These two Wikipedia entries seems relevant for this section of Lucretius:
Robert You made an interesting comment in last Sunday's meeting regarding inference, and if I recall it was something about the correct way or the steps for inference (though I don't remember if you went further saying what the steps were).
Also, thinking that we may want to see what Philodemus has to say about inference.
Here is a list of areas to reflect upon, for those who feel a need to increase happiness. This list can help guide your reflections, enabling you to identify specific areas that may be causing issues or need adjustment, and you can take your time with each aspect to gain deeper insights into your life.
I see evidence that Epicurean teachings are far more widespread than many think it to be. Epicurus' name is not attached to the actions and beliefs of people, especially in western, educated, Industrialized, rich, democracies (WEIRD). Just listen to any marketing of medical providers and pharmaceuticals, and you hear reduction of pain and suffering as a goal that can be achieved.
I see Epicurean beliefs as unstoppable.
I think that the term "Epicurean" can't be applied to someone who only has one single concept that they follow which might be considered "Epicurean". Epicureanism is a collection of specific concepts that guide one's outlook and choices.
This illustrates an on-going problem with speaking about "Epicureanism" -- how it is understood, what does it represent, what is "Epicureanism" and what isn't "Epicureanism" and who do we consider as "being Epicurean" - these questions will be answered differently depending on whom you ask. And the only way to begin to deal with this is to start labeling all of the common varying interpretations.
Here is an example: You could call something "Torquatian Epicureanism" or "Herodotian Epicureanism" or "PD08 Epicureanism" or "PD26 Epicureanism" etc, etc, (minimalists, maximalists, etc.)...depending on how things are interpreted.
Also, of importance is a list of "Epicurean beliefs", which would be within various outlines of Epicurean philosophy.
Regarding a lack of followers, as well as eclecticism...we are really just getting started with unpacking the system presented by Epicurus, based on the extant remains. And, a big challenge is updating the philosophy to make it compatible for modern thinkers (and science). There are many aspects of Epicurean philosophy that are greatly needed in our modern times. Religion has caused numerous problems for the world, and may end up causing the downfall of civilization, because of its harmful aspects -- mainly the refusal to see how making contracts for peace between countries is the only avenue of peace (but since they all are looking forward to something better in heaven then they give up on "Project Earth"). Also, the idea that God causes tests/trials of suffering so that people can "grow" (found in both Christianity and Islam) - this is harmful because it justifies causing suffering to others, since God himself causes suffering. The problem though, is that there is something about civilization that is struggling to "get past God". So Epicurean philosophy which holds that gods/God is not interactive with the world or listening to prayers may appeal to some, but not appeal to others.
And about eclecticism, I think it would be good to take a look at what people feel is missing in Epicureanism, and what they are looking for when seeking out "eclecticism" - in other words...Making a list of what of modern concerns (both psychological and philosophical) does Epicureanism cover, and what does it not cover.
Here are some areas to compare and contrast, and perhaps if we place them in a table of comparison it would become more clear:
-----Ancient Skepticism vs modern notion of skepticism, vs aspects of "skepticism" in modern science vs Epicurean canonics, AND for each one what level of "feeling" of "knowing truth".
Is it possible that there were differing takes on the sense of knowing (and level of belief vs faith) within various groups of Epicureans (just like there were likely differing takes on mental vs physical pleasures)...it wouldn't be right to assume that all ancient Epicureans were "cookie cutter" exactly the same (thinking/believing exactly the same), because human beings are complex, and you can see now (in our modern studies) how we have the "minimalist" Epicureans and the "maximalist" Epicureans - so perhaps there was also some differences between levels of dogmatism (plus also levels of belief in the gods).
The more successful people didn't have better willpower compared to those who were less successful. Instead, successful people set up their lives so they didn't need to use willpower frequently. They exposed themselves to fewer temptations.
...
..."Teach them how to choose situations that reduce the likelihood of doing things that aren't good for them. Teach them how to control the temptations," Wood says.
...
..."For example, parents can teach kids to leave their phone in another room when they're studying," Wood says, or to use apps that block distracting websites and games. They can teach kids how to keep sweets and ultra-processed foods out of the house and out of their backpack or car. In other words, parents can create times and places in children's life where distractions or temptations aren't an option at all — and show them how they can implement this strategy themselves.
