What do you think?
Rate this book
Letter to Menoeceus
Στην επιστολή αυτή ο φιλόσοφος Επίκουρος μιλά, με γλώσσα απλή, άμεση και τρυφερή, στον επιστήθιο φίλο του Μενοικέα για το τι είναι ευτυχία και τι πρέπει να κάνουμε για να την αποκτήσουμε.
Το κείμενο συνοψίζει όλη την επικούρεια φιλοσοφία που ήρθε να ανατρέψει τις μέχρι τότε απόψεις για τη ζωή, το θάνατο, την αγάπη και την ευτυχία. Αποτελεί μάλιστα ένα από τα δύο αναμφισβήτητα γνήσια κείμενα του Επίκουρου.
Το κείμενο συνοψίζει όλη την επικούρεια φιλοσοφία που ήρθε να ανατρέψει τις μέχρι τότε απόψεις για τη ζωή, το θάνατο, την αγάπη και την ευτυχία. Αποτελεί μάλιστα ένα από τα δύο αναμφισβήτητα γνήσια κείμενα του Επίκουρου.
First published January 1, 301
506 people are currently reading
9646 people want to read
About the author
Epicurus
155 books804 followersEpicurus (Greek: Ἐπίκουρος, Epikouros, "upon youth"; Samos, 341 BCE – Athens, 270 BCE; 72 years) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism. Only a few fragments and letters remain of Epicurus's 300 written works. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators.
For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by aponia, the absence of pain and fear, and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that pleasure and pain are the measures of what is good and bad, that death is the end of the body and the soul and should therefore not be feared, that the gods do not reward or punish humans, that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space.
His parents, Neocles and Chaerestrate, both Athenian citizens, had immigrated to the Athenian settlement on the Aegean island of Samos about ten years before Epicurus' birth in February 341 BCE. As a boy he studied philosophy for four years under the Platonist teacher Pamphilus. At the age of 18 he went to Athens for his two-year term of military service. The playwright Menander served in the same age-class of the ephebes as Epicurus.
After the death of Alexander the Great, Perdiccas expelled the Athenian settlers on Samos to Colophon. After the completion of his military service, Epicurus joined his family there. He studied under Nausiphanes, who followed the teachings of Democritus. In 311/310 BC Epicurus taught in Mytilene but caused strife and was forced to leave. He then founded a school in Lampsacus before returning to Athens in 306 BC. There he founded The Garden, a school named for the garden he owned about halfway between the Stoa and the Academy that served as the school's meeting place.
Even though many of his teachings were heavily influenced by earlier thinkers, especially by Democritus, he differed in a significant way with Democritus on determinism. Epicurus would often deny this influence, denounce other philosophers as confused, and claim to be "self-taught".
Epicurus never married and had no known children. He suffered from kidney stones, to which he finally succumbed in 270 BCE at the age of 72, and despite the prolonged pain involved, he wrote to Idomeneus:
"I have written this letter to you on a happy day to me, which is also the last day of my life. For I have been attacked by a painful inability to urinate, and also dysentery, so violent that nothing can be added to the violence of my sufferings. But the cheerfulness of my mind, which comes from the recollection of all my philosophical contemplation, counterbalances all these afflictions. And I beg you to take care of the children of Metrodorus, in a manner worthy of the devotion shown by the young man to me, and to philosophy."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by aponia, the absence of pain and fear, and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that pleasure and pain are the measures of what is good and bad, that death is the end of the body and the soul and should therefore not be feared, that the gods do not reward or punish humans, that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space.
His parents, Neocles and Chaerestrate, both Athenian citizens, had immigrated to the Athenian settlement on the Aegean island of Samos about ten years before Epicurus' birth in February 341 BCE. As a boy he studied philosophy for four years under the Platonist teacher Pamphilus. At the age of 18 he went to Athens for his two-year term of military service. The playwright Menander served in the same age-class of the ephebes as Epicurus.
After the death of Alexander the Great, Perdiccas expelled the Athenian settlers on Samos to Colophon. After the completion of his military service, Epicurus joined his family there. He studied under Nausiphanes, who followed the teachings of Democritus. In 311/310 BC Epicurus taught in Mytilene but caused strife and was forced to leave. He then founded a school in Lampsacus before returning to Athens in 306 BC. There he founded The Garden, a school named for the garden he owned about halfway between the Stoa and the Academy that served as the school's meeting place.
Even though many of his teachings were heavily influenced by earlier thinkers, especially by Democritus, he differed in a significant way with Democritus on determinism. Epicurus would often deny this influence, denounce other philosophers as confused, and claim to be "self-taught".
Epicurus never married and had no known children. He suffered from kidney stones, to which he finally succumbed in 270 BCE at the age of 72, and despite the prolonged pain involved, he wrote to Idomeneus:
"I have written this letter to you on a happy day to me, which is also the last day of my life. For I have been attacked by a painful inability to urinate, and also dysentery, so violent that nothing can be added to the violence of my sufferings. But the cheerfulness of my mind, which comes from the recollection of all my philosophical contemplation, counterbalances all these afflictions. And I beg you to take care of the children of Metrodorus, in a manner worthy of the devotion shown by the young man to me, and to philosophy."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 480 reviews
May 26, 2022
“La felicidad y la dicha no la proporcionan ni la cantidad de riquezas ni la dignidad de nuestras ocupaciones ni ciertos cargos y poderes, sino la ausencia de sufrimiento, la mansedumbre de nuestras pasiones y la disposición del alma a delimitar lo que es por naturaleza.”Siento mucha simpatía por Epicuro, enemigo de trascendencias y religiones, aunque no comparta su sacrosanta defensa de la individualidad frente a lo colectivo ni su indiferencia ante la justicia social o ante estados totalitarios. Y no es que crea que plantee la solución definitiva al problema de la felicidad frente a una muerte segura, un dolor probable y un futuro incierto, pero es indudable, al menos así lo pienso, que lo que más se puede acercar a ello es, tal como Epicuro recomienda, el disfrute sereno de los placeres que la vida pone a nuestra disposición.
En estos placeres, Epicuro destaca su subjetividad y su fin: la tranquilidad del alma, la Ataraxia. Para ello es necesario el retiro, la moderación, la indiferencia, reducir el mundo a algo dirigible y digerible.
“La autosuficiencia la consideramos un gran bien, no para que siempre nos sirvamos de poco sino para que, si no tenemos muchos, nos contentemos con poco.”Y me gusta también que sea consciente de que sus recomendaciones solo pueden ir dirigidas a unos pocos, pues tan necesarias son unas circunstancias propicias como un talante adecuado.
March 23, 2023
self-help hits different when it was written 2000 years ago
Read
April 16, 2014Let me begin by asserting that the equation Epicureanism = Hedonism is absurdly false. I'll elaborate on this below.
Like the works of all of the philosophers who actually initiated and developed Stoicism (lately much on my mind), very little of Epicurus' (c. 342-270 BCE) prolific writings have come down to us. The editor of this volume, George K. Strodach, claims to have translated everything that remains which is not unintelligibly fragmentary. If true, we have only 3 letters (essays), a collection of sayings and aphorisms called Leading Doctrines, and another incomplete collection of such aphorisms now called the Vatican Sayings.
According to Strodach, Epicurus wrote in a deliberately dry and nonliterary Greek, using technical philosophical terms in an extremely idiosyncratic manner. To supplement the paucity of sources and the uninviting prose of Epicurus, Strodach also brings parallel passages from the great Latin philosophical poem De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) composed by one of Epicurus' greatest followers, Titus Lucretius Carus (94-55 BCE).(*) Strodach also translates excerpts of that portion of Diogenes Laertius' 2nd century CE compilation Lives of the Philosophers which concerned Epicurus. Along with useful endnotes, Strodach adds a decent 90 page essay on Epicurean philosophy and its antecedents, where he quickly reveals himself to be a committed materialist who particularly admires Democritus' thought and reproaches Epicurus for modifying for the worse his predecessor's system...
Like the founders of Stoicism, and unlike Epictetus, Epicurus begins with physics and metaphysics.(**) One can incompletely summarize his position as a very pure materialism - philosophical materialism, not the "materialism" associated with modern life. In the universe there is only uncreated and indestructible atomic matter in its eternal motions, collisions, adhesions and subsequent dissolutions placed in empty space. Both are infinite in spatial and temporal extent. The only true existents are atomic matter and empty space - all else are more or less temporary manifestations of those two. There is no divine creator or guide. There is a soul, but at death it dissipates into its constituent atoms, so there is no Afterlife, no Heaven, no Hell, and so, as Lucretius explains at length, there is no need to fear death.
This concentrates the mind mightily on the here and now. So, how to live this life in such a universe?
Not as an automaton. Such a rigidly mechanistic and deterministic metaphysics leaves little room for freedom and responsibility, so Epicurus introduced the curious notion of an atomic "swerve" which the "soul" atoms can carry out. It's not clear to me how either freedom or moral responsibility are recovered by this ploy, but I do recognize a deus ex machina when I see one...
Nonetheless, free will and moral responsibility are part of Epicurus' system (as opposed to that of his godfather in physics and metaphysics, Democritus).
Forewarned by reading John M. Cooper's Pursuits of Wisdom, I knew that the commonly parroted view of Epicurus' thought was wrong, but now that I have read the sources which survive I see that he wasn't merely misunderstood, he was deliberately slandered by Christian theologians (and others) in every manner available to them.
