Epic-urus

Recommend me texts, both ancient, modern and everything inbetween, that you consider essential/useful for knowledge of Epicureanism and Epicurus. (I already have De Rerum Natura ready and set on the ol' Amazon wishlist).

Please feel free, not that I need give you permission, to debate among yourselves both the texts mentioned ITT and Epicureanism.

Other urls found in this thread:

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Finibus/2*.html
jstor.org/stable/270440?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

there are a couple of translations of philodemus of gadara's work on amazon

also cicero's de finibus even though he wasn't an epicurean

i'm reading the meditations right now as an epicurean trying to see the good in stoicism.

one thing that really bothers me about epicureanism is that there isn't a direct imperative to have children. i understand that nothing is eternal but the ability to reproduce is the only thing that grants something close to immortality, and it is just sort of disappointing that epicurus's views on sex are so foggy.

the other issues i have with epicureanism are that there is no real answer to the problem of evil. also, it's always disheartening to not believe in an eternal afterlife. nevertheless, i would say that i'm closer to epicureanism than stoicism.

my views on this may change once i read sextus empiricus.

I would recommend Facing Death: Epicurus and his Critics by James Warren.
It is probably the best book I have read on the topic of dying.

>there isn't a direct imperative to have children
Do you want children? Would they make you happy, or be a burden on you?

>there is no real answer to the problem of evil
Tell me what evil is, and I'll tell you if it's a problem.

>it's always disheartening to not believe in an eternal afterlife
Knowing you'll be dead forever is a vital spur to enjoying life. Death gives life meaning.

If you haven't yet, please read Seneca and Epictetus over Aurelius if that's your goal.

>Do you want children? Would they make you happy, or be a burden on you?
Yes. There's no way to tell what the effect will be though I hope they will make me happy.
>Tell me what evil is, and I'll tell you if it's a problem.
I mean how does Epicureanism deal with someone who gets pleasure only or mostly out of harming others? Would such a person be removed from an Epicurean community? Is the evil person's individual pleasure less important than the collectivity's pleasure of not having to deal with the evil person's pain?
>Knowing you'll be dead forever is a vital spur to enjoying life. Death gives life meaning.
I think this one depends on just getting used to that idea over time. I only started reading Epicurus less than 2 years ago.

I have read the Enchiridion. But you are right about Marcus. He doesn't really offer anything in terms of either school that can't be found elsewhere. I will get to Seneca eventually.

Read the Moral Discourses, Epictetus destroys' Epicurus

>"Even Epicurus perceives that we are by nature social, but having once placed our good in the husk he is no longer able to say anything else. For on the other hand he strongly maintains this, that we ought not to admire nor to accept anything which is detached from the nature of good; and he is right in maintaining this. How then are we [suspicious], if we have no natural affection to our children? Why do you advise the wise man not to bring up children? Why are you afraid that he may thus fall into trouble? For does he fall into trouble on account of the mouse which is nurtured in the house? What does he care if a little mouse in the house makes lamentation to him? But Epicurus knows that if once a child is born, it is no longer in our power not to love it nor care about it. For this reason, Epicurus says that a man who has any sense also does not engage in political matters; for he knows what a man must do who is engaged in such things; for, indeed, if you intend to behave among men as you do among a swarm of flies, what hinders you? But Epicurus, who knows this, ventures to say that we should not bring up children. But a sheep does not desert its own offspring, nor yet a wolf; and shall a man desert his child? What do you mean? that we should be as silly as sheep? but not even do they desert their offspring: or as savage as wolves, but not even do wolves desert their young. Well, who would follow your advice, if he saw his child weeping after falling on the ground? For my part I think that, even if your mother and your father had been told by an oracle that you would say what you have said, they would not have cast you away."

>"Epicurus also, when he designs to destroy the natural fellowship of mankind, at the same time makes use of that which he destroys. For what does he say? “Be not deceived men, nor be led astray, nor be mistaken: there is no natural fellowship among rational animals; believe me. But those who say otherwise, deceive you and seduce you by false reasons.” What is this to you? Permit us to be deceived. Will you fare worse, if all the rest of us are persuaded that there is a natural fellowship among us, and that it ought by all means to be preserved? Nay, it will be much better and safer for you. Man, why do you trouble yourself about us? Why do you keep awake for us? Why do you light your lamp? Why do you rise early? Why do you write so many books, that no one of us may be deceived about the gods and believe that they take care of men; or that no one may suppose the nature of good to be other than pleasure? For if this is so, lie down and sleep, and lead the life of a worm, of which you judged yourself worthy: eat and drink, and enjoy women, and ease yourself, and snore. And what is it to you, how the rest shall think about these things, whether right or wrong? For what have we to do with you? You take care of sheep because they supply us with wool, and milk, and, last of all, with their flesh. Would it not be a desirable thing if men could be lulled and enchanted by the Stoics, and sleep and present themselves to you and to those like you to be shorn and milked? For this you ought to say to your brother Epicureans: but ought you not to conceal it from others, and particularly before everything to persuade them that we are by nature adapted for fellowship, that temperance is a good thing; in order that all things may be secured for you? Or ought we to maintain this fellowship with some and not with others? With whom, then, ought we to maintain it? With such as on their part also maintain it, or with such as violate this fellowship? And who violate it more than you who establish such doctrines? What then was it that waked Epicurus from his sleepiness, and compelled him to write what he did write?"

but what texts did epictetus have access to 300 years after the death of epicurus?

i wonder if epictetus' criticism depends on the assumption that epicurus didn't like the idea of raising children because it was associated with sexual pleasure, which he clearly understood as dangerous and not conducive to pleasant living. but you don't really need intense sexual desire to produce a family, especially not in those days. marcus had children but he had little to say that was positive about sex. i've heard the same about cicero.

i just don't necessarily trust the head of a rival school because that passage depends on something that we don't know that epicurus believed. unless you have proof of that in which case i'd love to see it.

