From my understanding of Epicureanism, it seems that the answer for the vast majority of us is no. After all, it seems like we are meant to tend to our own gardens and not worry about the affairs of things which we have no control over. It doesn't seem like we can ever decide a national election with our one vote or change public policy, so it seems like we would be making a bad decision to bother voting or becoming politically engaged. It seems like politics would only unduly frustrate us, distract us from doing more meaningful work helping our friends and those we are interpersonally connected to, and potentially get us into unnecessary conflict with those around us. Politics just seems too worldly while we are meant to focus on our own small community of friends.

For these reasons, I think I will not vote from now on. If people ask me about politics, I will tell them I never vote and think politics is an unhealthy distraction from what really matters. Perhaps I am wrong, though. What are all of your thoughts on the matter? Will you be voting in future elections, attending political rallies or demonstrations, etc?

Very little of the writings of the ancient Epicureans survives. We basically have three letters by Epicurus himself, De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, the Herculaneum scrolls of Philodemus, and scattered references from other (often hostile) witnesses.

This got me thinking about what a modern Epicurean can do about that. On thing that occurs to me is trying to take inspiration from surviving material in other schools that aligns with Epicurean values.

One example is friendship. One of the Golden sayings of Epicurus is:

27. Of all the means which are procured by wisdom to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.

But we have almost no Epicurean writings that treat on the subject of friendship at length. So it might be worth supplementing with texts from other traditions, like Book 8 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics or Cicero's On Friendship. While written by a peripatetic and an academic skeptic with stoic sympathies, they provide a window into how thinkers in the Greek mediterranean thought about friendship.

Another example is in regards to philosophical exercises and practices. Many Stoic practices such as the dichotomy of control or the view from above are completely compatible with Epicurean teachings. There is no reason a modern Epicurean shouldn't adopt any of these practices, if they will help in his quest for freedom from anxiety and pain.

I encourage all readers to dip their toes in other school's teachings, and see what can be found there that is resonant with Epicurean values. I'd also love to hear about people adapting practices from other schools to their Epicurean practice.

Can someone share a comprehensive list of book(s) for Epicureanism? I'm looking for something that at least has all of Epicurus and Philodemus' writings and hopefully more (e.g. Zeno of Sidon). A little commentary is fine, but I don't care too much about exegesis.

I find this a bit interesting, right, this period where Epicurus is living in. The age of Demetrius, son of Antigonus, of the Diadochi essentially in Greek history, the early Hellenistic era.

Democritus is ignored for a long long time and only really in the 17th century, if Im not mistaken, does he really get to be a more serious philosopher and this is largely because of his influence on Epicurus.

Now many people from what I have read by Laertius, Aelius, and other Roman writers, we know that Plato and Aristotle, two of the dominant fathers of the Greco-Roman philosophic tradition, did not like Democritus either and they were much closer to him in history. Of course, Plato did not like many philosophers.

Why didn't folks click with Democritus? He basically said that the atom is the root of all existence and that all is atoms and void, and one which I found in Laertius that says he has a book called "On Euphonius and Cacophonous letters." Which sounded interesting to me.

Did he say the gods don't exist or something? Or the gods are not benevolent? What's the dilemma here?

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/story/an-alternative-to-stoicism-that-offers-true-contentment-180443077.html

I never really seen Dawkins going in some Pythogorean agnostic vibe or anything too concerned with positive pleasure (sex, drinks, food, etc...)

In short, he just seems very modestly Epicurean in his ethics.

Regarding his metaphysics, he seems very firm with biochemistry and this, of course, revolves the movement and flux of atoms.

I don't know if he's ever really claimed himself as an Epicurean, probably not, but I get some Epicurean impression from him.

edit:

I very much enjoy bread and water.

My confusion is about the defining of “pleasure” as “freedom from pain.”

So, do I enjoy my bread and water by having a nice, pleasant little meal of it, as I smile to myself and savor the wheat flavors, the mouth feels, and so on?

Or do I eat it strictly in order to keep the pain away, while not specifically enjoying it in the normal sense of the word ”pleasure?”

The New York Times had an article yesterday that is really making the rounds, the one about young men becoming more affiliated with churches. The New Yorker came out with an article the next day discussing it as well.

