a virtue called "φιλοποητικῶς" which is translated as "in a way that makes friends" or "makes friends" or "makes and keeps friends" by various translators I've seen.
Here is something from a modern practical perspective, a very good YouTube video by a psychologist who gives very good advice, with regard to interacting with strangers, and which over time can lead to friendships in community, clubs etc.
Posting this here in this thread since it is about meeting and interacting with strangers:
Here is another good one, on social curiosity and asking questions:
I just found this Youtube video on building communication skills, and he's got some interesting tips on moving from surface level to one layer deeper when endeavoring to make new friendships:
This may be a cause for marriage difficulties, and yet the article also suggests that over time people can work to improve their attachment styles:
Article from Yahoo Life: WashingtonPost:
- Securely attached people generally trust others and feel comfortable with both intimacy and independence.
- Those with an anxious attachment style often crave closeness but worry about rejection or abandonment.
- Avoidant individuals tend to prize self-reliance and keep an emotional distance, even from those they love.
- And people with a disorganized attachment style may swing between seeking connection and pushing it away, reflecting conflicting expectations about whether relationships are a source of comfort or danger.
And here is an older study (on Pubmed), and the only one study that I currently found online, about shifts in attachment styles:
If new research was done now perhaps there might even be greater shifts in attachment styles, since Covid-induced patterns of isolation. And I would guess that the more "avoidant" and "disorganized" attachment styles are less likely to marry. But this is just a guess.
Thanks @TauPhi, and Patrikios has also RSVP'ed...And a new Level 1 member has also RSVP'ed! ...all for Monday.
*My statement here assumes anyone would even notice if I was quiet or not.
I noticed...glad you are back posting. 
The living, sentient, sensing being ONLY feels pleasure OR pain. The dead feel neither. Pleasure comes in various varieties/flavors/experiences but is always pleasure. That terse quotation from Epicurus (which I continue to feel is genuine given the various references/citations Diogenes Laertius give it) is simply referring to the various experiences of pleasure by living, breathing people. AND he firmly plants his flag that THAT IS the goal by which we steer our ships. Pleasure, in all its multifarious manifestations, IS the North Star. And, no, he says, we can't exclude pleasant smells, pleasant sights, pleasant tastes, pleasant motions, any more than we can exclude contemplation of a healthy, fortunate state. It's all pleasure. For anyone to parse one pleasure above others, if it brings no pain, is a fool's errand...
Cassius as you wrote in post 24 above, I've now tried to briefly summarize this, and we may need to make this even more prominent...
Here is a possible wording, and which you may need to edit this:
The EpicureanFriends forum policy is intended to make sure that the clarity of the objective (the Epicurean summum bonum) as being pleasure, is not lost by substituting something else as the "supreme good."
Epicurus embraced all varieties of pleasure (active, resting, etc.) as part of a happy life. When we understand that "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure" we don't allow that to be qualified or modified to say "a life of happiness is a life of minimalist pleasures"; or "a life of happiness is a life of tranquility"; or "a life of happiness is a life of ataraxia"; or any other formulation that implies that some concept other than pleasure is actually the supreme good. Any post asserting a "minimalist" stance toward pleasure falls outside of this forum's understanding of Classical Epicurean Philosophy.
Oh...and I clicked on the link for the book and see that the cover has a little hermit crab on it... that's a "bad omen"!
Thanks, Don ...at first glance it looks intriguing, though it's a fairly vague general description. Perhaps it is written for middle age folks who really do "have it all" but for some reason still feel unhappy. We have VS68 which touches on the idea of "enough" ---> "Nothing is enough to one for whom enough is very little."
Yet, for younger folks, the book author's statement: "We already have what we need in order to be happy" is not going to be a helpful thing to hear for those who actually do need to put in more effort into getting their lives in order (gaining work experience, building financal sufficiency, building friendships, dating if they wish to find a partner and start a family.)
But basically I just wanted to speak up to say that the idea of just accepting your life "as it is" is not Epicurean.
Epicureanism is about understanding that we all need to make wise choices in life -- and take action when needed -- and as VS41 says: "One must laugh and seek wisdom and tend to one's home life and use one's other goods, and always recount the pronouncements of true philosophy."
Hi Everyone! We are now offering two new Zoom opportunities for new members (both Level 1 & Level 2) to come join us for a "meet-and-greet"! This also provides time for asking questions about the forum and Epicurean philosophy.
Level 3 established members are encouraged to please join us as well!
These Zoom meetings are open to registered members of the forum and new members who have fully completed their registration process.
Inviting Level 1 members: Morgan Aeneadum Aristos Carlos Stas randres61 WilliamJ Tgonzalez3790
Inviting Level 2 members: EdGenX Randall Moose Autoataraxic ScottW Noah Calderon warjuning
...and anyone else that I may have missed mentioning. Even if you've been a Level 1 or Level 2 for quite some time, please don't be shy, we'd love to meet you!
