Talk:Epicurus

Untitled

Mention of Lucretius

Surely there should some mention of Lucretius in the discussion of the influence of Epicurus? He was a major follower and the source for many Europeans of Epicurus' most important ideas.

Johnstoi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstoi (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

BCE is a foolish (intellectually dishonest) euphemism for BC, because it is still dated from Jesus, using identical numbering. Please revert to BC and stop this intellectual dishonesty. Do you really mean to call it 'Before Common Era'? Tell me, what is the significance of year 0 for this common era, and to whom was it common, and what was shared in common -- if it's not related to Jesus? If you don't like BC, come up with a new calendar. -- Newagelink (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2018 (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)

Citations

I just deleted a sentence in this article that seemed to draw a conclusion that is not backed by any literature... and then after reviewing the article a little further I realized there is hardly a single citation made to anything stated throughout the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipDSullivan (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Anyone know where I can get some info to start getting some citations on this page?--URMOMREALLYDIDCALL (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved some more stuff over to Epicureanism

Realizing that most of the section on "The School" of Epicurus was devoted to the history of Epicureanism, I took the liberty of moving it over to Epicureanism and creating a "History" section there. It might need some extra editing. All I left behind here was the first section which deals with the school in Epicurus' lifetime. Singinglemon (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Evil

In the article I read: “Epicurus formulated a version of the problem of evil”. But in the German Wikipedia I read in the article Epikur that that fomulation is wrongly attributed to Epicurus; that it comes neither from Epicurus himself nor from any of his disciples, but from an unknown philosopher of the sceptical school of thought. For verifying I read: “Reinhold F. Glei: Et invidus et inbecillus. Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13,20-21, in: Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), S. 47-58; Arthur Stanley Pease (Hrsg.): M. Tulli Ciceronis De natura deorum. Libri secundus et tertius, Cambridge (Mass.) 1958, S. 1232f.”

Shouldn’t that information be added to the English article Epicurus? If you think so, please add it; I am reluctant to add it myself, as I am German and my English might be a bit awkward. -- Irene1949 (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I think it should be the Epicureanism page which gets corrected first. But I think we may need a bit more information than just a cryptic reference. What precisely is wrong with the Lactantius quote which would make one doubt that it comes from Epicurus? Singinglemon (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I dug around to see if I could find anything about this. According to M. Larrimore, (2001), The Problem of Evil, pages xix-xxi, this type of argument is known as a trilemma, a set of propositions which are inconsistent with each other. The propositions are: God is omnipotent, God is good, Evil exists. The main reasons for believing that Epicurus was not the author of the Problem of Evil are:

• No other fragments or discussions of Epicurus mention the trilemma.
• Trilemmas don't conclusively prove anything, they induce paralysis.
• Trilemmas were forms of argument perfected by the ancient skeptics, who wanted to show that one cannot positively assert anything. Carneades was one who promoted an agnostic position concerning gods.
• The earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, 175

Epicurus, of course, believed that there were gods, but that they were neither willing nor able to prevent evil. They were not malevolent, but rather, they lived in a perfect state of ataraxia, a state Epicureans were supposed to emulate. Singinglemon (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it will be helpful if I translate some remarks in the German Wikipedia (de:Diskussion:Epikur) about the question if the formulation really comes from Epicurus or not. Nwabueze, who is thought to be a very competent user by those who take care of the philosophical topics in the German Wikipedia, wrote:

The matter is not disputed, it is settled: There is no doubt that the alleged quotation of Epicurus, which has been passed on by Lactantius, is not genuine. Paul Schwenke recognized that already in 1888 (Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 8, p. 1308f.), he was followed by Otto Plasberg (in his edition of De natura deorum) and by Arthur Stanley Pease (ed.), De natura deorum, Cambridge 1958, S. 1232f.; Pease states:"The argument is clearly neither Epicurean nor Stoic" (this statement of Pease is a quotation, not my translation) These scholars already realized that the argument of theodicy is securely not from Epicurus, and they stated too that it is not even from a late epicurean tradition, but that it comes from the sceptical school of thougt, imparted probably by a lost passage from Cicero De natura deorum 3,65. The question was definitely clarified by Reinhold Glei, Et invidus et inbecillus. Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13,20-21, in: Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), p. 47-58. He shows that the argument of theodicy is not only from an academical source which is not epicurean, but even from an academical source which is anti-epicurean, a source from which Cicero and Sextus Empiricus (in the Hypotyposes of Pyrrhon (or something like that)) have drawn something. Lactantius attributed it to Epicurus, because he missunderstood his source and because he didn't grasp the content and the philosophical consequences of the text he quoted.

