Podcasts about Lucretius

Welcome to Episode 281 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in human life (Death, Pain, Grief/Fear, Joy/Desire, and Virtue) with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent: Today we begin Part 2 - "Is Pain An Evil?," starting with Section V, where the question is posed. -------------------------- Show notes are here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4454-episode-281-is-pain-the-greatest-evil-or-even-an-evil-at-all-part-one-not-yet-re/?postID=35286#post35286

Welcome to Episode 280 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint, and today we wrap up Cicero's remaining arguments on death in Part 1, starting with Section XLII. Show Notes:   https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4445-episode-280-death-and-daring-to-live/?postID=35169#post35169

Welcome to Episode 279 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent.Today we continue debating the nature of death in Section XXXIX. Show Notes: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4439-episode-279-on-dying-before-one-s-time-not-yet-recorded/

Welcome to Episode 278 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. Today we continue debating the nature of death in Section XXXII. Episode notes:https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4425-episode-278-two-opposite-views-on-when-we-might-be-better-off-dead/

Welcome to Episode 277 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent: Today we turn our attention further to "Is Death An Evil," and we will read beginning in Section XXVI where the discussion continues with more about the Pythagorean / Platonic view of the human soul. Episode Notes: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4402-episode-277-platonism-says-this-world-is-darkness-but-the-next-world-is-light-ep/

Varför försonas med en våldsverkare som rånar oss? När det gäller döden står Elisabeth Hjorth står inte på samma sida som historiens vise mäns. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.När jag studerade teologi cirkulerade ett skämt mellan de blivande prästerna, om en begravningsannons för någon som blivit åttiofem år. Efter de sörjandes namn i annonsen stod ett enda ord: Varför? Åttiofem år och vad hände med devisen good enough? Sedan länge förskonat från krig, svält och hög barnadödlighet överskrider medellivslängden i Sverige vissa andra länders med mer än trettio år. Samtidigt finns det många som vill förlänga livet ytterligare. Inom gerovetenskapen, eller åldersforskningen, studeras olika sätt att genom levnadsvanor och på medicinteknisk väg skjuta fram såväl åldrande som död. Att acceptera sin utmätta tid på jorden förespråkade redan Lucretius. I dikten ”Dödsfruktan är dårskap” listar han ett antal argument till dödens favör som 2000 år senare känns igen. Inklusive att det blir tråkigt att leva för länge och att jorden riskerar att bli överbefolkad om ingen dör. Myter och berättelser, från Gilgamesh till Harry Potter, understryker budskapet. Memento mori, kom ihåg att du ska dö. Godta det, annars riskerar du att förvandlas till en eländig Gollum på botten av världen. En som inte hade skrattat åt de anhörigas ”varför?” är filosofen Patrick Linden, som diskuterar den filosofiska frågan om döden som sådan. Är döden en meningsfull del av livet eller ett ont som ska bekämpas? Lindens bok Mot döden är en vidräkning med dödens alla försvarare, dit de flesta av historiens stora tänkare räknas. Sokrates, Buddha, Marcus Aurelius, alla förespråkade de att acceptera och bejaka slutet. Lindens samtida kollega Martin Hägglund hävdar att vi endast genom att erkänna döden kan känna att livet står på spel. Utan risken att förlora skulle vi inte riktigt bry oss, varken om oss själva eller dem vi älskar. Men det är precis tvärtom, menar Linden, så länge vi har något vackert att förlora har vi all anledning att frukta och motarbeta döden. Till skillnad från Linden kan jag inte föreställa mig ett globalt samförstånd kring visionen om evig ungdom. Mer realistiskt är ett cyniskt krig om resurser som redan är orättvist fördelade. Däremot sympatiserar jag med passionen, den frenesi med vilken Linden attackerar sin ärkefiende. Han vägrar försonas med döden. Trots att han vet att det betraktas som barnsligt, egoistiskt och ofilosofiskt. Jag misstänker att han tillhör dem av oss som tänker på döden varje dag och sannerligen inte behöver påminnas en extra gång. För det är något med döden som snarare får det att brinna bakom ögonen än att klokt nicka i takt med historiens vise män. Döden är ju en våldsverkare. Döden är ett rån och en skymf mot allt levande. Varför all denna kärlek, spirande omsorg, innerliga närhet till det som ändå ska ryckas bort? Det verkar inte riktigt klokt. Stjärnhimlen eller havet eller linjerna i den älskades ansikte blir väl inte vackrare för att döden finns? Min väns far är mycket sjuk. Jag möter henne under striderna om vårdbehoven, i sorgearbetet som redan pågår. Frustrationen över att alla insatser riktas mot kroppens behov fast själen fortfarande har sin längtan. Döendets brutalitet och skuggan av det förestående. Sedan kommer döden och med den sorgen som ingen egentligen kan förbereda sig på. En utomstående måste träda mycket försiktigt runt detta tomrum, av respekt för kärleken och för det oersättliga ljus som försvunnit. Att citera någon av dödens alla försvarare vore hemskt. Om inte ett enda av de stora tänkarnas råd fungerar i situationen, vad har de då för legitimitet? Författarna har ibland en mer antagonistisk relation till döden än filosoferna. Sara Lidman, till exempel, ville inte höra talas om dödens hemlighetsfulla mening eller något inneboende gott i smärtan. Det är livet samman med en levande älskad som är det goda, skriver hon. Mot alternativet måste man protestera. ”Jag har inte kunnat ta mig an något annat än döden och försvaret mot döden”, sa författaren Birgitta Trotzig i ett tal och sällade sig till dödens fiender. Ibland påstås att det finns en utbredd ”beröringsskräck inför döden” i samtiden. Det är en märklig anklagelse. Vem blir inte skräckslagen när döden snuddar vid en? Enligt Linden är de som känner sig längst från döden också de som har lättast att acceptera den. Det är naturligt att känna sig odödlig, skrev Roland Barthes, tills man en dag inte gör det. Tills man, som han själv, en dag kliver ut i gatan och blir överraskad av en tvättbil som på ett ögonblick förvandlar livet till ett farväl.Det finns författare som inte är så upproriska mot döden. Niklas Rådström skriver vackert i dödens absoluta närhet, om döden som en försynt men nitisk bibliotekarie. Också inför en sådan erfarenhet går det bara att böja sig, förundrat. En mjuk tilltro som bebor en människa som slutit fred med döden. Min väns far levde sitt hela liv i kyrkan, han var politiskt engagerad, filosofiskt bevandrad. Ändå ansåg han att döden var fullkomligt värdelös, ett oskick. Det är logiskt, säger jag till min vän. Hatet mot döden är en stor poäng med kristendomen. ”Du död, var är din seger, var är din udd?” som det försmädligt står i första Korinthierbrevet. Denna fiendskap riskerar att förlora sin radikalitet om religionen blott syftar till att terapeutiskt hantera och acceptera dödens faktum. I en tid då de svåraste erfarenheterna ska bemästras så att livet kan fortlöpa smidigt för alla har det inte blivit mindre angeläget att bespotta döden sedan den tidiga kristendomen. Tvärtom. Uppståndelse och återförening är för den som inte kan acceptera livets slutliga nederlag. Som finner tanken att bottenlöst lidande skulle uppvägas av stunder av nåd eller hela decennier av oförtjänt välmåga alltför bisarr. För döden är djupt orättvis; den slår hårdast mot den fattiga, osynliggjorda och tystade. Att tro på ett liv före döden måste innebära att bekämpa dödens orättvisa utfall. Att också tro på ett liv efter är väl inget annat än att vid maktlöshetens gräns hoppas på det oerhörda, att döden till sist blir plundrad på sitt byte. Säkert kan livet bli lättare för någon som kontemplerar dödens nödvändighet. Men att acceptera existentiell ensamhet, sin otillräcklighet eller sårbarhet är något annat än att böja sig för döden själv. Viktigare än att lära sig dö rätt är kanske att lära sig varsamhet kring förlustens erfarenhet, att inte dra sig undan eller förminska de sår som döden orsakar de levande. Min väns far godtog aldrig döden och det tröstar mig på något sätt att han höll ut i denna oförsonlighet. När vi, om Gud vill, ses på den andra sidan ska jag säga det till honom. Elisabeth Hjorthförfattare och professor i litterär gestaltningLitteraturPatrick Linden: Mot döden. En radikalt livsbejakande filosofi. Volante, 2024.