To attend:
Agenda:
We make our Zooms informal and easy-going, so you can enjoying coming out to meet your fellow forum members who are moving forward in the study of the philosophy of Epicurus!
Thoughts today after picking up a fallen pear...prolepsis--->Letter to Herodotus--->the infinite universe...
Here are some modern cosmologists and theoretical physicists who think that the universe is spatially infinite (models of cosmic inflation that point to an infinite or eternally growing multiverse).
Andrei Linde - https://profiles.stanford.edu/andrei-linde
"For a long time, scientists believed that our universe was born in the big bang, as an expanding ball of fire. This scenario dramatically changed during the last 35 years. Now we think that initially the universe was rapidly inflating, being in an unstable energetic vacuum-like state. It became hot only later, when this vacuum-like state decayed. Quantum fluctuations produced during inflation are responsible for galaxy formation. In some places, these quantum fluctuations are so large that they can produce new rapidly expanding parts of the universe. This process makes the universe immortal and transforms it into a multiverse, a huge fractal consisting of many exponentially large parts with different laws of low-energy physics operating in each of them."
Alan Guth - https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/b…next-big-ideas/
"The idea is that the universe is actually eternal. It existed at all times, so there is no beginning to explain. The laws of physics themselves don’t seem to make any significant distinction between the future and the past. As the universe evolves, its entropy, or disorder, will grow. What we call the future is simply the direction of higher entropy; a state of lower entropy is what we call the past. But a curious thing happens if you take this initial low entropy state and follow it backwards in time, towards what we previously called the past: the entropy will also start to grow in that direction. I think that the people living [along that arrow of time] would not feel anything different from what we feel. Everybody will think that they’re living from the past towards the future, except what they call the future will be what we call the past."
Thanks Godfrey for sharing. It ties in with: "And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided." - Letter to Menoeceus.
You mention that you just started with the book and this is from the first section of it. I see that there are words/phrases such as "personal values", "moderation", "meaningful satisfaction"...and I think that these need to be unpacked and re-labeled according to Epicurean philosophy.
"personal values" - Where do these come from? And you might ask, How did these come to be "my" values? They are often instilled by parents, family interactions, school, childhood experiences and friends, and culture (pop music, books, movies), etc. Now, through the lens of Epicurean philosophy then we might ask how what we value relates to: "natural-necessary, natural-but-optional, and empty opinion" -- as it relates to what brings pleasure, joy, and long-term well-being. But also it seems that we will see certain patterns with regard to "values" such that everyone essentially will value the same basic categories if they want a life of feeling good and experiencing joy - financial sufficiency, exercise (movement), friends/family connections, etc.
"moderation" - moderation in everything, right? ...no, sometimes we need to not do something at all. And the reason is that when we firmly decide that something brings more pain then pleasure then we lose interest in doing that. And what about excess of something? Who determines what "excess" is? If it causes problems (or pain) then it is no good, but if it brings pleasure and well-being then it's a thumbs-up. So as Epicureans we don't need to even need to worry about adding in "moderation" because it is baked-into the feedback loop automatically when we choose things according to long-term well-being.
"meaningful satisfaction" - the word "meaningful" can have two main definitions: 1) anything that brings long-term enjoyment to me, 2) long-term enjoyable social connections and interactions with people
Admin Edit: We now are setting up two meeting times: August 3rd, and August 9th... be sure to see post 2 below for more info.
************
Hi Everyone! We are planning a New Member Meet-and-Greet Zoom, for Monday, August 3, 2026 - 8pm ET -- This Zoom meeting is open to registered members of the forum and new members who have fully completed their registration process.
EpicureanFriends.com is a community dedicated to studying, practicing, and promoting Classical Epicurean philosophy. Like the ancient Epicurean school, it is a community of friends learning and working together to advance Epicurean philosophy today. The forum is dedicated to Classical Epicurean philosophy and participation which supports the shared focus of Pleasure as the Telos. Thoughtful questions and respectful discussion are the foundation upon which our group is built.
We want to especially invite Level 1 and Level 2 members, as an opportunity to get more involved and meet the admin and other members of the forum, as well as provide time for answering any questions about the forum and Epicurean philosophy. Attendance will also contribute toward future consideration for promotion to a higher membership level.
Level 1 and Level 2 members, please be sure you have reviewed Cassius' article: Against Katastematic Supremacy - Pleasure Is A Unified Good, Not A House Divided Against Itself - INCLUDES FORUM EDITORIAL POLICY. (*The full article is lengthy providing full supporting documentation, but you can find the basic points stated in the opening three paragraphs*).
Agenda:
To attend: please RSVP here in this thread or message Cassius. A Zoom link will be given out the day before the meeting by private message.