...
..."Whether it's eating healthier food or going to the gym, if you make the activity more fun in the moment, then you're more likely to do it again," Milyavskaya says.
So if you want your child to love salmon, talk about how great it tastes with yummy garlicky soy sauce and wild rice. And how great it makes you feel right after eating it. Something that a frozen ultra-processed dinner won't do.
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5736553/fast-food-screens-kids-health
Here are my thoughts on this, by just using the wording of Bailey translation, first posting the PD, then directly following is my take.
PD.24: "If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong."
This points out how it is necessary, when you are first beginning an evaluation of truth, to be sure you have included all of your observations (as per the senses), and then also it is necessary to distinguish between various types of evidence and assign levels of trustworthiness onto each type (see PD22) - and it must be done correctly at the basic starting level or else your later observations will be made in error. And so we see that there are: 1) observations as per the senses, 2) conclusions that already exist through earlier opinions on the matter, 3) new inferences generated by the newest observations. All of these must be distinguished (one from another) and no conclusions should be stated as true until there are adequate observations which clearly confirm the conclusion.
PD.22: "We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion."
It seems that PD 24 could have some relevance to the discussion here, and there are are a number of posts exploring the canon, etc, over in the thread linked below.
PD24 "If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong."
See how a modern psychotherapist, who has studied ‘nature’s healing processes’ up close, describes what many of us civilized humans have lost.
In Western society, there is an overvaluation of the conscious, analytical mind and, with it, an atrophy of dozens of senses and abilities. Sojourns to the Amazon and the Serengeti have reminded me of the many skills that indigenous people have not forgotten—abilities that guide them safely through life’s inevitable challenges. I have met shamans who can look into another person’s body with their mind’s eye to diagnosis an illness, Hadza Bushmen who can “wire” messages long distances without the use of a cell phone or a letter, and Native Americans who can smell approaching changes in the weather. It is in the quiet of Nature that shamans can listen with their hearts, skin, eyes, and noses as well as their ears—a synesthetic talent that today is largely disbelieved or simply unknown outside of indigenous cultures.
[Awakening the Healing Soul, by Geral Blanchard]
"Wiring messages"...
...made me think about this:
I am curious if there is more to say about the use of indirect evidence which leads to inferred evidence - do we see this in the Letter to Herodotus or in Lucretius?
...especially dealing with the non-intervention of the gods
and also any other aspects.
I am copying here into the main forum, a few posts which were recently made in reaction to a past Wednesday night Zoom meeting discussion:
*****
Godfreyposted (on 03/05/26):
It occurred to me this morning in my fog of awakening that the practice of multiple explanations relates to the issue of skepticism v dogmatism.
It seems to me that multiple explanations are typically used by Epicurus to rule out the supernatural. Another way of looking at this is that they are used as a contrast to one particular theory, and that the explanations tend to be based on inferences from the available evidence.
It also seems that multiple explanations can be used to support a theory by ruling out the competing theories. In this case the "evidence based" explanations would be used to refute the many explanations, leaving one particular theory as the most probable.
I'm curious as to whether this has any relevance to our discussion last night....
*****
Cassiusposted:
I think so Godfrey. I would say that the point is that is not always possible to be sure which of several explanations might be the right one, so the multiple explanation approach reinforces that we aren't going to be dogmatic on a PARTICULAR solution when the evidence is insufficient. But as to basic issues such as nothing coming or going to nothing, or no supernatural gods, or no life after death, the positive evidence is abundant to RULE OUT those possibilities, so we dogmatically assert their falsity.
The two approaches - dogmatically rejecting that which is NOT possible, and suspending judgment between those which ARE possible - go hand in hand.
*****
Cassiusposted:
Also Godfrey I'd add that this is exactly what i see is the major reason for the Epicurean criticism of Socrates. if you think that physics can never lead you to any conclusions about the nature of the universe or of gods or the existence of life after death, then there would be no reason to study it.
Some consider it to be a criticism of Epicurus that he didn't seem interested in putting science to "practical" use - he didn't pursue technology - but I'd say he thought he was putting science to its most practical use first - that of establishing whether we are free agents or playthings of the gods or Fate or Fortune. Technology is far secondary to those issues.
