly three centuries. We know the names of a few Pyrrhonists. But the only complete Pyrrhonist works we have are the extensive surviving writings of Sextus Empiricus (probably late 2nd or early 3rd century CE). Because Oxford Bibliographies for Pyrrho of Elis and The Academy already exist, this bibliography is somewhat weighted toward the later Pyrrhonist tradition stemming from Aenesidemus.
It says: "In both traditions, however, skepticism is understood not merely as a topic of theoretical reflection, but as something to be lived."
And this is what would be different from Epicureanism -- as it seems that theoretical reflection is at times contained within Epicureanism?
So, I don't think πενία should be interpreted as abject poverty or living on the edge of starvation and similar scenarios.
Your translation of this brings up a reminder regarding translations. Cassius are we going to assemble a recommended translation at some point on VSs and PDs?