***************
A Brief Review of Participation Levels on the EpicureanFriends forum:
Level 1 Guest: New members exploring the community -- after replying to the Welcome email sent out by the Admin (in which they introduce themselves), they can begin participating by posting further in their Welcome Thread (posting at this level is limited to the Welcome Thread). This membership level is invited to attend New Member Meet-and-Greet Zooms (please message Cassius if you are interested in attending).
Level 2 Guest: Members who have demonstrated good-faith participation -- are promoted to Level 2 and welcomed to post into the main discussion forums. This membership level is invited to attend New Member Meet-and-Greet Zooms -and- after receiving admin approval can attend Sunday Afternoon Zooms.
Level 3 Friend: Established members -- recognized for their sustained participation, shared commitment to Classical Epicurean philosophy, and trusted contributions. Friends have access to most forum features as well as advanced meetings (Twentieth Zooms and Wednesday Night Zooms).
Level 4 Veteran Friend: Experienced members -- who help maintain the quality and direction of discussion through long-standing commitment and leadership.
These participation levels reflect each member's permissions for posting, and indicate the level of engagement and alignment with the forum's purpose. They also help readers understand the experience and perspective behind each post. (Read a longer description here, in section 2).
I’ll admit I do not think this fits. A drink is just another pleasure within the meal, not the thing that gives all the other pleasures their order and security. This makes established pleasures sound like an optional side item.
My analogy may not work for everyone...I was thinking about it this way:
If you were invited over to someone's house for dinner, and they served you a full dinner, but did not serve anything at all to drink with the dinner (no water, no lemonade, no wine, no nothing, etc.) then the meal would be lacking in something -- your total pleasure would be incomplete. Whether or not the meal is simple or extravagant is irrelevant, because there is still something else needed...and the pleasure of the meal would be "mixed" with a sense of discomfort. And I think that this is the point of PD10, and also PD12.
Here is a possible analogy for the "completeness" of pleasure:
A meal served without something to drink would be considered incomplete...
"a meal" = all the many varied pleasures of life
"something to drink" = removing fears of death & gods and adding in prudence (the correct understanding of choices and avoidances).
So altogether these would make a "complete meal" which would be an analogy of a complete life of pleasure and well-being.
Happy Twentieth Everyone!
Listen to the Epicurus Rap - Free as Epicurus!
Since tomorrow is the Twentieth... I am thinking again about this quote: "To-morrow, dearest Piso, your friend, beloved by the Muses, who keeps our annual feast of the twentieth invites you to come after the ninth hour to his simple cottage. If you miss udders and draughts of Chian wine, you will see at least sincere friends and you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians. But if you ever cast your eyes on me, Piso, we shall celebrate the twentieth richly instead of simply."
And particularly this section: "...you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians."
A bit of background on the "the Phaeacians"... In Homer's Odyssey, they are a legendary seafaring people who live on the island of Scheria. Known for their advanced shipbuilding and hospitality (xenia), they welcome a shipwrecked Odysseus, listen to his adventures, and safely transport him back to Ithaca on their magical, self-steering ships.
Descended from the god Poseidon, the Phaeacians live in a utopian, paradisiacal realm untouched by war or hardship. They are a semi-divine race ruled by King Alcinous and Queen Arete, possessing an idyllic city with a bronze-walled palace, golden statues, and ever-blooming orchards. Homer emphasizes their mastery of the sea and their status as master navigators.
In the Odyssey, the Phaeacians serve as the primary audience for Odysseus's epic tales. After being stranded on Scheria, Odysseus is discovered by Princess Nausicaa, who brings him to her parents' palace.
The Phaeacians host a grand feast where their blind bard, Demodocus, sings of the Trojan War. Hearing these stories causes Odysseus to weep, ultimately leading him to reveal his true identity and recount his ten-year journey (found in Books 9–12).
Wikipedia: Scheria
Just for fun, my illustration of many pleasures:
I may need to update this (which I made back in 2024) and add more subtitles: "pleasures of the mind" (and which can include planning (anticipation), "pleasures of the removal of pain", etc.
WilliamJ welcome to the forum!
What would Epicurus have said about Homer's Odyssey? At some point in ancient Greece it was popularly taught amongst the people, and perhaps even in early philosophy schools (though no clear evidence during the time of Epicurus).
Here we are in 2026 and there is a new Odyssey movie that is opening, and I'm guessing that now there will be increased interest in ancient Greece, because movies tend to greatly influence American culture.
Here are links to an old version made for TV movie, in two parts:
An interesting article explores the possibility of how the story came to to be, since the myths were not originally written down.
And you can check out a wikipedia about the gods in the Odyssey:
Gods in The Odyssey - Wikipedia
As for Epicurus, regarding the nature of the gods, some excerpts from the Letter to Menoeceus:
"First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his immortality or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and immortality. For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision. But they are not such as the many believe them to be: for indeed they do not consistently represent them as they believe them to be. And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many.
[124] For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods."...
...
[134] "For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it."
