We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
, but I'm going to push back ever so slightly on the "Epicurus is not always looking to his own advantage." Pleasure is
Yes I agree and realized that during editing that I should have been more precise. I intended to strongly emphasize the "his own" to show that he was looking at this very broadly and factoring in how other people affect him, but that didn't come across and i fully agree with your point.
Thanks I will look into that! The existing podcast provider does have a transcript, but it is not very good.
Planning yes, but schedule unknown. It's a big effort. However I am coming around to the idea that the podcast audio versions can serve as a "first draft" that when edited further turn into really good articles with wider impact. So yes I am going to work on more of these!
Substack transcript version of this podcast available here:
I will admit I didn't read this entire thread, but that's never slowed me down before.
I already "liked" the main post but I can't resist adding an set of 
here.
As such, trust in the law for protection is not an effective option. I understand that building a strong community can be helpful(as I believe this is one of the many forms of security that can be increased with the help of friendship), but what else can I and other people do to deal with anger, resentment, and especially anxiety in scenarios like this? What would Epicurus and his followers advise?
SillyApe
I am sorry to hear all that which you posted. You have raised all sorts of issues which are impossible to deal with directly without more details, but you are also right that it would probably not be appropriate for us to try to go further into details which are no doubt very specific to circumstances.
I definitely think however that what you have raised can lead to generally helpful discussion of how to analyze any situation.
And it seems to me that if you truly have reached a stage where "trust in the law for protection is not an effective option" then your first priority must be to do what you can to secure the safety of yourself and your friends. Whether that requires what Kalosyni mentions of moving to another area is too fact-specific to say, but I personally not would not approach what you are describing as primarily a therapy issue, once you make sure that you avoid being out of control (which I gather is a concern per this comment:
When I read this, my blood began to boil as never before. I started shaking with anger.
So long as you do not let anger or any other emotion make you act irrationally, I would seek to use the anger as a spur to taking appropriate action. There are references in the fragments to Philodemus stating that Epicurus held some types of anger to be appropriate. In fact the last thing i would do would be to prioritize "calming down" over taking firm action, if firm action is in fact required. In recent podcasts we've seen Cicero take the Peripatetics to task for too loose a willingness to compromise with certain types of strong emotion, but with Epicurus the focus is always on the result, not that there is a magic quantity (zero or any other quantity) which is always bad or always good.
Epicurus left not one but two locations under terms from which we might infer that he was not welcome in those locations, so yes Epicurean philosophy will offer advice on keeping anger under control, but remember also that Epicurus says that the wise man will feel his emotions more deeply than others, and this will not be a hindrance to his wisdom.
No doubt PDO6 is relevant, and there are other references that make the same point that safety is an extremely high priority.
PD06. In order that men might not fear one another, there was a natural benefit to be had from government and kingship, provided that they are able to bring about this result. PD06: The translation given is by Mensch. Formerly we used Eugene O’Connor from “The Essential Epicurus": "Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.” Bailey: “To secure protection from men anything is a natural good by which you may be able to attain this end.” New Greek Version: “In order to obtain security from other people, there was (always) the natural good of sovereignty and kingship, through which (someone) once could have accomplished this.” This version is up for review given that the Greek for sovereignty and kingship clearly appears in the text but is emended out by Usener and others. See the discussion of PD06 for further detail.
Also there is PD14. The most unalloyed source of protection from men, which is secured to some extent by a certain force of expulsion, is in fact the immunity which results from a quiet life, and retirement from the world.
PD39. The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus.
PD40. As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbors, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and, after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.
At first thought I think that Dr. Austin touches on the subject (maybe repeatedly) but I don't think there is a chapter devoted to it.
For that I would recommend the DeWitt book, which treats it extensively, but equally or more so I would recommend the article "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism" by Dr. David Sedley. i think we have it here or it's readily available on Academia -- if you can't find it let us know!
You'll find that most here agree with you, and that Emily Austin agrees and talks about this in chapter 4 of her book "Living for Pleasure" under the title "Natural Hedonism.
I'm become more interested in psychological hedonism (the thesis that all human actions are due to avoiding pain and increasing pleasure) and curious your guys thoughts on it.
