I haven't read the book, but it seems it is kind of an "individual" work of the author, his own thoughts on Epicurus. Springer is a reputable publisher. The author has his own wikipedia entry.
At a glance, the author seems to summarize contents which seem to be already known to ordinary students of Epicurus. The table of contents features current political issues he discusses in relation to Epicureanism.
I would buy on sale 
To my understanding, ataraxia enhances resilience. It isn't the same thing as resilience, and resilience doesn't necessarily promote ataraxia. Ataraxia reduces the background noise which causes undue stress, anxiety and panic, so when a challenging event occurs you're more able to assess the situation and respond effectively.
My interest in the topic comes from the sphere,
a.) that I've always considered ataraxia as not only a tranquil stopover to the all-over happy life, but also a resisting force towards disturbing elements, so I definitively agree with your statement.
b.) that the concept of ataraxia must finally find some resonance in science, because I experience it to be working.
The list in the article of how to build resilience strikes me as more Aristotelian than Epicurean.
Can you specify what you mean with Aristotelian?
What healthy thoughts are, of course, depends on your overarching philosophy
Thus it seems, there may be the main difference. Ataraxia is embedded in the Epicurean system of thought, while resilience is a concept that strikes for curative matters only, preventing to align with a partisan philosophy.
Quote from KalosyniI would understand "serenity of the soul" as being the same as a healthy mind (a mind not filled with fear or anxiety), and within this healthy mind arises a feeling of ataraxia. So ataraxia is not something you do, but it is a feeling which is a result of wise living.
I think so quite similarly, but being in this state also requires to have access to the tools which build up and maintain it.
I've come across the concept resilience through a paper I found in a pile of documents and it reminded me of my recent interest on clearing my personal definition of ataraxia.
The American Psychological Association (APA) describes in its Dictionary of Psychology resilience as follows:
"n. the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal demands. A number of factors contribute to how well people adapt to adversities, predominant among them (a) the ways in which individuals view and engage with the world, (b) the availability and quality of social resources, and (c) specific coping strategies. Psychological research demonstrates that the resources and skills associated with more positive adaptation (i.e., greater resilience) can be cultivated and practiced. Also called psychological resilience. See also coping behavior; coping-skills training. —resilient adj."
APA describes in a short article main pillars of how to build resilience. While they promote the obligatory stoic-like "Accepting circumstances that cannot be changed can help you focus on circumstances that you can alter", resilience sounds all-over more like a modern-day version of Epicurean ataraxia. Taking care of one's body and prioritizing healthy relationships with others for the sake of strengthening one's adaptibility to life's difficulties sounds very Epicurean.
What are your thoughts on this topic?
I am looking for a thread in which to post my definition of ataraxia, which I came to think about through a discussion on katastematic pleasure:
Speaking from my own experience, I would define ataraxia as an attribute to one's character. It's achieved through a process of learning and studying the way things are. Unlike the Stoics, it's not about indifference or accepting one's fate, but empowerment through understanding how the world works and how I can coordinate within. This underpins self-esteem and gives a feeling of freedom and relaxation. Although it's a relatively stable state, it needs nurishment, as we're living in an ever changing universe.
Are we beginning to tread on "once saved always saved" theology?
You could go even further and define hell as "absence of god"... um... katastematic pleasure 
The kinetic/katastematic distinction, from my perspective, was most helpful in distinguishing the Epicurus's school from the Cyrenaics. It established the Garden as embracing ALL pleasure as the good, not just the kinetic of the Cyrenaics.
This sounds very sound to me. The thing to be careful about is, not to go in the opposite direction and even begin to embrace katastematic for the sake of reaching a "nirvana-like state of ataraxia".
Verse 134 catches my eye:
Because of this, it is better to follow the stories of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers, because necessity is not moved by prayer;
φυσικῶν "of the inquirers into nature, natural philosophers esp. of the Ionic and other pre-Socratic philosophers"
τῇτῶνφυσικῶν εἱμαρμένῃ "the decrees of the old natural philosophers" i.e., determinists, those decreeing fate is all-powerful
Is there anything more to it than Epicurus simply criticising believe in fate and therefore criticising giving up on deciding one's own destiny? (Consequently, emphasising the importance of artisting one's own life)
Is there any given evidence that these philosophers drove their own agendas by declaring what the fates are? If yes, is there anything comparable to it nowadays?
One could also think of it as a critique of the argument: "This is science!" (and therefore truth - trust me, not your senses). Do you think this is appropriate or does it overstretch the argument?
But I wager that is what the "humanists" will always do, because like Cicero they insist on seeing "being human" as something higher than pleasure.
They definitely do and from their point of view, Epicureans adhere to some kind of dogma or be just the unfinished raw diamond or just an example of the past (while still a good one!).
