Hi Kalosyni,
For the moment i read the summary and liked it. I will read the article.
Given that, you reminded me that i read a little bit about Philodemus analysis of anger. In certain situations it is justified, and obviously one should manage it to make it useful.
Hello Martin 
I will shun politics.
To your question Titus.
Plato gave me thd conviction that the truth is out there. So i kepg reading and writing to try and get to the bottom of it.
I relied on Epictetus Discourses as a manuL of how to act. I differentiated between what is within my realm and what not. I used the techniques he described to regulate my feelings.
I got into a zen like mode. Stopped dreaming, was quite happy and tolerant. Read wrote as i said.
Didn't use memento mori much. Did think much about virtue and tried to act accordingly. Did try to understand what is the human nature.
Still, these techniques are problematic if you over extend them. Memento mori is tyrannic and embracing it is - taking the lights out. I guess a stoic perish is necessary for practitioners.
I could quote most of that book back then and lots of plato's dialogues.
I enjoyed an oceanic feeling for about two years. In the 4 year huge cracks appeared (if you want to be happy believe i seeked the truth)
After 5 years i had a Daoist period... and then a vacuum.
Seneca is nice and wide but i found Epictetus a good guide - concise and precise with a beautiful prose (he speaks of humans as sparkles of the deity and calls everyone to sing with in old man the praise of god - it was very beautiful in the hebrew translation). I think it is an interesting read, and its introduction might offer a critical reading. Meaning - the "dogma" is a choice Epictetus offers. I have to look for it to make sure i'm right.
Plato's importance for me was in the field of epistemology and ontology. The stoic ontology as far as i remember is quite simple - Hereclitus fire which the sage will ride out. Plato meshes well and supplies beef to the skeleton.
Hope this satisfies you. Have a good reading
I will summarize the continuation, since it's relevant to your points.
Obviously i pushed from the Epicurean side, but i think the conclusion is fair.
How would nietzsche react to a fairly calculated epicurean rejection of a certain course
Ultimately, Nietzsche would challenge an Epicurean to ask: “Are you rejecting this path because it truly leads to a lesser life, or because you are avoiding discomfort and risk?” If it’s the latter, he’d see it as a failure to fully affirm life.
I guess an epicurean could reply that these factors are legitimate and necessary. They are based on self knowledge, and also - all pleasures are good. For him given that he elaborated, his decision is well based.
Yes, an Epicurean could push back with a strong argument. They might say:
1..
2..
3. Pleasure isn’t passive – Epicureanism isn’t just about simple, bodily pleasures but also includes intellectual and creative joys. If a person carefully crafts their life around meaningful pleasures, that’s a sign of wisdom, not mediocrity.
Essentially, the Epicurean would argue that selective rejection of struggle isn’t life-denying but life-enhancing. The key difference is that Nietzsche sees the act of struggling itself as inherently valuable, while Epicurus sees struggle as a tool to be used wisely, only when it serves greater happiness.
Well,
(You can jump to the last paragraph to avoid my blubber :))
I held a stoic-platonistic view for about 5 years. Gradually it began to trouble me that i see others as deviating from the true nature, and the society i live in as an abberation.
My focus then shifted to a herclitean version which puts change in the center. By and by i came to lose my reasons / justifications for actions.
Philosophy is very important for me. Finding myself holding a materialistic view where i need to supply the meaning was incapacitating. Things looked grayish if i am their main author. I also studiedvsociology in the open uni... which had a dual effect (as i saw the discipline it supported my views for beyter and for worse)
It really affected my mood. Well, i had my ups and downs, many owing to the fact that my personal philosophy did not furnish a strong basis for meaning. Sometimes i talked the talk but did not walk the walk you can say.
I think the podcast has been a kind of a beacon to me on that respect. Hearing about static pleasure, And reading the recommended reads rounded my philosophy and provided the agent's meaning aspect side of it
In recent podcasts i've heard Nietzsche's name mentioned here and there. As someone who is also taking interest in Nietzsche, i wanted to clarify for myself some distinctions between Nietzsche and Epicurus, and answer the question why i preffer the latter.