It is no wonder that the theists abhorred him - from his follower Lucretius:
I shall account for how men's minds oftentimes hang fearfully in the balance at the sight of what comes to pass on earth and in the sky. Their spirits are demeaned by the dread of the gods and crushed drooping to the dust because their ignorance of natural causes forces them to ascribe all to divine rule and to concede the reign of gods.
The Epicureans wanted to replace divine causes with naturalistic causes, to replace religious superstition with causal chains of natural events, to replace superstitious fear with an understanding much like that of our contemporary scientific community's. Moreover, Epicurus wrote repeatedly that ordinary religion was not just mistaken, it was destructive of mankind's happiness. As Lucretius wrote, "True religion is rather the power to contemplate nature with a mind set at peace."
Although Epicurus' book On the Gods was lost (Diogenes Laertius informs us of its existence in his lengthy essay on Epicurus), it is clear from the bits and pieces that remain that the existence of gods is not denied at all by the Epicureans; but the gods' interest in meddling in the affairs of man and nature is denied, for the gods are complete unto themselves and have no concern for us whatsoever. They could not have an effect on man or nature even if they wanted to.
The role of the gods in Epicurus' system was to serve as exemplars of the highest form of happiness - ataraxia - a unique state (though it shares certain qualities with satori) which includes serenity, detachment, unadulterated happiness and freedom from irrational fears and anxieties of all sorts as attributes. This happiness has absolutely nothing at all to do with our senses, except insofar as the absence of pain is implied, and therefore Epicureanism has nothing in common with hedonism.(***) It is impossible to misunderstand this from his writings; I speculate that Epicurus was the object of character assassination because his view of the gods was so contrary to that of the Christians and the mystic neo-Platonists that they had to do away with him in any manner available. Diogenes Laertius affirms that other, non-Christian philosophers forged compromising letters they attributed to Epicurus and spread other lies (he even names some names). Stoics and Skeptics attacked versions of "Epicureanism" which had little or nothing to do with his writings.
I now see Epicureanism as a quietistic humanism whose core is understanding natural causes in a mechanistic universe, thereby obviating the necessity of gods and relieving irrational fears and anxieties, and withdrawal within oneself to this remarkable state of ataraxia. The books which explain how to attain this state and how to live with the rest of humanity when one is in this state are gone...
Note: I read the original 1963 version of this book, entitled The Philosophy of Epicurus. Penguin has changed the title and added a forward from a "popular" author for reasons which seem obvious if not quite laudable.
(*) These dates are controversial. One knows almost nothing about Lucretius beyond that which can be deduced from De rerum natura.
(**) His Letter to Herodotus is primarily occupied with the physical and metaphysical setting of his philosophy, where also some arguments are provided for these positions. Passages of De rerum natura which deliver an interesting combination of argument and persuasive imagery give further grounds for thought.
(***) Diogenes Laertius writes of Epicurus' modest, even ascetic lifestyle.
Rating
http://leopard.booklikes.com/post/854...
Like the works of all of the philosophers who actually initiated and developed Stoicism (lately much on my mind), very little of Epicurus' (c. 342-270 BCE) prolific writings have come down to us. The editor of this volume, George K. Strodach, claims to have translated everything that remains which is not unintelligibly fragmentary. If true, we have only 3 letters (essays), a collection of sayings and aphorisms called Leading Doctrines, and another incomplete collection of such aphorisms now called the Vatican Sayings.
According to Strodach, Epicurus wrote in a deliberately dry and nonliterary Greek, using technical philosophical terms in an extremely idiosyncratic manner. To supplement the paucity of sources and the uninviting prose of Epicurus, Strodach also brings parallel passages from the great Latin philosophical poem De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) composed by one of Epicurus' greatest followers, Titus Lucretius Carus (94-55 BCE).(*) Strodach also translates excerpts of that portion of Diogenes Laertius' 2nd century CE compilation Lives of the Philosophers which concerned Epicurus. Along with useful endnotes, Strodach adds a decent 90 page essay on Epicurean philosophy and its antecedents, where he quickly reveals himself to be a committed materialist who particularly admires Democritus' thought and reproaches Epicurus for modifying for the worse his predecessor's system...
Like the founders of Stoicism, and unlike Epictetus, Epicurus begins with physics and metaphysics.(**) One can incompletely summarize his position as a very pure materialism - philosophical materialism, not the "materialism" associated with modern life. In the universe there is only uncreated and indestructible atomic matter in its eternal motions, collisions, adhesions and subsequent dissolutions placed in empty space. Both are infinite in spatial and temporal extent. The only true existents are atomic matter and empty space - all else are more or less temporary manifestations of those two. There is no divine creator or guide. There is a soul, but at death it dissipates into its constituent atoms, so there is no Afterlife, no Heaven, no Hell, and so, as Lucretius explains at length, there is no need to fear death.
This concentrates the mind mightily on the here and now. So, how to live this life in such a universe?
Not as an automaton. Such a rigidly mechanistic and deterministic metaphysics leaves little room for freedom and responsibility, so Epicurus introduced the curious notion of an atomic "swerve" which the "soul" atoms can carry out. It's not clear to me how either freedom or moral responsibility are recovered by this ploy, but I do recognize a deus ex machina when I see one...
Nonetheless, free will and moral responsibility are part of Epicurus' system (as opposed to that of his godfather in physics and metaphysics, Democritus).
Forewarned by reading John M. Cooper's Pursuits of Wisdom, I knew that the commonly parroted view of Epicurus' thought was wrong, but now that I have read the sources which survive I see that he wasn't merely misunderstood, he was deliberately slandered by Christian theologians (and others) in every manner available to them.
It is no wonder that the theists abhorred him - from his follower Lucretius:
I shall account for how men's minds oftentimes hang fearfully in the balance at the sight of what comes to pass on earth and in the sky. Their spirits are demeaned by the dread of the gods and crushed drooping to the dust because their ignorance of natural causes forces them to ascribe all to divine rule and to concede the reign of gods.
The Epicureans wanted to replace divine causes with naturalistic causes, to replace religious superstition with causal chains of natural events, to replace superstitious fear with an understanding much like that of our contemporary scientific community's. Moreover, Epicurus wrote repeatedly that ordinary religion was not just mistaken, it was destructive of mankind's happiness. As Lucretius wrote, "True religion is rather the power to contemplate nature with a mind set at peace."
Although Epicurus' book On the Gods was lost (Diogenes Laertius informs us of its existence in his lengthy essay on Epicurus), it is clear from the bits and pieces that remain that the existence of gods is not denied at all by the Epicureans; but the gods' interest in meddling in the affairs of man and nature is denied, for the gods are complete unto themselves and have no concern for us whatsoever. They could not have an effect on man or nature even if they wanted to.
The role of the gods in Epicurus' system was to serve as exemplars of the highest form of happiness - ataraxia - a unique state (though it shares certain qualities with satori) which includes serenity, detachment, unadulterated happiness and freedom from irrational fears and anxieties of all sorts as attributes. This happiness has absolutely nothing at all to do with our senses, except insofar as the absence of pain is implied, and therefore Epicureanism has nothing in common with hedonism.(***) It is impossible to misunderstand this from his writings; I speculate that Epicurus was the object of character assassination because his view of the gods was so contrary to that of the Christians and the mystic neo-Platonists that they had to do away with him in any manner available. Diogenes Laertius affirms that other, non-Christian philosophers forged compromising letters they attributed to Epicurus and spread other lies (he even names some names). Stoics and Skeptics attacked versions of "Epicureanism" which had little or nothing to do with his writings.
I now see Epicureanism as a quietistic humanism whose core is understanding natural causes in a mechanistic universe, thereby obviating the necessity of gods and relieving irrational fears and anxieties, and withdrawal within oneself to this remarkable state of ataraxia. The books which explain how to attain this state and how to live with the rest of humanity when one is in this state are gone...
Note: I read the original 1963 version of this book, entitled The Philosophy of Epicurus. Penguin has changed the title and added a forward from a "popular" author for reasons which seem obvious if not quite laudable.
(*) These dates are controversial. One knows almost nothing about Lucretius beyond that which can be deduced from De rerum natura.
(**) His Letter to Herodotus is primarily occupied with the physical and metaphysical setting of his philosophy, where also some arguments are provided for these positions. Passages of De rerum natura which deliver an interesting combination of argument and persuasive imagery give further grounds for thought.
(***) Diogenes Laertius writes of Epicurus' modest, even ascetic lifestyle.
Rating
http://leopard.booklikes.com/post/854...
August 18, 2018
Epicurean (n) Ἐπικούρειος
ˌɛpɪkjʊ(ə)ˈriːən
1. A disciple or student of the Greek philosopher Epicurus. ✓
2. A person devoted to sensual enjoyment, especially that derived from fine food and drink. ✗ (See
Cyrenaic
)
__________
__________
It is a great shame that rival philosophical schools heard the term pleasure and immediately interpreted the word as sensual delight, forever corrupting Epicurus' philosophy and the term Epicurean, and misleading anyone not caring to examine the philosophy for themselves.
Epicurus' ethical hedonism is laid out in the Letter to Menoeceus, Leading Doctrines, and the Vatican Collection of Aphorisms. There is much to be gained by applying certain aspects to one's own life, and are a great complement to Seneca's Letters, Cicero's Philosophical Works, and Montaigne's advocation for the cultivation of the self.
