Talk:Epicureanism

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ethan Della Rocca (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Talia298, Sissizheng. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Donpalmtree (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ScottsdalePrincess.

What's with the huge quote from the watchtower society?

Question: What is with the 4 paragraphs impregnated in the article from the "Watchtower Society" with no reference? ≈Superbeatles™ 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammar?

How on earth did the word "epicureanism" end up meaning "the love of food or drink" in English? Berdidaine 00:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

see Epicurus, lathe biosas. dab (ᛏ) 11:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Atheism?

I have a question? 8)) How can we justify the recent classification of this page under the category "Atheism"? It seems to me that Epicurus acknowledged the very real existence of the gods. He said that the gods were made out of atoms--just like people. So how could you classify this page under "Atheism"? For Epicurus, the gods were real and physical, were they not? 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 16:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• In agreement. I don't think this should be catagorized thus. Even if it were atheistic, it still doesn't belong in that catagory unless we also include things like Sartre's philosophy and such. Anyway, the philosophy doesn't seem consistent with the catagory designation (just look at the other articles in it) so I'm removing atheism as a catagory. If disagree, discuss. -SocratesJedi | Talk 03:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd imagine the connection is coming from Epicurus' statement that after death, there is nothing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.201.132 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

"from fear through knowledge." ? What is this meant to mean?ftthowerto;sehrtopeiuhrt ertgy wrt

"Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus.... "What does the above mean - esp "atomic materialist" for which there is no definition... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Epicureanism is Hedonist

Epicureans who deny that simply don't know what Hedonism is. Hedonism, simply put, is the philosophy which believes pleasure should by the goal of life. The wiki on Epiceanism says that it advocates intellectual pleasure. Well, take a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism

Hedonism is not inherently avarice, or physical pleasures. Epicurus was the one who refined Hedonism, to make it sensible, making a difference between harmful pleasures, long term, etc. That's what they said in my Ethics class, and I'll find the source in the book as well. Anyway, I'll change this tomorrow, unless anyone has any disputes. Nathyn 20:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hedonism is the single minded pursuit of pleasure, often at the cost of all else and without consideration. Epicureanism, as I understand it, is a philosophy which deals with the minimisation of pain, as opposed to the pursuit of pleasure. The difference: Epicureanism allows delayed gratification, where as hedonism doesn't. Kenneth Charles 07:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

There are different forms of hedonism. The type you're talking about is, I believe called Cyranic Hedonism or something like that (I don't have my philosophy book in from of me). I believe this is what the author intended by "hedonism (as most people understand it). In fact Epicureanism is one form of hedonism.207.157.121.50 02:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

The Cyrenaic school of philosophy, founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, advocated a more extreme form of hedonism, Epicurus' is more moderate an refined, but hedonism nonetheless. --Fabullus 15:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "from fear through knowledge"

It reads "Freedom from fear through knowledge". I think you need to read the whole phrase for it to make sense. Basically it implies religeons dominate through fear (better to believe, than to be wrong and punished). But if you seek knowledge, you can be free from that fear.

epicureanism vs hedonism

what's the difference?you guys are gay

I believe that there has been some complete basics removed from the eupircurian belief and how stoicism holds roots in it. I apologize since I do not have my resources with me right now about them since I am in grad school right now, but the roots of eupicureanism is found in the ways they try to eliminate fear from the three main causes of fear. They are in this order, fear of gods, fear of death, and competition. The fear of gods can be eliminated through adopting methodological naturalism, which is already discussed. The fear of death can be eliminated through the same way and by understanding that you go into nothingness. and I cannot remember competition and this is why I have not edited the main text. If peeps seem to confirm this I will then edit the main text.

"you guys are gay" - Is it now accepted that "gay" is not a label for sexual identity, but an insult meaning something like "worthy of contempt"? Hundovir (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Both.

Question left on article page put here now

This was left on the article page by an anonymous user, and I reverted and am placing her/his question here...Kenosis 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

have question what is the origin of this?

+ and contextual info

+ can u make a sentence with this allusion in it for me put it here ...01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A piece of (probably) useless information: In 1977, a group of students at Bristol University formed an Epicurian Party, and subsequently campaigned in the Student Union elections under the slogan of 'wine, women and song' and a manifesto promising to concentrate on matters relating to students' welfare and entertainment. The student body, probably in reaction to the overwhelmingly political preoccupations of the Student Union at the time, voted for the Epicurians en masse, and they swept to power. As I recall, a year later they were swept out again. The Long Bar in the Queen's Road Union building was subsequently renamed the 'Epicurian Bar' or 'Epi' for short.

Link to Lucretius Article "On the Nature...."

The link is bad for the Gutenburg Project version of the essay.

It is: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/785

Sorry that I don't know where the proper place to fix this is.