Welcome to Episode 276 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent: Today we continue our discussion of "Is Death An Evil," and we will read beginning in Section XXIV where the discussion continues with Plato's ideas on memory as proof of the soul's divinity. Show Notes:  https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4388-episode-276-is-memory-evidence-for-the-divinity-of-the-soul-td06/

Welcome to Episode 275 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint.  Today we turn our attention to Section XXIII,  where the discussion addresses the issue of the implications of motion. Our general discussion guide for Tusculun Disputations is here: https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/notes/epicurea…html#org0c11d2e A side-by-side version with comments is here: https://epicureanfriends.github.io/tusculundisput…glish/section:5

Welcome to Episode 274 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculun Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent: 1. Is Death An Evil? (Cicero says no and Epicurus says no, but for very different reasons)2. Is Pain An Evil? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)3. Does the Wise Man Experience Grief and Fear? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)4. Does the Wise Man Experience Joy and Desire? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)5. Is Virtue Sufficient For A Happy Life? (Cicero says yes, Epicurus says no) As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools. These week we continue our discussion in the section "Is Death An Evil," and we will pick up in Section XVII. Show Notes: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4365-episode-274-is-cicero-right-that-death-a-better-place-td04/#post34569 

Send us a textThe full text of this podcast can be found in the transcript of this edition or at the following link:https://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/2025/03/maternalisation-is-materialisationa.htmlPlease feel free to post any comments you have about this episode there.Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" can be viewed at the following link:https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/birth-of-venusThe Cambridge Unitarian Church's Sunday Service of Mindful Meditation can be found at this link:https://www.cambridgeunitarian.org/morning-service/ Music, "New Heaven", written by Andrew J. Brown and played by Chris Ingham (piano), Paul Higgs (trumpet), Russ Morgan (drums) and Andrew J. Brown (double bass) Thanks for listening. Just to note that the texts of all these podcasts are available on my blog. You'll also find there a brief biography, info about my career as a musician, & some photography. Feel free to drop by & say hello. Email: caute.brown[at]gmail.com

Welcome to Episode 273 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculun Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:  These week we turn our attention further to "Is Death An Evil?" and we will read beginning in Section XII where the discussion continues and Cicero asserts that death may actually be a good. https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4344-episode-273-is-the-soul-immortal-and-death-actually-a-good-so-says-cicero-and-pl/?postID=34522#post34522

Welcome to Episode 272 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 continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculun Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent: Is Death An Evil? (Cicero says no and Epicurus says no, but for very different reasons)Is Pain An Evil? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)Does the Wise Man Experience Grief and Fear? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)Does the Wise Man Experience Joy and Desire? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)Is Virtue Sufficient For A Happy Life? (Cicero says yes, Epicurus says no)As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools. These week we turn our attention further to "Is Death An Evil," and we will read and discuss Sections V through IX where the question is framed and the discussion begins. https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4334-episode-272-td02-is-death-an-evil/

Welcome to Episode 271 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 begin a new series covering Cicero's Tusculun Disputations from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent: 1. Is Death An Evil? (Cicero says no and Epicurus says no, but for very different reasons)2. Is Pain An Evil? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)3. Does the Wise Man Experience Grief and Fear? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)4. Does the Wise Man Experience Joy and Desire? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)5. Is Virtue Sufficient For A Happy Life? (Cicero says yes, Epicurus says no) As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools. Our thread on this episode is here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4318-episode-271-understanding-epicurus-through-tusculun-disputations-td-01/

Welcome to Episode 270 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 are continuing our series of key doctrines of Epicurus, and this week we are focusing on the Epicurean view that "Life Is Desirable, But Unlimited Time Contains No Greater Pleasure Than Limited Time."Look here for more information:  https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4292-episode-270-life-is-desirable-but-unlimited-time-contains-no-greater-pleasure-th/

Send us a textThe full text of this podcast can be found in the transcript of this edition or at the following link:https://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/2025/03/blue-remembered-hills-elegy-for-my.htmlPlease feel free to post any comments you have about this episode there.The Cambridge Unitarian Church's Sunday Service of Mindful Meditation can be found at this link:https://www.cambridgeunitarian.org/morning-service/ Music, "New Heaven", written by Andrew J. Brown and played by Chris Ingham (piano), Paul Higgs (trumpet), Russ Morgan (drums) and Andrew J. Brown (double bass) Thanks for listening. Just to note that the texts of all these podcasts are available on my blog. You'll also find there a brief biography, info about my career as a musician, & some photography. Feel free to drop by & say hello. Email: caute.brown[at]gmail.com

Welcome to Episode 269 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. We are continuing our series of key doctrines of Epicurus, and this week and next week we are focusing on the full meaning of "Pleasure" in the Epicurean framework. Last week we discussed the central role that Pleasure plays as "Guide of Life," and this week we will dive deeper and focus on the full meaning of the word Pleasure in Epicurean philosophy. https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4284-episode-269-by-pleasure-we-mean-all-experience-that-is-not-painful-by-pleasure-w/

