Podcasts about epicureans

At Athens, Paul encounters a wide range of religious belief. With this comes a diversity in terms of what each group preferred to hear. The Jews would have wanted to hear about Law, of how they could better keep the rules so as to attain that level of righteousness required by God. The Greeks wanted to hear about virtue and be intellectually stimulated.Paul's gospel is not what they want to hear. The Jews could not accept as their Messiah one who was killed, and they did not understand that the very righteousness of God was required, and this could come only as a gift of God through faith.The Greek philosophers could not accept the notion of a bodily resurrection; Stoics has a Platonic view whereby man had an immortal soul which went to heaven, while Epicureans dismissed an afterlife altogether. Paul's gospel by contrast had as a central doctrine the Christian hope of eternal life through bodily resurrection.The matter of different "appetites" for preaching in our day naturally arises. There is a range of preferences for preaching in our churches. Some only want to hear thrilling explanations of prophecy. Others want only practical advice on Christian living. The Bible contains these and much more, but the question every preacher must ask of his sermons is "Is Christ preached? His rich life, his atoning death, his glorious resurrection, his accomplishment of redemption, his continual intercession, and his soon coming?" Yes, we preach many things, but above all else our sermons must be Christ centred.

Gnostic Informant on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/We discussed the following topics: why the Torah is probably younger than commonly believed; the influence of Hellenism on Judaism as well as the New Testament; the Carpocratians (syncretists of Greek philosophy & Christian religion); the link between Platonism & Christianity; Nietzsche's argument that the Epicureans struggled against "latent Christianity"; Christianity as a hyper-rationalist religion set against the more sophisticated theologies of the pagan world; the possibility that extinguishing the Vestal fires actually brought down the Roman Empire. We also talked about Neal's personal journey through the Christian faith into his own idiosyncratic spirituality, and an attitude that he describes as a balance of Gnosticism & agnosticism; he views a life of Gnosis (knowing) as essentially a life of skepticism in which one demands to know for oneself and reject all inherited dogma. At the end we discuss his upcoming journey to Greece & film project, during which he will interview the group setting up a new temple to Pan in Greece, and the Orthodox figures opposing them.

"TRUE WORSHIPPERS: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24, Matthew 15:8-9, Acts 17:17-30) cont.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/chatting-from-the-word-hosted-by-oscar--4081759/support.

Caleb and Michael take on Book II of Cicero's On Ends. In this books Cicero goes off against the Epicureans. What do you think?On Ends Book IAristippus: The Philosopher Who Mastered Pleasure(02:43) Different Kinds Of Pleasure(16:34) Turning AgainstThe Stoics(18:02) Ranking Pleasures(24:40) Epicurean Rebranding?(30:55) Epicureans Ignore Virtue(34:28) Utilitarianism(38:18) Topsy Turvy Value Systems(46:50) Do Epicureans Lie?(48:17) Is Happiness Up To You(56:08) Michael's Takeaway***Subscribe to The Stoa Letter for weekly meditations, actions, and links to the best Stoic resources: www.stoaletter.com/subscribeDownload the Stoa app (it's a free download): https://stoameditation.com/podIf you try the Stoa app and find it useful, but truly cannot afford it, email us and we'll set you up with a free account.Listen to more episodes and learn more here: https://stoameditation.com/blog/stoa-conversations/Thanks to Michael Levy for graciously letting us use his music in the conversations: https://ancientlyre.com/

"TRUE WORSHIPPERS: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24, Acts 17:17-30) cont.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/chatting-from-the-word-hosted-by-oscar--4081759/support.

In 45 BC, amid the turmoil of the Roman Civil War, Cicero wrote one of philosophy's most important works on the meaning of life. This episode unpacks Book I of "On Ends," exploring the clash between Epicurean pleasure-seeking and Stoic virtue.(01:14) Meeting Cicero(06:18) Latin over Greek (11:40) On Ends Core Debates (16:03) Cicero attacks(20:44) Why Pleasure isn't Everything (27:28) The Epicurean Response (31:29) Must Virtue Produce Something More? (46:53) The Epicurean View of Community (53:38) The Epicurean sage***Download the Stoa app (it's a free download): https://stoameditation.com/podIf you try the Stoa app and find it useful, but truly cannot afford it, email us and we'll set you up with a free account.Listen to more episodes and learn more here: https://stoameditation.com/blog/stoa-conversations/Thanks to Michael Levy for graciously letting us use his music in the conversations: https://ancientlyre.com/

Welcome to Episode 264 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes. This week we have a special episode in which our podcaster co-host Don will give a talk entitled "Bread and Water - Debunking the Myth of Epicurean Asceticism." This talk was given on January 19, 2025, as part of our first EpicureanFriends Livestream. We'll link the slideshow presentation in the show notes to this episode, but you can view it anytime at EpicureanFriends.com by clicking on the "Featured Videos" link at the top of our website. At the same location we also have a link to Don's video on "Where Was the Garden of Epicurus? Isolated, or Near the Center of Things?" In that talk, just as in this new Bread and Water talk, Don debunks myths that have grown up around Epicurean philosophy, mistakenly labeling the ancient Epicureans as isolationist and ascetic. Don does great work and we're proud to have him as a part of our podcast family. Next week we'll be back with a regular Lucretius Today episode. Until then, enjoy Don on the topic "Bread and Water? Debunking the Myth of Epicurean Ascetism:" Podcast thread: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4226-episode-264-applying-epicurus-accurately/#post33762 Slideshow video: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4251-bread-and-water-debunking-the-myth-of-epicurean-asceticism/