__________
As well as his system of ethics, Epicurus expanded on contemporary atomist theories, forwarding the notion that all matter is composed of indivisible atoms, and proposing the notion of Atomic Swerve, to allow for free-will.
These theories are interesting to read,
Epicurus advocated an understanding of science, and believed that only through the study of Natural Philosophy could certain fears and delusions regarding the gods be eliminated; one could achieve mental peace by understanding the fundamental workings of the world in which we live, and therefore be freed from the false belief that the gods were behind all, intervening when and according to their wishes and whims.
__________
Epicurus' extant works are sadly not very numerous. They consist of three letters, and two collections of aphorisms:
• Letter to Herodotus
• Letter to Pythocles
• Letter to Menoeceus
• Leading Doctrines
• Vatican Collection of Aphorisms*
This Penguin edition presents all the above works, (~50pp.), with parallel passages from Lucretius' epic poem On the Nature of Things (accompanied with lucid commentary from the translator) presented after each letter. Also included is an excerpt from Diogenes Laërtius' Life of Epicurus, as well as an extensive seven-part introduction (77pp.[!]), and detailed notes.
The translation is excellent, and all in all, a great copy of Epicurus' writings.
*This edition contains 33 of the 81 aphorisms in the Vatican Collection. A large amount overlap with the Leading Doctrines, but some do not. Complete collections can easily be found online (eg. Here and here).
__________
These splendid sayings of Epicurus also serve another purpose which makes me even more willing to mention them. They prove to those people who take refuge in him for base motives, thinking to find cover for their faults, that they need to live honourably no matter where they go. When you arrive at Epicurus' Gardens, and see what is written there:
Here, guest, will you be well entertained: here pleasure is the highest good—
then the keeper of that house will be ready to receive you and, being hospitable and kind, will serve you a plate of porridge and a generous goblet of water and say to you, "Is this not a fine welcome?" "These gardens," he will say, "do not stimulate appetite; they appease it. They do not give drinks that make one thirstier, but quench thirst with its natural remedy, which comes free of charge. This is the pleasure in which I have lived to old age."
I am speaking to you now of those desires that are not alleviated by soothing speech, desires that must be given something to put an end to them. For about those superfluous desires that can be put off, rebuked, or suppressed, I remind you only of this: such pleasure is natural but not necessary. You do not owe it anything: anything you do devote to it is voluntary. The belly does not listen to instructions: it merely demands and solicits. Still, it is not a troublesome creditor. You can put it off with very little, if you just give it what you owe rather than what you can.
—Seneca, Letter 21.9-11
__________
But now I must make an end; and as has become my custom, I must pay for my letter. This will be done, but not on my own charge. I am still plundering Epicurus, in whose work I today found this saying:
"You should become a slave to philosophy, that you may attain true liberty."
—Seneca, Letter 8.7
__________
"Sex has never benefitted any man, and it's a marvel if it hasn't injured him!" —Epicurus, Leading Doctrines, 51
ˌɛpɪkjʊ(ə)ˈriːən
1. A disciple or student of the Greek philosopher Epicurus. ✓
__________
"Thus when I say that pleasure is the goal of living I do not mean the pleasures of libertines or the pleasures inherent in positive enjoyment, as is supposed by certain persons who are ignorant of our doctrine or who are not in agreement with it or who interpret it perversely. I mean, on the contrary, the pleasure that consists in freedom from bodily pain and mental agitation. The pleasant life is not the product of one drinking party after another or of sexual intercourse with women and boys or of the sea food and other delicacies afforded by a luxurious table. On the contrary, it is the result of sober thinking—namely, investigation of the reasons for every act of choice and aversion and elimination of those false ideas about the gods and death which are the chief source of mental disturbances." —Letter to Menoeceus
"Think about these and related matters day and night, by yourself and in company with someone like yourself. If you do, you will never experience anxiety, waking or sleeping, but you will live like a god among men. For a human being who lives in the midst of immortal blessings is in no way like mortal man!" —Letter to Meneoceus
"But those who have not fully committed themselves emotionally to these matters cannot properly view them as they are, nor have they grasped the purpose and the need for studying them." —Letter to Pythocles
__________
When you arrive at Epicurus' Gardens, and see what is written there:
Here, guest, will you be well entertained: here pleasure is the highest good—
—Seneca, Letter 21.9
__________
It is a great shame that rival philosophical schools heard the term pleasure and immediately interpreted the word as sensual delight, forever corrupting Epicurus' philosophy and the term Epicurean, and misleading anyone not caring to examine the philosophy for themselves.
Epicurus' ethical hedonism is laid out in the Letter to Menoeceus, Leading Doctrines, and the Vatican Collection of Aphorisms. There is much to be gained by applying certain aspects to one's own life, and are a great complement to Seneca's Letters, Cicero's Philosophical Works, and Montaigne's advocation for the cultivation of the self.
__________
As well as his system of ethics, Epicurus expanded on contemporary atomist theories, forwarding the notion that all matter is composed of indivisible atoms, and proposing the notion of Atomic Swerve, to allow for free-will.
These theories are interesting to read,
". . . yet the question of the best way to live remained Epicurus' fundamental consideration. His theories about the composition of matter, causation, perception, truth, and knowledge, are all in service of this ultimate concern."
Epicurus advocated an understanding of science, and believed that only through the study of Natural Philosophy could certain fears and delusions regarding the gods be eliminated; one could achieve mental peace by understanding the fundamental workings of the world in which we live, and therefore be freed from the false belief that the gods were behind all, intervening when and according to their wishes and whims.
"It is impossible to get rid of our anxieties about essentials if we do not understand the nature of the universe and are apprehensive about some of the theological accounts. Hence it is impossible to enjoy our pleasures unadulterated without natural science." —Leading Doctrines, 12
"With the Epicureans it was never science for the sake of science but always science for the sake of human happiness."
__________
Epicurus' extant works are sadly not very numerous. They consist of three letters, and two collections of aphorisms:
• Letter to Herodotus
• Letter to Pythocles
• Letter to Menoeceus
• Leading Doctrines
• Vatican Collection of Aphorisms*
This Penguin edition presents all the above works, (~50pp.), with parallel passages from Lucretius' epic poem On the Nature of Things (accompanied with lucid commentary from the translator) presented after each letter. Also included is an excerpt from Diogenes Laërtius' Life of Epicurus, as well as an extensive seven-part introduction (77pp.[!]), and detailed notes.
The translation is excellent, and all in all, a great copy of Epicurus' writings.
*This edition contains 33 of the 81 aphorisms in the Vatican Collection. A large amount overlap with the Leading Doctrines, but some do not. Complete collections can easily be found online (eg. Here and here).
__________
These splendid sayings of Epicurus also serve another purpose which makes me even more willing to mention them. They prove to those people who take refuge in him for base motives, thinking to find cover for their faults, that they need to live honourably no matter where they go. When you arrive at Epicurus' Gardens, and see what is written there:
Here, guest, will you be well entertained: here pleasure is the highest good—
then the keeper of that house will be ready to receive you and, being hospitable and kind, will serve you a plate of porridge and a generous goblet of water and say to you, "Is this not a fine welcome?" "These gardens," he will say, "do not stimulate appetite; they appease it. They do not give drinks that make one thirstier, but quench thirst with its natural remedy, which comes free of charge. This is the pleasure in which I have lived to old age."
I am speaking to you now of those desires that are not alleviated by soothing speech, desires that must be given something to put an end to them. For about those superfluous desires that can be put off, rebuked, or suppressed, I remind you only of this: such pleasure is natural but not necessary. You do not owe it anything: anything you do devote to it is voluntary. The belly does not listen to instructions: it merely demands and solicits. Still, it is not a troublesome creditor. You can put it off with very little, if you just give it what you owe rather than what you can.
—Seneca, Letter 21.9-11
__________
But now I must make an end; and as has become my custom, I must pay for my letter. This will be done, but not on my own charge. I am still plundering Epicurus, in whose work I today found this saying:
"You should become a slave to philosophy, that you may attain true liberty."
—Seneca, Letter 8.7
__________
"Sex has never benefitted any man, and it's a marvel if it hasn't injured him!" —Epicurus, Leading Doctrines, 51
May 25, 2020
Epicurus’ teachings on how to achieve a life full of joy.
Spoiler: It’s not about satisfying all your desires and cravings, but about understanding how things relate to each other in this world.
A very short book, well worth reading.
4 stars.
----------------------------------------------
In diesem schmalen Bändchen finden sich Briefe, Hauptlehrsätze, Sprüche und Fragmente aus der Feder Epikurs.
Epikurs Lehren drehten sich darum, Freude im Leben zu erreichen. Anders als häufig vermutet geht es aber nicht darum hemmungslos alle Bedürfnisse und Gelüste zu befriedigen, sondern um die Abwesenheit von Angst und Schmerz, welche durch ein Verständnis der Zusammenhänge in der Welt erreicht werden soll.
Ich war beeindruckt von den wirklich tiefgehenden und überzeugenden naturwissenschaftlichen Gedankengängen, die Epikur schon vor über 2000 Jahren zu Papier gebracht hat.
Besonders gut haben mir die Sprüche gefallen, die fast durchwegs bis heute nichts an Aktualität verloren haben.
Eine wirklich empfehlenswerte Lektüre, auch für Philosophie-Einsteiger. 4 Sterne.
Spoiler: It’s not about satisfying all your desires and cravings, but about understanding how things relate to each other in this world.
A very short book, well worth reading.
4 stars.
