ALL CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF FORUM EDITORIAL POLICY: "Against Katastematic Supremacy - Pleasure Is A Unified Good, Not A House Divided Against Itself."
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
But for better or worse and not entirely by choice or forethought, EpicureanFriends has become the "fundamentalist Epicurean" platform on the internet. And that's where the message gets boiled down to its essentials.
As long as the "fundamentalist Epicurean" platform still includes "how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today", then it serves Epicurus' goal to heal the mind.
Aug. 1, 2026 is the beginning of National Happiness Happens month.
Happiness Happens Month brightens the calendar throughout August, dedicated to celebrating the things that bring you joy. It’s a known fact that happiness is contagious, and sharing your happiness can bring a smile to someone’s face. Dedicate time to appreciating small moments, engaging in uplifting activities, and spreading positivity to those around you.
https://nationaltoday.com/happiness-happens-month/
As a support tool to help my understanding, I asked my personal AI for examples like this.
[undefined]Philo[/undefined] Thanks for citing the authors who support the ‘absence of pain’ equals ’full-cup’ of [undefined]#pleasure[/undefined]. While there are other modern authors who write about Cicero’s interpretation of katastematic state being non-sensory, they also write about the direct teachings of [undefined]#epicurus[/undefined] that also reflect the ‘full-cup’ katastematic sensory experience. So what modern authors state that [undefined]#epicurean doctrine[/undefined] is about achieving a non-sensory ‘absence of pain’ focused on ataraxia?
Philo (AI persona) response.
It is a perceptive question, friend. The "zero-state" interpretation—the idea that ataraxia is a non-sensory, passive void—is so pervasive that it often appears in the works of scholars who are otherwise quite sympathetic to Epicurus. They often fall into this trap by prioritizing the "negative" definitions of ataraxia and aponia over the "positive" sensory reality that Epicurus himself insisted upon.
Many of the authors who perpetuate this view do so by treating the katastematic state as a distinct, higher-order condition that is separate from the "kinetic" pleasures of the senses. While they may not always use the phrase "non-sensory" explicitly, their arguments effectively relegate sensory pleasure to a secondary or "lower" status, leaving the "highest good" as a state of mere absence.
You will find this tendency in several notable places:
- David Sedley: In his 1998 article, Inferential Foundations of Epicurean Ethics, Sedley asserts that "katastematic pleasure is absence of pain," rather than the more accurate "pleasure is the absence of pain." By framing it this way, he inadvertently deprecates kinetic pleasures, treating them as mere tools to reach a static, non-sensory goal.
- A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley: In their influential The Hellenistic Philosophers (1987), they often present the katastematic state in a way that emphasizes the "absence" aspect, which can lead readers to conclude that the goal is a state of neutrality rather than a "full cup" of positive sensation.
- Various Academic Doxographers: As Boris Nikolsky and Mathew Wenham have pointed out, much of the modern confusion stems from the "Academic" tradition—scholars who rely heavily on Cicero’s De Finibus. Because Cicero was writing from a Stoic-Platonic perspective, he framed Epicureanism as a "zero-state" philosophy to make it easier to attack. Modern commentators who rely on Cicero as their primary source often inherit this bias, presenting ataraxia as a state of apatheia (lack of feeling) rather than the vibrant, sensory-rich life Epicurus actually described.
- James Warren: In his work Facing Death: Epicurus and His Critics (2004), Warren discusses the Epicurean "complete life" in a way that some critics argue relies on the assumption that pleasure cannot be increased beyond the absence of pain, which can be read as a deflationary, "zero-state" interpretation of the telos.
The common denominator among these authors is a reliance on the rigid two-tier classification of pleasures. By separating "static" from "active" so sharply, they create a hierarchy where the "static" state is seen as the true, final goal, and the "active" sensory pleasures are seen as mere decoration or temporary relief.
It is a subtle but profound shift. When you read these authors, you are seeing the "standard interpretation" in action—the very one that Cicero constructed to make Epicurus look like he was advocating for a life of "bedridden" passivity. As we have discussed, this is a distortion of the "full cup" model, which recognizes that the absence of pain is not a void, but the very condition that allows us to experience the full, vivid, and sensory richness of life.