Title: Whelming Results Text: Acts 17:32-34 FCF: We often struggle knowing what to do with the divisive gospel. Prop: Because the gospel is divisive, we must repent and believe. Scripture Intro: [Slide 1] Turn in your bible to Acts chapter 17. In a moment we'll begin reading in verse 32 from the Legacy Standard Bible. You can follow along in the pew bible or in whatever version you prefer. After jumping on the opportunity to preach the gospel before the Areopagite and presenting a powerful and engaging sermon on the holiness of God compared to man, Paul rests his defense of the gospel upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Today we will see the results. What comes from this great meeting of the minds? Will it be another Pentecost? Will 3000 souls come to Christ? Let's look. Please stand with me to give honor to and to focus on the reading of the Word of God. Invocation: Father. On the night You sent Your angels to announce to shepherds the coming of Your Son, You had them proclaim – Glory to God in the Highest and on earth peace to those whom You Favor. You have favored us. You have revealed to us truth and shown us salvation. We are thankful that You have done this for us. For we know that we would never have seen any of this if You had not favored us. We would not have peace with You, if you had not given us grace. We pray that You will grace us further today by teaching us from Your word. Help us to see the truths therin and to live as You would have us to live. We pray this in our Savior's name – Amen. Transition: [Slide 2] English is a comically difficult language. Even for native speakers there are times when things just don't make sense. Because English is derived from several languages, there are words we have in English that only exist with prefixes and suffixes but the root words are no longer used. Ruthless is an example of this. At some point Ruth was a word, probably meaning compassion, care, or conscience. Adding the “less” on the end means they are without compassion or care. But no one goes around and says, boy she is such a ruth person. Disgruntled is another of these. We never hear of anyone being gruntled. Today we will see the results of Paul's sermon. To best describe those results, I have to use one of these words in English that we no longer use. We often talk about how things are overwhelming…. Or even underwhelming. But never whelming. The best description I can offer of the results of Paul's sermon… is that they are whelming results. They are the kind of results we should expect. Let me show you why. I.) Most men will follow the broad road to destruction when they hear the gospel, we must repent and believe. (32-33) a. [Slide 3] 32 - Now when they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.” i. So after Paul's great message before the Areopagite where he 1. Concisely treads the line between both the Epicureans and the Stoics, pointing out ways in which Christianity agrees but also ways it disagrees, 2. Shows them a God that was an absolute mystery to them, 3. Reveals to them God's separate and distinctness from them, yet His transcendence and closeness to them, 4. Displays their need of God but His autonomy from His creation, 5. Unveils their sorry spiritual condition where even when God is close to them they still cannot find Him, 6. Prophesies that this God will one day judge the world by the standard of a Man whom He provided to man as their judge, proving His identity by raising Him from the dead, ii. After all of this… Paul says they should repent and seek God. iii. So, do they? iv. Well, many do not. v. Of those who do not repent and seek the Lord, there are two categories. 1. [Slide 4] The first group's response points to the difficulty of the gentiles to receive the idea of a risen Lord. a. Last week we said that the resurrection of Christ is the final word in the discussion. That is true in a couple of ways. b. It is true in the sense that it is the last thing Paul said. c. It is also true in the sense that it is no doubt one of the most challenging claims that Christianity makes. i. The rational mind cannot square with the seemingly illogical argument that a Man could be raised from the dead. ii. Much less that this Man who was raised never again died but rather conquered the realm of the dead and lives eternally. d. Paul says that the gospel is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. e. We've already seen how the Jews cannot accept a Messiah who would intentionally die, nor that He would first come to suffer and come later to reign. f. Gentiles however, would not necessarily wrestle with the concept of a god dying for mortals. Indeed, in their mythology they would have things like this happen. They wouldn't even wrestle with a demigod dying and clawing his ways back out of hades. This also is in their mythology. What they would have trouble accepting is a Man being raised from the dead. g. The Greek mind had largely moved beyond the myths of the classical Greek period. h. Following their god Apollo who through the oracles proclaimed “Once the dust has soaked up the blood of a man, once he has died, there is no resurrection.” They had concluded that once a man was dead, he was dead forever. i. The Epicureans especially did not believe in any level of immortality. j. The Stoics believed that the soul might endure after death, but only some of them believed that the soul was immortal. k. This is probably the reason that Paul emphasizes the humanity of Christ here, so as not to paint Christ as a demigod (half man half god) or to refer to Him as some kind of disembodied spirit, but rather to show that He was fully a man and died and was raised. l. Therefore, these Athenians had had enough. m. As soon as Paul mentions a man being raised from the dead – they dismiss Paul's words outright. n. They even begin to sneer or to mock his claims. o. This group is far from repentance. A mocker is too prideful to repent. 2. [Slide 5] The second group does not repent either, but may be seeking the Lord. a. Another group, we are not told how large, says they want to hear more about what Paul has said. b. We are not told the motives of these folks and why they want to hear more – and more than likely there are several motives. c. Perhaps some were confused. Others maybe were seeking more information. Others perhaps desired to poke holes in his arguments. Perhaps this is simply a polite way of saying… yeah yeah, let's talk later. Super interesting but we're super busy right now.

Grandpa Bill says: Let's explore the world of the gods together. Share your thoughts and questions in the comments below! Philosophical Schools: Stoicism: This philosophy emphasized inner peace and resilience through accepting what is outside of one's control. Stoics practiced mental exercises to cultivate a sense of detachment and equanimity, which can be seen as a form of meditation. Epicureanism: This school focused on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, but not in a hedonistic sense. Epicureans practiced mindfulness and gratitude, which can be considered meditative practices. Socratic Method: Socrates' method of questioning and self-examination encouraged deep thought and introspection. This process of self-inquiry can be seen as a form of mental meditation. Oracle of Delphi: The Oracle at Delphi was consulted for advice and prophecies. The process of seeking guidance and interpreting the oracle's cryptic messages required a meditative state of mind. Overall, while the Greeks didn't have a formalized practice of meditation like Eastern traditions, their philosophical and spiritual practices often involved deep contemplation, self-awareness, and a focus on the present moment. Podcast/YouTube Narrative: Ancient Greek Wisdom: Seeds of Meditation #GreekPhilosophy ,#Meditation, #AncientWisdom, Grandpa Bill is today taking a journey back to ancient Greece to explore the roots of meditation. While the Greeks didn't have a formal practice like we do today, their philosophical and spiritual traditions were deeply contemplative. Think about the Stoics, who emphasized inner peace and resilience. They practiced mental exercises to cultivate a sense of detachment, which is a core principle of meditation. Or the Epicureans, who focused on simple pleasures and avoiding unnecessary desires. Their mindfulness and gratitude practices are very similar to modern meditation techniques. Even Socrates' method of questioning and self-examination can be seen as a form of mental meditation. It encourages deep thought, introspection, and a focus on understanding oneself. So, while the Greeks may not have had meditation retreats or Zen gardens, their wisdom and practices laid the foundation for the contemplative traditions we know today. Grandpa Bill Asks: 1: How can we incorporate ancient Greek philosophical principles into our modern meditation practice? 2: Do you believe that the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, as emphasized by the Greeks, can be a form of meditation?" Let's delve deeper into this fascinating connection between ancient Greek thought and meditation. Share your insights and questions in the comments below!

Welcome to Episode 255 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes. Today we will complete our review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods."Today's Text XLIII. ... But Epicurus, when he divests the Gods of the power of doing good, extirpates all religion from the minds of men; for though he says the divine nature is the best and the most excellent of all natures, he will not allow it to be susceptible of any benevolence, by which he destroys the chief and peculiar attribute of the most perfect being. For what is better and more excellent than goodness and beneficence? To refuse your Gods that quality is to say that no man is any object of their favor, and no Gods either; that they neither love nor esteem any one; in short, that they not only give themselves no trouble about us, but even look on each other with the greatest indifference. XLIV. How much more reasonable is the doctrine of the Stoics, whom you censure? It is one of their maxims that the wise are friends to the wise, though unknown to each other; for as nothing is more amiable than virtue, he who possesses it is worthy our love, to whatever country he belongs. But what evils do your principles bring, when you make good actions and benevolence the marks of imbecility! For, not to mention the power and nature of the Gods, you hold that even men, if they had no need of mutual assistance, would be neither courteous nor beneficent. Is there no natural charity in the dispositions of good men? The very name of love, from which friendship is derived, is dear to men; and if friendship is to centre in our own advantage only, without regard to him whom we esteem a friend, it cannot be called friendship, but a sort of traffic for our own profit. Pastures, lands, and herds of cattle are valued in the same manner on account of the profit we gather from them; but charity and friendship expect no return. How much more reason have we to think that the Gods, who want nothing, should love each other, and employ themselves about us! If it were not so, why should we pray to or adore them? Why do the priests preside over the altars, and the augurs over the auspices? What have we to ask of the Gods, and why do we prefer our vows to them? But Epicurus, you say, has written a book concerning sanctity. A trifling performance by a man whose wit is not so remarkable in it, as the unrestrained license of writing which he has permitted himself; for what sanctity can there be if the Gods take no care of human affairs? Or how can that nature be called animated which neither regards nor performs anything? Therefore our friend Posidonius has well observed, in his fifth book of the Nature of the Gods, that Epicurus believed there were no Gods, and that what he had said about the immortal Gods was only said from a desire to avoid unpopularity. He could not be so weak as to imagine that the Deity has only the outward features of a simple mortal, without any real solidity; that he has all the members of a man, without the least power to use them—a certain unsubstantial pellucid being, neither favorable nor beneficial to any one, neither regarding nor doing anything. There can be no such being in nature; and as Epicurus said this plainly, he allows the Gods in words, and destroys them in fact; and if the Deity is truly such a being that he shows no favor, no benevolence to mankind, away with him! For why should I entreat him to be propitious? He can be propitious to none, since, as you say, all his favor and benevolence are the effects of imbecility. - End of Book One -