----------------------------------------------
In diesem schmalen Bändchen finden sich Briefe, Hauptlehrsätze, Sprüche und Fragmente aus der Feder Epikurs.
Epikurs Lehren drehten sich darum, Freude im Leben zu erreichen. Anders als häufig vermutet geht es aber nicht darum hemmungslos alle Bedürfnisse und Gelüste zu befriedigen, sondern um die Abwesenheit von Angst und Schmerz, welche durch ein Verständnis der Zusammenhänge in der Welt erreicht werden soll.
Ich war beeindruckt von den wirklich tiefgehenden und überzeugenden naturwissenschaftlichen Gedankengängen, die Epikur schon vor über 2000 Jahren zu Papier gebracht hat.
Besonders gut haben mir die Sprüche gefallen, die fast durchwegs bis heute nichts an Aktualität verloren haben.
Eine wirklich empfehlenswerte Lektüre, auch für Philosophie-Einsteiger. 4 Sterne.
September 7, 2019
This book was rather a disappointment. It contains about 280 pages, of which 15 pages are forewords, 80 pages are introduction (which is rather informative, to be honest) and 60 pages or so notes and bibliography. Usually I don't state things so precise - pedantic isn't my style - but a simple arithmetical operation (i.e. addition) leads to the conclusion that the real work spans 125 pages.
Next, this 'real work' is comprised of some fragments of Diogenes Laertius' description of Epicurus as a person and his works, three letters of Epicurus to others (of which at least two are questionable in origin), a summary of his doctrines (originating from Laertius' descriptions) and a lost piece of fragments that was dug up from the Vatican archives in the nineteenth century. Of these 'works' the letters comprise the biggest part of the book, but about half of the letters is comprised of parallel passages in later Epicurean Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things). Why? The editor claims these passages of Lucretius are included to contrast styles - both works deal essentially with the same topics, but where Epicurus writes in a dry and unimaginative prose, Lucretius writes in a splendid poetic fashion.
That's all well, but it effectually means that one buys a book on Epicurus for a standard prize, which then contains only about 50 pages or so on Epicurus - and 230+ pages (!) not on him. It makes the book rather a disappointment.
But the disappointment has another dimension. After reading the introduction, one knows already what's in store - there's no added value whatsoever in reading the original passages. The splendid introduction has already explained all there is to know about Epicureanism - it's development from both Democritus' atomism and the Cyrenaic hedonism running rampant in Athens at the time; the crucial additions which Epicurus made to amend the problems of atomistic materialisml; and the intricate relationship between physics, epistemology, ethics and religion.
In short, Epicurus claims everything in the universe consists of matter in motion and empy space. All processes, including human sensation, perception and idea formation have to be explained in mechanistic terms. In such a universe everything is caused by the coming together and falling apart of atoms in atomic configurations, so there is no room for creative gods. Due to the atomic swerve - a random movement of atoms which allows for soul-atoms to be non-determined - there is room for free will, according to Epicurus.
This physical nature of the universe means that sensation and perception have to be explained in mechanistic terms as well. Objects give off flows of atomic films, which constitute certain qualities. These films hit our sensual apparatus and are there transformed into ideal (perceptual) representations in the mind. This has implications for Epicurus' theory of knowledge: our senses simply relay clear and distinct information, this sense data is literally 'true' and all there is. Falsity consists in us imposing our own expectations and beliefs on the raw sense data that streams into our perception - we are distorting true information and subsequently conclude that our senses perceive us (à la Parmenides and Plato). This makes Epicurus an empiricist avant la lettre (one immediately sees the inspiration Locke, Berkeley and Hume drew from this theory of knowledge).
There is another implication: it seems that mechanistic explanations explain not only the workings of sense experience, but - more importantly - the interaction of soul and body. Our soul consists of atoms as well, and gathers knowledge through experience, meaning that, in ultimo, our soul is materialistic as well. According to Epicurus, our soul consists of the most perfect, spherical atoms. But anything material is only temporary, so when we die, our soul disintegrates just like our physical body. And this means there's no afterlife.
And this connects Epicurus' atomistic materialism intimately with his ethics and his religious stance. According to him, since body and soul are materialistic, they perish after death. And this means that we only experience things - most importantly pleasure and pain - when alive. And this means that death does not affect us in any way. So our fear of death, as well as our fear of an afterlife, is nonsensical. Add to this the non-existence of contemporary Greek gods - who created the universe and punish us after death, both being impossible in an Epicurean universe - and there is no fear of hell either.
And the realization of the uselessness of our fear of death, afterlife and divine punishment is the first step on the path to leading a good life. It is a negative step, in the sense that it cuts away senseless superstition and myth from our lives. The next step is the positive aspect: live life according to the pleasure-principle - pleasure is good, pain is bad - 'good' and 'bad' being both psychological and moral terms here. We should strive to avoid pain and experience pleasure.
And it's here that the common perception of Epicurus flies off the road. Most people associate Epicurus with a hedonistic lifestyle, but the truth is, he was rather much more nuanced than this. For starters, Epicurus includes time as a factor in his ethics - which means that short-term pleasure can cause long-term pain (eating, drinking, having sex, etc. etc.), while short-term pain can cause long-term happiness (undergoing surgery, abstaining from pleasures, etc. etc.). And this leaves 'reason' as a determining factor to decide which action is best, for me, in the current situation I'm in. Epicurus' ethics is highly relativistic - in terms of person, time and place - as well as highly ascetic. The most important thing to realize in life is the worthlessness of aiming at wealth, honour or even a decent social life - a truly happy person tames his desires, cultivates his needs to the bare minimum and only socializes with a couple of intimate friends.
This is not what most people associate with Epicurus, but this is how the man actually lived his life. It is reported he lived off water and bread, and the most extravagant thing he ever asked for was some type of Greek cheese, which he could then munch on on special occassions. He also reportedly swore off sex and lived for study and contemplation. Above his garden, there supposedly hung a sign which said: "Have you not been well entertained? This garden does not whet your appetite, but quenches it" - which illustrates most beautifully Epicurus' ethics (nevermind what later thinkers made of it).
And in a sense, it's only logical that he reached this conclusion. If you truly believe the world is fully deterministic and only comprised of matter in motion through empty space, all passions are caused mechanically as well. And this means that they are nothing but atoms in motion, so resistable. At least, if you subscribe to his notion of free will - and this is the problematic part in Epicurus' ethics (as far as I can tell). He claims the atomic swerve introduces a certain random motion of atoms in an otherwise determined universe, but how is this helping him 'producing' free will in our soul? Our soul is nothing but configurations of spherical atoms, which are either determined through natural laws or determined through random events taking place. Either way our soul is determined.
(This reminds one of the modern debate on free will, in which certain people, some very learned like Sir Roger Penrose, claim that quantum indeterminacy at the sub-atomic level leads to human brains being not determined by natural laws. But in this case our brains would be determined by random quantum fluctuations, meaning that what we feel, want and do is nothing but randomness - not free will.)
Anyway, I already went to far in my anachronistic explanations of Epicurus' mechanistic explanations. Of course the Greeks in the second century B.C. had a totally different lens (or rather: lenses) with which to view the world. It's just, Epicurus ethics are rather plain and uninformative; his physics is totally obsolete; his epistemology has been clarified and expanded by much better thinkers and (!) writers like Locke, Berkely and Hume; and his views on religion, being nothing but superstition and myth, are time capsules of Athens during second century B.C.
To conclude: the book itself is a big let-down, the writing of Epicurs offer nothing spectacular, and the ideas are only interesting from a historical perspective. I can't recommend this book to anyone.
I'd like to make a last remark, though. Epicurus tried to explain everything in terms of matter in motion through empty space, and offered a multiplicity of explanations for natural phenomena. In this he cleary fought against Plato and his followers, who'd fled into an imaginary world of Forms and thought this explained everything. The problem for Epicurus was the intimate connection between his view on nature and theory of knowledge on the one hand, and ethics and religion on the other hand. For millennia, the name of Epicurus (as well as Lucretius) would sound the alarm of unbelief (and rightly so) in monasteries and universities all over Europe. It is only in the Renaissance that original works were translated and opened up to European scholars; and it was only in the seventeenth century (starting with Gassendi) that the atomistic materialism of Epicurus started to replace Aristotle's framework as the metaphysic of the world. Ever since, we (still) think of the universe, and everything in it, in terms of material particles in motion, and this worldview has led to so much progress - on all accounts - that it is hard to grasp why the Greeks didn't take this route...
-------------
I'd like to add a second 'final' remark. Epicurus (and more so Lucretius) is often seen as an atheist and materialist, in the sense that Karl Marx is often viewed by religious people. Or a more modern thinker like Richard Dawkins. This is, frankly, untrue. Epicurus states that there are gods, just not the contemporary Greek gods. The contemporary religion was the story of anthropomophic gods, who created the world and each other, but also were having sex with family members and spouses of other divinities, required human sacrifices (sometimes literally), and were continuously fighting each other to death. This is delusional, according to Epicurus. He sees all of this as wishful thinking, and destructive of human happiness. We are projecting our own fears of death and the afterlife and creating these gods - as some sort of therapeutic alleviation (a Freudian avant la lettre?!).
Epicurus claims gods exist, just not in the conception that humans normally think of them. They exist in interstellar space; are perfect and hence not active (since action is a move towards a better state, i.e. a recognition of imperfection); are eternally occupied with contemplating on themselves as perfect beings (à la Aristotle); and are in no way concerned with nor receptive to human desires and feelings.