Now, for one, I mostly think this kind of journalism is typical of the Anglosphere, and this is something that David Hume even said hundreds of years ago. This type of newspaper commentary culture that is so common in the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, etc...

But does it truly extend to the rest of the world? I don't notice it very much, at any rate, not in Western Europe and South America.

And some folks even say that Greece under the Antigonids was full of such single men as well as Polybius in his Histories notes and of which Plutarch makes passive comments on such as stating that Greece no longer has good men and his typical bitterness towards Epicureans.

But hasn't there always been male loneliness? The American continents were largely settled by young men looking for a buck and so was Australia was largely settled by prisoners.

And Zosimus in his New History says that the church would recruit young men to become monks, these young men being Roman citizens, of course, not Gothic or Frankish mercenaries.

There must also be space that there is such a thing as loneliness among women as well and that this is rather less reported on because of cultural reasons.

There is one funny comment by Epicurus that I like and that is that most people are in a coma when they are at rest and mad when they are active.

Am I taking these journals and documentaries too seriously?

What people on Epicurean Side think about this?

I saw that Russell Brand commented on his interview with Tucker Carlson this year and Elizabeth Rovere in the previous year that he was lost in this world of pleasure, of individualism, of hedonism and of Epicureanism but now he found Jesus, the God in the flesh, and that his soul is saved.

Now granted, I don't know how familiar Tucker Carlson is with this philosophy. I know that Senator Josh Hawley made a whole article this summer screeching about how Americans are 'liberal epicureans' or 'epicurean individualists' or whatever.

Now, I don't know why it is that these men often come up with these arguments based out of fear tactics, based on exalting mystical supersitions which they have no knowledge of whatsoever.

Take Hawley's article and you will see him criticize Epicurus but he paints a straw man, a fake Epicurus and criticizes him, he cites no sources, not even the famous biography by Laertius. He mentions nothing about any other philosophers, no Plato, no Aristotle, no nothing.

Indeed on his letter to Pythocles he tells them that people who have one simple explanation to the celestial phenomenon of stars are charlatans.

" to lay down as assured a single explanation of these phenomena is worthy of those who seek to dazzle the multitude with marvels."

Would it not be applicable to say this is the case also with those who seek to dazzle the multitude with tales of patriotism, christianity, utopian worlds, etc....

I agree with Epicurus when he states that the things you need (food, shelter) are readily available, but the number one cause of misery and suffering is other people.

You might find a way to get food and shelter in exchange for labour, but you might be exploited at work for it. Even if you smile and tolerate the short-term pain for long-term pleasure, individuals may mistreat you simply for the joy of doing so.

While being the victim of a random mugging or a lunatic's violence is unusual for the poor, being the victim of sexual violence or enslavement is much more common. You are injured merely for existing. Even if you can withstand physical agony, the fact that your loved ones were victims of such a crime may cause you a great deal of pain, especially if you are unable to help them.

You need protection against it. Epicurus warns about chasing ambition and political power, but it is the powerful who abuse you and get away with it. Even if you manage to avoid their attention, given Epicurus' advice to help others, how do you do so without jeopardising your own?

For example, if an Epicuean witnessed a lady being forced upon by a well-known group of powerful individuals, would they try to save her and finally fight for justice, despite the fact that they risk not only their own but also their family's lives?

I probably just live in a poor neighbourhood and should relocate, but even that requires money and power to combat bureaucracy, and I doubt mediaeval Europe was any better, so I'm curious how Epicureans handled this.

Maybe I should read all their works before posting, but I am impatient and want to know how the Epicurean philosophers address this issue? Any specific passages?

Since the Stoics are always presented as rivaling Epicurus and it is said that they criticized Epicurus, I wanted to ask what exactly is specifically criticized about Epicurus' concept of pleasure and by whom and in which works this can be read.

I recently read, "The Swerve" and it just seemed to have a lot of inconsistencies. This review of the book confirmed my suspicions.l . . . https://antigonejournal.com/2023/05/lucretius-in-the-renaissance/

So Epicurus divides needs into 3, natural necessary/not necessary and imagined.

As I further my social/"societal" psychology studies, Ive found out through many studies (ex: Maslow Pyramid) that people have this need to create new things that exacerbate their individuality. Not only that but one big deffense against authoritarian regimes is that individualism is growing across all cultures (Inglehart-Welzel cultural map and others).