Welcome to Episode 251 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes. Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 39 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to attack the Epicurean view of the nature of divinity. Today's Text XXXIX. ... The whole affair, Velleius, is ridiculous. You do not impose images on our eyes only, but on our minds. Such is the privilege which you have assumed of talking nonsense with impunity. But there is, you say, a transition of images flowing on in great crowds in such a way that out of many some one at least must be perceived! I should be ashamed of my incapacity to understand this if you, who assert it, could comprehend it yourselves; for how do you prove that these images are continued in uninterrupted motion? Or, if uninterrupted, still how do you prove them to be eternal? There is a constant supply, you say, of innumerable atoms. But must they, for that reason, be all eternal? To elude this, you have recourse to equilibration (for so, with your leave, I will call your Ἰσονομία), and say that as there is a sort of nature mortal, so there must also be a sort which is immortal. By the same rule, as there are men mortal, there are men immortal; and as some arise from the earth, some must arise from the water also; and as there are causes which destroy, there must likewise be causes which preserve. Be it as you say; but let those causes preserve which have existence themselves. I cannot conceive these your Gods to have any. But how does all this face of things arise from atomic corpuscles? Were there any such atoms (as there are not), they might perhaps impel one another, and be jumbled together in their motion; but they could never be able to impart form, or figure, or color, or animation, so that you by no means demonstrate the immortality of your Deity. XL. Let us now inquire into his happiness. It is certain that without virtue there can be no happiness; but virtue consists in action: now your Deity does nothing; therefore he is void of virtue, and consequently cannot be happy. What sort of life does he lead? He has a constant supply, you say, of good things, without any intermixture of bad. What are those good things? Sensual pleasures, no doubt; for you know no delight of the mind but what arises from the body, and returns to it. I do not suppose, Velleius, that you are like some of the Epicureans, who are ashamed of those expressions of Epicurus, in which he openly avows that he has no idea of any good separate from wanton and obscene pleasures, which, without a blush, he names distinctly. What food, therefore, what drink, what variety of music or flowers, what kind of pleasures of touch, what odors, will you offer to the Gods to fill them with pleasures? The poets indeed provide them with banquets of nectar and ambrosia, and a Hebe or a Ganymede to serve up the cup. But what is it, Epicurus, that you do for them? For I do not see from whence your Deity should have those things, nor how he could use them. Therefore the nature of man is better constituted for a happy life than the nature of the Gods, because men enjoy various kinds of pleasures; but you look on all those pleasures as superficial which delight the senses only by a titillation, as Epicurus calls it. Where is to be the end of this trifling? Even Philo, who followed the Academy, could not bear to hear the soft and luscious delights of the Epicureans despised; for with his admirable memory he perfectly remembered and used to repeat many sentences of Epicurus in the very words in which they were written. He likewise used to quote many, which were more gross, from Metrodorus, the sage colleague of Epicurus, who blamed his brother Timocrates because he would not allow that everything which had any reference to a happy life was to be measured by the belly; nor has he said this once only, but often. You grant what I say, I perceive; for you know it to be true. I can produce the books, if you should deny it; but I am not now reproving you for referring all things to the standard of pleasure: that is another question. What I am now showing is, that your Gods are destitute of pleasure; and therefore, according to your own manner of reasoning, they are not happy.

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with author, lecturer, and podcaster Spencer Klavan. They discuss the fruits and follies of the postmodern worldview, how our conscious and subconscious rank order data and form perceptions, where disparate creation myths and biblical depictions overlap, why God does not rule by force, and how just about everything we uncover through science reaffirms the notion of an underlying unity Spencer A. Klavan is host of the Young Heretics podcast and associate editor of The Claremont Review of Books. A graduate of Yale, he earned his doctorate in ancient Greek literature from Oxford University. He is the author, most recently, of the acclaimed book Light of the Mind, Light of the World: Illuminating Science Through Faith, as well as the editor of Gateway to the Stoics and Gateway to the Epicureans. He has written for many outlets, including The Atlantic, The Los Angeles Times, City Journal, Newsweek, The Federalist, The American Mind, and The Daily Wire. He lives in Nashville, Tennessee. This episode was recorded on October 4th, 2024  - Links - For Spencer Klavan: “Light of the Mind, Light of the World: Illuminating Science Through Faith”(Newest book) https://www.amazon.com/Light-Mind-World-Science-Illuminating/dp/1684515335 On X https://x.com/SpencerKlavan?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor On Instagram https://www.instagram.com/sklavan/?hl=en On Youtube https://www.youtube.com/@YoungHereticsShow/featured Substack https://substack.com/@spencerklavan 

On Paul's second missionary journey to Athens, he encountered two groups of philosophers (Stoics & Epicureans). This episode will provide lessons on how we can engage people with different worldviews for Christ. Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

The stereotypes of Stoics as emotionless brutes and Epicureans as self-indulgent pleasure-seekers is not just misleading, but is an injustice to the two philosophies. Tune in to learn the similarities, differences, myths, stories, and history behind Stoicism and Epicureanism.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero's work, On The Nature Of The Gods, which critically examines Epicurean, Stoic, and Skeptic perspectives on matters of theology and cosmology Specifically it examines the academic skeptic Cotta's criticism of the Epicurean position on the gods, which he charges not only with being wrong about them, but also being inconsistent. The Epicureans assert that the gods are inactive and that for this reason they are blessed or happy. This also means that they do not exercise any care or concern for human beings To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Cicero's On The Nature Of Gods - https://amzn.to/3JITSZc

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero's work, On The Nature Of The Gods, which critically examines Epicurean, Stoic, and Skeptic perspectives on matters of theology and cosmology Specifically it examines the presentation of the Epicurean position on the divine by Velleius, who develops this in part by examining the preconceptions (proleipseis) of the gods that the Epicureans claim human beings have, as immortal and eternal, as inactive and blessedly happy, and interestingly as possessing a form like that of human beings. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Cicero's On The Nature Of Gods - https://amzn.to/3JITSZc

Out of all the ancient moral philosophies, which one feels most applicable to how we live our lives in the modern world? As today's guest would say, we are all Epicureans now.Catherine Wilson is an emerita professor of philosophy at the University of York. She's written many books on the subject of ethics and philosophy, including How to Be an Epicurean: The Ancient Art of Living Well and Moral Animals: Ideals and Constraints in Moral Theory.Catherine and Greg talk about Epicureanism's relevance in the modern world, how it contrasts with other ancient philosophies like stoicism, and debate the role of prudence in the  pursuit of pleasure.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Why should we all be thinking about getting up to speed or at least exposing ourselves to ancient moral philosophy?02:42: Epicureanism has been underappreciated relative to the other ancient philosophies. As we all know, Stoicism has become incredibly popular. Epicureanism is, in many ways, the foil to Stoicism. And frankly, I wouldn't go to Aristotle or Plato, particularly for moral advice. Some good parts of it, but I think Epicureanism needed a fresh look. And so what I tried to do in the book was to draw out some ways, possibly more fetch than they needed to be, some lessons or some implications that we could use now, taken directly from Epicurus and Lucretius. So that was the idea, and I think Epicureanism is really a breath of fresh air in many ways.What makes Epicureanism appealing?31:11: One of the most appealing features of Epicureanism is that because nature is always making new combinations and presenting you with new experiences, you're constantly having to update your beliefs and rethink your assumptions.Epicurean perspective on meaning41:01: The epicurean perspective is cosmological. It says you are here for a very short amount of time in the history of the universe. You came from dust; you're going to end up in dust. What you should do in that short time is have a nice life. Do the things you enjoy doing. And learning, teaching, figuring things out, and taking part in family life—those are the things that usually give people the most satisfaction in life. As human beings, that's what we like to do. So, you don't have to go to excess.What accounts for the renewed success of stoicism? 39:10: Stoicism says, well, you are you, and you are a fortress in yourself, and you have to not be so worried about what other people are doing that is making you miserable and believe that it's under your control whether you're miserable or not. And this seems to me completely on the wrong track when other people in other situations are making you miserable. You ought to try to change them. Speak up, or get out of there. "Don't Suffer in Silence" was, I think, the title of one of the chapters. And I think I referred there to Albert Hirschman. How do you respond to bad situations? Exit, voice, or loyalty?Show Links:Recommended Resources:EpicurusLucretiusRené DescartesJohn LockeExit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and StatesGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at University of YorkHer Work:How to Be an Epicurean: The Ancient Art of Living WellMoral Animals: Ideals and Constraints in Moral TheoryEpicureanism at the Origins of Modernity