Welcome to Episode 268 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. We are continuing our series of key doctrines of Epicurus, and this week and next week we are focusing on the nature of Pleasure and its role as the guide of life. These two discussions will be closely related, but first we follow up on last week's episode as to how it is Pleasure, rather than Virtue, that actually serves as the guide of life. Next week we will dive deeper into the many aspects of Pleasure, but this week we will start with the role that Pleasure plays in the overall scheme of Nature - as a faculty, as a criterion of truth, and as the "guide of life" per Lucretius' line which is translated as: Lucretius Book Two [167]: Munro: "But some in opposition to this, ignorant of matter, believe that nature cannot without the providence of the gods, in such nice conformity to the ways of men, vary the seasons of the year and bring forth crops, aye and all the other things, which divine pleasure, the guide of life, prompts men to approach, escorting them in person and enticing them by her fondlings to continue their races through the arts of Venus, that mankind may not come to an end."https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4283-episode-268-pleasure-is-the-guide-of-life-the-role-of-pleasure-in-life/

Welcome to Episode 265 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 are continuing our review of the key doctrines of Epicurus that are featured here at Epicureansfriends on the front page of our website. This week we will discuss: "Virtue Is Not Absolute Or An End In Itself - All Good And Evil Consists In Sensation." Episode Thread: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4227-episode-267-virtue-is-not-absolute-or-an-end-in-itself-all-good-and-evil-consist/ Discussion Outline: https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/notes/virtuenotabsolute.html

Welcome to Episode 266 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 one more special episode before we return to our normal seqence. This week will be an updated version of a talk I gave onJanuary 19, 2025, as part of our first EpicureanFriends Livestream. Next week we'll be back with our co-hosts for a regular Lucretius Today episode. Until then, here is my presentation of "The Epicurean Paradigm Shift."https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4276-episode-266-the-epicurean-paradigm-shift/?postID=33969#post33969

Welcome to Episode 265 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 Joshua will give a talk entitled "The Deep-Set Boundary Stone - Epicurus and The Perils of Applying the Principles of Geometry to Ethical Philosophy."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. Next week we'll be back with a regular Lucretius Today episode. Until then, enjoy Joshua on the topic "The Deep-Set Boundary Stone - Epicurus and The Perils of Applying the Principles of Geometry to Ethical Philosophy."https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4268-episode-265-the-deep-set-boundary-stone-epicurus-and-the-perils-of-applying-the/#post33824

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/

Welcome to Episode 263 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 are continuing our review of the key doctrines of Epicurus that are featured here at Epicureansfriends on the front page of our website. This week we will address "All Sensations Are True" https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4216-episode-263-all-sensations-are-true-not-yet-recorded/

Welcome to Episode 262 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 are continuing our review of the key doctrines of Epicurus that are featured here at Epicureansfriends on the front page of our website. This week we will address "He Who Says 'Nothing Can Be Known' Knows Nothing" For more information go to:  https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4200-episode-262-he-who-says-nothing-can-be-known-knows-nothing/

Welcome to Episode 261 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 are continuing our review of the key doctrines of Epicurus that are featured here at Epicureansfriends on the front page of our website. This week we will address "Death Is Nothing To Us" https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4194-episode-261-death-is-nothing-to-us/ 

Episode 260 - The Universe Is Infinite And Eternal And Has No Gods Over It Welcome to Episode 260 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 are continuing our review of the key doctrines of Epicurus that are featured here at Epicureansfriends on the front page of our website. Programming Note: This Episode 260 marks the time of year when we are completing five full years of podcasting. Our first episode was posted on Soundcloud on January 11, 2020, and on Spreaker (our current podcast home) on January 13, 2020. Thanks to all our podcasters over the years, and thanks to Joshua for pointing out our anniversary! This week we will address what Epicurus and Lucretius use as the starting point for the discussion of Epicurean physics: nothing can come from nothing. Discussion link: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4189-episode-260-the-universe-is-infinite-and-eternal-and-has-no-gods-over-it/

Welcome to Episode 259 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 are continuing our review of the key doctrines of Epicurus that are featured here at Epicureansfriends on the front page of our website. This week we will address what Epicurus and Lucretius use as the starting point for the discussion of Epicurean physics: nothing can come from nothing. Full show notes here: Lucretius Today Episode 259 - Nothing Comes From Nothing - https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4149-episode-259-nothing-comes-from-nothing-not-yet-released/

Welcome to Episode 258 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 will be the continuation and conclusion of our discussion on the Epicurean rejection of determinism.https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4148-episode-258-there-is-no-necessity-to-live-under-the-control-of-necessity-part-2/

Welcome to Episode 257 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, now that we have completed Book 1 of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," we are going to move to a discussion of some of the most important doctrines of Epicurus as listed on the front page of our website. This week we will be Part 1 of our discussion if Epicurus' rejection of determinism. For more information click here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4147-episode-257-there-is-no-necessity-to-live-under-necessity-part-1/

Myths frame and tailor the past in a way that can ground and stabilise a community, however large or small. By situating them within the fabric of history, myths provide a sense of tradition and belonging to rally around. Read by Helen Lloyd. Engelsberg Ideas is funded by the Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation for Public Benefit. Image: A statue of Romulus and Remus on the Capitoline Hill in Rome. Credit: Russell Kord / Alamy Stock Photo 

Welcome to Episode 256 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, now that we have completed Book 1 of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," we are going to complete our series on the Epicurean gods by addressing a common question: Did Epicurus think that his gods had real physical existence? Today's Text> We are bridging over from the following contained at the very end of Book One of On The Nature of The Gods:  XLIV. ... 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.

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 254 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 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 42 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to attack the Epicurean view of the nature of divinity. Today's Text XLII. And why should we worship them from an admiration only of that nature in which we can behold nothing excellent? and as for that freedom from superstition, which you are in the habit of boasting of so much, it is easy to be free from that feeling when you have renounced all belief in the power of the Gods; unless, indeed, you imagine that Diagoras or Theodorus, who absolutely denied the being of the Gods, could possibly be superstitious. I do not suppose that even Protagoras could, who doubted whether there were Gods or not. The opinions of these philosophers are not only destructive of superstition, which arises from a vain fear of the Gods, but of religion also, which consists in a pious adoration of them. What think you of those who have asserted that the whole doctrine concerning the immortal Gods was the invention of politicians, whose view was to govern that part of the community by religion which reason could not influence? Are not their opinions subversive of all religion? Or what religion did Prodicus the Chian leave to men, who held that everything beneficial to human life should be numbered among the Gods? Were not they likewise void of religion who taught that the Deities, at present the object of our prayers and adoration, were valiant, illustrious, and mighty men who arose to divinity after death? Euhemerus, whom our Ennius translated, and followed more than other authors, has particularly advanced this doctrine, and treated of the deaths and burials of the Gods; can he, then, be said to have confirmed religion, or, rather, to have totally subverted it? I shall say nothing of that sacred and august Eleusina, into whose mysteries the most distant nations were initiated, nor of the solemnities in Samothrace, or in Lemnos, secretly resorted to by night, and surrounded by thick and shady groves; which, if they were properly explained, and reduced to reasonable principles, would rather explain the nature of things than discover the knowledge of the Gods. XLIII. Even that great man Democritus, from whose fountains Epicurus watered his little garden, seems to me to be very inferior to his usual acuteness when speaking about the nature of the Gods. For at one time he thinks that there are images endowed with divinity, inherent in the universality of things; at another, that the principles and minds contained in the universe are Gods; then he attributes divinity to animated images, employing themselves in doing us good or harm; and, lastly, he speaks of certain images of such vast extent that they encompass the whole outside of the universe; all which opinions are more worthy of the country of Democritus than of Democritus himself; for who can frame in his mind any ideas of such images? who can admire them? who can think they merit a religious adoration?