When judging such historically situated claims, it is always hard to distinguish between an author's true feelings and his pampering to contemporary feelings, in order to avoid bad things happining to him/her. In this particular case, it is hard to determine what would have happened had Epicurus claimed he was an atheist - Socrates had earlier been killed due to unbelief and stirring up youth - and Epicurus' times were much more of a turmoil. But I think words of a historical figure should be interpreted as genuine first, and be doubted if valid reasons emerge. I can't find genuine reasons to doubt Epicurus was not an atheist, so I'd conclude he wasn't.
Next, this 'real work' is comprised of some fragments of Diogenes Laertius' description of Epicurus as a person and his works, three letters of Epicurus to others (of which at least two are questionable in origin), a summary of his doctrines (originating from Laertius' descriptions) and a lost piece of fragments that was dug up from the Vatican archives in the nineteenth century. Of these 'works' the letters comprise the biggest part of the book, but about half of the letters is comprised of parallel passages in later Epicurean Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things). Why? The editor claims these passages of Lucretius are included to contrast styles - both works deal essentially with the same topics, but where Epicurus writes in a dry and unimaginative prose, Lucretius writes in a splendid poetic fashion.
That's all well, but it effectually means that one buys a book on Epicurus for a standard prize, which then contains only about 50 pages or so on Epicurus - and 230+ pages (!) not on him. It makes the book rather a disappointment.
But the disappointment has another dimension. After reading the introduction, one knows already what's in store - there's no added value whatsoever in reading the original passages. The splendid introduction has already explained all there is to know about Epicureanism - it's development from both Democritus' atomism and the Cyrenaic hedonism running rampant in Athens at the time; the crucial additions which Epicurus made to amend the problems of atomistic materialisml; and the intricate relationship between physics, epistemology, ethics and religion.
In short, Epicurus claims everything in the universe consists of matter in motion and empy space. All processes, including human sensation, perception and idea formation have to be explained in mechanistic terms. In such a universe everything is caused by the coming together and falling apart of atoms in atomic configurations, so there is no room for creative gods. Due to the atomic swerve - a random movement of atoms which allows for soul-atoms to be non-determined - there is room for free will, according to Epicurus.
This physical nature of the universe means that sensation and perception have to be explained in mechanistic terms as well. Objects give off flows of atomic films, which constitute certain qualities. These films hit our sensual apparatus and are there transformed into ideal (perceptual) representations in the mind. This has implications for Epicurus' theory of knowledge: our senses simply relay clear and distinct information, this sense data is literally 'true' and all there is. Falsity consists in us imposing our own expectations and beliefs on the raw sense data that streams into our perception - we are distorting true information and subsequently conclude that our senses perceive us (à la Parmenides and Plato). This makes Epicurus an empiricist avant la lettre (one immediately sees the inspiration Locke, Berkeley and Hume drew from this theory of knowledge).
There is another implication: it seems that mechanistic explanations explain not only the workings of sense experience, but - more importantly - the interaction of soul and body. Our soul consists of atoms as well, and gathers knowledge through experience, meaning that, in ultimo, our soul is materialistic as well. According to Epicurus, our soul consists of the most perfect, spherical atoms. But anything material is only temporary, so when we die, our soul disintegrates just like our physical body. And this means there's no afterlife.
And this connects Epicurus' atomistic materialism intimately with his ethics and his religious stance. According to him, since body and soul are materialistic, they perish after death. And this means that we only experience things - most importantly pleasure and pain - when alive. And this means that death does not affect us in any way. So our fear of death, as well as our fear of an afterlife, is nonsensical. Add to this the non-existence of contemporary Greek gods - who created the universe and punish us after death, both being impossible in an Epicurean universe - and there is no fear of hell either.
And the realization of the uselessness of our fear of death, afterlife and divine punishment is the first step on the path to leading a good life. It is a negative step, in the sense that it cuts away senseless superstition and myth from our lives. The next step is the positive aspect: live life according to the pleasure-principle - pleasure is good, pain is bad - 'good' and 'bad' being both psychological and moral terms here. We should strive to avoid pain and experience pleasure.
And it's here that the common perception of Epicurus flies off the road. Most people associate Epicurus with a hedonistic lifestyle, but the truth is, he was rather much more nuanced than this. For starters, Epicurus includes time as a factor in his ethics - which means that short-term pleasure can cause long-term pain (eating, drinking, having sex, etc. etc.), while short-term pain can cause long-term happiness (undergoing surgery, abstaining from pleasures, etc. etc.). And this leaves 'reason' as a determining factor to decide which action is best, for me, in the current situation I'm in. Epicurus' ethics is highly relativistic - in terms of person, time and place - as well as highly ascetic. The most important thing to realize in life is the worthlessness of aiming at wealth, honour or even a decent social life - a truly happy person tames his desires, cultivates his needs to the bare minimum and only socializes with a couple of intimate friends.
This is not what most people associate with Epicurus, but this is how the man actually lived his life. It is reported he lived off water and bread, and the most extravagant thing he ever asked for was some type of Greek cheese, which he could then munch on on special occassions. He also reportedly swore off sex and lived for study and contemplation. Above his garden, there supposedly hung a sign which said: "Have you not been well entertained? This garden does not whet your appetite, but quenches it" - which illustrates most beautifully Epicurus' ethics (nevermind what later thinkers made of it).
And in a sense, it's only logical that he reached this conclusion. If you truly believe the world is fully deterministic and only comprised of matter in motion through empty space, all passions are caused mechanically as well. And this means that they are nothing but atoms in motion, so resistable. At least, if you subscribe to his notion of free will - and this is the problematic part in Epicurus' ethics (as far as I can tell). He claims the atomic swerve introduces a certain random motion of atoms in an otherwise determined universe, but how is this helping him 'producing' free will in our soul? Our soul is nothing but configurations of spherical atoms, which are either determined through natural laws or determined through random events taking place. Either way our soul is determined.
(This reminds one of the modern debate on free will, in which certain people, some very learned like Sir Roger Penrose, claim that quantum indeterminacy at the sub-atomic level leads to human brains being not determined by natural laws. But in this case our brains would be determined by random quantum fluctuations, meaning that what we feel, want and do is nothing but randomness - not free will.)
Anyway, I already went to far in my anachronistic explanations of Epicurus' mechanistic explanations. Of course the Greeks in the second century B.C. had a totally different lens (or rather: lenses) with which to view the world. It's just, Epicurus ethics are rather plain and uninformative; his physics is totally obsolete; his epistemology has been clarified and expanded by much better thinkers and (!) writers like Locke, Berkely and Hume; and his views on religion, being nothing but superstition and myth, are time capsules of Athens during second century B.C.
To conclude: the book itself is a big let-down, the writing of Epicurs offer nothing spectacular, and the ideas are only interesting from a historical perspective. I can't recommend this book to anyone.
I'd like to make a last remark, though. Epicurus tried to explain everything in terms of matter in motion through empty space, and offered a multiplicity of explanations for natural phenomena. In this he cleary fought against Plato and his followers, who'd fled into an imaginary world of Forms and thought this explained everything. The problem for Epicurus was the intimate connection between his view on nature and theory of knowledge on the one hand, and ethics and religion on the other hand. For millennia, the name of Epicurus (as well as Lucretius) would sound the alarm of unbelief (and rightly so) in monasteries and universities all over Europe. It is only in the Renaissance that original works were translated and opened up to European scholars; and it was only in the seventeenth century (starting with Gassendi) that the atomistic materialism of Epicurus started to replace Aristotle's framework as the metaphysic of the world. Ever since, we (still) think of the universe, and everything in it, in terms of material particles in motion, and this worldview has led to so much progress - on all accounts - that it is hard to grasp why the Greeks didn't take this route...
-------------
I'd like to add a second 'final' remark. Epicurus (and more so Lucretius) is often seen as an atheist and materialist, in the sense that Karl Marx is often viewed by religious people. Or a more modern thinker like Richard Dawkins. This is, frankly, untrue. Epicurus states that there are gods, just not the contemporary Greek gods. The contemporary religion was the story of anthropomophic gods, who created the world and each other, but also were having sex with family members and spouses of other divinities, required human sacrifices (sometimes literally), and were continuously fighting each other to death. This is delusional, according to Epicurus. He sees all of this as wishful thinking, and destructive of human happiness. We are projecting our own fears of death and the afterlife and creating these gods - as some sort of therapeutic alleviation (a Freudian avant la lettre?!).
Epicurus claims gods exist, just not in the conception that humans normally think of them. They exist in interstellar space; are perfect and hence not active (since action is a move towards a better state, i.e. a recognition of imperfection); are eternally occupied with contemplating on themselves as perfect beings (à la Aristotle); and are in no way concerned with nor receptive to human desires and feelings.
When judging such historically situated claims, it is always hard to distinguish between an author's true feelings and his pampering to contemporary feelings, in order to avoid bad things happining to him/her. In this particular case, it is hard to determine what would have happened had Epicurus claimed he was an atheist - Socrates had earlier been killed due to unbelief and stirring up youth - and Epicurus' times were much more of a turmoil. But I think words of a historical figure should be interpreted as genuine first, and be doubted if valid reasons emerge. I can't find genuine reasons to doubt Epicurus was not an atheist, so I'd conclude he wasn't.
April 3, 2024
Wow. This book was nothing like I imagined it.