Stop me if you've heard this one: guy walks into a bar...and his head is an orange. If you know, you know. If you don't know, let me tell you how my favorite joke is also a perfect foil for the story that started it all in the Homeric universe, the Judgment of Paris. In hindsight it's pretty clear that Paris could have navigated the situation a little better, but...if you'da been there...if you'da seen it...how sure are you that you wouldn't have done the same?  Check out our sponsor, the Ancient Language Institute (now offering Old English instruction!): https://ancientlanguage.com/youngheretics/ I maked this: Gateway to the Epicureans: https://a.co/d/8x07OA9 Pre-order my new book, Light of the Mind, Light of the World: https://a.co/d/2QccOfM Subscribe to my new joint Substack with Andrew Klavan (no relation): https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com

Welcome to Episode 239 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 21 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, responds to Velleius, and we - in turn - will respond to Cotta in particular and the Skeptical argument in general.Today's Text: XXI. Cotta, with his usual courtesy, then began. Velleius, says he, were it not for something which you have advanced, I should have remained silent; for I have often observed, as I did just now upon hearing you, that I cannot so easily conceive why a proposition is true as why it is false. Should you ask me what I take the nature of the Gods to be, I should perhaps make no answer. But if you should ask whether I think it to be of that nature which you have described, I should answer that I was as far as possible from agreeing with you. However, before I enter on the subject of your discourse and what you have advanced upon it, I will give you my opinion of yourself. Your intimate friend, L. Crassus, has been often heard by me to say that you were beyond all question superior to all our learned Romans; and that few Epicureans in Greece were to be compared to you. But as I knew what a wonderful esteem he had for you, I imagined that might make him the more lavish in commendation of you. Now, however, though I do not choose to praise any one when present, yet I must confess that I think you have delivered your thoughts clearly on an obscure and very intricate subject; that you are not only copious in your sentiments, but more elegant in your language than your sect generally are.When I was at Athens, I went often to hear Zeno, by the advice of Philo, who used to call him the chief of the Epicureans; partly, probably, in order to judge more easily how completely those principles could be refuted after I had heard them stated by the most learned of the Epicureans. And, indeed, he did not speak in any ordinary manner; but, like you, with clearness, gravity, and elegance; yet what frequently gave me great uneasiness when I heard him, as it did while I attended to you, was to see so excellent a genius falling into such frivolous (excuse my freedom), not to say foolish, doctrines.However, I shall not at present offer anything better; for, as I said before, we can in most subjects, especially in physics, sooner discover what is not true than what is.XXII. If you should ask me what God is, or what his character and nature are, I should follow the example of Simonides, who, when Hiero the tyrant proposed the same question to him, desired a day to consider of it. When he required his answer the next day, Simonides begged two days more; and as he kept constantly desiring double the number which he had required before instead of giving his answer, Hiero, with surprise, asked him his meaning in doing so: “Because,” says he, “the longer I meditate on it, the more obscure it appears to me.” Simonides, who was not only a delightful poet, but reputed a wise and learned man in other branches of knowledge, found, I suppose, so many acute and refined arguments occurring to him, that he was doubtful which was the truest, and therefore despaired of discovering any truth.But does your Epicurus (for I had rather contend with him than with you) say anything that is worthy the name of philosophy, or even of common-sense?

Welcome to Episode 237 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com.For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it.Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not the same as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In the Epicurean theory of knowledge, all sensations are true, but that does not mean all opinions are true, but that the raw data reported by the senses is reported without the injection of opinion, as the opinion-making process takes place in the mind, where it is subject to mistakes, rather than in the senses. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, and we are in Section19.Today's TextXIX. Surely the mighty power of the Infinite Being is most worthy our great and earnest contemplation; the nature of which we must necessarily understand to be such that everything in it is made to correspond completely to some other answering part. This is called by Epicurus ἰσονομία; that is to say, an equal distribution or even disposition of things. From hence he draws this inference, that, as there is such a vast multitude of mortals, there cannot be a less number of immortals; and if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless. Your sect, Balbus, frequently ask us how the Gods live, and how they pass their time? Their life is the most happy, and the most abounding with all kinds of blessings, which can be conceived. They do nothing. They are embarrassed with no business; nor do they perform any work. They rejoice in the possession of their own wisdom and virtue. They are satisfied that they shall ever enjoy the fulness of eternal pleasures.

This isn't a politics podcast, but sometimes politics comes for you. We've just lived through a deadly serious event--the kind that defines an epoch and brings us face-to-face with some of the most consequential political realities of our era. There couldn't possibly be a better use case for stepping back and using the archives of the Western Canon to get some distance on the situation. And there could hardly be a better guide through this kind of event than Niccolò Machiavelli, realist extraordinaire.  Check out our sponsor, the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/youngheretics/ I maked this: Light of the Mind, Light of the World: https://a.co/d/0fUMLN9f Gateway to the Epicureans: https://a.co/d/03RaCAP5 Subscribe to be in the mailbag: https://rejoiceevermore.substack.com Subscribe to my joint substack with Andrew Klavan (no relation): https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com

Acts 17:17–18 [Paul] went to the synagogue to reason with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and he spoke daily in the public square to all who happened to be there. He also had a debate with some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. We have much to learn from Paul. When he went to a new place it was his usual practice to make contact first of all with those attending the synagogue. There he found not only Jews but also people who were interested in the faith who hadn't made a full commitment. It was clearly a good place to talk about his faith and he was ideally qualified to speak with understanding to both Jews and Gentiles. But he didn't leave it at that. He also went regularly to the public square. That was a more random activity and I love the way that Luke records him meeting those “who happened to be there”. And, as if that wasn't enough, he also entered into lively debate with the philosophers. The Stoics taught the development of self-control as a means of overcoming destructive emotions and the Epicureans believed that pleasure, enjoyed moderately, was the greatest good in life. Paul was delighted to engage in debate with them. Paul's approach teaches us the need for flexibility in spreading the good news. It is natural that we will want to speak about Jesus in our churches and celebrate our faith. Happily, most churches are mixed communities embracing people with strong Christian convictions and others who are interested but uncommitted. But we shouldn't for a moment imagine that speaking about Jesus inside our church buildings is enough. Jesus told his disciples to “Go” 2,000 years ago – and he says the same to us today! We need to take the good news to coffee shops, pubs, places of work, retirement homes, youth clubs, on social media and wherever people meet. Just like Paul, we need to grab every opportunity for speaking about Jesus. Question Can you think of a new place where you could speak about Jesus? Prayer Lord God, thank you that you have given us such wonderfully good news to share. Help us to be bold and imaginative in sharing it with others. Amen

Sex, violence, arson, theological disputes...the story of the Nika Riots has it all. Today, in response to a listener question, I'm telling one of history's most underappreciated stories about an utterly bananas and ultimately catastrophic breakdown in law and order that began with a rivalry over chariot racing. But the full story, like all sports stories, is about so much more than that. It reveals profound and perhaps unsettling truths about our human nature and the strange forces I've come to call allegregores. Check out our sponsor, the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/youngheretics/ I maked this: Light of the Mind, Light of the World: https://a.co/d/0fUMLN9f Gateway to the Epicureans: https://a.co/d/03RaCAP5 Subscribe to be in the mailbag: https://rejoiceevermore.substack.com Subscribe to my joint substack with Andrew Klavan (no relation): https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com