Welcome to Episode 253 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 will take a brief detour from Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," to take a look at what is known today as "The Riddle of Epicurus." David Hume attributes this argument to Epicurus: “Epicurus's old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?“ (Dialogues concerning Natural Religion 1779). Lactantius, On the Anger of God, states: "You see, therefore, that we have greater need of wisdom on account of evils; and unless these things had been proposed to us, we should not be a rational animal. But if this account is true, which the Stoics were in no manner able to see, that argument also of Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them?2 I know that many of the philosophers, who defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed by this argument, and are almost driven against their will to admit that God takes no interest in anything, which Epicurus especially aims at; but having examined the matter, we easily do away with this formidable argument. For God is able to do whatever He wishes, and there is no weakness or envy in God. He is able, therefore, to take away evils; but He does not wish to do so, and yet He is not on that account envious. For on this account He does not take them away, because He at the same time gives wisdom, as I have shown; and there is more of goodness and pleasure in wisdom than of annoyance in evils. For wisdom causes us even to know God, and by that knowledge to attain to immortality, which is the chief good. Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good. But Epicurus did not see this, nor did any other, that if evils are taken away, wisdom is in like manner taken away; and that no traces of virtue remain in man, the nature of which consists in enduring and overcoming the bitterness of evils. And thus, for the sake of a slight gain in the taking away of evils, we should be deprived of a good, which is very great, and true, and peculiar to us. It is plain, therefore, that all things are proposed for the sake of man, as well evils as also goods" (Chapter 13, translated by William Fletcher 1886).

Welcome to Episode 252 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 41 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to attack the Epicurean view of the nature of divinity. Today's Text: XLI. But they are free from pain. Is that sufficient for beings who are supposed to enjoy all good things and the most supreme felicity? The Deity, they say, is constantly meditating on his own happiness, for he has no other idea which can possibly occupy his mind. Consider a little; reflect what a figure the Deity would make if he were to be idly thinking of nothing through all eternity but “It is very well with me, and I am happy;” nor do I see why this happy Deity should not fear being destroyed, since, without any intermission, he is driven and agitated by an everlasting incursion of atoms, and since images are constantly floating off from him. Your Deity, therefore, is neither happy nor eternal. Epicurus, it seems, has written books concerning sanctity and piety towards the Gods. But how does he speak on these subjects? You would say that you were listening to Coruncanius or Scævola, the high-priests, and not to a man who tore up all religion by the roots, and who overthrew the temples and altars of the immortal Gods; not, indeed, with hands, like Xerxes, but with arguments; for what reason is there for your saying that men ought to worship the Gods, when the Gods not only do not regard men, but are entirely careless of everything, and absolutely do nothing at all? But they are, you say, of so glorious and excellent a nature that a wise man is induced by their excellence to adore them. Can there be any glory or excellence in that nature which only contemplates its own happiness, and neither will do, nor does, nor ever did anything? Besides, what piety is due to a being from whom you receive nothing? Or how can you, or any one else, be indebted to him who bestows no benefits? For piety is only justice towards the Gods; but what right have they to it, when there is no communication whatever between the Gods and men? And sanctity is the knowledge of how we ought to worship them; but I do not understand why they are to be worshipped, if we are neither to receive nor expect any good from them. XLII. And why should we worship them from an admiration only of that nature in which we can behold nothing excellent? and as for that freedom from superstition, which you are in the habit of boasting of so much, it is easy to be free from that feeling when you have renounced all belief in the power of the Gods; unless, indeed, you imagine that Diagoras or Theodorus, who absolutely denied the being of the Gods, could possibly be superstitious. I do not suppose that even Protagoras could, who doubted whether there were Gods or not. The opinions of these philosophers are not only destructive of superstition, which arises from a vain fear of the Gods, but of religion also, which consists in a pious adoration of them. What think you of those who have asserted that the whole doctrine concerning the immortal Gods was the invention of politicians, whose view was to govern that part of the community by religion which reason could not influence? Are not their opinions subversive of all religion? Or what religion did Prodicus the Chian leave to men, who held that everything beneficial to human life should be numbered among the Gods? Were not they likewise void of religion who taught that the Deities, at present the object of our prayers and adoration, were valiant, illustrious, and mighty men who arose to divinity after death? Euhemerus, whom our Ennius translated, and followed more than other authors, has particularly advanced this doctrine, and treated of the deaths and burials of the Gods; can he, then, be said to have confirmed religion, or, rather, to have totally subverted it? I shall say nothing of that sacred and august Eleusina, into whose mysteries the most distant nations were initiated, nor of the solemnities in Samothrace, or in Lemnos, secretly resorted to by night, and surrounded by thick and shady groves; which, if they were properly explained, and reduced to reasonable principles, would rather explain the nature of things than discover the knowledge of the Gods.

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.

Welcome to Episode 250 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 37 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to attack the Epicurean view of the nature of divinity. XXXVII. ... for you asserted likewise that the form of the Deity is perceptible by the mind, but not by sense; that it is neither solid, nor invariable in number; that it is to be discerned by similitude and transition, and that a constant supply of images is perpetually flowing on from innumerable atoms, on which our minds are intent; so that we from that conclude that divine nature to be happy and everlasting. XXXVIII. What, in the name of those Deities concerning whom we are now disputing, is the meaning of all this? For if they exist only in thought, and have no solidity nor substance, what difference can there be between thinking of a Hippocentaur and thinking of a Deity? Other philosophers call every such conformation of the mind a vain motion; but you term it “the approach and entrance of images into the mind.” Thus, when I imagine that I behold T. Gracchus haranguing the people in the Capitol, and collecting their suffrages concerning M. Octavius, I call that a vain motion of the mind: but you affirm that the images of Gracchus and Octavius are present, which are only conveyed to my mind when they have arrived at the Capitol. The case is the same, you say, in regard to the Deity, with the frequent representation of which the mind is so affected that from thence it may be clearly understood that the Gods are happy and eternal. Let it be granted that there are images by which the mind is affected, yet it is only a certain form that occurs; and why must that form be pronounced happy? why eternal? But what are those images you talk of, or whence do they proceed? This loose manner of arguing is taken from Democritus; but he is reproved by many people for it; nor can you derive any conclusions from it: the whole system is weak and imperfect. For what can be more improbable than that the images of Homer, Archilochus, Romulus, Numa, Pythagoras, and Plato should come into my mind, and yet not in the form in which they existed? How, therefore, can they be those persons? And whose images are they? Aristotle tells us that there never was such a person as Orpheus the poet; and it is said that the verse called Orphic verse was the invention of Cercops, a Pythagorean; yet Orpheus, that is to say, the image of him, as you will have it, often runs in my head. What is the reason that I entertain one idea of the figure of the same person, and you another? Why do we image to ourselves such things as never had any existence, and which never can have, such as Scyllas and Chimæras? Why do we frame ideas of men, countries, and cities which we never saw? How is it that the very first moment that I choose I can form representations of them in my mind? How is it that they come to me, even in my sleep, without being called or sought after? 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.

