Posts by Cassius

You're definitely right that if we presume death is the shutdown of ALL systems then that answers the question. But the statements of Epicurus do not appear to be so sweeping - they focus on the end of "sensation" as sufficient to answer the question.

I think that the most obvious concern arises from the possibility that if Epicurus is focused only on "sensation" then what does that mean. Is the end of sensation sufficient to establish that absolutely no unpleasantness can occur after death? If consciousness exists totally independently from sensation, and an continue independently without any "new sensation" input, then the possibility would exist that consciousness could continue to rehash old experiences (old pains) from old sensations. If so, then someone might argue that death is not necessarily the complete insulation from all future unpleasantness.

There are various ways to deal with this question, but I do think the question is a valid one to ask. At least it will arise in the minds of some people given the way some people look at consciousness today as inexplicable and mysterious.

Probably related to this as well would be to consider the relationship between "the five senses" and "the feelings" and "the anticipations." Can or do the "feelings of pain and pleasure" and "the anticipations" function without "the five senses"?

In Dewitt's book he talks about them being dependent upon one another while not being identical.

That probably works, but we also don't want to be sure to steer clear of mystical "three in one" allegories.

In our conversation on the zoom there was considerable talk of consciousness being able to reflect upon "past" sensations without needing "new sensations" for added content. From that perspective, consciousness / awareness might be able to continue for some period of time without new inputs from the five senses.

But that doesn't "seem" to be the way that Epicurus was thinking in his statements, does it?

Joshuas list of words relevant to consciousness:

In our Zoom discussion of January 18 2026 we deviated from Lucretius and examined a question that Raphael raised in a video here. The title of the thread seems to be the best way to summarize the issue, but during the course of the discussion several other ways arose:

1. Can consciousness exist without sensation?
2. Does the end of (new) sensation bring the end of consciousness?
3. Does consciousness continue after sensation ends?
4. When Epicurus says that death is the end of sensation, does "end of sensation" in and of itself mean that consciousness ends at death?
5. What does Epicurus say about consciousness?
6. From the Sorites perspective: When you go down the list and subtract each of the five senses, is anything left of consciousness?
7. How does the Epicurean theory of images relate to this question? Can the mind receive images even when all five bodily senses are inactive?
8. Is "consciousness" a modern idea which the ancients would dismiss as a regression in thought?

In the end a lot revolves around "can consciousness exist without sensation?" but asking the question the other ways helps focus on the subtleties.

In the most practical of terms of immediate interest to the "study and promotion of Epicurean philosophy," however, the issue involves how Epicurus meant to be understood in PD2 and the letter to Menoeceus:

PD02. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.

Letter to Menoeceus: Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation.

Last week's Episode was entitled "Happiness Is The Goal of Life - A Life of Happiness Is A Life of Pleasure."

As we close in on the end of Tusculan Disputations, I'd like to continue to emphasize not only that each one of these two prongs is controversial, but that there is another prong that's equally or more important:

1 - "Happiness is the goal of life" is hotly disputed by religion (which claims piety) and humanism/Platonism/Stoicism (which claims "virtue" or "being a good person." Many people loosely agree that they want to be happy, but they view happiness is a very non-Epicurean way.

2 - The dispute about prong one is why prong two is bitterly opposed. "A life of happiness is a life of pleasure" is exactly how Diogenes Laertius and Torquatus interpret Epicurus, but many - especially today - want to play word games and cite "absence of pain" or "tranquility" as the goal of life, and push "pleasure" off to the side and safely out of sight. And as a result they live lives that are very different from those which Epicurus, Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and the Epicurean leaders of the ancient world pursued.

3 - Prong three, which we need to address in this and coming episodes, is to emphasize that when Epicurus held that there are only two feelings with no middle ground, that means "pleasure" is everything not just physically but also mentally that we find to be agreeable. Far too many people hear the word "pleasure" and all they hear is "sex, drugs, and rock and roll." That's the way Cicero and most opponents of Epicurus chose to interpret him, and that's wrong, but it's pervasive.

We can say "Happiness is the goal of life," and "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure" all day long, but unless we can articulate the full meaning of pleasure as Epicurus advocated for it, the other two statements are largely worthless. "Happiness is the goal of life" can and has been said by many different types of philosophers, and "A life of happiness is a life of pleasure" is 9 times out of 10 going to be understood as the slogan of a party animal.

Only a clear and full explanation of Epicurus'' use of the word "pleasure" can give legitimate meaning to "happiness is the goal of life" and "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure."

Torquatus and Diogenes of Oinaoanda were able to do it, and the existence of legions of other intelligent Greek and Roman Epicureans are evidence that many others could too.

We today can do the same.

Episode 316 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "The Goal of Life Is Happiness - A Life of Happiness Is A Life Of Pleasure"

Welcome to Episode 317 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.
   