It's not the most inspiring July 4 I've ever lived through, I'll say that much. But even after a thoroughly disorienting debate experience, and even with the Brits stealing thunder from our special day by hosting their own election (rude!), what we celebrate on the 4th isn't whatever happens to be going on at this particular moment, since in any given year it's likely to be grim. What we celebrate is the Anglo-American spirit of ordered liberty, which Alfred Lord Tennyson knew better than anyone how to salute. So raise a white claw to him this Thursday, and to our embattled old flag--she's still the best around. Check out our sponsor, the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/youngheretics/ I maked this: Light of the Mind, Light of the World: https://a.co/d/0fUMLN9f Gateway to the Epicureans: https://a.co/d/03RaCAP5 Subscribe to be in the mailbag: https://rejoiceevermore.substack.com Subscribe to my joint substack with Andrew Klavan (no relation): https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com Ongoing series on conservative art at The American Mind: https://americanmind.org/feature/how-the-right-recovers-art/

Is Anxiety a demon? It's a question raised, weirdly, by the most popular kids' movie in America right now--and by the entire practice of modern psycotherapy. Typically, when we try to understand mental illness, we refer to natural causes like brain chemistry or personal and family history. But are there some forms of cognitive disorder that don't originate within us--that invade us from the outside? I'm using sources both ancient and modern to tackle that question today after a listener wrote in with some provocative thoughts. Check out our sponsor, the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/youngheretics/ I maked this: Light of the Mind, Light of the World: https://a.co/d/0fUMLN9f Gateway to the Epicureans: https://a.co/d/03RaCAP5 Subscribe to be in the mailbag: https://rejoiceevermore.substack.com Subscribe to my joint substack with Andrew Klavan (no relation): https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com Scott Alexander's review of Robert Falconer: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-others-within-us?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web  

Welcome to Episode 234 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com. For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it.Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In the Epicurean theory of knowledge, all sensations are true, but that does not mean all opinions are true, but that the raw data reported by the senses is reported without the injection of opinion, as the opinion-making process takes place in the mind, where it is subject to mistakes, rather than in the senses. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 16.

Welcome to Episode 233 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com.For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it.Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not the same as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.Third:One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In the Epicurean theory of knowledge, all sensations are true, but that does not mean all opinions are true, but that the raw data reported by the senses is reported without the injection of opinion, as the opinion-making process takes place in the mind, where it is subject to mistakes, rather than in the senses. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius

Mother nature is one of the most ancient pagan deities, and also one of the trendiest in modern times. What gives--why is a character whose name you can literally find carved into primitive rocks also being portrayed by Octavia Spencer in Apple PR campaigns? In this essay, I argue that Mother Earth or Mother Nature represents one of the most natural assumptions for humans to make about the world, transformed by the scientific revolution into something materialist, and now re-made via allegory into something very like the old pagan god. I call it, an "allegregore": a supposedly metaphorical way of talking that takes on a life of its own. Check out our sponsor, the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/youngheretics/ I maked this: Gateway to the Epicureans: https://a.co/d/2uyMIWw Subscribe to be in the mailbag: https://rejoiceevermore.substack.com Subscribe to my joint substack with Andrew Klavan (no relation): https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com

Welcome to Episode 230 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com.For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it.Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not the same as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In the Epicurean theory of knowledge, all sensations are true, but that does not mean all opinions are true, but that the raw data reported by the senses is reported without the injection of opinion, as the opinion-making process takes place in the mind, where it is subject to mistakes, rather than in the senses. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here. The text which we include in these posts is the Yonge version, the full version of which is here at Epicureanfriends. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.Additional versions can be found here:Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of LibertyLacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by RackhamGutenberg.org version by CD Yonge A list of arguments presented will be maintained here.Today's TextXI. Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.

Welcome to Episode 229 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a a self-taught Epicurean.For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, which is often not the same as presented by many modern commentators. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and one of the best places to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.Today's TextThese are your doctrines, Lucilius; but what those of others are I will endeavor to ascertain by tracing them back from the earliest of ancient philosophers. Thales the Milesian, who first inquired after such subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things, and that God was that mind which formed all things from water. If the Gods can exist without corporeal sense, and if there can be a mind without a body, why did he annex a mind to water?It was Anaximander's opinion that the Gods were born; that after a great length of time they died; and that they are innumerable worlds. But what conception can we possibly have of a Deity who is not eternal?Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject to mortality?XI. Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.

THE BOOK OF ACTS Lesson 40, Chapters 17 and 18 We are in Acts chapter 17 and last week we ended our study with defining the belief systems of two groups that Paul encountered in Athens: the Epicureans and the Stoics. These two groups in no way passed for religions or held themselves up as […] The post Acts Lesson 40 – Chapter 17 and 18 appeared first on Torah Class.

"The thought for today is one which I discovered in Epicurus; for I am wont to cross over even into the enemy's camp, – not as a deserter, but as a scout."In this conversation, Caleb and Michael talk about lessons from Epicureanism. To do this, use Seneca's quotations of Epicurus and other Epicureans as a source. The Epicurean tradition has a lot of wisdom about how to relate to wealth, master desire, and study philosophy.(00:26) Introduction(02:38) What Epicureanism Is(07:54) The Enemy's Camp(17:37) Philosophy Matters(22:18) Urgency(26:10) Money Money Money(32:01) Desire(38:06) Drugs(40:05) Friendship(49:24) Summarize***Subscribe to The Stoa Letter for weekly meditations, actions, and links to the best Stoic resources: www.stoaletter.com/subscribeDownload the Stoa app (it's a free download): stoameditation.com/podIf you try the Stoa app and find it useful, but truly cannot afford it, email us and we'll set you up with a free account.Listen to more episodes and learn more here: https://stoameditation.com/blog/stoa-conversations/Thanks to Michael Levy for graciously letting us use his music in the conversations: https://ancientlyre.com/