I wrote an e-mail to Nwabueze, and I asked him if he could help. He answered that the verification is of a perfect reliability, and that the best and the most up-to-date work about the topic is written in German. He thinks that it should be a sufficient verification for the English Wikipedia, and he encouraged me to insert my point into the English Wikipedia. I am considering to do so, but first I'd like to see what you think about that. -- Irene1949 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you did far more than I was expecting. It certainly agrees very much with what I read in Larrimore's book, although he just presents the arguments without saying whether the matter is settled or not. I updated the page on Epicureanism several days ago, I've left the full Lactantius quotation in the page, since it is of some historical importance, even if it is considered very doubtful that it is Epicurean. I have not touched the page on Epicurus, I'll let you change that if you want. I've seen nothing that suggests that your English isn't high quality. Singinglemon (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for editing Epicureanism. Your text was useful for me when I just edited Epicurus.

Although you wrote that you've seen nothing that suggests that my English isn't high quality, I think it would be good if you have a look at my edit in order to see if it's really all right. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added a statement from R. Glei to the articles Epicurus and Epicureanism. I think it's important that this scholar stated that it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academical source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean.-- Irene1949 (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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 expcially 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 Epicurus. Stae2 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Epicurus was not a monotheist. Greeks at the time were not monotheists. So why is this attributed to him? LeapUK (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Democritus vs Epicurus

The former advocated empiricism (sense data as constituting knowledge) and the latter promoted this idea that senses are needed to acquire data however the data by itself is meaningless without a conceptual framework to make sense out of it. These two schools were synthesised in Hegel and Marx's philosophy i.e. science for both of them = knowledge of essence by means of empirical observation and logical deduction.

Axial axe-gringing

Why is Epicurus being located in the so-called "Axial Age"? Is the purpose of an article on Epicurus to promote Karl Jaspers? To follow the Wikipedia credo of "neutrality," a standard chronological reference should be sufficient. Otherwise the article would have to pause to locate Epicurus in every plausible-seeming chronological scheme. He was a "key figure...from 800 BC to 200 BC"? What about a key figure of "the Hellenic Age"?

And how was Epicurus's thinking "similar to revolutionary thinking in China, India, Iran, the Near East"? If the topic is not going to be discussed, why is it introduced? Only the similarity of his thought or the influence of his thought on later Western philosophers is discussed.

>He was a key figure in the Axial Age, the period from 800 BC to 200 BC, during which similarly revolutionary thinking appeared in China, India, Iran, the Near East, and Ancient Greece. < — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.147.170 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Updating the amount of On Nature recovered?

According to this BBC article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25106956 and the Friends of Herculaneum website - http://www.herculaneum.ox.ac.uk/?q=books, one third of On Nature has been rediscovered in carbonised scrolls from the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum. The current article states that ″Numerous fragments of his thirty-seven volume treatise On Nature have been found among the charred papyrus fragments at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum.″ Should not this article be updated to show that a third of On Nature has been rediscovered, as ″Numerous fragments″ hardly reflects the amount of the work which has been recovered? 2.24.233.156 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This article needs work

"He taught that pleasure and pain are measures of what is good and evil; death is the end of both body and soul and therefore should not be feared; the gods neither reward nor punish humans; the universe is infinite and eternal; and events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space." Introduction could use restructuring. Its a bit of a mess there. Also, more importantly, he could not have asserted anything about atoms as he was unaware of their existence due to limited technology and research at the time.

