Also, adding in from Usener fragments...
48. It is better for you to be free of fear lying upon a pallet, than to have a golden couch and a rich table and be full of trouble.
Which could be shortened to: -------> A calm mind free from disturbance is more valuable than external riches.
I'm fond of our Golden Rule, which might be a candidate (KD32):
μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι
neither harm nor be harmed
Though, that's just the formula for justice. The formula for an ethics of pleasure also includes being "noble" and "prudent", in addition to being "just" (KD5). At least, KD32 is a nice line I like to dispense.
Thanks! ...all of that needs to be included in a list of Epicurean ethics.
We are in the process of revising our member level designations, and we will eventually post these in a more prominent place. These levels have evolved over the years to designate different things, and they will likely evolve in the future.
Participant Levels are maintained in order to ensure a high quality experience for our regular members. Our intent is to eliminate participation by "bots," "trolls," and those who clearly hold views of Epicurean philosophy which are fundamentally incompatible with the goals of our forum. For review of those, please consult our Community Standards, Posting Policies, and 'Not Neo-Epicurean but Epicurean" statement.
Individual circumstances vary greatly and will be taken into account in level assignment decisions as we become aware of them. All level assignments, promotions, and changes are made at the discretion of the forum moderation team.
Level 01 - Introductory Member - All new registrants are automatically assigned to this level. This level will be granted limited posting privileges after contacting an Admin to complete the registration process, which involves providing a brief statement of the participant's background and interest in Epicurus.
Level 02 - Member - Level one participants are promoted to Level two after they have demonstrated by regular posting a sincere level of interest in ongoing study of and compatibility with Epicurean philosophy. Promotions to this level take into consideration: 1) contributing to the forum through useful posts (thoughtful questions or helpful comments): and/or 2) demonstrated adequate participation at a "Fourth Sunday Zoom" or other meet-and-greet events.
Level 03 - Established Member - Level two participants are promoted to Level three after demonstrating on-going support for the goals of the forum through regular participation on the forum and/or regular Zoom meeting attendance.
*****
Edit note: The contents of this post were edited and approved by the Forum Admin.
Here is an example of what I am thinking regarding definitions, however these could depend on subjective understanding of Epicurean ethics. This just a starting point, as I will have more. Then after the definitions, the summarized principals could follow.
I do see that this could create debate, as everyone uses words differently, so very subjective...but will give it a try anyway. 
(These will likely be subject to change as I develop this further).
*****
pleasure - both physical and mental enjoyment of "all of life".
all of life - past, present, and future.
eudaimonia - well-being; and the same as the enjoyment of all of life.
the highest pleasures - contain no pain and do not lead to future painful states.
variation of sensation - a type of temporary physical pleasure that occurs after pains of the body are removed.
In last night's Zoom an interesting idea came up regarding science and our understanding of the universe...that once it is understood that everything is natural and that observation is the basis, then the principals are revealed again and again, so that though likely that some modern thinkers/scientists read Lucretius, it is also likely that they could develop their ideas without having known of Epicurus or his natural physics, simply because of clear understanding and observation of the natural world.
If anyone at last night's meeting can expain/say this better, please do TauPhi Joshua Bryan
Here is an excerpt from an old post regarding DeWitt's 12 point summary:
1. Matter is uncreatable. << Meaning that at NO point did any supernatural force create the universe. The universe operates by natural principles, and by natural principles alone.
2. Matter is indestructible. << Meaning that the universe as a whole is always going to be here, and it isn't going to mutate into "heaven" at the whim of any god. And nothing other than matter IS indestructible. There is no realm of "ideal forms" of which what we see around us is a poor reflection. What we see is what we get.
3. The universe consists of solid bodies and void. << Meaning that there is no supernatural spirit, no divine fire, no First Cause, no Prime Mover - just elemental matter that operates according to its own properties.
4. Solid bodies are either compounds or simple. << Meaning that what we see around us is a combination of elemental matter and void, and that the properties of what we see derive from those combinations, and not from the whim either of a supernatural god or some whim that we ourselves wish to see. Nature is king, queen, and all that there is.
5. The multitude of atoms is infinite. << Meaning that we here on Earth don't sit here at the center of the universe with everything revolving around us, and God nodding approvingly on the "outside." There is no "outside" the universe.
6. The void is infinite in extent. << Meaning that just as there is no limit to matter there is no limit to the void. The universe is limitless in extent and the Earth is not some playground of the gods.
7. The atoms are always in motion. << Meaning that change is the only constant, and that only a fool who ignores nature would think that he or she can come to rest in the arms of God or in "heaven," or be punished in "hell." So long as we live motion is constant around us and in us, and it is up to us to manage our lives according to Nature; after that our consciousness comes to an end along with the other qualities of the atoms which combined to become our bodies and minds.
8. The speed of atomic motion is uniform. << Meaning that at the level of the ultimate essence of the universe everything is moving according to its own properties, whether we can see and observe it or not.
9. Motion is linear in space, vibratory in compounds. << Meaning again that regardless of what we can see with our eyes, at the atomic level motion is constant even in those combinations of matter that appear to us to be at rest.