The ancient Greeks had two dominant schools of thought: the stoics and epicureans. Similar to how we have two main political parties in the USA and then constellations of other parties that, as independent as some of them try to be, are mostly seen in light of the two largest parties, that is my impression of what the clout of various Greek schools of thought had: stoicism and Epicureanism were the two main schools, and all the others—skepticism, hedonism, cynicism, etc.—were cast in light of those two.
How do stoicism and Epicureanism differ? They both ostensibly believed in the gods, they both believed in moderation (a quintessentially Greek ideal), and both were concerned with the question of how to live the best (most virtuous) life. But while the stoics believed in denying one’s emotions to do that, the epicureans believed in making decisions based on what would provide the most pleasure.
But that doesn’t mean what you think it means. First of all, contrary to what you might think, Epicurus didn’t advocate for enjoying the finest foods or the most sex or any of that; those were the Hedonists, and he was quite opposed. He actually advocated that if you only ate bread and water for your food, that was the best way to be happy, because then you would always be able to find what you were looking for and be satisfied.
Also, Epicurus defined pleasure in the negative: an absence of pain. Every source of positive pleasure must be weighed against how much pain it will produce later; every decision must be looked at from the long view of how it affects the individual. So getting drunk is seen as having the benefit of increasing pleasure at the time of drinking, but Epicurus would say that that decision would be morally wrong because the physical and/or emotional pain from the fallout would be greater than the pleasure of the drinking. I’m sure some people would disagree with him on that point, and to them he would probably say great: in that case, for you, it is morally imperative that you DO drink.
Yes, that’s a weird thing to wrap your head around: Epicurus based his system of ethics, of right and wrong, on what produces the most pleasure-minus-pain, over the long run, for the individual making the decision. This leads to the main “flaw” in his theory that led to it not being more widely adopted by politicians etc, because his philosophy was seen as rather solipsistic. That being said, he was a precursor to the idea of the social contract (the idea of how selfishly motivated people could form a mutually beneficial society based on recognizing that if we all abide by certain rules then it will benefit all of us—I’m butchering it but you get the point) that was later expounded by Thomas Hobbs over a thousand years later.
In fact, Epicurus is striking for how groundbreaking he was. He claimed to be building from scratch, relying on no one that came before him, much like David Hume, who fittingly also ties to Epicurus through the philosophy of empiricism.
Epicurus was a truly original thinker. He was very important in the philosophical field of epistemology (the philosophy of how we know things; vital for the history of science) and can be seen as a forerunner of materialism, humanistic ethics, and empiricism.
When was empiricism invented? There were great empiricist philosophers (starting with David Hume) in the enlightenment period, but in reality, the idea of determining what is true not based on intuitive ideas and reasoning, but rather on keen observation, was not new to them. They were building on Aristotle. And Aristotle, as it turns out, was merely iterating on Epicurus.
Another notable section of this book is fascinating because Epicurus developed most of the Greek thought on atoms (fundamental, indestructible particles), not Democritus, who did little more than come up with the basic idea. Epicurus developed a lot of good thoughts on it, and I wonder how he was able to be so accurate before they had electron microscopes/etc.
But I get ahead of myself. What exactly is this book?
Epicurus wrote over 300 treatises. Unfortunately almost all of them are lost to us, even his most major treatise (On Nature) and The Major Epitome (a condensed summary he wrote of On Nature). What we do have is parts of The Minor Epitome, a couple of letters that outline how his philosophy applies to specific concepts, a collection of quotes, and other peoples writings about him (most notably Laertius). This book is a collection of the best of those sources and had a lengthy introduction and lots of very enlightening end notes to help fill in gaps and understand his philosophy as a whole hand I’m eternally grateful for the scholars who put it together.
Although one thing I wish they would have done differently is reversed the order of the writings. They have laid this book out so that you have pages and pages of Epicurus going on about solar eclipses and atoms before you get to the more interesting and broader ethics.
Which brings me to the funniest thing about Epicurus! His goal was to provide people with mental peace of mind. That was what he considered the good life. Again when he talks about living a life in pursuit of pleasure, remember that he mostly considered the highest state of “pleasure” to be the absence of all pain. So far so good right? But it gets funny when you look at what he found necessary to do that.
So what are the types of pain we want to be free of, Epicurus? Well, we want to be free of physical pain. So he espoused eating a plain diet of bread and water, instead of pursuing richer fare and then experiencing pain whenever it could not be found. Ok, very interesting. What other types of pain? Well there’s the consequences of doing something illegal or hurtful to someone else: going to jail, being fined, having people slander you, etc. Ok.
And finally, there’s another type of pain which he found it very important to eliminate: the pain of not believing that the natural world is strictly materialistic and deterministic. Huh? He believed that peoples superstitions about the gods causing weather events or misfortunes etc caused great distress. And so he goes into great detail about trying to prove that lightning is likely not caused by Zeus throwing bolts around, but by natural phenomena. Which is interesting. But what’s really interesting is how essential he considered these beliefs to be to having peace of mind. He goes on and on at great length about all kinds of natural science topics (atoms and meteorology esp.) but not because it’s interesting…because that would violate one if his beliefs, that one should not indulge in curiosity…so instead he argues that it’s “necessary” to prove these things so that we don’t lie awake all night worrying about why the recent solar eclipse happened. Lol, my dude.
Regardless of how many people were lying awake worrying about eclipses (which, admittedly, people in ancient times did attach great portent to), he was a bit of a forerunner in the realm of natural sciences. He came up with multiple plausible explanations for different weather phenomena, some of which were stunningly close to the mark—he didn’t have the scientific instruments we have today but he was a very keen observer and clear thinker. Where direct evidence was lacking he would look for examples and precedents to back every theory of the natural world because one of his missions was to overturn the idea that the gods caused weather events.
So in summary: this book is nothing like what you think. There is a section of getting into the ethics and advice on how to actually live a happy life. Most of it’s about atoms swerving and natural sciences, to “put our minds at ease.” He was as close to atheist as you could stand to be in a time where everyone was supposed to be reverent of the gods. He was supposedly very pious with all the festivals/etc., but in his philosophy he relegates the gods to being basically laws of nature, deterministic, nothing like what we think of as a “god.”
I’m sad that so much of Epicurus’s original writings were lost. This detracts from the enjoyment of the work, although obviously that is no fault of the translator. I found the translation to be highly readable. I’m glad I read this, but it’s just an incomplete experience. I wish I could have read his main treatises.
The ancient Greeks had two dominant schools of thought: the stoics and epicureans. Similar to how we have two main political parties in the USA and then constellations of other parties that, as independent as some of them try to be, are mostly seen in light of the two largest parties, that is my impression of what the clout of various Greek schools of thought had: stoicism and Epicureanism were the two main schools, and all the others—skepticism, hedonism, cynicism, etc.—were cast in light of those two.
How do stoicism and Epicureanism differ? They both ostensibly believed in the gods, they both believed in moderation (a quintessentially Greek ideal), and both were concerned with the question of how to live the best (most virtuous) life. But while the stoics believed in denying one’s emotions to do that, the epicureans believed in making decisions based on what would provide the most pleasure.
But that doesn’t mean what you think it means. First of all, contrary to what you might think, Epicurus didn’t advocate for enjoying the finest foods or the most sex or any of that; those were the Hedonists, and he was quite opposed. He actually advocated that if you only ate bread and water for your food, that was the best way to be happy, because then you would always be able to find what you were looking for and be satisfied.
Also, Epicurus defined pleasure in the negative: an absence of pain. Every source of positive pleasure must be weighed against how much pain it will produce later; every decision must be looked at from the long view of how it affects the individual. So getting drunk is seen as having the benefit of increasing pleasure at the time of drinking, but Epicurus would say that that decision would be morally wrong because the physical and/or emotional pain from the fallout would be greater than the pleasure of the drinking. I’m sure some people would disagree with him on that point, and to them he would probably say great: in that case, for you, it is morally imperative that you DO drink.
Yes, that’s a weird thing to wrap your head around: Epicurus based his system of ethics, of right and wrong, on what produces the most pleasure-minus-pain, over the long run, for the individual making the decision. This leads to the main “flaw” in his theory that led to it not being more widely adopted by politicians etc, because his philosophy was seen as rather solipsistic. That being said, he was a precursor to the idea of the social contract (the idea of how selfishly motivated people could form a mutually beneficial society based on recognizing that if we all abide by certain rules then it will benefit all of us—I’m butchering it but you get the point) that was later expounded by Thomas Hobbs over a thousand years later.
In fact, Epicurus is striking for how groundbreaking he was. He claimed to be building from scratch, relying on no one that came before him, much like David Hume, who fittingly also ties to Epicurus through the philosophy of empiricism.
Epicurus was a truly original thinker. He was very important in the philosophical field of epistemology (the philosophy of how we know things; vital for the history of science) and can be seen as a forerunner of materialism, humanistic ethics, and empiricism.
When was empiricism invented? There were great empiricist philosophers (starting with David Hume) in the enlightenment period, but in reality, the idea of determining what is true not based on intuitive ideas and reasoning, but rather on keen observation, was not new to them. They were building on Aristotle. And Aristotle, as it turns out, was merely iterating on Epicurus.
Another notable section of this book is fascinating because Epicurus developed most of the Greek thought on atoms (fundamental, indestructible particles), not Democritus, who did little more than come up with the basic idea. Epicurus developed a lot of good thoughts on it, and I wonder how he was able to be so accurate before they had electron microscopes/etc.
