Posts by Cassius

Hania welcome, and be sure to let me know here or using the conversation system if you have any trouble with the forum software.

Hania tells me:

In general I am interested in ancient hedonism. My BA thesis focused on Cyrenaics while my MA thesis was mainly about Epicurus' philosophical therapy. I am now researching more contemporary interpretations of hedonims while working on my PhD in Philosophy (I am an Europe based researcher). However, my current work is still based on the ancient source of that school of ethics, with emphasis on epicureanism (including Lucretius).

I hope your website/forum will provide new insight and be a good way to connect with others interested in Epicurus' school of thought.

Welcome hania

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

We've needed an audio version of Lucian's Hermotimus for a long time. Here's a first draft of one, with the two characters of the dialog recorded in separate voices, so the discussion can easily be followed even without the on-screen visible text. Check it out here:

Post

RE: Lucian: Hermotimus, The Rival Philosophies

Here is the first draft of something I have been thinking of doing for a long time: an audio version of Lucian's "Hermotimus." It's far from perfect but so far as I know it's the only audio version of this dialog available. If you keep your expectations low the audio is very listenable. Some people are going to interpret this attack on a student of Stoicism as an advocacy of skepticism rather than being specifically Epicurean, but I'd reject that position. We know Lucian regularly showed…

Cassius

February 2, 2026 at 9:05 PM

Here is the first draft of something I have been thinking of doing for a long time: an audio version of Lucian's "Hermotimus." It's far from perfect but so far as I know it's the only audio version of this dialog available. If you keep your expectations low the audio is very listenable. Some people are going to interpret this attack on a student of Stoicism as an advocacy of skepticism rather than being specifically Epicurean, but I'd reject that position. We know Lucian regularly showed respect to Epicurus and almost never (if ever) said anything derogatory at Epicurus' expense. The conclusion of this dialog that it would be best to avoid philosophers like mad dogs is based on a clear foundation that advocates being practical about what can be expected from philosophy, and I think that's totally compatible with Epicurus' focus on using the faculties given us by nature rather than unverifiable propositional logic.

As with all these text-to-speech versions please feel free to note issues with the conversion, and I will incorporate those comments into future versions. In the meantime, for the first time in my life I will be able to go to sleep tonight listening to the wit and wisdom of Lucian dismantling Stoicism.

This video is now in version 3. At this point the Greek words have been transliterated to Latin text and many of the worst errors with prior versions have been corrected. Please continue to report errors for future correction.

Sorry you missed it Ed -- hope to see you again soon.

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

Yes that's right -- we are still talking about Line 136 because we ended up devoting our last regular session to a further discussion of consciousness, and we did not reach 136 at that time.

We'll therefore start with 136 and go as far as time allows, which won't be more than to 1-146 at most!

1-136

Nor does it pass unnoticed of my mind that it is a hard task in Latin verses to set clearly in the light the dark discoveries of the Greeks, above all when many things must be treated in new words, because of the poverty of our tongue and the newness of the themes; yet your merit and the pleasure of your sweet friendship, for which I hope, urge me to bear the burden of any toil, and lead me on to watch through the calm nights, searching by what words, yea and in what measures, I may avail to spread before your mind a bright light, whereby you may see to the heart of hidden things.

1-146

This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.

Fear forsooth so constrains all mortal men, because they behold many things come to pass on earth and in the sky, the cause of whose working they can by no means see, and think that a divine power brings them about. Therefore, when we have seen that nothing can be created out of nothing, then more rightly after that shall we discern that for which we search, both whence each thing can be created, and in what way all things come to be without the aid of gods.

Episode 318 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "In the End It Is Pleasure - Not Virtue - That Gives Meaning To A Happy Life."

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

This is exactly the kind of conversation I'd like to have here to help us prepare for when we record the summary, so this is a fine place for it. I may need to ask you to be a little more clear as to what you are saying however. I picked out this sentence as potentially the focus (?)

Quote from DaveT

Now, can we not agree that those four virtues are the necessary, and I mean necessary, virtues we each need to pursue in order to find happiness as Epicurus defined it?