70.56.55.52 14:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Rich Williams (rchaswms@hotmail.com)

Rework the page to avoid double info?

Hi! Is epicureanism supposed to give mostly info about Epicurus' doctrine, or mostly about its developement and revisitation during the centuries? I think that there are a lot of double info with Epicurus, concerning the doctrine and its history. What about reworking the page, putting info about Epicurus in his article and developing the history of epicureanism here? Benio76 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. I am looking forward to your proposals. --Fabullus (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The sections I marked to merge from Epicurus are incredibly difficult reads and I'm not even sure that there's anything worth moving into this page, but at the very least I know they don't belong in Epicurus as they are the sort of detailed discussions of Epicureanism that belong here. James 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The height of happiness according to Epicurus

I have undone the revision of 23:37, 3 December 2007 because in the first place it introduces a tautology ("Epicurus regarded eudaimonia (= happiness) ... as the height of happiness."), and in the second place it fails to distinguish Epicurus significantly from other philosophers, as the original statement did. Many different philosophers agreed in proclaiming happiness the ultimate goal of life. The real issue is what they thought happiness consisted of. In the case of Epicurus happiness consisted in ataraxia and aponia, as was originally stated. --Fabullus (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PBS special raises dispute to many points of this article.

There was recently a multi-part special on PBS called, Philosophy: A Guide To Happiness, that in one episode titled, "Epicurus On Happiness", described Epicurus as a simple man that sought lived his philisophy on hapiness by living a simple life outside of any urban areas, self-farming, and eating very simple food (himself considering eating cheese an extravagence).

This is contrary to many things I had learned in the past and what is described in this article. If correct, the references to general hedonsism and desire for great foods are an utter falsehood. The narrator made it a point to note that the reference 'Epicurean' as a desire for good food and wine is a complete misnomer.

Can anyone comment on this? Thanks! --Mespinola (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on Epicureanism, but this PBS episode sounds to me to be a good summary of Epicurus and his beliefs. I'm slightly puzzled as to why you think this article goes contrary to that. The only reference to hedonism in this article comes with a disclaimer, and this article agrees, I think, that a desire for good food is a misnomer. There are problems with this article: as others have pointed out there is an awkward division of content between this page and the Epicurus page; and there is the usual Wikipedia problem of haphazard content. You would aid the editors of this page I think if you could highlight which bits you find confusing or which bits you think are explicitly contrary to what you learnt. Singinglemon (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hume quote

I changed the uncited (no date, publication version etc.) for Hume quote to match Project Gutenberg's version. Part of the quote previously in this article -- then why call Him God? -- was not in the text so I cut it. Words lacking capitalization are as in the cited version. Penguinwithin (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hume's quote should be replaced with a quotation of Lactantius's De ira deorum 13.19 (Epicurus fr.374 Usener), which is the only surviving ancient testimony of Epicurus' theological paradox, which Hume later paraphrased. --Fabullus (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've replaced the quote. Thanks for pointing out the original source, I had wondered where it came from. Singinglemon (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I also decided to expunge the line which came almost immediately afterwards: "Fully aware of the fate of Socrates when brought up on a charge of impiety, Epicurus avoided expressing an overt atheism." This line made it sound like he was really an atheist but decided to put gods into his philosophy just to avoid prosecution. Singinglemon (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Brackets, Parentheses, and 'Compare'

The middle section of the article continuously does this: [Compare to Heisenberg's Principle], (Compare to wave-particle duality), etc. It's a rather annoying style, and I think it distracts from the overall article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgerb (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, so I've removed those comparisons. Epicurean physics should be understood on it's own terms as a system of ancient thought; attempts to make somewhat dubious connections to modern physics detract from that, I think. It sounds almost like someone's trying to claim that Epicurus anticipated most of modern physics. Anyone trying to compare the Epicurean universe to "the concept of the finite universe in modern cosmology," or the flow of Epicurean images to "the modern concept of the speed of light and refraction" will find not that much in common at all. There are, of course, some interesting parallels between Epicurean physics and modern physics, but I think we can let Epicurean physics stand on it's own two feet, rather than trying to prop it up. Singinglemon (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Remarks regarding Satanism

The passage "But this is a greatly false view ... not on egoistic and vulgar values of Satanism." lacks any citation and the use of "egoistic" and "vulgar" seems to violate NPOV. Rephrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.107.4 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph about Anton LaVey, it had no references to show that LaVeyan Satanism has been "widely hailed" as an Epicurean philosophy. Singinglemon (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge Disparities

There seems to be contrary discriptions of Epicurian attitudes toward knowledge. In the phylosophy section, it says:

Therefore, according to Epicurus, with whom a person eats is of greater importance than what is eaten. Unnecessary and, especially, artificially produced desires were to be suppressed. Since learning, culture, and civilization as well as social and political involvements could give rise to desires that are difficult to satisfy and thus result in disturbing one’s peace of mind, they were discouraged. Knowledge was sought only to rid oneself of religious fears and superstitions, the two primary fears to be eliminated being fear of the gods and of death.