So i engaged in a chat with chat gpt which i found interesting -
Epicure views pleasure as the guide for the good life. Does Nietzsche has an equivalent to that.
Yes, Nietzsche has an equivalent, but it's quite different from Epicurus’ idea of pleasure. While Epicurus sees pleasure (understood as the absence of pain and a state of tranquility) as the highest good, Nietzsche focuses on the will to power as the guiding principle of a flourishing life.
For Nietzsche, the good life isn’t about seeking comfort or avoiding suffering, but about embracing struggle, overcoming, and self-transformation. He sees pain and hardship as necessary for growth, as they lead to the development of strength and greatness. Instead of avoiding suffering (as Epicurus advises), Nietzsche suggests that we should affirm life in all its aspects—joy and suffering alike—because overcoming challenges is what makes life meaningful.
So, while Epicurus says “seek pleasure and avoid pain,” Nietzsche might say “seek power, embrace struggle, and create your own values.”
I was not satisfied so i said: This sounds misleading. Some pleasures are obvious, and others demand integrating memory and thinking.
Yet seek power does not sound clear. Struggle might be ok for an epicurean as long as it is within the pleasure calculation.
To which he replied:
You're right to push back on that. Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power isn’t as straightforward as Epicurus’ pleasure principle, and reducing it to “seek power” can be misleading. Let’s refine this.
Nietzsche isn’t just talking about political or social dominance but rather a deep, internal drive toward self-overcoming and creative expression. It’s about expanding one’s abilities, transforming oneself, and shaping the world according to one’s own values.
Epicurus emphasizes pleasure, but not in a simple hedonistic way—it involves intellectual reflection and memory to discern which pleasures are truly worth pursuing. Similarly, Nietzsche’s will to power isn’t just about raw struggle; it includes art, philosophy, personal growth, and the joy of creating.
An Epicurean might accept struggle if it leads to greater pleasure and less suffering in the long run, while Nietzsche would say struggle itself is inherently valuable—not just as a means to an end, but as the process that defines a flourishing life. The good life for Nietzsche is an active, self-affirming existence where one embraces even suffering as part of the grand play of life.
Would you say this is closer to the nuance you’re looking for?
And then we continued:
Yes. Much better. Is it fair to say that for nietzsche the advice is "always seek for struggle so to improve yourself",
While for epicurus, "look for struggle only if you calculate it will lead to a better state"?
Yes, that’s a fair way to frame it.
For Nietzsche, struggle isn’t just a means to an end—it’s an essential part of growth and self-overcoming. His advice would be something like: "Embrace struggle because it makes you stronger, more creative, and more alive." Even suffering should be affirmed, because it plays a role in shaping greatness. The goal isn’t comfort but becoming more—pushing past limits, creating new values, and fully expressing one's potential.
For Epicurus, on the other hand, struggle is only worth it if it leads to a better state—meaning greater pleasure and less pain in the long run. He wouldn’t reject struggle outright, but he’d say, "Only take on challenges if reason shows they will bring lasting tranquility." If a struggle leads to unnecessary pain with no real benefit, it should be avoided.
So Nietzsche sees struggle as inherently valuable, while Epicurus sees it as a strategic choice. That contrast captures the essence of their difference.
This led us to a further discussion about struggle, but i'll stop here for the moment since i am probably over extending.
ADMIN NOTE -- Welcome Eyal! I was late posting the "Welcome" thread so it appears several posts down below in this thread.
Hi,
I am Eyal, 49 years old from Israel.
I have started to engage philosophy about 20 years ago. I encountered the epicurean podcast 5 years ago. It helped me complete my philosophical ideas which stem from process philosophy.
I've lately managed to close the gap with the podcast, currently two episodes behind, and now i hope to enjoy the forum as well.
As for my epicurean reading:
I read the epicurean letters and the vatican sayings, De rerum natura, and a few writings of philodemus.
I also read the books recommended in the podcast - dewitt and A few days in Athens.