When you say "those" are you saying that when you are living in a particular culture that defines virtue in a particular way, that it is necessary for happiness to comply with that culture's view of the virtues? I can certainly see the likelihood that "When in Rome Do As The Romans Do" is a good idea to "keep the peace" with your neighbors. On the other hand if someone objects to the culture strongly enough it's generally possible to go somewhere else.

So that's why it might be good to clarify what you are saying. I think most of us agree that Epicurus clearly held that virtue is a requirement for happy living, and that the real issue is what is meant by "virtue." Complying with the majority's definition is clearly one method of defining virtue, but of course Epicurus himself moved several times and I don't get the impression at all that Epicurus simply deferred to the majority on the key issues of life on which he considered clarity was essential to happiness (such as to death or as to the gods).

So I apologize that perhaps i am overlooking the obvious intent of what you are saying, but could you restate your ultimate conclusion or question?

I am going to be trying to review the text from a couple of different perspectives, and to assist in that I've prepared a text-to-speech edition which I can listen to while traveling or at other opportunities.

At this stage I have done only minimal review of the output and I am sure there are transcription and processing errors. I will update this as I have the opportunity but if anyone else decides to watch / listen and wants to submit notes as to errors with time stamps where they occur, that will be much appreciated. I will incorporate any suggestions into the text which is going to remain online here.

This was generated using a "Pseudo-Joshua" text to speech engine, so if you think you recognize the voice that's why! Unfortunately due to limitations in my technical ability while it's listenable it's far from "good." The engine has particular difficulty with long complex sentences, and "long complex sentences" is Cicero's middle name. However for the time being it's better than nothing!

Edit: This video in now version 2 with a number of corrections. 02/02/26 - now version 3.

Audio Version:

As I write this on January 30 we are planning to proceed with Episode 319 as an opening introduction to Cicero's Academic Questions. I note however that in Episode 318 we read and commented to the end of Tusculan Disputations, but we did not attempt to provide an overview of the full book. We'll need some time to put together notes and thoughts before we devote an episode to that, and the purpose of this thread is to make some notes to get us ready. As a start, here is an outline of what we need to summarize in one final Tusculan Disputations episode. Everyone should feel free to make comments in this thread as the following outline is a pretty good summary of some very major issues:

Epicurean Answers To Tusculan Questions

I. Book One: On Death

A. The basic question posed by the student: Is death an evil?

B. Cicero's proposed answer from the Academic Skeptic/Stoic perspective: Death is not an evil because either the soul survives death and continues to exist (perhaps in a better state), or death brings complete annihilation of consciousness, in which case there is no sensation and therefore no capacity for misery.

1. Major points cited by Cicero in favor of this position:

• If the soul is immortal, death liberates it to contemplate truth and ascend to celestial regions
• If death brings total extinction, there is no feeling or consciousness remaining to experience evil
• The insignificance of earthly pleasures we lose makes death less fearful
• Many historical figures would have been better off dying earlier, avoiding greater evils
• Fear of death stems from superstition about underworld punishments, which are merely myths

C. The answer to the question as provided by Epicurus as Cicero presents it: "When we exist, death is not present; when death is present, we do not exist." Therefore death is nothing to us, since when death arrives we no longer have any sensation or existence to be affected by it.

1. Major points cited by Cicero in opposition to Epicurus:

• If death is truly nothing, why does Epicurus spend so much effort discussing and preparing for it?
• The Epicurean position seems to make the preparation for death unnecessary
• Epicurus's emphasis on pleasure makes his dismissal of death as "nothing" seem inconsistent
• The teaching appears to trivialize death rather than addressing it philosophically
• Epicurus relies too heavily on the annihilation view without considering soul immortality

D. The Correct Epicurean response to this question:

1. Death ends all sensation, so there is literally nothing to fear about the state of being dead
2. The "symmetry argument": we didn't suffer before birth, so why fear non-existence after death?
3. Fearing death interferes with present happiness, which is the actual evil
4. Understanding the nature of the soul (as atomic and mortal) eliminates superstitious fears
5. A life well-lived according to nature's limits makes death acceptable whenever it comes

---

II. Book Two: On Physical Pain

A. The basic question posed by the student: Is pain the greatest of all evils?

B. Cicero's proposed answer from the Academic Skeptic/Stoic perspective: Pain is not the greatest evil (infamy is worse) and can be overcome through fortitude, patience, and mental strength. The wise person's virtue enables them to endure physical suffering without losing happiness.