Welcome to Episode 249 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 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to insist that gods are supernatural and not at all similar to humans. We will, in turn, respond to Cotta's particular and general arguments. Today's Text XXXVII. “They have nothing to do,” your teacher says. Epicurus truly, like indolent boys, thinks nothing preferable to idleness; yet those very boys, when they have a holiday, entertain themselves in some sportive exercise. But we are to suppose the Deity in such an inactive state that if he should move we may justly fear he would be no longer happy. This doctrine divests the Gods of motion and operation; besides, it encourages men to be lazy, as they are by this taught to believe that the least labor is incompatible even with divine felicity. But let it be as you would have it, that the Deity is in the form and image of a man. Where is his abode? Where is his habitation? Where is the place where he is to be found? What is his course of life? And what is it that constitutes the happiness which you assert that he enjoys? For it seems necessary that a being who is to be happy must use and enjoy what belongs to him. And with regard to place, even those natures which are inanimate have each their proper stations assigned to them: so that the earth is the lowest; then water is next above the earth; the air is above the water; and fire has the highest situation of all allotted to it. Some creatures inhabit the earth, some the water, and some, of an amphibious nature, live in both. There are some, also, which are thought to be born in fire, and which often appear fluttering in burning furnaces.

Latinets inflytande på den västerländska kulturen går inte att överskatta. Latinet var romarrikets lingua franca och ett verktyg för att styra imperiet. Latinet har format den europeiska civilisationen på djupet. Från religion, litteraturen och vetenskapen till juridiken och filosofin har latin påverkat hur vi tänker och uttrycker oss.Detta är det första av två avsnitt om Latinets utveckling. I podden Historia Nu samtalar programledaren Urban Lindstedt med Karin Westin Tikkanen som är journalist och docent i latin. Hon är aktuell med boken Latin – En handbok i odödlighet.Det indoeuropeiska latinet har sitt ursprung i Latium Vetus, en region i det nuvarande Italien. Det talades av latinarna, ett folk som bodde i stadsstater och delade en gemensam religion. Den äldsta kända latinska inskriptionen återfanns på Lapis Niger, en sten vid romerska forumet från år 500 fvt. Denna primitiva form av latin visar att romarna hade ett eget språk under en tid då de annars tros ha varit starkt påverkade av etruskisk kultur.Latinet spred sig i takt med romarrikets expansion och blev så småningom tal- och skriftspråk i stora delar av Medelhavsvärlden. Det användes i dagens Portugal, Spanien, Frankrike, Italien, delar av Belgien och Schweiz samt i Rumänien - områden där romanska språk nu talas. Språket nådde även England och Nordafrika.När romarriket var som störst år 117 sträckte det sig från Mesopotamien i öster till Iberiska halvön i väster, från Saharas öknar i syd till Brittiska öarna norr. Och med expansionen följde imperiets språk – latinet som förenade människor och användes för att sprida information över stora avstånd. När kristendomen etablerades fick språket ytterligare skjuts, i kyrkliga sammanhang, över ännu större områden.Den romerska litteraturen, som till stor del imiterade den grekiska, utvecklade sina egna unika drag. Den romerska komedin, med författare som Terentius och Plautus, var bland de tidigaste litterära formerna. Lyriken blomstrade med Lucretius och Catullus, medan Vergilius skapade episka verk som "Aeneiden". Prosan användes flitigt för historieskrivning, retorik och filosofi, med Cicero som en framstående figur.Bild: Kvinna med vaxbricka från fresk från Pompeji. Fotograferad av Joel Bellviure, Wikipedia, Public Domain.Musik: Rome av biggrez. Storyblocks Audio.Klippare: Emanuel Lehtonen Vill du stödja podden och samtidigt höra ännu mer av Historia Nu? Gå med i vårt gille genom att klicka här: https://plus.acast.com/s/historianu-med-urban-lindstedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We continue Walking with Thoreau through the wild terrain of uncivilized thought — where genius shatters the temples of knowledge, exposing the unseen forces shaping our reality. Thoreau reminds us that it is the wild, uncultivated mind that truly delights, as free and swift as a mallard in flight. In this episode of The Peripatetics, we explore the invisible connections that bind us — atomic thoughts dancing like pollen on a pond, elusive yet undeniable. From the rediscovery of an ancient poem, lost for a thousand years, to my own realization of the creative life's atomic nature, we delve into the tension between certainty and wildness. We examine how long-suppressed ideas, once freed, can spark revolutions in thought, science, and art. Our journey turns toward the question of the untamed intellect's role in creativity and the quest for truth itself. Through poetry, philosophy, and personal revelation, we ask: What does it mean to make the darkness visible, and how can we reclaim the wildness within us all? Transcripts of all episodes are available here. Find Trey on Instagram. Episode Themes Include: The Unseen Forces of Genius: This episode explores the invisible elements that drive creativity and knowledge. Through Thoreau's lens, we encounter the wild, uncultivated thought that shatters conventional understanding, revealing the unseen forces that shape our reality, much like atomic particles that move beneath the surface. The Tension Between Certainty and Wildness: Drawing on the rediscovery of Lucretius' On the Nature of Things, this episode delves into the friction between structured knowledge and untamed intellect. It highlights how suppressed ideas, once unleashed, have the power to revolutionize science, philosophy, and art. Creation as a Manifestation of the Wild: By reflecting on personal revelations about the creative process, the episode likens creation to the atomic nature of existence. Creativity is not about bringing something from nothing, but about connecting wild, seemingly invisible thoughts and making them visible.   Making the Darkness Visible: Inspired by Thoreau's words, the episode explores the act of illuminating what is hidden, both within ourselves and the world. This theme weaves through poetry, philosophy, and personal reflection, asking how we can uncover the truths buried in our subconscious and wild nature.   The Power of Untamed Thought: Through Thoreau's celebration of wild thinking, the episode questions the role of untamed intellect in the pursuit of truth. It challenges the listener to reclaim their wildness, to look beyond the domesticated structures of knowledge and rediscover the deeper truths that lie beyond civilization's grasp.   Wildness as a Catalyst for Creative Thought: The episode presents wild, uncivilized thinking as essential to artistic and intellectual breakthroughs. By embracing the unpredictability and spontaneity of wild thought, we open ourselves to new ways of seeing and understanding the world, much like the way atomic theories reshaped our view of the universe. About The Show Inspired by the ancient tradition of walking philosophers — from Aristotle and his followers to Thoreau and Nietzsche  — who walked as a way to engage deeply with their thoughts and ideas, The Peripatetics wanders through th e thoughts of great thinkers in nature, art, literature, and philosophy as they intersect with the simple, transformative act of walking. In season 1, we are discussing Henry David Thoreau's definitive essay on the subject of walking, connecting it with wisdom from a wide swath of philosophic tradtions which share his devotion to achieving clarity and peace through movement. Whether you're a fellow walker, someone looking for a bit of tranquility, or just curious about how a good walk can change your perspective, you're in the right place. May your path be smooth and your pace steady. About The Host Trey Hill is a filmmaker who cut his teeth as a photographer and one-man-band storyteller for non-profits and NGOs, work which carried him around the world as he sought to expose the inner light present in some of the planet's most overlooked people. He also spent 10 seasons in the NHL as team photographer for the Dallas Stars and has, for the better part of the last decade, directed TV commercials for global brands, working with household names, musicians, sports heroes, and politicians. In 2019, his feature-length debut, the documentary LOUD KRAZY LOVE about Korn's Brian “Head” Welch, premiered on Showtime.