10. Atoms are capable of swerving slightly at any point in space or time. << Meaning that our minds are not billiard balls where all our decisions and actions have been predetermined with mathemetical precision and no alteration from the beginning of time, which the Determinists and the followers of Fate would have us believe; it is possible for human beings to have real effect on the course of their lives.
11. Atoms are characterized by three qualities: weight, shape and size. << Meaning that the atoms have properties which we can discover and on which we can rely to predict the nature of the atoms and the combinations they form, which means that we have the ability to explore nature through science and improve our lives with the knowledge we gain.
12. The number of the different shapes is not infinite, merely innumerable. << Meaning that there are limits to the properties of matter which gives rise to the combined bodies that exist in our own experience, and that as a result we can observe Nature and derive ideas about how Nature operates that will assist us in living - we are not faced with a chaotic and random universe in which no knowledge is possible, as alleged by the skeptics.
You can read the original post and thread: over here.
Perhaps one way to deal with this could be similar to how in our time we have legal documents which often have a long list of word definitions given before the main part of the legal explanation.
So what you are exploring are 'formats" such as timeline vs spreadsheet vs venn diagram -- methods of presenting or visualizing data?
That could be good for the natural physics principals.
But I am thinking that would not work for ethics, because defining words could require several long sentences. I started a new thread to discuss development of a new list of Epicurean ethics (click to go to that thread).
I've been wondering if it is possible to summarize Epicurean ethics into shorter statements, in much the same manner as DeWitt came up with 12 points of natural physics.
But the mental world is different than the physical world -- you can point to physical objects and observe their behavior, but you can't physically point to internal states of pleasure and pain since they are internal and subjective.
And I am wondering if this is possible to do for Epicurean ethics, but because of word usage such as "pleasure" "gods" etc. it would be difficult to do. Much of ethics can't be boiled down to single short phrases without introducing ambiguities and the attempt to do so has been the origin of incorrect interpretations (such incorrect interpretations as ataraxia being more important then eudaimonia) -- one error in reasoning causes incorrect conclusions.
Perhaps one way to deal with this could be similar to how in our time we have legal documents which often have a long list of word definitions given before the main part of the legal explanation.
Also we need to have all the text on ethics layed out and then work toward creating the list.
Cassius has already done much on this in introductory material and videos, yet I believe that there are some points which haven't been added yet, and also I'd like to see them said in a more direct (simple) manner.
I've been thinking about how the following quote from Herodotus was said with regard to Epicurean natural physics -- but not with regard to ethics.
So each of the Epicurean natural physics principals could be summed up in one phrase (or short sentence)-- and which DeWitt gathered from Lucretius into the 12 principals.
Here is the quote I am referring to.
"For we have frequent need of the general view, but not so often of the detailed exposition. Indeed it is necessary to go back on the main principles, and constantly to fix in one’s memory enough to give one the most essential comprehension of the truth. And in fact the accurate knowledge of details will be fully discovered if the general principles in the various departments are thoroughly grasped and borne in mind; for even in the case of one fully initiated the most essential feature in all accurate knowledge is the capacity to make a rapid use of observation and mental apprehension, and this can be done if everything is summed up in elementary principles and formulae. For it is not possible for anyone to abbreviate the complete course through the whole system, if he cannot embrace in his own mind by means of short formulae all that might be set out with accuracy in detail."
I am wondering if this isn't possible to do for Epicurean ethics because of word usage such as "pleasure" "gods" etc. -- so therefore it would be difficult to boil down much of the ethics to single short phrases -- and the attempt to do so has likely been the origin of incorrect interpretations (such incorrect interpretations as ataraxia being more important then eudaimonia) -- one error in reasoning causes incorrect conclusions.
Perhaps one way to deal with this could be similar to how in our time we have legal documents which often have a long list of word definitions given before the main part of the legal explanation.
Also to consider how the physical world is different than the mental world -- you can point to physical objects and observe their behavior -- but you can't physically point to internal states of pleasure and pain since they are internal and subjective.
I'm starting a separate thread regarding the idea of defining and summarizing Epicurean ethics over here.
Particularly this week, is another prime example of Cicero's use of rhetoric to twist and bend an argument.
I found this interesting article, which mainly talks about Cicero.
I happened upon this and wanted to share...have not read all the entries, but some aspects seem compatible to Epicureanism...looks to be helpful toward removing severe mental pains:
What choice do you want to make today?
We use five choices to build meaningful lives and reduce pain. Each choice is connected to a series of evidence-based coping skills and resources.
Edit note: This website also gives resources to get out of suicidal ideation.
Could there be a nugget later on that made it useful to me? Perhaps, but overall the paper didn't make me care enough to find out.
I feel very differently than you do DaveT and I think it provides an excellent springboard for discussing many aspects of death and dying. Perhaps you feel very confident that you have conquered all your fears for all aspects of death and pain. But for those of us who still have work to do, for the upcoming Fourth Sunday, I'll present some discussion questions which I believe will provide some helpful "existential therapy".