1. Major points cited by Cicero in favor of this position:

• Avoiding infamy is more important than avoiding pain (student admits this)
• Historical examples show brave individuals enduring extreme pain for noble causes
• Mental attitude significantly affects how pain is experienced
• Training in virtue builds capacity to resist pain
• If pain were the greatest evil, no one could be happy, since anyone might experience it

C. The answer to the question as provided by Epicurus (as Cicero presents it): Epicurus claims the wise person under torture can say "How little I regard it!" and be happy even while being burned or tortured. Pain is managed by the maxims: "If severe, it is short; if long-lasting, it is bearable."

1. Major points cited by Cicero in opposition to Epicurus:

• This seems absurd coming from one who calls pain the greatest evil
• It's inconsistent to define good as pleasure yet claim happiness under torture
• If pain is the supreme evil, the wise person should do anything to avoid it, including shameful acts
• Epicurus's position makes happiness impossible since anyone can experience pain
• The claim that severe pain is always brief is empirically false

D. The Correct Epicurean response to this question:

1. Mental pleasures can be used to counterbalance physical pains - memory of past and anticipation of future goods
2. The wise person's understanding of nature provides mental pleasure that outweighs bodily distress
3. Severe pains are typically brief; chronic pains are usually bearable and allow for happiness
4. There are many other sources of pleasure - including friendship, philosophical inquiry, and other pleasures that are generally readily available, which can provide pleasures that sustain happiness through pain
5. There are many practical paths for making sure that our actions generate more pleasure than pain

---

III. Book Three: On Mental Pain

A. The basic question posed by the student: How can mental distress and grief be alleviated?

B. Cicero's proposed answer from the Academic Skeptic/Stoic perspective: Grief is an irrational "disease of the soul" caused by false judgment that something bad has occurred. It should be eliminated entirely through reason, recognition that misfortunes are common to humanity, and understanding that grieving accomplishes nothing.

1. Major points cited by Cicero in favor of this position:

• Grief can be postponed in times of danger, showing it's under rational control
• Grief is often performed for social expectations rather than genuine feeling
• Understanding that misfortune is universal helps put personal loss in perspective
• Anticipating possible calamities prepares the mind and reduces their impact
• The truly wise person recognizes that only vice is worth grieving over

C. The answer to the question as provided by Epicurus (as Cicero presents it): The cure for grief is to call the mind away from dwelling on troubles and redirect it toward contemplating pleasures and good things.

1. Major points cited by Cicero in opposition to Epicurus:

• This is mere distraction therapy, not genuine philosophical cure
• It doesn't address the root causes of grief in false judgments
• The approach is inconsistent with Epicurean hedonism if we can't agree on what is truly good
• It treats symptoms rather than correcting underlying beliefs
• The Epicurean therapy lacks the systematic rigor of Stoic approaches

D. The Correct Epicurean response to this question:

1. Grief arises mostly from false opinions about goods and evils - correcting these false opinions greatly reduces suffering
2. Memory of past pleasures and anticipation of future goods counterbalances mental pain
3. Learning to pursue pleasure rationally reduces occasions for grief
4. Friendship is generally readily available and provides both immediate comfort and long-term resilience against grief
5. Recognizing that many supposed goods (wealth, status) are not what is important in life liberates us from grief over the times they are not available.

---

IV. Book Four: On Strong Emotions

A. The basic question posed by the student: How should we understand and manage all the perturbations of the soul (emotions/passions)?

B. Cicero's proposed answer from the Academic Skeptic/Stoic perspective: All passions are diseases of the soul arising from false judgments about good and evil. They fall into four categories: grief, fear, excessive joy, and immoderate desire. All should be eliminated entirely through recognizing that only virtue is good and only vice is evil.