>"If then Epicures should come and say that the good must be in the body; in this case also many words become necessary, and we must be taught what is the leading principle in us, and the fundamental and the substantial; and as it is not probable that the good of a snail is in the shell, is it probable that the good of a man is in the body? But you yourself, Epicurus, possess something better than this. What is that in you which deliberates, what is that which examines everything, what is that which forms a judgement about the body itself, that it is the principle part? and why do you light your lamp and labor for us, and write so many books? is it that we may not be ignorant of the truth, who we are, and what we are with respect to you?"

>i wonder if epictetus' criticism depends on the assumption that epicurus didn't like the idea of raising children because it was associated with sexual pleasure

Where on earth did you get that from? Epictetus clearly represents Epicurus as being against the raising of children because of the emotional link the parent forms with them, which causes anxieties, pains, and actions that do not lead to pleasure. He makes no such assumption.

I took that from having read the works of Epicurus that we are sure that he himself wrote. Nowhere in those works does he suggest that having children is necessarily bad. Vatican Sayings 51 says that "sexual pleasure has never done anybody any good. One must be content if it has not done actual harm." Elsewhere in two fragments he discusses sex, but not parenthood. He advises the son of one of his disciples to remove his desire, presumably sexual desire.But then he says from some other work that "I do not know how I shall conceive the good, if I take away the pleasures of taste, if I take away sexual pleasure, if I take away the pleasure of hearing, and if I take away the sweet emotions that are caused by the sight of a beautiful form."

We only have like 100 pages of writing that can be attributed to him, but I don't recall where Epictetus gets his ideas about Epicurus from, because I don't think it exists in what has survived from Epicurus' own work. The likelihood that Epictetus got that from some angry Stoic who lived hundreds of years after the death of Epicurus and who wanted to disprove Epicurus is certainly possible.

...

...

Well if you get to make up whatever you want under the umbrella of pleasure instead of recognizing that Epicurus actually characterized the types of pleasures, sure, I guess Hierocles is right but that would depend on misunderstanding his opponent's position.

Epicurus never said pursue any type of pleasure no matter what. In fact he actually said that sometimes pain is preferable to pleasure because too much pleasure would lead to greater pain later on. The stereotypical hedonistic view of pleasure was probably the view of the Cyrenaics, the school that he studied before branching off to form his own.

from what we know of his life he lived very miserly. it's clear that you have not actually read him or lucretius but you are instead relying on a rival school.

cleomedes remark about astronomy may be true though, since clearly epicurus drew a lot of influence from democritus/leucippus and we will probably never know how much of the cosmology was his own ideas or theirs.

The notion that Epictetus may have been mistaken is a pretty weak one. Epicureanism was alive and well during his time, and what he said here was aimed at his Epicurean contemporaries. It wouldn't make sense to take aim at a doctrine that wasn't widely accepted, because it would convince no one. It was evidently held by the Epicureans of the time - unless you'd argue that they too were mistaken?

In 'de Finibus' Cicero calls Epicurus a hypocrite for providing for his friends' children because he wrote against doing such a thing:

> 31 99 "Yes, Torquatus, you people may turn and twist as you like, but you will not find a line in this famous letter of Epicurus that is not inconsistent and incompatible with his teachings. Hence he is his own refutation; his writings are disproved by the uprightness of his character. That provision for the care of the children..."

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Finibus/2*.html

Later neutral sources, such as Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, affirm this view as being held by the Epicureans.

The current scholarly consensus is that Epicurus advised against child-rearing.

jstor.org/stable/270440?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This is an old Epicurean defense that was thoroughly exploded by Cicero in :de Finibus':

>"you Epicureans are fond of telling us that we do not understand what Epicurus means by pleasure..."

The whole response is too long to post, read it here.

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Finibus/2*.html

i'll check out cicero user.

i'm assuming you are stoic so what do you the stoics say about the importance of having children? i can't recall the enchiridion, it has been a while. i don't think marcus talks about it much either.

The Enchiridion is a collection of aphorisms that sum up some of the points in the 'Moral Discourses'. You need to read the 'Moral Discourses' itself if you want to understand anything at all about Stoicism.

To fully explain the importance of raising children would require a comprehensive account of the entire philosophy. It suffices to say that for Epictetus, the begetting and rearing of children was one of the principle duties of man:

>" Seek for doctrines which are consistent with what I say, and, by making them your guide, you will with pleasure abstain from things which have such persuasive power to lead us and overpower us. But if to the persuasive power of these things, we also devise such a philosophy as this which helps to push us on toward them and strengthens us to this end, what will be the consequence? In a piece of toreutic art which is the best part? the silver or the workmanship? The substance of the hand is the flesh; but the work of the hand is the principal part. The duties then are also three; those which are directed toward the existence of a thing; those which are directed toward its existence in a particular kind; and third, the chief or leading things themselves. So also in man we ought not to value the material, the poor flesh, but the principal. What are these? Engaging in public business, marrying, begetting children, venerating God, taking care of parents,"

It's perhaps interesting to note that Cicero, Seneca and Epictetus actually held Epicurus as an example to emulate - they praised what he practiced, and criticized what he preached. They did the opposite to their fellow Stoics, praising what they preached, but criticizing what they practiced.