Welcome to Episode 223 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.Last week when Joshua was away we discussed with Don some of the most important high-level conclusions we can learn about Epicurus based on Cicero's attacks against it. We will continue to apply those as we proceed to the end of Book two, but when we were last in Cicero's text we were dealing with Cicero's claim that the Epicurean happy man model will not only not be constantly happy, because he will sometimes be wretched; but that Epicurean philosophy can never prove its point so long as it connects everything with pleasure and pain. This week we pick up with Cicero saying that as a result, Epicureans like Torquatus should "abandon pleasure to the beasts."XXXIII ... Hence, Torquatus, we must discover some other form of the highest good for man; let us abandon pleasure to the beasts, whom you are accustomed to summon as witnesses about the supreme good. What if even beasts very often, under the guidance of the peculiar constitution of each, shew some of them kindness, even at the cost of toil, so that when they bear and rear their young it is very patent that they aim at something different from pleasure? Others again, rejoice in wanderings and in journeys; others in their assemblages imitate in a certain way the meetings of burgesses; in some kinds of birds we see certain signs of affection, as well as knowledge and memory; in many also we see regrets; shall we admit then that in beasts there are certain shadows of human virtues, unconnected with pleasure, while in men them- selves virtue cannot exist unless with a view-to pleasure? And shall we say that man, who far excels all other creatures, has received no peculiar gifts from nature?XXXIV. We in fact, if everything depends upon pleasure, are very far inferior to the beasts, for whom the earth unbidden, without toil of theirs, pours forth from her breast varied and copious food, while we with difficulty or hardly even with difficulty supply ourselves with ours, winning it by heavy toil. Yet I cannot on any account believe that the supreme good is the same for animals and for man. Pray what use is there in such elaborate preparations for acquiring the best accomplishments, or in such a crowd of the most noble occupations, or in such a train of virtues, if all these things are sought after for no other end but that of pleasure? Just as, supposing Xerxes, with his vast fleets and vast forces of cavalry and infantry, after bridging the Hellespont and piercing Athos, after marching over seas, and sailing over the land, then, when he had attacked Greece with such vehemence, had been asked by some one about the reason for such vast forces and so great a war, and had answered that he wanted to carry off some honey from Hymettus, surely such enormous exertions would have seemed purposeless; so precisely if we say that the wise man, endowed and equipped with the most numerous and important accomplishments and excellences, not traversing seas on foot, like the king, or mountains with fleets, but embracing in his thoughts all the heaven, and the whole earth with the entire sea, is in search of pleasure, then we shall be in effect saying that these vast efforts are for the sake of a drop of honey.Believe me, Torquatus, we are born to a loftier and grander destiny; and this is proved not merely by the endowments of our minds, which possess power to recollect countless experiences (in your case power unlimited) and an insight into the future not far removed from prophecy, and honor the governor of passion, and justice the loyal guardian of human fellowship, and a staunch and unwavering disregard of pain and death when there are toils to be endured or dangers to be faced - well, these are the endowments of our minds; I beg you now also to think even of our limbs and our senses, which will appear to you, like the other divisions of our body, not merely to accompany the virtues, but even to do them service. Now if in the body itself there are many things to be preferred to pleasure, strength for example, health, swiftness, beauty, what I ask do you suppose is the case with our minds? Those most learned men of old thought that mind contained a certain heavenly and godlike element. But if pleasure were equivalent to the supreme good, as you assert, it would be an enviable thing to live day and night without intermission in a state of extreme pleasure, all the senses being agitated by, and so to Say, steeped in sweetness of every kind. Now who is there deserving the name of man, that would choose to continue for one whole day in pleasure of such a kind?The Cyrenaics I admit are not averse to it; your friends treat these matters with greater decency; they perhaps with greater consistency. But let us survey in our thoughts not these very important arts, lacking which some men were called inert by our ancestors; what I ask is whether you suppose, I do not say Homer, Archilochus, or Pindar, but Phidias, Polyclitus, or Zeuxis, to have regulated their arts by pleasure. Will then an artist aim higher in order to secure beauty of form than a preeminent citizen in the hope to achieve beauty of action? Now what other reason is there for so serious a misconception, spread far and wide as it is, but that the philosopher who pronounces pleasure to be the supreme good takes counsel, not with that part of his mind in which thought and reflection reside, but with his passions, that is to say, with the most frivolous part of his soul? If gods exist, as even your school supposes, I ask you how they can be happy, when they cannot realize pleasure with their bodily faculties, or if they are happy without that kind of pleasure, why you refuse to allow that wise man can have similar intellectual enjoyment?

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida’s Hamilton […]

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida's Hamilton Program and 2019-2020 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow here at the Princeton's James Madison Program joins the show to delve into his new book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (U Notre Dame Press, 2024). Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program's podcast, Madison's Notes.

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida's Hamilton Program and 2019-2020 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow here at the Princeton's James Madison Program joins the show to delve into his new book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (U Notre Dame Press, 2024). Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program's podcast, Madison's Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida's Hamilton Program and 2019-2020 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow here at the Princeton's James Madison Program joins the show to delve into his new book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (U Notre Dame Press, 2024). Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program's podcast, Madison's Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida's Hamilton Program and 2019-2020 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow here at the Princeton's James Madison Program joins the show to delve into his new book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (U Notre Dame Press, 2024). Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program's podcast, Madison's Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida's Hamilton Program and 2019-2020 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow here at the Princeton's James Madison Program joins the show to delve into his new book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (U Notre Dame Press, 2024). Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program's podcast, Madison's Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida's Hamilton Program and 2019-2020 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow here at the Princeton's James Madison Program joins the show to delve into his new book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (U Notre Dame Press, 2024). Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program's podcast, Madison's Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida's Hamilton Program and 2019-2020 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow here at the Princeton's James Madison Program joins the show to delve into his new book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (U Notre Dame Press, 2024). Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program's podcast, Madison's Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida's Hamilton Program and 2019-2020 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow here at the Princeton's James Madison Program joins the show to delve into his new book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (U Notre Dame Press, 2024). Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program's podcast, Madison's Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume enjoyed a tremendous influence on intellectual history. What did Hume believe, why was it so controversial at the time, and why to many does it seem so common-sensical now? What can Humian thought explain, and where does it fall short? To discuss, Aaron Zubia, Assistant Professor at the University of Florida's Hamilton Program and 2019-2020 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow here at the Princeton's James Madison Program joins the show to delve into his new book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (U Notre Dame Press, 2024). Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program's podcast, Madison's Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Gather round, me hearties, and attend the tale of Pierre-Simon Laplace--a demon-haunted man. This is a story I've been itching to tell for a while, about the birth of quantum physics and the revenge of the Atomic Swerve. It stretches all the way back to Marcus Aurelius and all the way forward to the AI revolution, with some incredible tea to spill along the way (including a cameo from Napoleon). Buckle up, kids: this is a fun one. Check out our sponsor, the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/youngheretics/ Pre-order my new book, Light of the Mind, Light of the World: https://a.co/d/2QccOfM Subscribe to be in the mailbag: https://rejoiceevermore.substack.com I maked this: Gateway to the Stoics and Gateway to the Epicureans: https://a.co/d/cS72QtB https://a.co/d/2Kwu4Yu

Welcome to Episode 219 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics. This week we continue our discussion of Book Two of Cicero's On Ends, which is largely devoted Cicero's attack on Epicurean Philosophy. Going through this book gives us the opportunity to review those attacks, take them apart, and respond to them as an ancient Epicurean might have done, and much more fully than Cicero allowed Torquatus, his Epicurean spokesman, to do. Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition. Check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here. Last week we focused on Cicero's allegation that luck places the happy life out of reach of many Epicureans. This week we pick up at the start of Section XXIX - REID EDITION - XXIX. Again when you say that great pain is short, while prolonged pain is light, I do not understand what it is that you mean. For I am acquainted with instances where pains were not only great but also prolonged for a considerable time; and yet for enduring them there is another and truer method, of which you who do not love morality for its own sake cannot avail yourselves. There are certain maxims, and I might almost say enactments, concerning courage, which prohibit a man from being womanish in the midst of pain. So we must think it disgraceful, I do not say to feel pain (for that certainly is occasionally inevitable) but to make that old rock of Lemnus ghostly with the roarings of a Philoctetes, which, by echoing back the shriekings, cryings, groanings, sighings, dumb though it be, returns the sounds of lamentation. Let Epicurus chant his prophecy to such an one, if he can, one whose veins within him, tainted with poison from the serpent's tooth, bubble with foul torments. Says Epicurus: hush, Philoctetes, your pain is short. But for nearly ten years already he has been lying sick in his cave. If tis long ‘tis light; for it has its pauses, and sometimes slackens. First, it is not often so; next what is this slackening worth, when not only is the recollection of past pain fresh in the mind, but the dread of future and imminent pain causes a torment? Let the man die, says he. Perhaps it is best so, but what becomes of your saying there is always a balance of pleasure? For if that is true, see that you be not committing a crime in advising death. Rather hold language such as this, namely, that it is disgraceful, that it is unmanly to be weakened by pain, to be broken by it and conquered. For your maxim "if 'tis hard, 'tis short, if 'tis long, 'tis light," are a mere parrot's lesson. Pain is usually assuaged by the soothing application of virtue, I mean loftiness of spirit, endurance and courage. XXX. Not to digress too far, hear what Epicurus says on his death-bed, that you may perceive how his actions are at variance with his maxims: Epicurus wishes health to Hermarchus. I write this letter (he says) while passing a happy day, and the last of my life. Pains in the bladder and intestines are upon me, so severe that their intensity cannot be increased. Wretched creature! If pain is the greatest of evils we cannot call him anything else. But let us listen to the man himself. Still, all these are outweighed, he says, by elation of mind arising from the recollection of my theories and discoveries. But do you, as befits the feelings you have entertained from your youth up for me and for philosophy, remember to protect the children of Metrodorus. After this I do not admire the death of Epaminondas or of Leonidas more than this man's death; though one of these, after winning a victory over the Lacedaemonians at Mantinea, and finding that his life was ebbing away, owing to a serious wound, asked, as soon as he saw how things stood, whether his shield was safe. When his weeping comrades had answered that it was, he asked whether the enemy had been routed. When he heard that this too was as he desired, he ordered that the spear which had pierced him should be extracted. So he died from the copious flow of blood, in a moment of exultation and victory. Leonidas again, the king of the Lacedaemonians, along with the three hundred men whom he had led from Sparta, when the choice lay between a base retreat and a splendid death, confronted the enemy at Thermopylae. The deaths of generals are celebrated, while philosophers mostly die in their beds. Still it makes a difference how they die. This philosopher thought himself happy at the moment of death. A great credit to him. My intense pains, he says, are outweighed by elation of mind. The voice I hear is indeed that of a true philosopher, Epicurus, but you have forgotten what you ought to say. For, first, if there is truth in those matters which you say it causes you joy to recall, I mean, if your writings and discoveries are true, you cannot feel joy, since you now possess no blessing which you can set down to the account of the body; whereas you have always told us that no one can feel joy unless on account of the body, nor pain either. J feel joy in my past joys, he tells me. What past joys? If you say those relating to the body, I read that you set against your pains your philosophical theories, and not any recollection of pleasures enjoyed by the body; if you say those relating to the mind, then your maxim is untrue, that there is no joy of the mind, which has not a relation to the body. Why after that do you give a commission about the children of Metrodorus? What is there about your admirable goodness and extreme loyalty (for so I judge it to be) that you connect with the body?