But I get ahead of myself. What exactly is this book?
Epicurus wrote over 300 treatises. Unfortunately almost all of them are lost to us, even his most major treatise (On Nature) and The Major Epitome (a condensed summary he wrote of On Nature). What we do have is parts of The Minor Epitome, a couple of letters that outline how his philosophy applies to specific concepts, a collection of quotes, and other peoples writings about him (most notably Laertius). This book is a collection of the best of those sources and had a lengthy introduction and lots of very enlightening end notes to help fill in gaps and understand his philosophy as a whole hand I’m eternally grateful for the scholars who put it together.
Although one thing I wish they would have done differently is reversed the order of the writings. They have laid this book out so that you have pages and pages of Epicurus going on about solar eclipses and atoms before you get to the more interesting and broader ethics.
Which brings me to the funniest thing about Epicurus! His goal was to provide people with mental peace of mind. That was what he considered the good life. Again when he talks about living a life in pursuit of pleasure, remember that he mostly considered the highest state of “pleasure” to be the absence of all pain. So far so good right? But it gets funny when you look at what he found necessary to do that.
So what are the types of pain we want to be free of, Epicurus? Well, we want to be free of physical pain. So he espoused eating a plain diet of bread and water, instead of pursuing richer fare and then experiencing pain whenever it could not be found. Ok, very interesting. What other types of pain? Well there’s the consequences of doing something illegal or hurtful to someone else: going to jail, being fined, having people slander you, etc. Ok.
And finally, there’s another type of pain which he found it very important to eliminate: the pain of not believing that the natural world is strictly materialistic and deterministic. Huh? He believed that peoples superstitions about the gods causing weather events or misfortunes etc caused great distress. And so he goes into great detail about trying to prove that lightning is likely not caused by Zeus throwing bolts around, but by natural phenomena. Which is interesting. But what’s really interesting is how essential he considered these beliefs to be to having peace of mind. He goes on and on at great length about all kinds of natural science topics (atoms and meteorology esp.) but not because it’s interesting…because that would violate one if his beliefs, that one should not indulge in curiosity…so instead he argues that it’s “necessary” to prove these things so that we don’t lie awake all night worrying about why the recent solar eclipse happened. Lol, my dude.
Regardless of how many people were lying awake worrying about eclipses (which, admittedly, people in ancient times did attach great portent to), he was a bit of a forerunner in the realm of natural sciences. He came up with multiple plausible explanations for different weather phenomena, some of which were stunningly close to the mark—he didn’t have the scientific instruments we have today but he was a very keen observer and clear thinker. Where direct evidence was lacking he would look for examples and precedents to back every theory of the natural world because one of his missions was to overturn the idea that the gods caused weather events.
So in summary: this book is nothing like what you think. There is a section of getting into the ethics and advice on how to actually live a happy life. Most of it’s about atoms swerving and natural sciences, to “put our minds at ease.” He was as close to atheist as you could stand to be in a time where everyone was supposed to be reverent of the gods. He was supposedly very pious with all the festivals/etc., but in his philosophy he relegates the gods to being basically laws of nature, deterministic, nothing like what we think of as a “god.”
I’m sad that so much of Epicurus’s original writings were lost. This detracts from the enjoyment of the work, although obviously that is no fault of the translator. I found the translation to be highly readable. I’m glad I read this, but it’s just an incomplete experience. I wish I could have read his main treatises.
May 27, 2025
Herein we learn from the pen and evidences gained from the life of Epicurus. He covers the quotidian concepts and contemplations about life and death, religion and science, physical sensation, happiness, morality, and friendship. Finding eudaemonia is something that may be anathema to what a population defines as happiness.
"The totality of things was always just as it is at present and will always remain the same because there is nothing into which it can change, inasmuch there is nothing outside the totality that could intrude and effect change."
---Epicurus
According to Epicurus, achieving ataraxia is nothing like one may imagine it to be. Within audible or the turned pages of this book, it offers a clandestine recipe for the absence of pain and the steady and often lofty goal of a flowing, tranquil inner resonance that may be attained with mindfulness.
"The totality of things was always just as it is at present and will always remain the same because there is nothing into which it can change, inasmuch there is nothing outside the totality that could intrude and effect change."
---Epicurus
According to Epicurus, achieving ataraxia is nothing like one may imagine it to be. Within audible or the turned pages of this book, it offers a clandestine recipe for the absence of pain and the steady and often lofty goal of a flowing, tranquil inner resonance that may be attained with mindfulness.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 4, 2018
A very short book where Epicurus lays down his philosophy in a very simple and clear way to one of his students.
It is Epicurus' definition of happiness, which means a body without suffering and a mind without perturbation, and how to achieve it, by looking for pleasure (not purely in the material, sensorial way), which is what leads you to have a sane mind and body. So he differs from hedonism, since banquets, drinking and search for sex, which are a sensorial pleasure, should not be actively sought, choosing instead to live in a more simplistic way, so as to understand that a man does not need much to achieve happiness.
The search of pleasure should be to rid oneself of basic needs, which would prepare one to an incertain, and sometimes negative, future. Also, by living like that, good moments would be even better savoured. Putting it simply, you should be used to having water, because, in the future, you may not be able to enjoy having juice. And, of course, if you have the chance to drink juice, you'd enjoy it even more after weeks of water.
Yet, he does not deny the importance of pain, which should be taken if will lead to a greater pleasure in the future. So, putting it simply, instead of avoiding physical exercising because it's painful now, understand that it will pay off in the future.
In summary:
- Happiness is both having a body without suffering and an undisturbed mind;
- Moderately seek pleasure that helps you achieve that; deny active search just for sensorial pleasures such as banquets, drinking and etc.;
- Learn to live with less, for the future is uncertain and bountiful moments will be enjoyed more intensely;
- Do not run away from pain if it will lead to an even greater pleasure in the future.
A short, simple, yet important reminder to reflect upon what happiness means, upon what our choices may lead to and an appraisal of a more simple and plentiful life.
It is Epicurus' definition of happiness, which means a body without suffering and a mind without perturbation, and how to achieve it, by looking for pleasure (not purely in the material, sensorial way), which is what leads you to have a sane mind and body. So he differs from hedonism, since banquets, drinking and search for sex, which are a sensorial pleasure, should not be actively sought, choosing instead to live in a more simplistic way, so as to understand that a man does not need much to achieve happiness.
The search of pleasure should be to rid oneself of basic needs, which would prepare one to an incertain, and sometimes negative, future. Also, by living like that, good moments would be even better savoured. Putting it simply, you should be used to having water, because, in the future, you may not be able to enjoy having juice. And, of course, if you have the chance to drink juice, you'd enjoy it even more after weeks of water.
Yet, he does not deny the importance of pain, which should be taken if will lead to a greater pleasure in the future. So, putting it simply, instead of avoiding physical exercising because it's painful now, understand that it will pay off in the future.
In summary:
- Happiness is both having a body without suffering and an undisturbed mind;
- Moderately seek pleasure that helps you achieve that; deny active search just for sensorial pleasures such as banquets, drinking and etc.;
- Learn to live with less, for the future is uncertain and bountiful moments will be enjoyed more intensely;
- Do not run away from pain if it will lead to an even greater pleasure in the future.
A short, simple, yet important reminder to reflect upon what happiness means, upon what our choices may lead to and an appraisal of a more simple and plentiful life.
August 2, 2023
ευτυχία
Una lettera che riceviamo dalla Grecia 2300 anni dopo, il cui contenuto ha per noi ancora un senso.
Questo filosofo, venuto da una isoletta dell'asia minore, con barba e sguardo severo, ci indica pochi e chiari precetti per vivere una vita materiale e spirituale soddisfacente.
Una manciata di paginette, da meditare giorno e notte, come ci esorta lo stesso Epicuro.
Una lettera che riceviamo dalla Grecia 2300 anni dopo, il cui contenuto ha per noi ancora un senso.
Questo filosofo, venuto da una isoletta dell'asia minore, con barba e sguardo severo, ci indica pochi e chiari precetti per vivere una vita materiale e spirituale soddisfacente.
Una manciata di paginette, da meditare giorno e notte, come ci esorta lo stesso Epicuro.
August 18, 2021
Wie vrij is van onrust, is zichzelf noch een ander tot last.
(uit de Sententiae Vaticanae)
(uit de Sententiae Vaticanae)
January 30, 2016
I needed some help in figuring out what Lucretius or Epicurus was trying to convey in De Rerum Natura, so I started reading 'The Art of Happiness'. I was surprised to find out that some ideas that I believed to belong to Epicurus may have been misinterpreted. (Of course, I might be wrong in my interpretation of THIS book as well...) I started reading Lucretius after reading the Swerve by Greenblatt and now I'm trying to get a firmer grasp on it through the discussion in our group and this book on Epicurus' Art of Happiness. It seems that he tried to overlook some faults in the physical and etymological theories in order to focus on the ethical impact of atomism. The book has a bit too much commentary and I don't recommend reading this before reading Lucretius but it might be of some help.
As Epicurus' own writings are scant, it IS more of Strodach's book, but it offered me a chance to see the prose translation of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (which is just as beautiful as the verse translation) and made me realize how extremely dry and bland Epicurus' style of composition is in comparison. Before, I was a bit doubtful about the efficiency of Lucretius's poetic format in presenting a scientific theory but after reading this, I fully appreciate it. :-) Kudos to Luc. Though it did help me understand some less clear points of epicurism and provided some background knowledge and I liked the Vatican collection of epicureanist aphorisms, I didn't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Lucretius version of epicureanism.