Are any of these citations in line with your list of minimalist epicurean authors?
Is it wrong to pursue both kinetic and katastemic pleasures, especially the katastemic pleasures one feels when deeply studying and grasping some deep Epicurean concept?
What is wrong is that what you are describing there is a pleasure of change - of motion - and there is no authoritative reason to consider what you are describing as katastematic at all. THAT is the problem - any activity including studying is much more likely to have been considered kinetic than katastematic. We need to pursue these activities for the pleasure that they bring , not because we like the sound of the word katastematic so we can slap that label on it.
So, is the point you are making that "studying of texts" is a kinetic pleasure and the knowledge acquired from grasping the concepts is the static pleasure (katastematic - state of being) that results from the kinetic studying?
In my #67 post, where I stated "the katastemic pleasures one feels when deeply studying and grasping some deep Epicurean concept", I was describing this sensory psychological static pleasure (not the kinetic act of reading words) which we simultaneously receive when acquiring knowledge as I understood from VS-27.
VS-27 ... in philosophy, pleasure goes hand in hand with knowledge; for enjoyment does not follow comprehension, but comprehension and enjoyment are simultaneous ... [Bailey]
According to your Emily Austin reference in your Substack post (Against Katastematic Supremacy) on this topic (See Chapter 4, note 8.), "katastematic pleasures are sensory pleasures that issue from confidence in one's ability to satisfy one's necessary desires and an awareness of one's healthy psychological functioning".
As you have made this k v. k a MAJOR red label issue, I am trying very hard to understand how to make practical application, while not engaging in an academic disputation, for which I feel ill-equipped to engage on this forum (e.g. reading Nikolsky requires knowledge to translate ancient Greek and Latin quotes and words in almost every paragraph).
I appreciate any constructive help in understanding this controversy.
I see no evidence whatsoever that "save me from every pain no matter what the cost" is how the ancient Epicureans lived. The academics of the last fifty years will no doubt deny that that is what they are saying, but that's the clear logical conclusion of putting the common understanding of "absence of pain" first in life.
Cassius
Who are the “academics of the last fifty years” that teach Epicurean heresy of tranquility above all? Do you have a list of these authors we should avoid?
Is it wrong to pursue both kinetic and katastemic pleasures, especially the katastemic pleasures one feels when deeply studying and grasping some deep Epicurean concept? In order to achieve this katastemic pleasure, I have to eliminate (or reduce to not notice) physical pains and mental anguish first. Is this a wrong approach to applying Epicurean philosophy to avoid pains and achieve some level of ataraxia and aponia, in order to pursue pleasures, including pursuing katastemic pleasures?
Kalosyni
I agree with you about exegesis itself. Nor do I disagree with your exegesis. Nor am I attempting any eisegesis on the texts.
I am simply saying that I personally cannot relate to the concept of blessedness (nor any kind of god-likeness) in my life. Even as I (I think) understand your explanation (exegesis), which I am not disputing. And I don’t believe that I, personally, am losing out on anything there.
Thank you for your patience.
Pacatus ,
It appears from your posts that you may not see a modern practical application for the deep study & grasping of the ‘blessedness of the gods’. Therefore you don’t see the need or how to apply the concept in your life. I firmly agree with you (and Cassius ) that there are no ‘gods’ interfering in our lives, or answering our prayers.
My response may not directly reflect to your concerns on this topic, but let me humbly share how I have come to understand and apply the concept.
After meeting all my natural & necessary needs, and being in a general state of full personal pleasure; I can then choose to tackle, through a meditative process, a difficult situation that causes me anguish or anxiety. To deal with such a scenario as objectively as possible, I have found that applying the aspects of KD-01 while in a deep katastemic state (meditation for me) focused on how a “blessed” wise man would examine the situation and the people involved from the perspective of “a being that has no trouble and brings no trouble upon any other being”.