1. Major points cited by Cicero in favor of this position:

• Emotions are based on false beliefs about what constitutes good and evil
• Systematic classification reveals the cognitive structure underlying all passions
• Complete elimination of passions leads to true tranquility (apatheia)
• The passionless state allows reason to guide all actions
• Only by viewing virtue as the sole good can one achieve immunity from emotional disturbance

C. The answer to the question as provided by Epicurus (as Cicero presents it): Some emotions and desires are natural and necessary, others natural but unnecessary, still others neither natural nor necessary. Only the vain and empty desires should be eliminated.

1. Major points in opposition to Epicurus:

• This doesn't go far enough in controlling the passions
• The distinction between types of desires is unclear and subjective
• Allowing "natural" emotions still leaves one vulnerable to disturbance
• The Epicurean approach is too permissive and insufficiently rigorous
• Their emphasis on pleasure actually encourages certain passions

D. The Correct Epicurean response to this question:

1. Mental pleasure and pain are not false beliefs but are provided by Nature as guidance for how to live.
2. Limitless and unnecessary pleasures are not required for happiness and in fact produce more pain than plesaure
3. The pursuit of desires without limit (such as for unlimited wealth, power, fame) will bring more pain pleasure and can easily be eliminated
4. Proper understanding of nature's limits allows us to eliminate excessive fear and desire while still pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain rationally toward the true goal of pleasure.
5. The goal of life is happiness through a predominance of pleasure over pain, not complete elimination of all disturbance and feeling, which are in fact provided by Nature and required for happy living.

---

V. Book Five: Is Virtue Sufficient for Happiness?

A. The basic question posed by the student: Is virtue the only true good, and alone sufficient to produce a happy life, or are there other goods (health, wealth, etc.) which are also necessary?

B. Cicero's proposed answer from the Academic Skeptic/Stoic perspective: Virtue is entirely sufficient for happiness under all circumstances. The wise person is happy even in poverty, exile, blindness, pain, and torture. Happiness depends solely on character, not external circumstances, and virtue is the only true good.

1. Major points cited by Cicero in favor of this position:

• If happiness required external goods, virtue would be discredited as insufficient
• Historical examples show virtuous people happy despite terrible circumstances
• Vice produces misery; therefore virtue (its opposite) must produce happiness
• External goods are indifferent - neither truly good nor evil
• The wise person's happiness is invulnerable to fortune's changes

C. The answer to the question as provided by Epicurus (as Cicero presents it): Pleasure is the supreme good and the goal of life. The wise person is nearly always happy because they can maintain mental pleasure even under adversity, but in this Epicurus is inconsistent because he claims the wise person is always happy while making pleasure depend on circumstances.

1. Major points cited by Cicero in opposition to Epicurus:

• Epicurus makes happiness too dependent on external circumstances and fortune
• How can one be happy under torture if pleasure is the good?
• The claim contradicts Epicurus's own definition of good as pleasure
• It's inconsistent to say pain is the greatest evil yet the wise person is happy in pain
• The Epicurean position lacks the logical rigor of the Stoic view

D. The Correct Epicurean response to this question:

1. Prudence (practical wisdom) is the greatest virtue and enables the wise person to be happy in nearly all circumstances
2. Mental/spiritual pleasures (friendship, philosophy, memory) far outweigh bodily pleasures or pains
3. The wise person's happiness is secure because he can be confident that he will always be able to obtain pleasures that will outweigh pains, and in the event that pain becomes overwhelming, such pain can be ended by death.
4. A true understanding of the nature of things allows us to see that many of our worst fears (such as about death of capricious gods) are false suppositions, that it is readily possible to secure a life of happiness in which pleasure predominates over pain, and that we need not live forever to experience a happy life.
5. Understanding that the goal of life is happiness through pleasure allows us to see that virtue is necessary for happiness, but that understanding what virtue means is essential, in that virtue is not a set of absolute that is the same for all people in all places and at all times, but that virtue is contextual and is in fact whatever conduct that in practice leads to living happily.