And that's the problem with those who aren't willing to straightforwardly identify freedom from pain as pleasure and see that the overall goal is not some kind of definition of "freedom from pain" that conflicts with or is superior to pleasure, but "pleasure" itself.
I tend to think they might understand the constellation between "freedom from pain" and "pleasure" as you do. The authors I refer to rather argue Epicurus promotes self-sufficiency over excesses, because in the end they cause more unpleasure than create pleasure. Perhaps their main difference is, they emphasize Epicurus' search for painlessness and self-sufficiency (for the reason to be always available of pleasure) rather than calling it pleasure directly (this way would be more antizipating of the canonical structure of the philosophy itself, but makes it even more difficult for the external reader to understand), although they mean the same. Perhaps the devil is just in the details. Especially when it comes to different languages.
They don't seem to speak of pleasure, but indeed they do. But I agree, without a proper understanding, "freedom from pain" can stroll apart and be seen as something different than pleasure.
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. The focus is slightly different than that of the forum, as it traditionally centers the ethics and doesn't dig deeper. Physics and Canonics remain nearly untouched.
Nonetheless I was amazed by the quite remarkable volume Epicurus was granted by the speaker.
In the following discussion I asked what the reference of Humanism to Epicurus is and he indeed answered, that Epicurean Philosophy has many similarities to Humanism because of Materialism and a positive attitude towards life and the human being. But he also stated, that rather Cicero is seen as a father figure, refering to the term "humanitas" which he told had been coined by Cicero.
I also asked what Humanism is, and they answered that it's about focussing on the human being and individuality. Speaking from the point of being an organisation, they don't want to be critics of religion but form a secular alternative, giving positive value in the world.
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.
Not too bad an intro, and in my experience if they indeed have an interest in Nietzsche they will not go too far astray toward excessive asceticism (but that's the direction I would expect them to take anyway). Will be interesting to hear your take on the program.
I think I won't act well as a yardstick as I definitively have a tendency towards frugality. Anyway, I too expect the speaker to focus on the moderate life. I will take the forum navigation map with me and try to figure out where they are positioned. I know humanist groups to value Epicurus at least as a person giving them historical legetimacy.
I am probably going to attend a "Humanist" event this weekend, as it deals to some extend with Epicurean Philosophy and I'm also interested in how they perceive Epicureanism. It's organized by a society called "Humanistische Vereinigung" (Humanist Association).
The introductory text states:
Philosophical Breakfast: Thoughts on Man, Happiness and Death
Speaker: Dr. Frank Schulze
Starting with the question of what Friedrich Nietzsche actually means by the phrase "human, all-too-human", which has become a common phrase, we will first embark on a short journey of discovery in the direction of the question "What is man?" and from there to the question of human happiness. Here we devote special attention to Epicurus, whose "consistent and coherent grand design of a form of life" (K. Jaspers) is neither ascetic nor dissolute, but aims at inner independence. From this thought, various philosophical perspectives on the problem of death are presented, from antiquity to contemporary thought.
(translated by DeepL)
Do anyone of you have any questions you would like to ask them?
Maybe I could rationalize the "matters of food and/or drink" or "observing festivals" (The 20th, anyone?)... but then the letter's author goes into new moons or Sabaths. In fact, "matters of food and drink" sound like this "philosophy" being discussed has some dietary rules or forbidden foods that the Christians are eating. It's hard to say without any context. I'm sure the Colossians knew what he was referring to!
Maybe he is refering to different groups at the same time. As you did say, we would need more information about the background of the recipients.
For the next week I will be occupied by work, but I am looking forward to participate more afterwards.
Thank you Don for your extensive research! I didn't expect such a quick progress in discussing DeWitt's theses.
If he's looking for Epicurean hints, he's going to see Epicurean hints everywhere. And where he doesn't see them, he invents a way that they could be there... with the barest of actual evidence.
One of his principal arguments is, that without turning the Epicurean glasses on, there is no way to understand the texts properly. In another part of the book, he mentions the loss of the doctrinal context (which he is reconstructing, hence recognizing things other scholars aren't able to).
As you say, his argumentation depends on the validity of his presumptions and can easily be overturned. He is quite creative in writing an alternative history, inbedded in an Epicurean environment.
The other question is: Are the arguments of DeWitt weaker than the arguments of others? It seems so, as you've mentioned above. But DeWitt makes a good (at least rhetorical) argument in pointing to the loss of doctrinal context, which leaves space to various interpretations, as there are regarding the New Testament.
DeWitt's argumentation is at least somewhat valuable, independently of its validity or not. One can see clearly the rivalry of Paul to other schools of thought and how he advertises for hope beyond this world.
I'm looking forward to your further research.