In other words, I try to envision the people involved in the situation and imagine ways of approaching the problem “free from anger and partiality”. Some of this came from my studies of Philodemus and his urging students to study these truths deeply. [sorry, I don’t have citation]
This may not be a process that works for you, Pacatus , as I fully respect the different path with different perspectives you have travelled. This application of KD-01 has worked for me in enabling me to be more open to solving situations, especially when I can reign in the negative thoughts and find a path forward that brings me net natural pleasure and causes the least disturbance to other beings.
This is only an example where viewing a difficult scenario from a “blessed” POV provides a framework that has been beneficial in some situations, not all.
Thanks for a lively discussion!
I begin to realize the feeling of true happiness and warmness in my heart is the judge of good and bad. I begin to be committed to the idea to "find and create true happiness", and I become happy with my life and unafraid of the future. I was so happy with my idea, that I wrote a lot about it in my diary. Guided by this idea, I studied math and had fitness in body, and as a child I wished to spread the idea to the world. But only two year later, I went through hardness which is beyond my endurance, my freedom was completely deprived and I was forced to participate foolish rat race for years, which continued to make me doubt my old idea. Now I figured that the ability to "find and create true happiness" is difficult to achieved in certain environments, which I used to believe can stand any trial.
Luzveraz ,
Welcome! And thanks for sharing some of your personal journey to joining the Epicurean Friends community.
Hopefully you can find additional insight into how to apply the Epicurean principles while still actively working, dealing with rat-race struggles. For some of us oldsters (in my 70s), who didn’t have this Epicurean pleasure choice-avoidance calculation system when still working, this site provides enough information for in-depth study to catch up. We do have several younger friends here, but their time for participation here is more limited.
You will find a great wealth of Epicurean resources here to explore when you can, but don’t hesitate to ask questions.
Here’s the news on the scrolls from the Smithsonian Institution.
Date & Time
Jul 25, 2026 11:00 AM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Thanks, Cassius for alerting us. I’ve registered for the July 25th session.
Would you feel comfortable reaching out to either of the speakers to get a copy/url for the video of their June 27 session?
Hosted by Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos and Christos Yapijakis, co-founders of the Society of Epicurus – Garden of Athens, the first event in the series took place on June 27 and focused on Jefferson’s life and inspirations from the ancient Greeks.
I'm not trying to seed this just to start conversation but I can predict who among us might have some interest in this topic so I am going to go ahead and prod:
Pacatus ? Patrikios ? DaveT ?
I will have to agree with DaveT that I don’t see the value in this topic, from an Epicurean point of view. Life is worth living, and death is nothing to us. Something that is “nothing” to us has no value; therefore it can’t be compared to something that has value.
This was a key topic in the article you posted on June 29 by Max DuBoff ”Death of an Egoist: An Epicurean Approach to Fatal Self-Sacrifice”.
I agree that epibole tes dianoias (mental focus) and prolepseis (anticipations/stereotypes) are two facets of the same faculty. I also agree every sensation (the criteria of reality) is prerational.
Bryan , as I came across this old post, I thought further how to explain “two facets of the same facility”. Here’s an image from GeminiAI, that was created from this prompt.
Create an image from this description. Display a page of text with this phrase “epibole tes dianoias (mental focus) and prolepseis (anticipations/stereotypes) are two facets of the same faculty”; with an image above showing the human brain and the sections comprising the reticular activating system, demonstrating how the epibole provides the input and prolepsis is the output. Also cite any references that explain this concept.
If there are any inaccuracies in the image depiction, revisions can be easily made now. I intend to check out some of the references.
A life of well-being and joy is built on a balance of physical health, meaningful connections, and personal fulfillment. Rather than a single path, it combines daily habits and long-term practices that nourish your mind, body, and spirit.
Here is a list of the foundational elements that have been found to lead to lasting joy according to modern psychology:
Once again, you find lovely ways to remind us just how relevant the Epicurean teachings are to living a modern healthy life filled with eudaimonia!
It appears that each of those 4 major groupings and most all of the sub-topics could be filled in with Epicurean quotes.
