Talk:Epicurus

Older discussion

External Link in review. To moderators of the Wikimedia project: I am the owner/moderator of the EpicureanGroup. The EpicureanGroup is not an advertisement or blog. The EpicureanGroup should be edited into external links because it's the only real group online where interested person(s) can discuss Epicureanism or raise valid questions solely regarding Epicureanism and Epicurus. Please add the EpicureanGroup into external links. *EpicureanGroup - Primary Epicurean Group Online | Hosted by active epicureans | Active Forum Thank You,

Milano EG Moderator

I vaguely remember that Epicurus was worshipped as a hero in the ancient world and that his birthday was celebrated on December 25. Does anyone have any information or confirmation of this notion? Thanks. Yes, Epicurus was regarded with very high esteem - and contemporary followers still exist. Since the advent of the internet, their revival has gathered pace, as can be seen on www.gardenofepicurus.com , which has a directory of Epicurean Gardens. His birthday is still celebrated by contemporary Epicureans.

There is no sensible connection between Epicureans and devotes of Sol Invictus, if that's what you're hoping for. --Wetman 07:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He may have been worshipped, though evidence for that is slim. Regardless, his birthday was celebrated, as his will tells his friends to continue celebrating his birthday on the tenth day of Gamelion as was their habit. That would likely be sometime in February, but precisely when is not known. - Jamesmusik 08:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The "Epicurus' paradox" link takes me to the "problem of evil" page, and neither page has Epicurus' version of the paradox itself:

Is god willing to prevent evil but can't? Then god is not omnipotent.

Is god able to prevent evil but won't? Then god is not good.

Is god both able and willing? Then where did evil come from?

Is god neither able nor willing? Then why call it god?

Also, I think the last paragraph as it currently stands makes a weird and sudden transition into editorializing.

Surely the time line is John Locke then Thomas Jefferson then the French Revolution?

Epicurus didn't have a playing piece on the "God" board at all. --Wetman 07:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His birthday is February fourth.I checked to make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.49.187 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

About the saying "lathe viosas",(live secretly)

it is quiet known to those who study Epicurianism. Most of what Epicurus wrote are not saved.Only some of his letters to his students. in one of them he says to a student: don't think how you will save the Greeks and be their hero, just enjoy food, friends etc. There is of cource the opposite philosophy: "Make your mark! Do something with your life. Be someone!". the funny thing is that Epicurus by trying to be nobody he became somebody, when millions of people today try to become somebody (15 minutes of publisity of Warhal) end to be nobodies. --Arberor 11:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added the literary references (from TLG). dab (ᛏ) 11:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i don't know the exact meaning of the word "obscurity". my dictionary on line (babelfish of Altavista (don't trust it)) translate it as "darkness". it applies also... i confess that the word "secretly" is not exact of "λάθε" (lathe). the exact thing is this: when some fish don't have water they live in the mud and do nothing. they just live. we then say (in Greece) that they live "λανθ'ανουσα" condition. The babelfish translates it as "latent" condition. does that make more sense? by the way "lathe" is a verb. but the word biosas is not correct. it is viosas. like "brain in a vat". there is an often missunderstanding between Greeks and other Europeans, as they translate "v" to "b". That is the case, i think. We Greeks know for sure that is "lathe viosas". "th" as in mountth. i 'll look it up and come again. i shall look your links too. nice talking to you.--Arberor

Hi Arberor. I know you say "vios-" in modern Greek. In Ancient Greek, however, people said "bios-". See also Beta (letter). "live in obscurity" is a literary translation with some tradition. It is true that "latent" is cognate to the Greek word, but the meaning is not quite the same. "obscurity" means "darkness" in English, but "in obscurity" is an idiom for "hidden". lathe is not a verb, it's an adverb, while biosas is a verb. Plutarch's latenter vivendo is the Latin translation. The literal translation is "you should live hidden", but "live in obscurity" is better, trust me :o) dab (ᛏ) 07:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

didn't know that the ancient Greeks said "bios". i'll look on Beta. however i have the strong impression that "lathe" is a verb (imperative). the verse says "Escape attention!", lathe! but i won't insist. i'll have it in mind if i meet a professor, which i doubt (i avoid them) or i'll look the internet, and if find something i'll let you know. What 's written in the page is correct. that counts. see you..--Arberor 09:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I am sorry. I thought it was used adverbially, but I was influenced by the latin translation. I'll try to improve the translation. dab (ᛏ) 09:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(had problems with my phone). ok. that means that lathe is the imperative of "lanthano". (λανθάνω-be latent).is it not? couldn't find anything in the "Greek web".(There is really anarchy.don't have any contact to ancient Greek sources...)this is the important thing if we want to know what the verse means: if it is lanthano, it means something like: escape attention by reducing my activities. like the fish i was telling you about. i can give you many examples of modern Greek words that have "lath" inside.they are illuminating. like "lathrepivaths",(λαθρεπιβάτης),(stowaway?),(the person who travels in secret in order not to pay the ticket). That's how Epicurus meant it, i guess...(old rascal Epicurus.Didn't want to pay the ticket!) Now what is biosas? it ends like a participle. don't really know. it must be a participle. see you dab..--Arberor 10:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