Welcome to Episode 248 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 34 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to insist that gods are supernatural and not at all similar to humans. Today's TextXXXIV. ... Therefore I cannot sufficiently wonder how this chief of yours came to entertain these strange opinions. But you constantly insist on the certainty of this tenet, that the Deity is both happy and immortal. Supposing he is so, would his happiness be less perfect if he had not two feet? Or cannot that blessedness or beatitude—call it which you will (they are both harsh terms, but we must mollify them by use)—can it not, I say, exist in that sun, or in this world, or in some eternal mind that has not human shape or limbs? All you say against it is, that you never saw any happiness in the sun or the world. What, then? Did you ever see any world but this? No, you will say. Why, therefore, do you presume to assert that there are not only six hundred thousand worlds, but that they are innumerable? Reason tells you so. Will not reason tell you likewise that as, in our inquiries into the most excellent nature, we find none but the divine nature can be happy and eternal, so the same divine nature surpasses us in excellence of mind; and as in mind, so in body? Why, therefore, as we are inferior in all other respects, should we be equal in form? For human virtue approaches nearer to the divinity than human form.XXXV. To return to the subject I was upon. What can be more childish than to assert that there are no such creatures as are generated in the Red Sea or in India? The most curious inquirer cannot arrive at the knowledge of all those creatures which inhabit the earth, sea, fens, and rivers; and shall we deny the existence of them because we never saw them? That similitude which you are so very fond of is nothing to the purpose. Is not a dog like a wolf? And, as Ennius says,The monkey, filthiest beast, how like to man!Yet they differ in nature. No beast has more sagacity than an elephant; yet where can you find any of a larger size? I am speaking here of beasts. But among men, do we not see a disparity of manners in persons very much alike, and a similitude of manners in persons unlike? If this sort of argument were once to prevail, Velleius, observe what it would lead to. You have laid it down as certain that reason cannot possibly reside in any but the human form. Another may affirm that it can exist in none but a terrestrial being; in none but a being that is born, that grows up, and receives instruction, and that consists of a soul, and an infirm and perishable body; in short, in none but a mortal man. But if you decline those opinions, why should a single form disturb you? You perceive that man is possessed of reason and understanding, with all the infirmities which I have mentioned interwoven with his being; abstracted from which, you nevertheless know God, you say, if the lineaments do but remain. This is not talking considerately, but at a venture; for surely you did not think what an encumbrance anything superfluous or useless is, not only in a man, but a tree. How troublesome it is to have a finger too much! And why so? Because neither use nor ornament requires more than five; but your Deity has not only a finger more than he wants, but a head, a neck, shoulders, sides, a paunch, back, hams, hands, feet, thighs, and legs. Are these parts necessary to immortality? Are they conducive to the existence of the Deity? Is the face itself of use? One would rather say so of the brain, the heart, the lights, and the liver; for these are the seats of life. The features of the face contribute nothing to the preservation of it.XXXVI. You censured those who, beholding those excellent and stupendous works, the world, and its respective parts—the heaven, the earth, the seas—and the splendor with which they are adorned; who, contemplating the sun, moon, and stars; and who, observing the maturity and changes of the seasons, and vicissitudes of times, inferred from thence that there must be some excellent and eminent essence that originally made, and still moves, directs, and governs them. Suppose they should mistake in their conjecture, yet I see what they aim at. But what is that great and noble work which appears to you to be the effect of a divine mind, and from which you conclude that there are Gods? “I have,” say you, “a certain information of a Deity imprinted in my mind.” Of a bearded Jupiter, I suppose, and a helmeted Minerva.But do you really imagine them to be such? How much better are the notions of the ignorant vulgar, who not only believe the Deities have members like ours, but that they make use of them; and therefore they assign them a bow and arrows, a spear, a shield, a trident, and lightning; and though they do not behold the actions of the Gods, yet they cannot entertain a thought of a Deity doing nothing. The Egyptians (so much ridiculed) held no beasts to be sacred, except on account of some advantage which they had received from them. The ibis, a very large bird, with strong legs and a horny long beak, destroys a great number of serpents. These birds keep Egypt from pestilential diseases by killing and devouring the flying serpents brought from the deserts of Lybia by the south-west wind, which prevents the mischief that may attend their biting while alive, or any infection when dead. I could speak of the advantage of the ichneumon, the crocodile, and the cat; but I am unwilling to be tedious; yet I will conclude with observing that the barbarians paid divine honors to beasts because of the benefits they received from them; whereas your Gods not only confer no benefit, but are idle, and do no single act of any description whatever.