But, in the lead, it says:

... the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, ...

These two passages seem mutually exclusive to me. How could learning be discouraged and the highest pleasure be obtained by knowledge. Any thoughts on ways to clarify? Espeically given lack of citations. --RossF18 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to 'Problem of Evil'

It seems to me that a view of a couple of scholars is being presented as definitive when the majority of scholars attribute this quote to Epicurus, have no trouble with it, and find nothing "anti-epicurian" about it. There are inconsistencies in statements attributed to Plato, Socrates, and indeed modern personalities. Epicurus lived in a time the Greek world, and especially thinkers would have been exposed to concepts of monotheism, and the "problem of evil" could easily be a reaction of Epicurus completely consistent with what we know of EpicurusStae2 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The ambiguous use of "Pleasure"

This information pertains to the semantics of 'epicurean' philosophy. After a bit of research I have come to the conclusion that Epicureanism and Hedonism are entirely unrelated. The statement "Epicurus believed that pleasure is the greatest good." seems to be prohibitive, connotative & furthermore, synthetic.

To avoid confusion we need to know a few things. First, the observations in this section pertain to Indo-European languages, namely Latin (being the most widespread) & Greek (Epicurus was born in Athens, Greece). Second, Hellenistic civilization is considered the apex of Greek Civilization. One should be aware of the multicultural nature of this society as well as the empirically expansive influence of the Hellenistic Period. Lastly, the Hellenistic period lasted from 323 BC to ~30 BC, Epicurus lived from 341 BCE to 270 BCE & curiously Ancient Greek philosophy arose in the 6th century BCE (interesting...) which puts the Death of Epicurus at almost Three-Hundred years before Greek Philosophy even arose. Can anyone say "entropy"?

Alright, that's out of the way. Lets dismantle some words!

We'll start by taking a closer look at 'pleasure'. We can all agree that 'pleasure' pertains to any welcome sensation. Pleasure is feeling good, so to speak. However, this definition is connotative & therefore obscures a deeper understanding.

By the way, I got all my information on semantics from etymonline.com, kypros.org & archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm

PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN BASE: *p(e)lag- "to smooth, make even" GREEK: plax, Genitive form plakos "level surface," plakoeis "flat" LATIN: (1) placere "to be acceptable, be liked, be approved," (2)placare "to soothe, quiet,"

Seeing as how Epicurus was Greek, I'm going to assume that, IF (big if) he even used any form of the word 'plax' to describe his fundamental philosophy, the idea in his head would have been in line with the Greek idea 'level'. Obviously, we're on to something here. Being level is quite a bit different from feeling pleasure. In fact, all three meanings put forth by these definitions completely shatter any conception of Hedonism. 'Quiet, acceptable, level, flat' all serve to more accurately elaborate Epicureanism & convey the sense of balance associated with contentment in ones own existence addressed in the philosophy of Epicurus.

Whats in a name?

This could get interesting. Consider Greek Mythology & its adoption by Roman Society. Now, consider folklore & its practical implications in society. There were no radios, no TV, NO LIGHT BULBS. People had to entertain themselves. How did they go about this? Story telling among the masses would have been an obvious outlet & we know that both Greek & Roman cultures had extensive/elaborate forms of entertainment. Imagine the value placed on this entertainment. Would you consider the idea that perhaps these cultures honored their most cherished art/artists (people, etc.) by elevating their names to 'god status' or perhaps just chipping away at rocks?

Imagine an individual creating a new story to tell the cherished acquaintances met in their travels. Naturally, the best tales would spread via word of mouth. I'm certain that people didn't just spin fables, they would have certainly spoke on philosophy extensively. Now consider the gap between Greek Philosophy and Epicurus. Three hundred years and the ideas are nonetheless preserved. How? I propose to you the idea that the NAMES of those remnants of this lost civilization contain within their roots & stems all the basic principles needed understand the concepts associated with their cultural importance.

To summarize epi-: onto, apparent sense of augmentation. cura: generalized fundamental affection (as in AFFECT) -ian: (variant of -anus) pertaining to(is a later variation), the foundation, an old woman (eve, mother earth? LEVEL).

Obviously, not Hedonism.