yes, lanthano simply means "to hide", or maybe also, less actively, "to avoid detection". the literal translation into English is a bit akward, biosas being the aorist participle of "to live". it would basically mean "avoid detection as on who lives", or "hide with respect to living" or something like that. the meaning of course is "keep a low profile", "live your life without meddling with others" etc. "hide" is too strong, the suggestion isn't that you hide in a bunker so noone finds you, but, as you have pointed out already, "live peacefully, off the stage of public attention". I think our explanation is quite alright as it is now. dab (ᛏ) 12:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This conversation is quite old, but I found something useful concerning this subject. The following passage is from Liddell-Scott Greek English Lexicon (Oxford, Clarendon Press):

λανθάνω ... most freq. with a participle added, in which case we usually translate the participle with a Verb and express λανθάνω by an Adverb "unawares, without being observed"

So, the current translation is very good! :-) Benio76 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Happiness Section

Sorry for deleting the section without explaining. It's so completely wrong that it doesn't belong on the page at all. Epicurus' theory of pursuing pleasure has no relation to Aristotle's theory of the mean. Epicurus held that pleasure is the absence of pain and his theory is thus binary and explicitly excludes any possibility of a mean between pleasure and pain: "The removal of pain is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, pain or distress or their combination is absent" (Epicurus, Kuriae Doxae 3, from Diogenes Laertius' Life of Epicurus X.139). Jamesmusik 05:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

epicurus=rescuer

Didn't Epicurus also mean 'rescuer'in Ancient Greek?Sorry If I am mistaken, but I tought It would have been of interest...

I believe you're thinking of epirrothos. epikuro means to light upon or fall in with though, and epikuroo means to confirm, sanction, or ratify. Jamesmusik

I think that Epicuros means helper in fact. Also there was Epicuros Apollon, which meant the Apollo who helps the people. I think "he" was a god to "visit" for illnesses and health problems. But Epicuros himself wanted to help and cure the illnesses of the soul. In greece we also use a term for the Assisant Professor=Epicuros Kathigitis. Also epi means "upon, on to" and kouros means "man, young man " so epi-kouros is the one who reaches upon men(and women) to help and guard.

You're quite correct... I was looking up epikuros instead of epikouros, which means assistant or ally.Jamesmusik 23:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, then we should probably put this in the page. I think it's quite an interesting bit of trivia, not to mention the wonderous coincidence between the name and his philosophy that tries to alleviate the pains of life. --David88 15:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It happens too rarely, but this time the german page is much better <eg>

ReWriting

In my opinion, this article is one of the porrest written of the ones i've seen. It provides a very limited amount of information, and it is almost written assuming that you should already know most of the information about Epicurus. I was seaching for a complete account of what he was famous for, having almost no information to begin with, and instead recieved a cryptic acount of sparse details that was arranged quite erratically, preventing me from recieving needed, in the time I had. I suggest the writting of the article including the facts that even the less informed will be able to understand it.68.54.102.28 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Large Additions: Tetrapharmakos" and "Early Physics: Epicurean Physics"

I just though it was funny that this page did not include Epicurus' "Tetrapharmakos." The "Tetrapharmakos" is probably the easiest doctrine and direct quote (list) one could ever find by a philosopher--and that it needn't be abridged or simplified.

I also added Epicurus' early take on physics and the explanation of the physical world. Indeed, though, is that most of his "ideas" are totally wrong now, but it is certainly educational in a sense that one gets from them an understanding of how some of the earliest thinkers rationalized a natural phenomena into a coherent mental picture and words. There is still more remaining to be said where I left off, but I need to know if I'm on the right track or if that the language I chose communicates well. LCecere 07:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'Dark Philosopher'?

Just a question, but are there any references for this claim? Burnage13 08:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about the same thing. Wasn't Heraclitus nicknamed 'the dark one' (ὁ σκοτεινός)? --Fabullus 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From Heraclitus bibliography: Ferdinand Lassalle Die Philosophie Herakleitos des Dunklen von Ephesos (Berlin, 1858) (The philosophy of Heraclitus the Dark Philosopher of Ephesus) Yes, looks like you're right. I don't see much to affirm this statement. I guess the key word is "Modern" Greek, it sounds a bit like it could be a Christian view of Epicurus (along the lines of "epicurean" in modern parlance). DBaba 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are three versions of his longevity here: 341-271, 341-270 & 'at the age of 72'. Which is most authoritative? Rothorpe 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Epicure Foods

Hi, quick question. We've just launched a site for Epicure; they're a British food importers who've been around since the 1800's... but I couldn't find mention of them on the wiki.

I would be very happy to do some research and write an article ( I'm just the techie so I don't know a whole lot about the client but I could ask for some of the history of the company from the horses mouth so to speak )..

Thing is I'm not quite sure how much this would be seen as self-promotion since of course I've got a vested interest in seeing their profile raised.