Welcome to Episode 218 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics. This week we continue our discussion of Book Two of Cicero's On Ends, which is largely devoted Cicero's attack on Epicurean Philosophy. Going through this book gives us the opportunity to review those attacks, take them apart, and respond to them as an ancient Epicurean might have done, and much more fully than Cicero allowed Torquatus, his Epicurean spokesman, to do. Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition. Check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here. Last week we focused on Cicero's allegation that luck places the happy life out of reach of many Epicureans. This week we pick up at the start of Section XXVIII, REID EDITION XXVIII. Come, you will say to me, these are small matters. The wise man is enriched by nature herself, whose wealth, as Epicurus has taught us, is easily procured. His statements are good, and I do not attack them, but they are inconsistent with each other. He declares that no less pleasure is derived from the poorest sustenance, or rather from the most despicable kinds of food and dink, than from the most recherché dishes of the banquet. If he declared that it made no difference to happiness what kind of food he lived on, I should yield him the point and even applaud him; for he would be asserting the strict truth, and I listen when Socrates, who holds pleasure in no esteem, affirms that hunger is the proper seasoning for food, and thirst for drink. But to one who, judging of everything by pleasure, lives like Gallonius, but talks like the old Piso Frugi, I do not listen, nor do I believe that he says what he thinks. He announced that nature's wealth is easily procurable, because nature is satisfied with little. This would be true, if you did not value pleasure so highly. The pleasure, he says, that is obtained from the cheapest things is not inferior to that which is got from the most costly. To say this is to be destitute not merely of intelligence, but even of a palate. Truly those who disregard pleasure itself are free to say that they do not prefer a sturgeon ‘to a sprat; but he who places his supreme good in pleasure must judge of everything by sense and not by reason, and must say that those things are best which are most tasty. But let that pass; let us suppose he acquires the intensest pleasures not merely at small cost, but at no cost at all, so far as I am concerned; let the pleasure given by the cress which the Persians used to eat, as Xenophon writes, be no less than that afforded by the banquets of Syracuse, which are severely blamed by Plato; let the acquisition of pleasure be as easy, I say, as you make it out to be; still what are we to say about pain? Its agonies are so great that a life surrounded by. them cannot be happy, if only pain is the greatest of evils. Why, Metrodorus himself, who is almost a second Epicurus, sketches happiness almost in these words; a well regulated condition of body, accompanied by the assurance that it will continue so. Can any one possibly be assured as to the state of this body of his, I do not say in a year's time, but by the time evening comes? Pain then, that is to say the greatest of evils, will always be an object of dread, even though it be not present, for it may present itself at any moment. How then can the dread of the greatest possible evil consort with the life of happiness? Someone tells me: Epicurus imparts to us a scheme which will enable us to pay no heed to pain. To begin with, the thing is in itself ridiculous, that no attention should be given to the greatest of evils. But pray what is his scheme? The greatest pain, he says, is short. First, what do you mean by short? Next, what by the greatest pain? May the greatest pain not continue for some days? Look to it, that it may not continue some months even! Unless possibly you refer to the kind of pain which is fatal as soon as it seizes any one. Who dreads such pain as that? I wish rather you would alleviate that other sort, under which I saw that most excellent and most cultivated gentleman, my friend Gnaeus Octavius, son of Marcus, wasting away, and not on one occasion only or for a short time, but often and over quite a long period. What tortures did he endure, ye eternal gods, when all his limbs seemed on fire! Yet for all that we did not regard him as wretched, but only as distressed, for pain was not to him the greatest of evils. But he would have been wretched, if he had been immersed in pleasures, while his life was scandalous and wicked.