Mark Twain makes the same argument in his "What Is Man" as well.
Epicurus has a very expansive view of pleasure that goes far beyond just physical stimulation, and yes that definitely plays into the idea that everyone acts for what they perceive to be their best interests.
My own view of employing the psychological hedonism argument in this context is that while there is a lot of merit depending on how it is presented (as Twain does), I don't find it particularly useful on the deeper and more important point of decided what the word "pleasure' really should be held to mean. it's one thing to say that every in truth acts for what they think will bring them the best result, but how that result correlates to "pleasure" is really the issue, and saying that "everyone does it" doesn't really help with that, at least from my point of view. All the other lemmings may be jumping off the cliff, but observing that everyone is doing it doesn't really help me decide that I should follow that path myself.
Welcome to Episode 304 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
This week we continue covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean perspective. Today we wrap up our discussion of Part 3 with Section XXI and push forward into Part 4, after which we will devote our final episodes devoted to Tusculan Disputations by examining Part 5 on whether virtue alone is sufficient for happiness.
Episode 303 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Is It Truly Impossible To Advocate For Epicurus In The Public Sphere?"
Elli's comment on Facebook:
Dear epicurean friend Cassius, your comment is invaluable - not merely insightful, but absolutely necessary. The image of Epicurus as a “drunken rogue” is not just a misunderstanding; it is a historical distortion. And no matter how humorous or technically polished the presentation may be, the essence remains: what is being promoted is a caricature that insults the philosophy of the Garden.
This video, however “well-made” it may be, reproduces a Buddhist-Stoic version of Epicurus, stripped of his active stance toward pleasure, pain, and life. Epicurus #was #not #a #passive #ascetic who “wants nothing so as not to suffer.” He was a philosopher of choice, evaluation, and presence. His phrase “I would not know the meaning of the good without the stimulating pleasures” is not rhetorical flourish; it is an ontological position. And its omission from the video is not innocent, it is misleading.
So I ask: Who created this video? What is its intended purpose? Why choose to portray Epicurus as ridiculous, weak, and inconsistent? Why omit his clearest statements about pleasure, pain, and active living? Why reproduce a stereotype that even his ancient opponents did not dare to use?
Cicero and Plutarch, despite their disagreements, knew that his thought was coherent, radical, and dangerously compelling. In contrast, today we see “admirers” portraying him as a toga-party dropout spouting nonsense and collapsing from excess. That is not Epicurus. That is an insult.
And yes, as you said, the solution is not to reject the video outright, but to use it as a prompt to return to the texts, to the real experiences of life and to conscious choices. Because Epicurus was never “simplistic.” He was clear, very clear. And his clarity is not deprivation, it is fullness without fear, leading us - with his philosophy - to genuine pleasure and freedom!
Despite my own past reading in this subject I've never opened a forum on this comparison, but it's probably time to do so and should lead to all sorts of points of disagreement, especially in ethics but also (or especially) in canonics. Please remember our forum rules and confine this dscussion to philosophical issues rather than the political issues with which she is commonly identified. it may also be appropriate here to talk about "Libertarianism," but again focusing on its philosophical roots and not on its political implementation.
Years ago I wrote this article at NewEpicurean about Objectivism, but there may be people here on the forum who would like to explore the philosophical (rather than political) aspects of this topic.
Objectivism: The “Worst and Most Dangerous” Philosophy In America – NewEpicurean
Given Rand's emphasis on Aristotle and her in her own writing (to my knowledge) stiffing Epicurus from even any mention, I think there are important philosophical problems in Objectivism that would be worthwhile to discuss.
Feel free to comment here in this thread or open your own thread in this section.
Bailey uses lots of "whits" which are likely much better rendered in modern English as "bits."
Similarly, "needs be" is much better as "necessarily be" and "aught" is better as "anything"
Also:
forsooth -> indeed
perchance -> perhaps
thou and thee -> You
verily -> truly
must needs -> must necessarily
There are no doubt many other examples where Bailey can be improved. We can't hope for perfection but before we invest a lot of effort in a text to speech version we might as well start with a version that doesn't perpetuate the worst of the possible poor word choices.