What's best? Should I write an article as well as I can and let others decide it's validity.. in which case should it live as a sub-section here or should I start it under Epicure Foods??

Thanks, --Jimbo 09:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to write an article on Epicure Foods, go right ahead. But other than being named after Epicurus, it doesn't have anything to do with him, so it doesn't have any place in this article.--RLent (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing the article to make it more understandable to readers

This article is loaded with archaisms, repetions, awkward grammar, and philosophical jargon. The clear concepts of Epicurus are obscured and made confusing ("parelkousa") by all of this. Epicurus was a forerunner of much of modern though, and it's important to convey this to people in a clear and simple manner.

Epikouros 03:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the larger problem is that the article contains large amounts of detailed (attempted) explanations of Epicureanism, when the article is supposed to be about Epicurus. A brief summary of the teachings is appropriate, but I think most of what's on this page belongs on Epicureanism if it's salvageable at all. James 23:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The sections I marked to merge into Epicureanism are incredibly difficult reads and I'm not even sure that there's anything worth moving into Epicureanism, but at the very least I know they don't belong here. We need to come up with a concise summary of Epicureanism to include here. I suggest four short sections: 1. Physics; 2. Canonic (Epistemology); 3. Ethics; and 4. The Tetrapharmakos. In short, this article is in terrible need of a major rewrite. James 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of articles

Or rather, moving the philosophical information into the Epicurianism article, and leaving the Epicurus article as more of a biography. There are also some other articles that need editing as well - the Garden of Epicurus, the Epicurean Paradox, and also Lucretius / On The Nature Of Things. Give me a few days and I'll start to work on them.

Hopefully there are things of value here and I'll continue to work on them after they're moved over so that they're clear and understandable and free of archaisms and jargon.

And why is Epicurus a "B-Class" philosopher, given his wide influence in antiquity, and his critical influence on modern thought? Any way to change that?

The B-Class is this article's rating, which I think is generous. James 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes on the merger--this entry is horrible. Glad to see somebody is taking the time to help clean up these articles. Tokeefe 03:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article contains a wealth of information and could easily be spruced up. The section on Epicureanism, however, does not need to be as long as it is given that there is a main article on it. A summary of Epicureanism's main tenets and a brief explanation thereof should suffice. Merging hardly seems necessary since Epicureanism is going strong. Postmodern Beatnik 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

BC vs. BCE

An anonymous editor made this edit [1] recently, which was later reverted by Student7. It was my opinion that the anonymous edit was both in good faith and an improvement. I therefore reinstated the changes, giving a substantive reason why (as per WP:STYLE). That reason was that BCE is standard these days in the history of philosophy. (I might mention that it is also standard in anthropology, a field that has been just as important to our present knowledge of Epicurus as the textual exegesis performed by philosophers.) Since the change was again reverted (and since Student7 seems to have felt the need to accuse me of edit warring—a rather silly claim in light of the fact that he began the reverts), I felt I should fully explain why I have again changed BC to BCE in this article.

Looking through the edit history of this article, I see that this change has been attempted several times in one way or another—including by one of the entry's most significant contributors—always to be reverted. Indeed, a substantial reason was given for this edit as well. And so it stood for a bit. But eventually it was reverted because the edit did not consistently change all of the BCs to BCEs.

Now then, WP:STYLE and WP:DATE say the following:

1. Editors should choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system consistently within an article; the Manual of Style does not favor one system over the other.
2. While either of the two styles are acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.
3. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Point one tells us that BCE is a viable option. I do not believe this is a point of contention, so I will simply comment that several editors have thought that BCE is stylistically more appropriate for this page, and that those reverting any changes to that effect do not seem to hold that BC is superior. Instead, they have made their edits for what they themselves deem purely technical reasons. I appreciate the role of stare decisis on Wikipedia, but it is not absolute. Indeed, point two explicitly tells us that there are times when it is appropriate to change styles. In those cases, substantive reasons are required. However, both Epikouros and I have given such reasons (that BCE is standard, and that it is more appropriate for a non-religious thinker such as Epicurus). Now, I don't know who the "first major contributor" is, though certainly Epikouros has been a major contributor. Still, I am not in doubt as to which style to use. As such, I have just gone through and converted BC to BCE, being extra careful to get them all. I hope the edit stays this time. Postmodern Beatnik 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Monad

The disambig page Monad links here, but the word monad isn't currently mentioned in this article. Please add in as appropriate. Thanks :) --Quiddity 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Following your observation I have cut the following entry from the Monad page:

• Monad, a term used by the ancient philosopher Epicurus to describe the smallest units of matter, much like Democritus's notion of an atom (atomism)

There is no indication whatsoever that Epicurus ever used the word 'monad' to describe the smallest indivisible units of matter. In all of his preserved writings he was perfectly happy to follow Democritus' lead and speak of 'atoms'. --Fabullus 21:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I've never seen the word "monad" in all of my time studying Epicurus. Sadly, this error has been picked up by numerous sites that fork Wikipedia once and never check for updates. Postmodern Beatnik 23:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)