Welcome to Episode 247 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 32 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to insist that gods are supernatural and not at all similar to humans. XXXII. ...Nor can I conceive why Epicurus should rather say the Gods are like men than that men are like the Gods. You ask what is the difference; for, say you, if this is like that, that is like this. I grant it; but this I assert, that the Gods could not take their form from men; for the Gods always existed, and never had a beginning, if they are to exist eternally; but men had a beginning: therefore that form, of which the immortal Gods are, must have had existence before mankind; consequently, the Gods should not be said to be of human form, but our form should be called divine. However, let this be as you will. I now inquire how this extraordinary good fortune came about; for you deny that reason had any share in the formation of things. But still, what was this extraordinary fortune? Whence proceeded that happy concourse of atoms which gave so sudden a rise to men in the form of Gods? Are we to suppose the divine seed fell from heaven upon earth, and that men sprung up in the likeness of their celestial sires? I wish you would assert it; for I should not be unwilling to acknowledge my relation to the Gods. But you say nothing like it; no, our resemblance to the Gods, it seems, was by chance. Must I now seek for arguments to refute this doctrine seriously? I wish I could as easily discover what is true as I can overthrow what is false.XXXIII. You have enumerated with so ready a memory, and so copiously, the opinions of philosophers, from Thales the Milesian, concerning the nature of the Gods, that I am surprised to see so much learning in a Roman. But do you think they were all madmen who thought that a Deity could by some possibility exist without hands and feet?Does not even this consideration have weight with you when you consider what is the use and advantage of limbs in men, and lead you to admit that the Gods have no need of them? What necessity can there be of feet, without walking; or of hands, if there is nothing to be grasped? The same may be asked of the other parts of the body, in which nothing is vain, nothing useless, nothing superfluous; therefore we may infer that no art can imitate the skill of nature. Shall the Deity, then, have a tongue, and not speak—teeth, palate, and jaws, though he will have no use for them? Shall the members which nature has given to the body for the sake of generation be useless to the Deity? Nor would the internal parts be less superfluous than the external. What comeliness is there in the heart, the lungs, the liver, and the rest of them, abstracted from their use? I mention these because you place them in the Deity on account of the beauty of the human form.Depending on these dreams, not only Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermachus declaimed against Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles, but that little harlot Leontium presumed to write against Theophrastus: indeed, she had a neat Attic style; but yet, to think of her arguing against Theophrastus! So much did the garden of Epicurus abound with these liberties, and, indeed, you are always complaining against them. Zeno wrangled. Why need I mention Albutius? Nothing could be more elegant or humane than Phædrus; yet a sharp expression would disgust the old man. Epicurus treated Aristotle with great contumely. He foully slandered Phædo, the disciple of Socrates. He pelted Timocrates, the brother of his companion Metrodorus, with whole volumes, because he disagreed with him in some trifling point of philosophy. He was ungrateful even to Democritus, whose follower he was; and his master Nausiphanes, from whom he learned nothing, had no better treatment from him.XXXIV. Zeno gave abusive language not only to those who were then living, as Apollodorus, Syllus, and the rest, but he called Socrates, who was the father of philosophy, the Attic buffoon, using the Latin word Scurra. He never called Chrysippus by any name but Chesippus. And you yourself a little before, when you were numbering up a senate, as we may call them, of philosophers, scrupled not to say that the most eminent men talked like foolish, visionary dotards.Certainly, therefore, if they have all erred in regard to the nature of the Gods, it is to be feared there are no such beings. What you deliver on that head are all whimsical notions, and not worthy the consideration even of old women. For you do not seem to be in the least aware what a task you draw on yourselves, if you should prevail on us to grant that the same form is common to Gods and men. The Deity would then require the same trouble in dressing, and the same care of the body, that mankind does. He must walk, run, lie down, lean, sit, hold, speak, and discourse. You need not be told the consequence of making the Gods male and female.Therefore I cannot sufficiently wonder how this chief of yours came to entertain these strange opinions. But you constantly insist on the certainty of this tenet, that the Deity is both happy and immortal. Supposing he is so, would his happiness be less perfect if he had not two feet? Or cannot that blessedness or beatitude—call it which you will (they are both harsh terms, but we must mollify them by use)—can it not, I say, exist in that sun, or in this world, or in some eternal mind that has not human shape or limbs? All you say against it is, that you never saw any happiness in the sun or the world. What, then? Did you ever see any world but this? No, you will say. Why, therefore, do you presume to assert that there are not only six hundred thousand worlds, but that they are innumerable? Reason tells you so. Will not reason tell you likewise that as, in our inquiries into the most excellent nature, we find none but the divine nature can be happy and eternal, so the same divine nature surpasses us in excellence of mind; and as in mind, so in body? Why, therefore, as we are inferior in all other respects, should we be equal in form? For human virtue approaches nearer to the divinity than human form.

Welcome to Episode 246 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 31 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 XXXI. In his statement of this sentence, some think that he avoided speaking clearly on purpose, though it was manifestly without design. But they judge ill of a man who had not the least art. It is doubtful whether he means that there is any being happy and immortal, or that if there is any being happy, he must likewise be immortal. They do not consider that he speaks here, indeed, ambiguously; but in many other places both he and Metrodorus explain themselves as clearly as you have done. But he believed there are Gods; nor have I ever seen any one who was more exceedingly afraid of what he declared ought to be no objects of fear, namely, death and the Gods, with the apprehensions of which the common rank of people are very little affected; but he says that the minds of all mortals are terrified by them. Many thousands of men commit robberies in the face of death; others rifle all the temples they can get into: such as these, no doubt, must be greatly terrified, the one by the fears of death, and the others by the fear of the Gods. But since you dare not (for I am now addressing my discourse to Epicurus himself) absolutely deny the existence of the Gods, what hinders you from ascribing a divine nature to the sun, the world, or some eternal mind? I never, says he, saw wisdom and a rational soul in any but a human form. What! did you ever observe anything like the sun, the moon, or the five moving planets? The sun, terminating his course in two extreme parts of one circle, finishes his annual revolutions. The moon, receiving her light from the sun, completes the same course in the space of a month. The five planets in the same circle, some nearer, others more remote from the earth, begin the same courses together, and finish them in different spaces of time. Did you ever observe anything like this, Epicurus? So that, according to you, there can be neither sun, moon, nor stars, because nothing can exist but what we have touched or seen. What! have you ever seen the Deity himself? Why else do you believe there is any? If this doctrine prevails, we must reject all that history relates or reason discovers; and the people who inhabit inland countries must not believe there is such a thing as the sea. This is so narrow a way of thinking that if you had been born in Seriphus, and never had been from out of that island, where you had frequently been in the habit of seeing little hares and foxes, you would not, therefore, believe that there are such beasts as lions and panthers; and if any one should describe an elephant to you, you would think that he designed to laugh at you. XXXII. You indeed, Velleius, have concluded your argument, not after the manner of your own sect, but of the logicians, to which your people are utter strangers. You have taken it for granted that the Gods are happy. I allow it. You say that without virtue no one can be happy. I willingly concur with you in this also. You likewise say that virtue cannot reside where reason is not. That I must necessarily allow. You add, moreover, that reason cannot exist but in a human form. Who, do you think, will admit that? If it were true, what occasion was there to come so gradually to it? And to what purpose? You might have answered it on your own authority. I perceive your gradations from happiness to virtue, and from virtue to reason; but how do you come from reason to human form? There, indeed, you do not descend by degrees, but precipitately. Nor can I conceive why Epicurus should rather say the Gods are like men than that men are like the Gods. You ask what is the difference; for, say you, if this is like that, that is like this. I grant it; but this I assert, that the Gods could not take their form from men; for the Gods always existed, and never had a beginning, if they are to exist eternally; but men had a beginning: therefore that form, of which the immortal Gods are, must have had existence before mankind; consequently, the Gods should not be said to be of human form, but our form should be called divine. However, let this be as you will. I now inquire how this extraordinary good fortune came about; for you deny that reason had any share in the formation of things. But still, what was this extraordinary fortune? Whence proceeded that happy concourse of atoms which gave so sudden a rise to men in the form of Gods? Are we to suppose the divine seed fell from heaven upon earth, and that men sprung up in the likeness of their celestial sires? I wish you would assert it; for I should not be unwilling to acknowledge my relation to the Gods. But you say nothing like it; no, our resemblance to the Gods, it seems, was by chance. Must I now seek for arguments to refute this doctrine seriously? I wish I could as easily discover what is true as I can overthrow what is false.