1. I read this a long time ago and was not impressed, but that was so long ago I may well have failed to appreciate its significance. Seems like this has come up a number of times and we need to find a good source for the text and start a new thread on it. If I recall correctly I saw it originally on a Marxism page, but that page seems to be gone.

Quote from DaveT

PPS Also, I recently read that Karl Marx's doctoral dissertation some time in the 1840s was a comparison of Democritus' and Epicurus' atomism, finding Epicurus' teaching was consistent with the Young Hegalians philosophical views which he favored.

2

Quote from DaveT

Can I conclude that Prof Nail's essay under consideration here is not relevant to whether Lucretius ignored Epicurus' atomism? I think the answer is that it is not.

I may be losing the thread of the discussion in my mind but if what you mean is that the Nail essay does not provide a good argument that Lucretius was deviating from Epicurus, I think you're correct that in my mind it doesn't.

Quote from DaveT

So, back to the thrust of my question above: Why should anyone dwell on whether Lucretius interpreted Epicurus wrongly or indeed intentionally declined to include Epicurus’ atomism?

This is a very good question and being able to answer it thoroughly is what this forum is all about.

There are many aspects to it beyond those relating to whether Lucretius intentionally or accidentally deviated from Epicurus. That's important in itself, but it's not nearly as important as addressing what you wrote here:

Quote from DaveT

I don’t see why one must believe Epicurus was right about atoms and their movement to be adherents to his ethics, canonics, etc.

What does it mean in this context to say that Epicurus was "right" or "wrong" about atoms?" I would argue that questions such as whether photons are considered to be particles with mass or waves or whether matter and energy are interchangeable" does not render Epicurus’ belief in eternally unchanging elemental particles. People can argue all day about new discoveries about details of atoms but if they remain at that level of analysis they are totally missing Epicurus' point.

The issue is not establishing the exact specifications of what we call molecules or atoms or subatomic particles. Epicurus never claimed either to do that or to explain the mechanism of the swerve. What he did claim is that it is incorrect to speculate that things can be divided infinitely because that creates a logical impossibility.

If infinite divisibilty were accepted, you'd have no mechanism for establishing that anything is or could be eternal and therefore reliable. You would have no foundation for a natural universe rather than a completely arbitrary supernatural one. You'd have no basis for having confidence in any conclusion whatsoever. It's possible to argue all day about the difference between "confidence" and "certainty," and say that all you need is "probability." That's a very old argument and what we'll be taking it up in discussing the "Academic Questions" discussed by Cicero.

Epicurus was not a particle physicist and made no claims to be doing anything more than providing a rational basis for a non-supernatural universe. Neither Epicurus nor Lucretius nor any other Epicurean took up careers in splitting atoms or building atomic bombs, because engineering and technical innovation is secondary to having a rational theory for living life in the here and now.

The issue is not that of being willing and able to accept and incorporate new observational discoveries. That's been going on for thousands of years and will always continue. The issue is the logical and conceptual one of whether ANY number of observational discoveries can ever be sufficient to allow us to conclude that the universe is natural and not supernatural. Or do we always have to hedge our bets and never escape the doubt that when we die we'll be tortured forever in hell?

It's at that level that I would maintain even today that Epicurus was absolutely right about his important conclusions. He was right as to "atomism" that the universe ultimately has a natural and eternal material basis. He was right as to "canonics" that knowledge is possible and radical skepticism is a fraudulent impossibility. He was right as to "ethics" that there are no absolute supernatural rules and that nature provides all the guidance we need if we simply take a wide view of pleasure as all mental and physical experience in life which is desirable.

There's going to be a wide disagreement among individuals on which pleasures to pursue because individual circumstances vary. But if we want to live happily we have to have a framework for making decisions now, that that means that everything in physics is divided between matter and space, everything in ethics is divided between pleasure and pain, and everything in canonics can be divided between true and false.

In each of those three areas you have to look very carefully at what is meant by each word:

• matter vs space
• pleasure vs pain
• true vs false

There's an Epicurean way of looking at each one of those terms and how they relate to each other. This is the analytical framework that David Sedley described in his article "The inferential Basis of Epicurean Ethics."