As Epicurus' own writings are scant, it IS more of Strodach's book, but it offered me a chance to see the prose translation of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (which is just as beautiful as the verse translation) and made me realize how extremely dry and bland Epicurus' style of composition is in comparison. Before, I was a bit doubtful about the efficiency of Lucretius's poetic format in presenting a scientific theory but after reading this, I fully appreciate it. :-) Kudos to Luc. Though it did help me understand some less clear points of epicurism and provided some background knowledge and I liked the Vatican collection of epicureanist aphorisms, I didn't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Lucretius version of epicureanism.
May 18, 2021
In poche pagine, Epicuro riesce a condensare i principi fondamentali dell'Epicureismo, la nozione del tetrafarmaco, la risposta alle critichr mosse, la nozione del piacere e via discorrendo. Nelle sue parole si respira tutta l'incertezza che caratterizzò il periodo ellenistico e il profondo cambiamento occorso in ambito filosofico. Dalla metafisica, il pensiero torna a occuparsi di questioni terrene, etiche e morali e cerca, con tutto se stesso, un plausibile rimedio alle difficoltà della vita quotidiana.
May 9, 2012
Malgré le fait que le texte soit très court, c'est une tès bonne édition qui privilégie la clarté sur l'érudition. Une introduction brosse un tableau clair de l'épicurisme en mettant en évidence les écarts avec sa "rivale" stoïque. Les notes sont abondantes, et on trouveras des extraits du magnifique "De Natura Rerum" de Lucrèce (le philosophe, pas la Vestale ). Les parallèles que l'on pourrait faire avec le Philèbe de Platon sont nombreux.
Je viens de relire ce texte, il est magnifique!
Je viens de relire ce texte, il est magnifique!
December 13, 2021
I’ve read Epicurus before and have long admired his writing but haven’t done so outside of academia. With that said, his writings here (though limited, this book is also comprised of a lengthy introduction and commentary from Lucretius) prove to be as sharp and resonant as ever. I find it stunning how the quality of the prose and the thoughts articulated so succinctly here are relevant over 2,000 years after their publication. A timeless read which reflects on what it means to find happiness.
March 14, 2015
La Lettera a Meneceo dovrebbe essere letta da tutti, almeno una volta nella vita, e magari anche ricopiata sul proprio quadernetto delle poesie, e perché no? Anche sul proprio diario.
I consigli di Epicuro per una vita felice non colpiscono per la loro originalità quanto per la loro banalità, perché in fin dei conti li conosciamo già nel nostro intimo, ma spesso non li ammettiamo neanche a noi stessi, oppure ci pensiamo molto meno di quanto dovremmo. E facciamo male, perché sicuramente viviamo meno felicemente di quanto potremmo.
I consigli di Epicuro per una vita felice non colpiscono per la loro originalità quanto per la loro banalità, perché in fin dei conti li conosciamo già nel nostro intimo, ma spesso non li ammettiamo neanche a noi stessi, oppure ci pensiamo molto meno di quanto dovremmo. E facciamo male, perché sicuramente viviamo meno felicemente di quanto potremmo.
November 30, 2021
Tudo muito bom, tudo muito bonito, mas essa carta perde o sentido se você tem consciência política e está vivendo em meio ao neoliberalismo.
Em todo caso todo o pensamento epicurista antigo faz sentido e tem muito a nos ensinar, com as devidas ressalvas.
Em todo caso todo o pensamento epicurista antigo faz sentido e tem muito a nos ensinar, com as devidas ressalvas.
March 28, 2023
The introduction was fiery and full of energy, I was surprised how much I liked it. This is a great introduction and reference, I'm glad I started my deeper dive into Epicurus here. I'll be reading this again.
July 25, 2023
Tornare alla purezza degli insegnamenti di questo filosofo fa bene all'anima.
Il suo insegnamento, forse uno tra i più fraintesi e manipolati, è un invito a prendersi cura dei desideri della propria anima e del proprio cuore per vivere in quella felicità che ognuno di noi cerca e merita.
Il suo insegnamento, forse uno tra i più fraintesi e manipolati, è un invito a prendersi cura dei desideri della propria anima e del proprio cuore per vivere in quella felicità che ognuno di noi cerca e merita.
October 24, 2022
disfrutón
September 8, 2023
Today, psychotherapy tends to existential quandaries, and anxiety's grip, offering solace. As Epicurus therapy strives to unearth happiness and contentment.Epicurus advocated pleasure's pursuit, a philosophy mirrored in therapy's quest to unveil joy and meaning sources. Happiness lies in void of need; pleasure peaks with pain's departure. Yet, pleasures are not inherently bad, but their side effects often are. If debauchery's pleasures could free minds from celestial dread, death's specter, and agony, while curbing desires, no fault would lie with such individuals. Epicurus sought tranquility, echoing therapy's goals: stress reduction, emotional regulation, and mental stability. Without comprehending the universe's essence, fears persist. Nature's study unveils pure pleasure. Peace, Epicurus believed, comes from a secluded existence, shielded from external tumult. Natural wealth, easily attainable, contrasts with the infinite wealth chased by vanity. Justice grants serenity, injustice breeds turmoil. The flesh craves infinite pleasure and time, but the intellect, knowing limits, ensures a fulfilling life. Understanding life's limits brings ease, eliminating the struggle for needless desires. Desires leading to pain when unfulfilled are unnecessary, vanquishable when difficult or harmful. The conviction that nothing eternal or lasting torments us highlights friendship's role in security. Some desires are natural and necessary, others natural but nonessential, and some baseless.
August 31, 2022
Epicurus is my main ancient Greek man!!!! His thoughts on death alleviate my fear of dying, his view on friendships speaks to my soul, his take on reaching happiness by finding (not necessarily immediate!) pleasure makes so much sense to me, and his take on an optimal lifestyle (retreating from the polis into a garden with your friends) sounds like a dream.
This book contains great aphorisms, cute letters to peers and disciples (or whatever relationships existed back then?), and a nice overview of what he preached. There's a lot of metaphysical content that honestly I don't care much for (although he talks about atoms in a weirdly accurate way??? in like 310 BC??). There's also a lot of explaining weather phenomena LOL - as he refutes that gods cause them and gives 'scientific' explanations for them. But besides these two things this book is a short n sweet intro to Epicurus' ethics.
As a last thought: it is refreshing to read philosophy that focuses on how to be happy, i.e. practical philosophy that might help us lead fulfilling lives. Philosophy that can be extrapolated to, and used, today! So in short I can now start my commune on the basis of Epicureanism!
This book contains great aphorisms, cute letters to peers and disciples (or whatever relationships existed back then?), and a nice overview of what he preached. There's a lot of metaphysical content that honestly I don't care much for (although he talks about atoms in a weirdly accurate way??? in like 310 BC??). There's also a lot of explaining weather phenomena LOL - as he refutes that gods cause them and gives 'scientific' explanations for them. But besides these two things this book is a short n sweet intro to Epicurus' ethics.
As a last thought: it is refreshing to read philosophy that focuses on how to be happy, i.e. practical philosophy that might help us lead fulfilling lives. Philosophy that can be extrapolated to, and used, today! So in short I can now start my commune on the basis of Epicureanism!
February 28, 2017
I think I could have done with a little more Epicurus in this and less pulling in from Lucretius and commentary but it was a quick distillation otherwise. The introduction does a great job of providing context, but as a result the translators cometary throughout felt repetitive rather than expanding.
August 18, 2019
There is a lot of narrative and speculation by the author of the book, but I find Epicurus and Lucretius's observations about the good life to be profound and noble.
Seneca quotes Epicurus all the time in his Stoic Epistles.
"Wealth may procure for one the pleasures of eating and drinking, but it cannot provide freedom from Sorrow or cheerfulness of Spirit" Epicurus
Seneca quotes Epicurus all the time in his Stoic Epistles.
"Wealth may procure for one the pleasures of eating and drinking, but it cannot provide freedom from Sorrow or cheerfulness of Spirit" Epicurus
May 27, 2021
La mia professoressa di filosofia ci azzecca sempre.
November 12, 2020
I expected more Epicurean ethics and less Epicurian physics, but unfortunately there is quite a lot of the physics and not so much of the ethics. The cover is really great though!
January 2, 2022
This was a good Stoic book.
I'm glad I checked it out.
Some good learnings and lessons in it.
Not the best, certainly not as good as Meditations, but still a good read.
3.2/5
I'm glad I checked it out.
Some good learnings and lessons in it.
Not the best, certainly not as good as Meditations, but still a good read.
3.2/5
June 21, 2021
3.5⭐️
February 1, 2023
I love Epicurus but i'm too bimbo to understand atomic theory😭
December 18, 2017
Epicurus is oft-maligned for his hedonism, but the Art of Happiness reverses this view. Rather than modern philosophers who only view philosophy as a thought-process, ancient writers like Epicurus developed the whole person. The Art of Happiness contains excerpts from all of Epicurus' extant writings, from ethics to metaphysics and back. Epicurus was a thoughtful and deep writer, and the translation here is excellent. He cultivates a personal life of gratitude and self-control, and encourages the reader to do the same. This excellent translation provides every reader with an easy-to-read version of a sometimes-obscure Greek author. Deep thinkers only!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 480 reviews