Hope you got something out of all that, I did. Thanks & peace out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Kind of lost interest toward the end. I wanted to point out that (EPI, augmentation) empiric observation and scientific reason combined with controlling ones own emotions (CURA, Affections) seem fundamental (ian) to the philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention the obvious importance of precise semantics in ancient language systems. You only need to understand that the development of language as a form of communication must have been of organic origin. Language as we know it spawned from the communication that all other life forms on earth utilize. If you are willing to accept this observation it becomes increasingly apparent how the structure of words served a greater purpose than just dictating a pronunciation. People didn't read unless it was part of their profession. Literacy was entirely dependent on spoken words among the masses & those words were organically structured in such a way that they actually aided in comprehension. In fact, the preservation of semantics was traditionally of extremely high importance in indo-European society. The only thing that got human beings out of 'prehistory' was encoded languages. So, its easy to understand why they were sacred. Before phonographic language, humans used pictures to write words & even then you would likely need to be royalty to understand them & likely did it through the use of a slave... the first phonographic languages are symbolic modifications of those picture based systems. Language as an organic system revolves around fundamental human emotion & comprehension. So, by analyzing these words we are given a glimpse of how ancient people feel & think... but thats all subjective. Just wanted to put it out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern usage and Misconceptions - Christian polemecists

I'm a bit of a noob, so I'm not editing this myself, but dropping a note here.

"This can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the Epicurean doctrine, as promulgated by Christian polemicists."

That may or may not be true, but it does read as a shot from the hip when there is no citation for such a specific claim about some unspecified Christians, who, incidentally, are polemicists. LOL. Very loaded sentence that needs citation or removal. Who were these Christian polemecists and what evidence is there that particular individuals promulgated a misundertanding? Would not this misunderstanding more likely be promulgated by Stoic polemicists? In any event, more evidence is needed than just some anti-Christian polemecist's testimony on Wikipeda. Thanks. ~~ fervor1958 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fervor1958 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And if I may add another question, are these misconceptions? Oh I'm not saying Epicurus promulgated gluttony or anything - he advocated a life of simplicity, or so I've heard, the question is how did the philosophy change after his death? From what I've heard, briefly, there's a substantial difference between the original simple life proposed and the subsequent self interested pleasuring of one's senses. 220.132.57.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Critique

It seems to me that the article could do with a critique of Epicureanism. What did and do philosophers who are not adherents think of it? Also, how do Epicureans resolve the problem of pain. What of the person who lives with chronic pain or is dying painfully? These would both improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.153.91 (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Problem of Pain"

C. S. Lewis mentioned Epicurus in Chapter IV of his book of that name (which also addresses some of the issues raised in the post above). He says that the ancient world was conscious of deserving divine anger, and that this philosophy "claimed to deliver men from the fear of eternal punishment". This take on the idea that there is nothing beyond death is an interesting sidelight on the origin of Epicureanism and could be put in the article with some supporting citations showing the thinking of the time. 70.170.63.78 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epicureanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040404213456/http://epicurus.info/ to http://www.epicurus.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources for Article Revision

Hello, I am the student tasked with updating/revising this article as part of the University of Chicago's course on the history of skepticism. As part of the assignment I am asked to post a list of potential sources I will be using for these revisions. If anyone has any feedback/suggestions about the sources I've chosen thus far, or suggestions for more sources to look at, that would be much appreciated!

Here is my current source list:

Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Volume II: Books 6-10. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library 185. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.

Holmes, Brooke, and W. H. Shearin. Dynamic Reading: Studies in the Reception of Epicureanism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Humphries, Rolfe. Lucretius: The Way Things Are: The Way Things Are: The De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius Carus. Indiana University Press, 1968.

Körte, Alfred, Vincenzo De Falco, and Metrodorus of Lampsacus. Epicureanism: Two Collections of Fragments and Studies. New York: Garland Pub., 1987.

Leonard, William Ellery, and Stanley Barney Smith (Eds). De Rerum Natura: The Latin Text of Lucretius. The University of Wisconsin Press, 2008.

O'Keefe, Tim. Epicureanism. Durham, UK: Acumen, 2010.

Warren, J. (Ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009.

Wilson, Catherine. Epicureanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Wilson, Catherine. Epicureanism At the Origins of Modernity. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 2008. Ethan Della Rocca (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing section order

Hello, as I've been doing edits for the article I've come to believe that it may be best to swap the "Religion" section with the "Philosophy" section so that the "Philosophy" section comes first. I think this would be good because the "Philosophy" section gives a more general overview of Epicureanism's positions and in some ways feels out of place when it comes after instead of before the Religion section. Is anyone opposed to such a change? Ethan Della Rocca (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section adds nothing

As it stands the "Criticism" section has a witticism from Francis Bacon and a similar quote from Arcesilaus. These don't address the content of the subject at all, and I don't think they were intended to engage with the ideas. I'm not well versed in this subject, but surely there were serious critiques of Epicureanism over the centuries? The article would be improved deleting this section since it is essentially just a joke, but even preferable would be to find a better critique to replace it. Apathy monk (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)