Likely some aspects of the paper will be used more "lightly" and other aspects more "deeply", so my goal is not to only approach it from an "academic" aspect, but also from human life and feeling.
Reading the article is optional for attendees, as I will do a short presentation before opening up the discussion.
--fyi to everyone--We are setting the Fourth Sunday to discuss this article--open to all fully registered members.
Meeting Announcement: Sunday, December 28, 2025 - Epicurean Philosophy Discussion Via Zoom.
We will discuss the article: "Epicurus on the Politics of Fearing Death" by Emily Austin.
Here is a link to the post which contains the article link:
Fourth Sunday discussion is open to all forum members who have completed their registration by replying to their welcome thread.
If you have not previously attended a Sunday Zoom, please message Cassius or Kalosyni to RSVP to this meeting. The Zoom link will be given out the day before the meeting.
We also look forward to seeing longterm members join in on this more active discussion meeting format (co-facilitated by Kalosyni).
Hope to see you there! 
**************
Edit note: Reading the article is optional for attendees, as Kalosyni will do a short presentation before opening up the discussion.
In the real world of actual experience, I'd like to question whether or not you can easily separate the "fear of the state of being dead" from "the fear of the process of dying".
This year I got the flu twice, and it was really bad in January, and slightly not as painful when I got it at the start of November. Everyone knows both from experience and modern medicine that most people that are in generally good health recover from the flu. But imagine experiencing some sickness and not knowing if you were going to die from it. Even now with modern medicine, there are times when it is unclear if a sick or injured person is going to recover or eventually die, and so that uncertainty could cause anxiety.
It would seem that if you "feel okay with" the concept of death, then the process of dying should theoretically not cause as much anxiety.
Here is a movie that might go with this discussion:
I just found this, which has a lot more on a priori and a posteriori:
A Priori and A Posteriori | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
It seems like we must have some level of logic when we use words and speak - an example is "all bachelors are unmarried" which doesn't require sensation to understand. "On Methods of Inference" seems like an important source to incorporate.
Quoting Joshua, quoting the Letter to Herodotus:
[38] For this purpose it is essential that the first mental image associated with each word should be regarded, and that there should be no need of explanation, if we are really to have a standard to which to refer a problem of investigation or reflection or a mental inference. And besides we must keep all our investigations in accord with our sensations, and in particular with the immediate apprehensions whether of the mind or of any one of the instruments of judgment, and likewise in accord with the feelings existing in us, in order that we may have indications whereby we may judge both the problem of sense perception and the unseen.
the difference between a priori and a posteriori claims of knowledge
I looked up the difference because I don't use those words in everyday life, and wanted to get a better understanding:
The following is from Google AI:
A priori and a posteriori claims are types of knowledge distinguished by how they're justified:
A priori knowledge is independent of experience (e.g., math, logic, definitions like "bachelors are unmarried"), known through pure reason; A posteriori knowledge depends on empirical experience and observation (e.g., "it's raining," scientific facts). The former relies on thought, the latter on senses or data from the world.
A Priori Knowledge (From the Earlier)
- Definition: Knowledge justified independently of experience, often through understanding concepts or definitions.
- Key Idea: You don't need to go out into the world to verify it; understanding the terms is enough.
- Examples:
- "All triangles have three sides."
- "2 + 2 = 4."
- "All bachelors are unmarried men." (True by definition)
A Posteriori Knowledge (From the Later)
- Definition: Knowledge justified through empirical evidence, observation, or experience.
- Key Idea: Requires stepping outside of pure thought to gather facts about the world.
- Examples:
- "The sky is blue."
- "Water boils at 100°C at sea level."
- "Socrates is drinking wine." (Requires seeing or knowing about Socrates's actions)
Key Differences Summarized
- Source: A priori comes from reason/logic; A posteriori comes from senses/experience.
- Justification: A priori is conceptual; A posteriori is empirical.
- Necessity: A priori truths often seem necessary (couldn't be otherwise); A posteriori truths are often contingent (could have been different).
I've just copied two good posts from that other thread, as they serve as part of an exploration regarding "reason vs. sensation". And this goes beyond just Epicurus vs Aristotle, and my hope is that we can shed light on some subtleties within Epicurean philosophy. Can talk more about these two posts I copied over from this standpoint
Because in some religious contexts reason is an earthly thing. There is the emphasis on faith within Christianity. And even in Buddhism there are some teaching that urge the practitioner to let their thinking mind drop away (meaning that reason doesn't bring enlightenment).
I would like to suggest that Epicurus embraces many aspects of sensation but also rejects certain aspects (such things as "dionysian" frenzy). And Epicurus embraces many aspects of reason but also rejects certain aspects. And I think it would be very important for us to get clear about what is embraced and what is rejected...perhaps a visual table would be helpful (with references).
my question deals both with "the telos" and with the definition of "pleasure"...of course we have talked about these many times in many threads here on the forum.
Here is a recent thread which brings up good points:
This is facinating:
Cassius do we have a place for these science type articles?