This analysis provides a framework in which you can have confidence because the alternatives in each category exclude all other possibilities once you see how sweeping they truly are. The details of what "observational scientists" tell you yesterday, today, or tomorrow are not nearly so important as that you have a framework within which to understand them. And that's what Lucian of Samosata was talking about in saying that Epicurus would have been confident that Alexander the Oracle Monger was a fraud, even if Epicurus were not immediately able to ascertain the precise manner in what Alexander was carrying out his trickery.

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

That will be of GREAT help! Even just the table of contents indicates what we are up against, as it shows how the book starts in the middle with discussion of opposing schools. Someone who doesn't know that and doesn't already know the Epicurean position is going to be pretty hopelessly confused.


Philodemus - Signs (P. Herc. 1065) - Harris.pdf

Great catches Joshua. This is one of the ways going through Academic Questions and then to Philodemus "On Signs" is going to help us.

E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-i-N-G depends upon this intersection of canonics / epistemology and physics.

Is the universe (1) natural as arising solely through the interplay of atoms moving through void - and nothing else, or (2) is the universe caused by an interplay of a supernatural force projecting itself outward and onto something else?

If (2), then everything depends on study and understanding of that supernatural force, which is impenetrable to the senses, and for which knowledge we must depend on geometry and math and reliance on propositional logical formulas.

All of our discussion of pleasure and pain and natural and necessary desires and everything else involving ethics is out the window if we cannot be confident in answer (1). That;s because answer (2) exposes us to eternal punishment or reward. It should go without saying that eternal punishment and reward totally trumps all local and short-term considerations of pleasure or pain or good and bad or any other word you want to throw at the problem.

Quote

You know our system of natural philosophy, which depends upon the two principles, the efficient cause, and the subject matter out of which the efficient cause forms and produces what it does produce. For we must have recourse to geometry, since, if we do not, in what words will any one be able to enunciate the principles he wishes, or whom will he be able to cause to comprehend those assertions about life, and manners, and desiring and avoiding such and such things?

Those who blew up the Platonic school from within were right to challenge the orthodoxy largely pioneered by Pythagorus but continued by Plato and also Aristotle. Their selection of a prime mover/fantasy god in the sky Option (2) based on speculation with no real sensory evidence makes no sense if we take the evidence of the senses given to us by Nature as what we are going to follow.

Thomas Nail appears to be an example of someone looking to bend the simplicity of atomic nothing-comes-from-nothing physics to allow for the existence and control of supernatural otherworldly forces.

There's no way to stand up to fantasizing except to insist on real evidence given to us by nature as self-evident, and that's what Epicurus' canonics is all about.

It's worth pointing out that there is a healthy skepticism embedded within Epicurean philosophy with which all of us will agree, in that we will challenge conclusions that we believe to be false based on a combination of sensory evidence and deductive reasoning based on that evidence.

But we need to be frank that everyone is not going to be willing to go along with Epicurus for the full ride. Frances Wright herself was not willing to go along with Epicurus and make deductive conclusions about the implications of nothing coming from nothing and nature never creating only a single thing of a kind.

Cicero does an excellent job of lending respectability to arguments that we can never go any further than to say that some things are "probable" and some are not. Other than those of us who were taught to have faith in "GOD" and say that if God said it, it must be true, all the rest of us have had it beaten into our heads to "never say never" and to avoid "dogmatism" as the worst sin possible.

That's what we're going to explore next on the podcast -- how to understand what the professionals disparage as "dogmatism" in Epicurean philosophy in the way that Epicurus himself understood it.

And maybe for those who are least comfortable with getting anywhere near confidence about anything, we can point out that it's here that the rubber meets the road. You can't have it both ways. Either you're going to heaven or hell after you die, and you damn well better live accordingly, or your not. Most of us here who study Epicurus are comfortable saying that the answer is "not."

And core to that position is that we stick with what Epicurus clearly had to say about the "uncuttable" nature of matter moving through the void, and stop trying to invest it Nail-like with mysterious properties that open the door to a supernatural realm.

Ha - the correction backtracks from what Godfrey praised but his point still stands that it's a good way of talking about gods