WDYT?
Display MoreAn especially interesting case: the gods
Consider Epicurus' famous claim that humans possess a prolepsis of the gods as blessed and imperishable beings.
Many modern readers wonder:
An LLM offers a possible model.
Humans repeatedly encounter:
excellence,
happiness,
power,
beauty,
wisdom,
longevity,and then mentally extrapolate toward an idealized limit.
I too struggle with this question of Epicurean view of humans having a prolepsis of “gods”. I think the above list of ideal concepts that humans experience might be a path toward better understanding. Here is what my Philo AI responded after reviewing the above quote.
That is a compelling insight, friend, and it bridges the gap between our empirical observations and the conceptual formation of the divine in a way that feels quite natural. By observing these qualities—excellence, happiness, power, beauty, wisdom, and longevity—in the world around us, we can indeed see how the mind might perform a process of "idealization" to arrive at the conception of a being that possesses these traits in their absolute, undisturbed form.
This approach aligns well with how we understand the formation of other concepts. Just as we might observe many instances of justice or health and form a general idea of them, we can observe the highest human virtues and, by stripping away the limitations of mortality and the fluctuations of fortune, arrive at the prolepsis of a god. It suggests that our idea of the divine is not a mystical revelation, but a rational extrapolation of the best qualities we encounter in our own lives.
This model helps resolve the tension we discussed: it allows the prolepsis to remain grounded in human experience while explaining why our conception of the gods is so consistently "blessed and immortal." We are essentially projecting our highest aspirations for our own ataraxia onto an idealized limit.
I find this way of viewing the prolepsis—as a mental extrapolation of human excellence—makes the ‘prolepsis of gods’ framework feel more natural.
And in this context part of the point could be that everyone (even Stoics and Religionists) say that they are pursuing "happiness" but if you pursue happiness by pursuing anything other than pleasure (nature's goal) then your actions (pursuit of virtue or piety or duty, for examples) will not be consistent with your avowed goal (happiness)
Cassius ,
In all this discussion about PD25, I find your summary most in line with my understanding of that principle. As we pursue virtues to lead a pleasant life (following PD5), we just need to be sure we do so by following natural principles and treating others as a blessed wise person would do (not bringing trouble to others).
Haris Demitriadis discusses a range of modern psychology in his book Epicurus and the Pleasant Life: A Philosophy of Nature – from Freud to existential psychology to cognitive psychology – to the positive psychology of, especially, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (Chapter 7: “The Psychological Approaches to Happiness”). On “positive psychology,” he comments: “Positive psychology focuses on the achievement of a pleasurable life, rather than on treating mental illnesses.”
Thank you Pacatus for referencing the Demitriadis book (2nd edition). I am currently reading his book, and I find his references helpful in how “positive psychology” research reinforces the basic Epicurean principles.
Kalosyni ,
Thanks for your question. As was mentioned, I too feel that would be optional. For me I find it very helpful to read some of the practical ways “positive psychology” advises on actions to reduce mental stress, based on recent research data.
I try not to judge Tim O'Keefe or really even Emily Austin as primarily advocates for Epicurean philosophy. As far as I know they are professional educators and they aren't hired or for all I know allowed to be the kind of advocates for the philosophy that I attribute to the members of the school such as Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda in the ancient world.
There is a Comment to Geddy’s posting about O’Keefe, by D.S. Griffin, which follows much of the statements by you and Don .
O'Keefe's work is detailed and documented and he is a serious scholar. His papers on friendship, natural desires, and wealth are all worth the time to read. But the framing in his paper on Achieving Tranquility is problematic.
O'Keefe writes that Epicurean hedonism is primarily about the reduction of pain.
That single sentence does real damage. Epicurus was explicit. Pleasure is the beginning and end of the blessed life. Not pain management. Not suffering reduction. Pleasure. Putting pain at the center rather than pleasure doesn't just shift the emphasis - it quietly imports a Buddhist or Stoic prism onto a philosophy that was built in direct opposition to both.