We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week with more on Section 32 of Part 5.

XXXIII.

You see, I imagine, how Epicurus has divided his kinds of desires, not very acutely perhaps, but yet usefully: saying, that they are “partly natural and necessary; partly natural, but not necessary; partly neither. That those which are necessary may be supplied almost for nothing; for that the things which nature requires are easily obtained.” As to the second kind of desires, his opinion is, that any one may easily either enjoy or go without them. And with regard to the third, since they are utterly frivolous, being neither allied to necessity nor nature, he thinks that they should be entirely rooted out. On this topic a great many arguments are adduced by the Epicureans; and those pleasures which they do not despise in a body, they disparage one by one, and seem rather for lessening the number of them: for as to wanton pleasures, on which subject they say a great deal, these, say they, are easy, common, and within any one’s reach; and they think that if nature requires them, they are not to be estimated by birth, condition, or rank, but by shape, age, and person: and that it is by no means difficult to refrain from them, should health, duty, or reputation require it; but that pleasures of this kind may be desirable, where they are attended with no inconvenience, but can never be of any use. And the assertions which Epicurus makes with respect to the whole of pleasure, are such as show his opinion to be that pleasure is always desirable, and to be pursued merely because it is pleasure; and for the same reason pain is to be avoided, because it is pain. So that a wise man will always adopt such a system of counterbalancing as to do himself the justice to avoid pleasure, should pain ensue from it in too great a proportion; and will submit to pain, provided the effects of it are to produce a greater pleasure: so that all pleasurable things, though the corporeal senses are the judges of them, are still to be referred to the mind, on which account the body rejoices, whilst it perceives a present pleasure; but that the mind not only perceives the present as well as the body, but foresees it, while it is coming, and even when it is past will not let it quite slip away. So that a wise man enjoys a continual series of pleasures, uniting the expectation of future pleasure to the recollection of what he has already tasted. The like notions are applied by them to high living; and the magnificence and expensiveness of entertainments are deprecated, because nature is satisfied at a small expense.

Yes I see we have two valued members with the same birthday. Happy birthday to Onenski and DaveT!

JC, FWIW, I happen to be aware that Martin is traveling this week and likely away from internet access so if he is delayed in responding that may well be a factor.

Happy Birthday to DaveT! Learn more about DaveT and say happy birthday on DaveT's timeline: DaveT

Happy Birthday to Onenski! Learn more about Onenski and say happy birthday on Onenski's timeline: Onenski

More recent discussion with the video and updated discussion of the location of Epicurus' house is here:

Thread

Don Boozer - Where Was The Garden of Epicurus? Discussion

youtube.com/watch?v=qYkkX67TZd8&feature=youtu.be

Cassius

January 21, 2025 at 6:06 PM

I am sure that this is probably included in the video but in tonight's zoom meeting it was impressed on me for the first time that I had failed to appreciate the location of Epicurus' "house." I think something about the name "Milete" led me to think that it was in an adjoining town or suburb further out of town. These maps below that Bryan included in his Epicurea show that Milete was even more centrally located -- in fact much more centrally located - than was the "Garden."

I seem to recall that this is in Don's video, but the way we've got the video currently focused on the "Garden" without reference to the "House" probably could be improved, so that we can even more forcefully make the point that Epicurus was by no means leading the life of a hermit.

Thanks for those comments Bryan. I suppose to nail down another aspect of this discussion, would you or anyone else here advocate for Lucretius taking off in a bold new direction from Epicurus as to the nature of atoms? I suppose an interesting case could be made that Lucretius differed from Epicurus on the advisability of writing poetry, but i bet even there would could find a way to reconcile them.

But before we move past this topic we probably ought to address whether there's a persuasive argument that Lucretius tried to modify any core Epicurean doctrine, which seems to be the point Nail is arguing.

Good topic Matteng but please edit your first line:

Quote from Matteng

In the past I often read/here:

I it looks like you mean to say " read / hear "

because you've included a lot that I don't think you read HERE!

One more comment:

If what Nail is saying is that he sees much more emphasis on motion in Lucretius than he does in Epicurus, and that this is why we should not be overly focused on anything that is static, then I completely agree. I think motion is a critical component of Epicurean thought that deserves emphasis.

But I don't think that Epicurus failed to emphasize motion if he is perceived by some to do so, it is because people are obsessed with the discussion of katastematic vs static pleasure, as Nail discusses in his ethics section. If Nail is making the point that there are more profound implications of motion in ethics than people appreciate due to modern over-focus on ataraxia, then I agree with him.

But as I read the article he is more focused on something else, presumably elated to the universe being something other than discrete particles. (Is he arguing for a "plenum"?) I don't see Lucretius doing that at all nor do I think looking in that direction leads to anything helpful.