Although I do not expect any new revelations from examining DeWitt's work on the epistles of St. Paul, I still consider his study a quite remarkable approach to decipher and understand St. Paul under the light of Epicureanism. Others claim that he creates in a quite persuasive way scientific fiction.
Unfortunately, a quick research via search engines doesn't show any kind of reception by theologians or other researchers. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that on the one hand, there are some astonishing clues by DeWitt, which would bring light to tricky passages in the writings of Paul. On the other hand, having no critiques or recensions by experts at all, makes fact-checking a tricky task. Personally, I don't have any knowledge of Ancient Greek, too.
My strategy would be this way:
1. Starting a systematic literature research. Perhaps there may be some hidden articles on the issue which are invisible to a superficial investigation.
2. Trying to consult theology professors/professionals who are specialized on the New Testament.
Do you have any ideas/proposals on how to handle such an investigation? Has anyone of you already tried to do a check?
His use of reading Paul with an Epicurean filter and coming up with "new translations" has struck me in too many instances as proof texting or seeing what he wants to see instead of what's there.
I know your'e opinion on him and I would also be cautious. I see this rather as inspirational intellectual food while sitting in a cosy chair next to a fireplace. But DeWitt also makes a good move in suggesting other translators are seeing what they want to see instead of what's there .
Epicurus's philosophy was antithetical to Christian beliefs. Dr. Bart Ehrman recently posted an essay to his blog contrasting Epicurus and Paul.
I would not overestimate the influence of Epicurean philosophy on the emergence of Christianity. Nevertheless, there still seem to be some good points, especially DeWitt's reception of the letters of St. Paul. He suggests Paul did at least resemble some Epicurean doctrine, transforming it to make it suitable to his own standards. DeWitt is extraordinary, because he investigates the writings of St. Paul under the light of Epicureanism. He offers new translations and new ways of how to interpret. But there the journey ends, because the data basis is still weak and there aren't any findings/illuminations concering a new theology of Paul, that could trigger further study (and suit theologians pushing new agendas).
We're hoping to interview soon a professor who has written that the ancient Epicureans weren't nearly as non-political as they are now regarded to be, but no matter where one comes down on that issue I am confident that we here at the EpicureanFriends.com forum are always going to work to stay together on the core work even at the expense of conducing interesting political discussions elsewhere.
I really appreciate your comment. Epicurus states in the Principal Doctrines, that justice and therefore politics, are relative and bound to time and place. Taking the title of this thread seriously ("Epicureanism as the spiritual essence or 'religion' of an entire community") it not necessarily means to stay away from, but to stay above things that rise and fall throughout the ages. What does persist instead - what does have ultimate reality - is the mechanism which nature provides to living things. This should be at the center of our study.
Humanists are quite an interesting phenomenon. From my point of experience, there are at least two types of current organizations that use the Humanist label:
a.) Those which are secular counter-clubs to confessional Christianity, celebrating coming-of-age-parties, offering secular rituals for weddings and funerals and so on. Historically, they emerged 100-200 years ago. In Germany for example, they are even registered as "Churchs" which gives them certain kinds of privileges.
b.) Atheist propagandists which proclaim science and evolutionary theory as illuminating forces and themselves as experts.
The other question is - consider Humanists themselves Epicureans? I would deny this question but nonetheless they frequently point to Epicurus when it comes to historical precursors giving them legetimacy.
(3) The nature of how to live.
This could also be seen as a continuation of the Epicurean Philosophy Navigation Chart to expand the Ethics. A preliminary list of topics that are important to me:
1. Awareness of becoming and passing away, consciousness of life and death in respect to the nature of the universe, processuality of life
2. Pursuing/Focussing the natural desires which
a.) is Nature's yardstick for happiness
b.) leads to self-sufficiency and autarky
c.) reveals life as an inexhaustible source of happiness
d.) sets the focus how to plan/organize our lives according to Nature
3. Promoting friendship/life in living relationships as a means to achieve security
4. The imperishable life of the gods as a role model to achieve with our perishable means
5. Focusing/staying connected with our senses, thus overcoming abstract ideas/desires/fears
6. Concentration on your body/person as a material being. Awareness about natural and necessary desires, therefore focusing health/wellbeing
Is there a high definition version available? It would be great to print this as a wall poster to be always aware of the key concepts.
One of the points DeWitt brings out in the final chapter of Epicurus and His Philosophy was that the dying down of the controversies in which the Epicureans were involved with Judeo-Christianity marked the parallel dying down of the Epicurean school as a whole. It might well be that any resurgence of interest in Epicurus will end up being accompanied by the re-lighting of those same flames of controversy.
Thank you stimulating my appetite for reading. Because of "his antiquated and sometimes opaque writing style" I discontinued reading "Epicurus and His Philosophy" after reading his voluminous biographical notices on Epicurus.