*****
Martinposted:
The study of physics/nature may give us sufficient confidence about the non-interference of gods and no life after death that we get rid of fears about them. We should not wait until the evidence for this is conclusive because it will never be conclusive.
*****
There were announcements of other Epicurean symposiums being held in Cyprus and Italy. I would love to be able to attend a similar event with English speakers. Have there been past/recent attempts to hold a similar event in the USA or Canada?
We should set one up, but I seems that it wouild be good to try a preliminary event via Zoom to build attendance. Then once there are the numbers (and show of interest) could then set up an in-person event. But that would require many people to put out a substantial sum for plane tickets, hotel, food, transportion, so that could cut back on attendance.
I liked his final statement about how we need "bliss" [eudaimonia] to achieve psychosomatic health.
Do you remember if he gave definitions of "bliss","eudaimonia", and "psychosomatic health"?
chump Wishing you a Happy Birthday! 
Cassius From the side-by-side, third column...It looks like these perhaps could be covered as one group?
Part 8 - The proof that nothing comes from nothing is to look around and see that all things are not born of all things, but from fixed seeds. (1-174)
Part 9 - And things are not only born from fixed seeds, but after they are born they grow at a fixed rate. (1-199)
Part 10 - And not only do they grow at a fix rate but they stop growing according to fixed limits. (1-208)
Part 11 - We also see that it takes working the land to produce specific results; unless we work the land specific crops do not grow. (1-215)
Part 12 - Our second primary observation is that all things pass away and change back into the essential material from which they are made, but nothing is ever absolutely destroyed to nothing. (1-225)
Part 13 - Another reason we know that nothing passes away to nothing is that otherwise in the eternity of time past all things would have passed away and nothing would be left in the universe. (1-238)
Part 14 - Further, if things could be destroyed to nothing, it would be easy to destroy anything by force, but rather we see that many things are hard to break up. (1-250)
Part 15 - We also see that nature nourishes one thing out of the other, and that the living are born from the dead. (1-265)
Certainly the small things that happen every day add up. Like negative thinking, and who among us has the skill set to analyze our daily lives in an ongoing manner to address and reduce negative thinking or on the physical side, over eating, much less reducing physical pain or discomfort? Perhaps my examples are poor ones, and they certainly are not meant to be exclusive.
It is a skill set that we learn over time, and get better at through continued practice.
Here is a diagram that I just made which has the telos at the top and then "climbs down the ladder of abstraction"...and it is still a work in progress ... open to thoughts and suggestions.
Here is a better article:
...psychologists call “the curse of knowledge.” The curse is actually a cognitive bias, or a systematic error in our thinking. In this case, a communicator mistakenly, and often unconsciously, believes that everyone in the conversation shares the same knowledge, understandings, and experiences they do. The result is that they skip over the vital information others will need to comprehend their message.
The curse of knowledge is why laypeople find scientific studies tangled, students find geometric proofs baffling, and everyone finds instruction manuals tortuously frustrating. The researchers, teachers, and technical writers had difficulty imagining what it was like to not know what they knew and so communicated their ideas ineffectually.
Nor does the idea have to be complicated to fall prey to the curse. Everyone is susceptible. Thankfully, there is a mental tool that can help us break the curse: the “ladder of abstraction”
The link:
And another quote:
Hayakawa’s point is that words often contain more ambiguity than we typically account for. Their effect extends beyond their dictionary definition. They also evoke feelings, imply meanings, and suggest nuances that shift based on the identities, histories, expertise, and personalities of the user and recipient alike.
Consider, for instance, the abstract phrases we bandy about in political discussions — things like liberty, free enterprise, and social justice. Each sounds agreeable when viewed from the ladder’s tippy-top rungs. But as Hayakawa points out, scuttle down to the bottom rungs, and you’ll find that people can have wildly different opinions on the concrete details. The words they use may be the same, but their meanings are not.
“Definitions, contrary to popular opinions, tell us nothing about things. They only describe people’s linguistic habits,” Hayakawa argues.
And a third quote:
According to Hayakawa clear communication, “as well as clear thinking,” involves a “constant interplay of higher and lower level abstractions.” In other words, by traveling up and down the ladder, we reveal the meaning behind the details and vice versa.