Also Eikadistes I just glanced back over your recent article. What you wrote makes perfect sense to me in going over the many different words that were used as apparent synonyms for particles and stressing that we should pay attention to them.

But while I see you making the important point that Epicurus was significantly different from Democritus and Leucippus, I don't see you saying that there are any profound differences between Epicurus and Lucretius.

Your article seems very clear and helpful. This one by Nail strikes me much differently as implying profound differences between Epicurus and Lucretius which are not clearly explained. I have not generally found the contention that Lucretius differs significantly from Epicurus to be helpful or well grounded in persuasive argument, and that's how I react to this article too.

So at this moment my reaction is that I completely endorse anyone taking the time to read your article. On the other hand I doubt that the Nail article is a good use of time for most readers. Please correct me if you think i am off base!

Thread

Epicurus Was Not an Atomist (...sort of)

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/6015/

Greetings, all! I published some thoughts about the limitations in our employment of the word "atomism" as an expression of ancient Epicurean particle physics. I'll admit that I might be splitting hairs here, and exploiting a post-structuralist position about the symbols and their context ... I read a lot of Derrida back in college. I apologize in advance.

In a nutshell:

• The notions of "atomism" and "ancient Epicurean particle physics" can be contrasted

…

Eikadistes

December 22, 2025 at 2:24 PM

I just read the article. I agree with some of Nail's points on ethics (especially his implicit or explicit criticism of too much focus on static / katastematic ideas) but I am not seeing the profound differences between Lucretius and Epicurus that he claims to see as to particles or the resulting nature of the universe.

In fact I don't think his article gives a clear statement of where he is going with his whole argument. He seems to think there are profound implications in Lucretius deviating from Epicurus - but so far as I can tell he is not explaining what significance there is in what he is seeing.

I gather he is focusing on implications of motion but I see no reason why what he talks about as to motion is not already in Epicurus.

The article has lots of energetic argument but at least for me I don't see why he is so worked up.

Eikadistes I know you have written recently on this. What so you see to be the implications of his argument?

Watching a video of a reconstruction of ancient Rome brought my attention to "Fausta Felicitas."

In addition to Virgil's "Felix quit potuit...." passage I presume that the Romans in general would have connected the word "Felicitas" to the happiness described by Epicurus and the other philosophers. Presumably there were Latin translations of the letter to Menoeceus and if so would not felicitas have been the most likely translations of the happiness Epicurus refers to when he said that if we have it we have everything(?)

Felicitas had a temple in Rome as early as the mid-2nd century BC, and during the Republican era was honored at two official festivals of Roman state religion, on July 1 in conjunction with Juno and October 9 as Fausta Felicitas. Felicitas continued to play an important role in Imperial cult, and was frequently portrayed on coins as a symbol of the wealth and prosperity of the Roman Empire. Her primary attributes are the caduceus and cornucopia.^[5] The English word "felicity" derives from felicitas.

In its religious sense, felix means "blessed, under the protection or favour of the gods; happy." That which is felix has achieved the pax divom, a state of harmony or peace with the divine world.^[6] The word derives from Indo-European *dhe(i)l, meaning "happy, fruitful, productive, full of nourishment."

Also, (and this is interesting to me because Bryan recently made me aware that the Memmius to whom Lucretius addressed his poem was married to Sulla's daughter): Sulla identified himself so closely with the quality of felicitcas that he adopted the agnomen (nickname) Felix. His domination as dictator resulted from civil war and unprecedented military violence within the city of Rome itself, but he legitimated his authority by claiming that the mere fact of his victory was proof he was felix and enjoyed the divine favor of the gods.

Felicitas was a watchword used by Julius Caesar's troops at the Battle of Thapsus,^[45] the names of deities and divine personifications being often recorded for this purpose in the late Republic.^[46] Felicitas Iulia ("Julian Felicitas") was the name of a colony in Hispania that was refounded under Caesar and known also as Olisipo, present-day Lisbon, Portugal.^[47]

Felicitas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also: https://grokipedia.com/page/Felicitas

jlpendall tells us:

Hi Cassius!

I learned a little bit about Epicurus decades ago, but it was only after basically a lifetime of practicing various philosophies that his take on things started to click.

At 39, I’m starting the classic struggle of coping with the ravages of age. 2025 was full of different health concerns, culminating in sciatica that knocked me flat from Christmas Eve to New Year’s Eve.

Once the pain faded, I realized that its absence was a pleasure in itself. Since then, I’ve been trying to make mindfulness of absence part of my daily life. I’m focusing on the body, but there are many pains that I’ve been in that are absent at the moment, and that’s something to appreciate.

I’m still struggling with unhealthy habits from my more negligent hedonism. I’d like to find enough joy in ordinary painlessness that I don’t feel the need to dope myself with carbs and fanciful daydreams anymore.

Most of all, I’ve always sought a community.