Welcome to Episode 213 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.This week we continue our discussion of Book Two of Cicero's On Ends, which is largely devoted Cicero's attack on Epicurean Philosophy. Going through this book gives us the opportunity to review those attacks, take them apart, and respond to them as an ancient Epicurean might have done, and much more fully than Cicero allowed Torquatus, his Epicurean spokesman, to do.Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition. Check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here.This week we move into Section XXIII:REID EDITIONXXIII. But let us grant this: the very name pleasure has no prestige, and we perhaps do not understand it; for you philosophers say over and over again, that we do not under- stand what kind of pleasure you mean. Surely it is a hard and abstruse subject! When you speak of atoms and spaces between universes, which do not and cannot exist, then we understand ; and can we not understand pleasure, which every sparrow knows so well? What if I bring you to admit that I not only know what pleasure is (it is indeed an agreeable activity affecting the sense) but what you intend it to be? At one time you intend it to mean exactly what I just now indicated, and imply by the name that it is something active, and produces a certain variation ; at another time you speak of a certain other supreme pleasure, which is incapable of increase ; this you say is present when all pain is absent; this you call stable pleasure. Let us grant that this is pleasure. State before any public meeting you like that you do everything with a view to avoiding pain. If you think that even this statement cannot be made with proper honour and dignity, say that both during your term of office and your whole life you intend always to act with an eye to your interest, doing nothing but what is profitable, nothing in fine except for your own private sake; what kind of uproar do you think there will be, or what hope will you have of the consulship, which is now very well assured to you? Do you mean then to follow a system such that you adopt it when alone and in the company of your friends but do not venture to proclaim it or make it public? But in reality when you attend the courts or the senate you have always on your lips the language of the Peripatetics and the Stoics. Duty and equity, honour and loyalty, uprightness and morality, everything worthy of the empire and the Roman people, all kind of dangers to be faced for the commonwealth, death due to our country,—when you talk in this strain, we simpletons are overcome, but you I suppose laugh in your sleeve. Verily among these phrases, splendid and noble as they are, no place is found for pleasure, not merely for that pleasure which you philosophers say lies in activity, which all men in town and country, all I say, who speak Latin, call pleasure, but even for this stable pleasure, which no one but you entitles pleasure.XXIV. Consider then whether you ought not to avoid adopting our language, along with opinions of your own. If you were to disguise your features or your gait in order to make yourself appear more dignified, you would be unlike yourself; are you the man to disguise your language, and say what you do not think? Or to keep one opinion for your home, as you might a suit of clothes, and another for the streets, so that you bear on your brow a mere pretense, while the truth is concealed within? Consider, I pray you, whether this is honest. I believe that those tenets are true which are moral, praiseworthy and noble, which are to be proclaimed in the senate, before the people, and in every public meeting and assembly, for fear that men should feel no shame in thinking what they feel shame in stating. What room can there be for friendship, or who can be a friend to any one whom he does not love for that friend's sake? What does loving, from which the word friendship comes, mean, unless that a man desires some one to be endowed with the greatest possible blessings, even though no benefit accrues to himself from them? It is advantageous to me, says he, to entertain such feelings, Say rather, perhaps, to be thought to entertain them. For you cannot entertain them, unless you really mean to do so; and how can you do so, unless love itself takes possession of you? And love is not usually brought about by calculating the balance of advantage, but is self-created, and springs into existence unsolicited. Oh, but it is advantage that I look to. Then friendship will last just so long as advantage attends it, and if advantage establishes friendship, it will also remove it. But what will you do, pray, if, as often happens, friendship is deserted by advantage? Will you abandon it? What sort of friendship is that? Will you cleave to it? How is that consistent ? You see what principles you have laid down about friendship being desirable with a view to advantage. I am afraid of incurring unpopularity, if I cease to support my friend. First I ask why such a proceeding deserves to be unpopular, unless because it is disgraceful? But if you refrain from abandoning your friend, from the fear that you may meet with some inconvenience, still you will wish him to die, that you may not be tied to him without any profit. What if he not merely brings you no advantage but you have to make sacrifices of your property, to undergo exertions, to face the risk of your life? Will you not even then glance at yourself and reflect that every man is born to pursue his own interests and his own pleasures? Will you give yourself up to a despot, to suffer death as surety for your friend, even as the Pythagorean of old submitted to the Sicilian despot, or while you are really Pylades, will you assert yourself to be Orestes, from the wish to die in your friend's stead, or if you were really Orestes, would you try to disprove Pylades' story, and disclose yourself, and failing to convince, would you refuse to petition against the execution of you both at once?RACKHAM EDITION:XXIII. "But let us grant your position. The actual word 'pleasure' has not a lofty sound; and perhaps we do not understand its significance : you are always repeating that we do not understand what you mean by pleasure. As though it were a difficult or recondite notion! If we understand you when you talk of 'indivisible atoms' and 'cosmic interspaces,' things that don't exist and never can exist, is our intelligence incapable of grasping the meaning of pleasure, a feeling known to every sparrow? What if I force you to admit that I do know not only what pleasure really is (it is an agreeable activity of the sense), but also what you mean by it? For at one moment you mean by it the feeling that I have just defined, and this you entitle kinetic pleasure, as producing a definite change of feeling, but at another moment you say it is quite a different feeling, which is the acme and climax of pleasure, but yet consists merely in the complete absence of pain; this you call static' pleasure. Well, grant that pleasure is the latter sort of feeling. Profess in any public assembly that the motive of all your actions is the desire to avoid pain. If you feel that this too does not sound sufficiently dignified and respectable, say that you intend both in your present office and all your life long to act solely for the sake of your own advantage, — to do nothing but what will pay, nothing in short that is not for your own interest; imagine the uproar among the audience! What would become of your chances of the consulship, which as it is seems to be a certainty for you in the near future?Will you then adopt a rule of life which you can appeal to in private and among friends but which you dare not openly profess or parade in public? Ah, but it is the vocabulary of the Peripatetics and the Stoics that is always on your lips, in the law-courts and the senate. Duty, Fair-dealing, Moral Worth, Fidelity, Uprightness, Honour, the Dignity of office,the Dignity of the Roman People, Risk all for the state. Die for your Country, — when you talk in this style, we simpletons stand gaping in admiration, — and you no doubt laugh in your sleeve. For in that glorious array of high-sounding words, pleasure finds no place, not only what your school calls kinetic pleasure, which is what every one, polished or rustic, every one, I say, who can speak Latin, means by pleasure, but not even this static pleasure, which no one but you Epicureans would call pleasure at all.XXIV. Well then, are you sure you have any right to employ our words with meanings of your own? If you assumed an unnatural expression or demeanour, in order to look more important, that would be insincere. Are you then to affect an artificial language, and say what you do not think? Or are you to change your opinions like your clothes, and have one set for indoor wear and another when you walk abroad? Outside, all show and pretence, but your genuine self concealed within? Reflect, I beg of you, is this honest? In my view those opinions are true which are honourable, praiseworthy and noble — which can be openly avowed in the senate and the popular assembly, and in every company and gathering, so that one need not be ashamed to say what one is not ashamed to think.Again, how will friendship

Probably the most dramatic and fully reported missionary career of Paul took place in Athens at the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34) approximately two thousand years ago. What's most interesting about the debate with the Epicureans and Stoics is what wasn't debated; namely the myriad of other beliefs held by the philosophers. The Athenians were eager to learn about the One True God, his Son, and the resurrection. We know many accepted Paul's teachings and joined the Covenant. Today, Paul & Mike are honored to welcome Jason Dougherty back into the G Base to discuss Christianity and the many benefits of Stoicism; two philosophies that have much in common, and why warriors today ought to embrace both to prepare for the inevitable challenges to come.    

The image of the philosopher is typically that of an academic, one preoccupied with big, theoretical ideas. You know, the kind of brilliant but absent minded professor. The one so hard at work on the mysteries of the universe…that they put on mismatching socks. The one that can't remember where they put their car keys, the one who doesn't have time for the pesky issues of life or human affairs because they're on the verge of some breakthrough.But what's so refreshing and relatable about the Stoics is that although they too were brilliant, they're heads weren't stuck in the clouds. No, they were down here on Earth, doing the people's business—running for office, fighting in wars, raising children, cultivating a farm. In Meditations, Marcus Aurelius reminds himself to not let his mind wander too much. In another passage, he says to put his books aside and get busy with life. Seneca said that, unlike the Epicureans, a Stoic would only not be involved in politics and current affairs if something prevented them from doing so.✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

My links: My patreon: ⁠https://www.patreon.com/user?u=103280827 My Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/rhetoricrevolution Send me a voice message!: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/liam-connerly TikTok: ⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@mrconnerly?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc⁠ Email: ⁠rhetoricrevolution@gmail.com⁠ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/connerlyliam/ Podcast | Latin in Layman's - A Rhetoric Revolution https://open.spotify.com/show/0EjiYFx1K4lwfykjf5jApM?si=b871da6367d74d92 acrobat From the word akri (άκρη — “tip” or “edge”) and the verb vaino (βαίνω — “to walk”), an acrobat is someone who walks on the edge, often on tiptoe. cemetery A lot of Greek words used in English like to disguise themselves as Old French or Latin. Don't let looks deceive you, though: This example actually comes from the Greek word koimame (κοιμάμαι — “to sleep”), which is also the root of another word, koimitirion (κοιμητήριο — “dormitory”). Is it creepy, then, that we call our final places of rest “dormitories for the dead”? Perhaps. cynicism The word "cynicism" comes from the Greek word "kynikos," which means "dog-like." This is because the Cynics, a school of ancient Greek philosophy, were known for their simple, ascetic lifestyle and their outspoken criticism of social conventions. They were often compared to dogs, who were seen as independent and untamed creatures. The Cynics were founded by Antisthenes, a student of Socrates. Antisthenes believed that the only true good was virtue, and that everything else was a distraction. He argued that people should live in accordance with nature, which meant rejecting material possessions, social status, and even family ties. The most famous Cynic was Diogenes of Sinope. Diogenes lived in a barrel and begged for food. He was known for his sharp wit and his willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. He once famously told Alexander the Great to "get out of my sun," when the king came to visit him. The Cynics were a minority movement, but they had a significant influence on later philosophers, such as the Stoics and the Epicureans. Their ideas about virtue, simplicity, and independence continue to be relevant today. democracy Ahh, good old democracy. Combining demos (δήμος — “people”) and kratos (κράτος — “power”), the meaning of this quintessential Greek word used in English is simply put: power to the people!