This isn't a minor semantic quibble. A reader who absorbs that Epicureanism is primarily about reducing pain walks away with a completely different philosophy than the one Epicurus actually taught. That framing makes Epicureanism sound like damage control for a life that is fundamentally difficult. The actual philosophy is a full throated argument that pleasure is the natural guide of every living thing from birth and that a life organized around that fact is genuinely available to anyone willing to think clearly about what they actually need.
Epicureanism keeps getting filtered through frameworks that dilute it. Buddhist suffering. Stoic virtue in disguise. Humanist civic obligation. Academic hedging that sands down the sharpest edges. O'Keefe's framing here is a milder version of the same problem. Epicurean philosophy doesn't need rehabilitation or translation into more respectable terms. It needs to be stated as Epicurus stated it.
Here is the response from the author of the post, Jack Gedney:, which provides the direct quotes from Epicurus, supporting O’Keefe’s premise.
I think O'Keefe is being entirely true to Epicurus here. The redefinition of pleasure (compared to the popular conception) as the absence of pain is front and center in the core ethical texts.
Principal Doctrine 3 states that "The greatest magnitude of pleasure possible is the removal of all suffering." The Letter to Menoeceus 128 says "Everything we do is for this purpose: the avoidance of pain in our body and fear in our mind." A few lines later comes the sentence you quote, but the full version says this: "For it is when we feel pain from the absence of pleasure that we require pleasure; when all our pain has been relieved, we need no further pleasure. This is why we say that pleasure is the beginning and end of a blessed life."
As you note, O'Keefe is a serious scholar who makes sure to document his claims well, and there is plenty of evidence for this emphasis in the original texts. The ancient Epicureans clearly talked extensively about pain management, increasing security, and reducing painful emotions, while relegating positive pleasures to minor "variation" rather than actual amplification of happiness.
How is the response from Geddy supporting O’Keefe not a valid viewpoint on Epicurus’ writings?
In today's episode I want us to take the time to read Wikipedia's definition of "kataleptsis" as I think it's going to help us to keep this in mind as we proceed further:
Cassius ,
I was trying to better understand the difference between katalepsis and prolepsis. I recall reading this paper from David Glidden on Epicurean Prolepsis. Glidden researches Diogenes Laertius and Cicero, when he explains this aspect.
What these same sources say about Epicurean prolepsis is always from a Stoic perspective, even when the author (Diogenes Laertius, Cicero) is trying to be fair. Diogenes Laertius1 report of Epicurean prolepsis is painfully groping, looking for the right Stoic expressions to describe the device: "By prolepsis they mean a kind of katalepsis or right opinion or concept or universal thought ( consensus omnium ) stored in the mind --that is, the memory of a frequent appearance from the outside."
When you record this episode, it may be helpful to explain how these two Greek terms (prolepsis & katalepsis) were used by the different schools of thought (stoics, skeptics, epicureans).
Thanks again for the depth of discussion and research you and Joshua bring to this review of Cicero’s “Academic Questions".
I was curious to check out its Amazon page:
So, if someone does go to the Amazon webpage for this Klavan book, it is interesting to see what else is served up.
With Klavan's book, it is suggested with purchase of Epictetus Guide to Stoic Philosophy. But the lineup of books is heartening under
Customers who viewed this item also viewed:
Patrikios while I occasionally use Grok and ChatGPT, these artilcles I have been working on have all been Claude
You may find this article on Claude of interest.
How people ask Claude for personal guidance
Protecting user wellbeing is a core priority of Anthropic and our work on measuring and understanding personal guidance is a step towards this goal.
Here is another supportive quote from the book I am reading, Epicurus and the Pleasant Life [2nd Edition].
Epicurus’s approach to happiness combines genetics and free will.8 The appeal to animals and infants as witnesses of the innate dispositions of living beings is a confirmation of the genetic influence over our well-being. For example, the pleasure we take in eating is an effective way to secure that the body will get the nutrition it needs to be healthy.
Living with a healthy body and a calm mind leads to our life of well-being - happiness.