A brilliant example of such rhetorical balance comes from Jared Diamond’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns, Germs, and Steel: “We all know that history has proceeded very differently for peoples from different parts of the globe. In the 13,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age, some parts of the world developed literate industrial societies with metal tools, other parts developed only nonliterate farming societies, and still others retained societies of hunter-gatherers with stone tools.”
Notice how Diamond starts with abstract concepts like history and different peoples. These concepts seem simple enough, but to clarify his meaning, he takes a few steps down the ladder. To history, he adds the characterization of “the 13,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age.” Different peoples is elaborated on to include “literate industrial societies,” “nonliterate farming societies,” and “hunter-gatherers.”
The rest of Diamond’s introduction to his book continues in this vein. He uses concrete details to show how more abstract concepts connect to the real world; meanwhile, the abstract gives meaning to the facts and details.
I should also point out that this quotation in post 7 is a long distance from the point where this thread started out, when your advocated "Joy" as the goal ("Neither "ataraxia" nor "not ataraxia", but "Joy as the goal").
I presented several ideas in the first post of this thread (the first point should have been addressed in a separate thread):
Point 1) There is no mandate to spread Epicurean philosophy to the masses
Point 2) There are some who study Epicurean philosophy and put more emphasis on one or the other...either pleasure (moving pleasures) or ataraxia.
Point 3) An alternate way to word "the goal" is by using the word "joy" (and I now see that joy is a subset of pleasure and so this would not correlate with the Epicurean texts).
We can continue to see that the words we use can be unclear or confusing, if they are too abstract (for both "camps" of Epicureans - both maximalists or minimalists).
This goes to show that both "camps" still need to consider "the ladder of abstraction" which illustrates the difference between abstract and specific words (developed by linguist S.I. Hayakawa in 1939, and introduced in his book "Language of Action". This tool illustrates how language moves from concrete, sensory details at the bottom (e.g."my speckled apple") to high-level, abstract concepts at the top (e.g."fruit" or "nutrition"). The bottom rungs consist of specific, tangible details, while the higher rungs represent increasingly broad, conceptual, or categorical terms - and it helps make communication more clear.
The following website has an illustration of the full ladder of abstraction:
Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction – Choosing the appropriate abstraction level – jtoy
I believe that it is possible for something to sound correct (or even "wise") while being presented using highly abstract words, however those words end up not "working" in reality for two reasons:
1) differing understandings (cognition) of highly abstract words depending on the individual.
2) when you attempt to pin things down with specific and tangible human experiences, the "wise sounding" but abstract ideas don't work - are not helpful because they are too vague.
So that is what I want to shed some light on...and hopefully find some clarity and also continue to find language and words that actually work!
I've copied over from that thread (linked in the above post) on Christos' introductory book, which was shared by Christos.
The following is by Christos Yapijakis:
Regarding pleasure and happiness, just see Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus that explicitly says that:
-We aim to happiness (eustatheia of katastematic pleasure/pleasurable state)
-We do not need pleasure unless our body is in pain lacking it
"He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquility of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a happy life. For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living being has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained lacking pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure".
4. Regarding useful and harmful pleasures, again see Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus that explicitly says that:
-Although pleasure is naturally akin to us, some pleasures lead to greater annoyance than pleasure
-Useful pleasures=those that appease pain or vary our enjoyment of life (the second ones we don't need necessarily)
-Harmful pleasures=those that result in more pain than pleasure"...we do not choose every pleasure whatever, but often pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure. While therefore all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is worthy of choice, just as all pain is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned. It is, however, by measuring one against another, and by looking at the conveniences and inconveniences, that all these matters must be judged. ".
All three papers I authored in that special issue of Conatus-Journal of Philosophy on "Philosophical Management of Stress" (the first ever such issue of an international philosophical journal and I was invited to be the Editor) promote Epicurean philosophy, although they do that in a more subtle, "politically correct" and objective way discussing other philosophical approaches too, which by comparison are barely useful for a very short period of time until reality prevails.
...
...Always remember that the pursuit of pleasure is the path to eustatheia and happiness (katastematic pleasure or pleasurable state) for Epicurus and not a goal by itself as Aristippus or 'prodigals' think (see letter to Menoeceus DL 131-132).