"Short citations of Epicurus' works appear in other writers (e.g., Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, and the Greek commentators on Aristotle), often taken out of context or presented in a polemical and distorted fashion. (The standard edition of Epicurus' works in Greek is Arrighetti 1973; the fullest collection of fragments and testimonies is still Usener 1887, repr. with Italian translation, Ramelli 2002; for translations, see Bibliography: Editions, Translations, Commentaries). In addition, several works of Epicurus, including parts of his major treatise, On Nature (Peri phuseôs) — a series of lectures running to 37 papyrus rolls — have been recovered in damaged condition from the library of a villa in the town of Herculaneum, which was buried in the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 C.E. The library almost certainly contained the working collection of Philodemus, an Epicurean philosopher from Syria who studied in Athens and moved to Italy in the first century B.C.E. Many of the rolls consist of Philodemus' own writings, and provide valuable information about later issues in the history of Epicureanism. One must be cautious about ascribing these views to the founder himself, although the school tended to be conservative and later thinkers embellished rather than altered Epicurus' own teachings. New editions and translations are now making these difficult texts available to a wider readership." VS "often taken out of context or presented in a polemical and distorted fashion. [..] The school tended to be conservative and later thinkers embellished rather than altered Epicurus' own teachings."[12]" One of your citations cuts an article down to the point of not getting the point of the original article across. The author was trying to say that Epicureanism itself was a clean and simple framework. There wasn't a whole lot of writing. As time went on people added to the definition. It would be nice if this section was reworded in such a way that it is easier to understand.

Actually, atoms are a concept from ancient Greek philosophy that was essentially hijacked by modern science. The word atom was coined by either Leucippus or Democritus in the fifth century BC, long before Epicurus was born, from the Greek word meaning "uncuttable". Atomism was a major component of Epicurus's philosophy. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Add response to Epicurian paradox

It's unwise, incomplete, or unprofessional to mention the paradox without the resolution given over the years. Please add this discussion. There are YouTube video of William Lane Craig responding, for example. One could even be linked. Moreover, adding some discussion of the paradox's resolution would give the reader more context and better appreciation for it. -- Newagelink (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newagelink: Discussion of the so-called "Epicurean paradox" in this article must necessarily be extremely limited, mostly because it is highly doubtful that Epicurus was even the one who really wrote it. Although Lactantius attributes it to Epicurus, it appears to directly conflict with everything we know about Epicurus's philosophy from his actual surviving letters and fragments. Epicurus taught that the gods existed, but that they did not care about humans and that they did not have any involvement in human affairs. The "Epicurean paradox," by contrast, seems to be an argument against even the mere existence of deities (or at least that is how Lactantius portrays it). It is possible that Epicurus might have said something similar to the "Epicurean paradox," but, if he did, it would have been an argument against divine intervention rather than an argument against the existence of deities. It seems likely that Lactantius heard the paradox and falsely assumed that it was written by Epicurus due to Epicurus's reputation as a materialist. We have a separate article entitled "Problem of evil," which discusses that subject in depth, but, in this article, our description of the paradox must be strictly confined to how it relates to the subject of the article, which, in this case, refers to whether or not Epicurus himself actually said it. Arguments against the Epicurean paradox would go in a separate article, not in this one. If we knew that Epicurus really wrote it, then we could probably devote more attention to it and talk about rebuttals to it, but, since its connection to Epicurus as tenuous as it is, we need to restrict our focus to keep from diverging off-topic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. -- Newagelink (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"Highly influential"

@UberCryxic: This wording still kind of feels a bit like unnecessary puffery to me, but I am willing to go along with it. We will see what the GA reviewer says about it; if the reviewer thinks it is fine, we will leave it. If not, we can revise it. Meanwile, I am still working to try to incorporate the information you added about Epicurus's influence on Karl Marx into the last section of the body. Unfortunately, the main source I use for most of the "Legacy" section, the chapter on "Epicurus and Epicureanism" in The Classical Tradition (2010) never mentions Marx, but I see you provided one source and I am looking for others. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I just wanted some more direct and straightforward way of highlighting his stature within ancient Greek philosophy. The current lead sort of does that towards the end, but I wish it would do it more in the beginning.

As for Marx: the guy did his doctoral dissertation on Epicurean physics, so it's not hard to see the influence.

For specific sources discussing the relationship between Marx and Epicurus, you can refer to the following:

John Bellamy Foster, Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature (2000)

David Gordon, David Suits, Epicurus: His Continuing Influence and Contemporary Relevance (2003)

Diego Fusaro, Marx, Epicurus, and the Origins of Historical Materialism (2018).UBER ^(talk) 10:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@UberCryxic: I added a new paragraph about Epicurus's influence on Karl Marx yesterday, with this edit, using one of the sources you list here, but thank you very much for the help anyway. Maybe I will add some of these other sources to the article as well. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Golden Rule" quote

@Kolyvansky: The quote you keep trying to add to this article ("It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly.") Is already in the article (albeit in the form of a slightly different translation), quoted just two sentences before the place where you keep trying to add it in. There is no reason at all to quote the same statement twice in the same paragraph.

