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.
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?"