If Im thinking in a reasonable way, this bigger individuality translates in the creation of more imagined needs, more ways to be "top dog" at the clearly made up competitions of this and that.

Is then the need to invent imaginary needs a natural need?

And is this need of imaginary needs in fact a necessary one as our brains delve into depressions and suicides if our ever increasing need of individuality becomes denied?

I can see as a counterpoint letting go of this need to ascertain individuality in order to avoid disappointment but for example our trans folks really need their identities affirmed

Another example is that many people if not all want to leave a piece of themselves in the world. Now this world can indeed be the whole planet or simply a couple of people, like Epicurus who gave his wealth to the children of his student

What do you all say?

PS: sorry if my writing isnt the best. Just late night contemplations

I am not quite sure the best subreddit to post this in so I will be trying several. This is not exactly a hypothetical. But I am more interested in just seeing what other people. Especially those around my age and perhaps a little bit younger think of this scenario.

I am 37 M mid-Atlantic region of the US. I live with my parents in an amazing house. It has a little bit of land, and I love it here. The house is already in my name in a trust fund. So, I will take over as the sole owner someday. The problem is I am not a big earner financially and I am not really looking to change that. I live a simple life, and I am very happy not really joining the rat race. Thus, keeping up the house on my own is not really an option financially speaking. I will inherit some money, and the house is already paid for, but there are obvious expenses with a house like this. It is not a mansion or anything- to me it is exactly the right size.

The somewhat unique thing about the house is that it has two master suites, both in their own wing, both with their own bathrooms obviously. The house even has two living rooms. The yard area and garden areas are great. To me the house would be perfect for two couples to live in :)

I will admit I have been single all my life. So, my confidence in finding a partner is a bit on the low side right now. But I really think once my parents pass on, I would love to share the house with my girlfriend/wife and another couple.

Obviously, each couple would get one of the master suites and one of the living rooms. Everything else would be communal. There are three guest bedrooms also in case we wanted to have friends stay over or anything like that.

I would not charge the other couple rent or anything. But both couples would of course contribute to the expenses. Expenses like electricity, food fund, garbage fund, and stuff like that. And of course, everyone would pull their fair share as far as cooking, cleaning, and maintenance of the property goes. I really think this would be my ideal lifestyle once my parents have passed on. For the record I love living with my parents and I am super happy with my life right now. I certainly hope this is many years in the future.

I am also hoping this would maybe allow people to potentially retire early. And who knows perhaps all of us if we split costs could retire in say our 50s :)

Like I said I am just curious if this sort of lifestyle would appeal to people around my age. Say to people 40 and younger. Obviously if you are older, I would love to hear your opinion also. If anyone has any questions, I will be very happy to answer. Any and all responses will be greatly appreciated, thank you.

Just wondering if anyone here could clear up any confusion for me regarding this. According to Epicurus, is the universe made up of independent separate agents who posses ‘their own’ free will separate from fellow individuals? Or are there no separate individuals who posses a personal will exclusive to only them, but instead the entire universe contains a mutual collection of atoms and void, with no fixed paths that can occasionally swerve meaning the universe isn’t deterministic, but that doesn’t mean there are separate wills (for example my will being separate from your will without a unifying principle). If anyone is able to clear my confusion and answer this for me, it would be highly appreciated!

I understand that to Epicurus, the universe is eternal, and consists of atoms and void. I understand Epicurus denied determinism and had a view of the universe being disorderly and inherently random.

My question is regarding to the universe as a whole, to epicureans is the universe a mutual collection of things randomly working things out? But still a collection with no singular thing having independent existence (so essentially still a whole) or does Epicurus view the universe as a disjointed, disordered combination of things that have separate and independent existence? (So essentially not a ‘whole’)

Thanks in advance any answers

"11. Intercourse never helped any man, and it’s a wonder that it hasn’t hurt him.

12. In addition, the wise man will marry and beget children, as Epicurus tells us in Problems and his work On Nature; but he will marry according to his station in life, whatever it may be."

-The Art of Happiness

Kind of hard to have kids without intercoourse lol!

There is also somewhere in Epictetus discourses that says Epicurus taught to not have kids, but that's an indirect source.