Also, you keep trying to add a statement claiming that this is an expression of the "Golden Rule," but it really is not, because the Golden Rule is an injunction to treat others the way you would want to be treated (i.e. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."). This quote from Epicurus, however, is not a command at all, but rather a justification for the reason why he believed people should be good to others, which is the inherent joy of doing good and the personal guilt that arises from doing wrong. In this quote, Epicurus is saying that a person should live "sensibly and nobly and justly" because doing so will make that person happy; whereas not doing so will only lead to poor decisions with unpleasant consequences and feelings of guilt and shame over ignoble or unjust actions. He is basically saying that, if for no other reasons at all, we should be good to others because doing so will make us feel good about ourselves. It is not a "rule" in any real sense, but rather an explanation of the selfish justification for why people should be good to others.

Also, the source you keep citing in the article to support this statement ("Epicurus Principal Doctrines 5 and 31 transl. by Robert Drew Hicks". 1925.) is just a translation of the Principle Doctrines and it does not actually call this quote an example of the "Golden Rule." The source you cited on my talk page ("Henry Epps, The Universal Golden Rule, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (July 17, 2012) p.27") is self-published and therefore not a reliable source. In order for us to call this quotation an example of the Golden Rule, we would need a reliable, scholarly source that has been through secondary publishing that explicitly calls it that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul August ☎ 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Being happy about doing the right thing does not exclude a consideration of reciprocity, key to a Golden Rule, as in preventing "being harmed by another" and in the 2nd clause of the primary statement, the benefit of better behavior from those living pleasantly. I'd hoped that it'd be so obvious as not to have to contest it. Kolyvansky (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that being happy about doing the right thing does not necessarily exclude the idea that one should treat others the way one would like to be treated, but nothing about the statement in question implies the notion that one should treat others the way one would like to be treated. The passage you keep adding reads: "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly." It say nothing whatsoever about reciprocity. When Epicurus says that a person needs to live "justly" in order to live "pleasantly," he is most likely saying this because, as his other quotes illustrate, he believed that feelings of guilt over one's own unjust actions would cause a person to suffer terribly and that that guilt and suffering would nullify any pleasure one might have received from those actions. Epicurus is indeed saying something very wise here, but it is not the Golden Rule. --Katolophyromai (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you are correct as far as you go, but it's not far enough. Epicurus had a reciprocal view of justice in mind. "Epicurus suggests a view of justice as reciprocity in his Kuriai Doxai (or 'Key Doctrines')." wrote Allen Buchanan, "Justice as Reciprocity versus Subject-Centered Justice", Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Summer, 1990), pp. 227-252. Kolyvansky (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Epicurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems to have been a little kerfuffle this month over Epicurus and the Golden Rule, but nothing major. As it was 3 edits and several days ago, I don't think it greatly undermines the stability of the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a great, well-written article that goes in depth into Epicurus and his philosophy, but every minute detail is important, not a pointless minutia. I highly suggesting nominating for a Featured Article after a little more preparation.

@Gug01: Thank you so much for the review! I really appreciate it. I worked very hard on this article and I am extremely excited to see it finally promoted to "Good Article" status! --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Good job on the article! Gug01 (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The tag to expand the section on politics

Hello! It was pointed out to me by Aircorn that someone has added a tag saying that the section on Epicurus's politics needs expansion, but I am not currently aware of any specific reason why it would need expansion. Personally, I think the section as it is mostly covers everything, since Epicurus doesn't really have a whole lot to say about politics anyway, apart from "Stay away from it." If no one responds within twenty-four hours with a specific piece of information that they think the section needs to include that it doesn't include already, I am going to just remove the tag, since I do not currently think that it is necessary. —Katolophyromai (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I could easily imagine wishing we had more of what the ancient Epicureans wrote on politics, but what we have here seems to match the info we have. I'd suggest swapping the order of the two paragraphs, though.Teishin (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Question:

Why is Epicurus considered a sage? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)