Another rendering by Bailey that has always bothered me is this one at Book 2:37:
But if we see that these thoughts are mere mirth and mockery, and in very truth the fears of men and the cares that dog them fear not the clash of arms nor the weapons of war, but pass boldly among kings and lords of the world, nor dread the glitter that comes from gold nor the bright sheen of the purple robe, can you doubt that all such power belongs to reason alone, above all when the whole of life is but a struggle in darkness?
I don't find this one as objectionable as my first example, but the phrase "belongs to reason alone" is easy to misinterpret if someone isn't aware of Epicurus' views on logic and the priority of the senses, and "when the whole of life is but a struggle in darkness" is easy to read in a negative way that Lucretis is implying that the whole of life IS and HAS TO REMAIN a struggle in darkness.
Munro does better with his "withal" to indicate that the whole of life does not have to be a struggle in the dark:
how can you doubt that this is wholly the prerogative of reason, when the whole of life withal is a struggle in the dark?
And Dunster doesn't make it so easy to misinterpret the Epicurean position on reason by saying "want of sense":
Do you doubt but all this stuff is want of sense, and all our life is groping in the dark?
So here I would combine Dunster and Munro to improve that final statement.
If you are aware of particularly problematic sections of Lucretius where some translations seem better than others, please point them out. Here's one example:
At Book 1:449, Bailey renders "eventum" as "accidents," which I think is exactly the wrong implication in modern American English. "Accident" today has more of a meaning of "chaotic" or "truly accidental," and implies that any particular moment anything can happen. The real sense seems to me to be rather that what happens is simply "without intention," but in fact what does happen is not chaotic or "accidental" at all, but in fact a necessary result of the properties of the atoms as they move through the void. Rather than "accidental," most things are in fact closer to be "determined" rather being the result of a universe in which "anything" can happen.
Dunster does better by leaving the main word as "event" rather than introducing "accident." "Event" is a more neutral term in English that just conveys "it happens" rather than implying that things happen chaotically. So in this section I'll make the "modern American version" follow Dunster rather than Bailey:
I'm posting this in the "News And Announcements" section to keep this post readily visible on the forum for the foreseeable future. This is a highly desirable project that is now readily doable combining (1) our past work on compiling versions of Lucretius with (2) readily-available good quality AI text-to-speech generation.
The title of the post states the goal: I want a freely accessible good quality audio version of Lucretius rendered into modern American English based on the best translations currently available. This goal is going to take quite a while to accomplish and it will require several steps:
Steps where you can help:
Comments and suggestions for how to proceed are welcome. I am sure there are versions already available, and there will be more in the future, but I'd like to see one that will forever be public doman, and is based on a revised and "conformed" copy of the best texts, and that won't happen anywhere else but here.
Glad to have you Zarathustra. All of the topics you mentioned are of great interest here. I personally am among those most interested in the Nietzsche relationship, but I'm no expert on Nietzsche so I'm of limited use other than in being convinced that there's a fascinating relationship. I think I'll tag Elli in Thessaloniki in this comment as I know she has shared my interest in that for many years. She introduced me to a Greek writer by the name of Liantinis who is related to this interest.
If you run into any issues in using the forum let us know.
This is a first draft of an entry on this topic for the FAQ section.
I consider the heart of what needs expansion not to be the discussion of natural and necessary, but - after we have obtained what is necessary, and once we have identified that unnatural desires have no limit and should not be pursued - how we personally answer the question of how to decide from among the options that that are available to us.
We hitting in other places and will establish elsewhere that (1) pleasure IS the guide/goal of life, and that (2) we should NOT engage in the unlimited pursuit of any desire that is otherwise fine when kept within limit (even power, fame, money).
So those are addressed here but not as the exclusive focus of the answer.
What I think needs further expansion is the discussion of what factors to consider in choosing among options AFTER we are agreed that (1) and (2) are correct starting points.
When you have a chance please look over the text here and add your comments and suggestions to this thread so we can revise the existing version over time.
Below is the version when first posted. I will be regularly revising this as we go forward, so check the link above for the latest updates.