Welcome to Episode 245 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 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 XXVII. This, I perceive, is what you contend for, that the Gods have a certain figure that has nothing concrete, nothing solid, nothing of express substance, nothing prominent in it; but that it is pure, smooth, and transparent. Let us suppose the same with the Venus of Cos, which is not a body, but the representation of a body; nor is the red, which is drawn there and mixed with the white, real blood, but a certain resemblance of blood; so in Epicurus's Deity there is no real substance, but the resemblance of substance.Let me take for granted that which is perfectly unintelligible; then tell me what are the lineaments and figures of these sketched-out Deities. Here you have plenty of arguments by which you would show the Gods to be in human form. The first is, that our minds are so anticipated and prepossessed, that whenever we think of a Deity the human shape occurs to us.The next is, that as the divine nature excels all things, so it ought to be of the most beautiful form, and there is no form more beautiful than the human; and the third is, that reason cannot reside in any other shape.First, let us consider each argument separately. You seem to me to assume a principle, despotically I may say, that has no manner of probability in it. Who was ever so blind, in contemplating these subjects, as not to see that the Gods were represented in human form, either by the particular advice of wise men, who thought by those means the more easily to turn the minds of the ignorant from a depravity of manners to the worship of the Gods; or through superstition, which was the cause of their believing that when they were paying adoration to these images they were approaching the Gods themselves. These conceits were not a little improved by the poets, painters, and artificers; for it would not have been very easy to represent the Gods planning and executing any work in another form, and perhaps this opinion arose from the idea which mankind have of their own beauty.But do not you, who are so great an adept in physics, see what a soothing flatterer, what a sort of procuress, nature is to herself? Do you think there is any creature on the land or in the sea that is not highly delighted with its own form? If it were not so, why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own? If nature, therefore, has instructed us in the same manner, that nothing is more beautiful than man, what wonder is it that we, for that reason, should imagine the Gods are of the human form? Do you suppose if beasts were endowed with reason that every one would not give the prize of beauty to his own species?

Welcome to Episode 244 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 27 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, responds to Velleius, and we - in turn - will respond to Cotta in particular and the Skeptical argument in general. Subjects for Today: Zeno's Paradoxes as example of what we have been talking about - following "pure logic" tha t has not been ultimately grounded in the senses, even where it clearly contradicts the senses. Today's TextXXVII. This, I perceive, is what you contend for, that the Gods have a certain figure that has nothing concrete, nothing solid, nothing of express substance, nothing prominent in it; but that it is pure, smooth, and transparent. Let us suppose the same with the Venus of Cos, which is not a body, but the representation of a body; nor is the red, which is drawn there and mixed with the white, real blood, but a certain resemblance of blood; so in Epicurus's Deity there is no real substance, but the resemblance of substance.Let me take for granted that which is perfectly unintelligible; then tell me what are the lineaments and figures of these sketched-out Deities. Here you have plenty of arguments by which you would show the Gods to be in human form. The first is, that our minds are so anticipated and prepossessed, that whenever we think of a Deity the human shape occurs to us. The next is, that as the divine nature excels all things, so it ought to be of the most beautiful form, and there is no form more beautiful than the human; and the third is, that reason cannot reside in any other shape.First, let us consider each argument separately. You seem to me to assume a principle, despotically I may say, that has no manner of probability in it. Who was ever so blind, in contemplating these subjects, as not to see that the Gods were represented in human form, either by the particular advice of wise men, who thought by those means the more easily to turn the minds of the ignorant from a depravity of manners to the worship of the Gods; or through superstition, which was the cause of their believing that when they were paying adoration to these images they were approaching the Gods themselves. These conceits were not a little improved by the poets, painters, and artificers; for it would not have been very easy to represent the Gods planning and executing any work in another form, and perhaps this opinion arose from the idea which mankind have of their own beauty. But do not you, who are so great an adept in physics, see what a soothing flatterer, what a sort of procuress, nature is to herself? Do you think there is any creature on the land or in the sea that is not highly delighted with its own form? If it were not so, why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own? If nature, therefore, has instructed us in the same manner, that nothing is more beautiful than man, what wonder is it that we, for that reason, should imagine the Gods are of the human form? Do you suppose if beasts were endowed with reason that every one would not give the prize of beauty to his own species?

Welcome to Episode 243 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 26 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 TextXXVI. It seems an unaccountable thing how one soothsayer can refrain from laughing when he sees another. It is yet a greater wonder that you can refrain from laughing among yourselves. It is no body, but something like body! I could understand this if it were applied to statues made of wax or clay; but in regard to the Deity, I am not able to discover what is meant by a quasi-body or quasi-blood. Nor indeed are you, Velleius, though you will not confess so much. For those precepts are delivered to you as dictates which Epicurus carelessly blundered out; for he boasted, as we see in his writings, that he had no instructor, which I could easily believe without his public declaration of it, for the same reason that I could believe the master of a very bad edifice if he were to boast that he had no architect but himself: for there is nothing of the Academy, nothing of the Lyceum, in his doctrine; nothing but puerilities. He might have been a pupil of Xenocrates. O ye immortal Gods, what a teacher was he! And there are those who believe that he actually was his pupil; but he says otherwise, and I shall give more credit to his word than to another's. He confesses that he was a pupil of a certain disciple of Plato, one Pamphilus, at Samos; for he lived there when he was young, with his father and his brothers. His father, Neocles, was a farmer in those parts; but as the farm, I suppose, was not sufficient to maintain him, he turned school-master; yet Epicurus treats this Platonic philosopher with wonderful contempt, so fearful was he that it should be thought he had ever had any instruction. But it is well known he had been a pupil of Nausiphanes, the follower of Democritus; and since he could not deny it, he loaded him with insults in abundance. If he never heard a lecture on these Democritean principles, what lectures did he ever hear? What is there in Epicurus's physics that is not taken from Democritus? For though he altered some things, as what I mentioned before of the oblique motions of the atoms, yet most of his doctrines are the same; his atoms—his vacuum—his images—infinity of space—innumerable worlds, their rise and decay—and almost every part of natural learning that he treats of.Now, do you understand what is meant by quasi-body and quasi-blood? For I not only acknowledge that you are a better judge of it than I am, but I can bear it without envy. If any sentiments, indeed, are communicated without obscurity, what is there that Velleius can understand and Cotta not? I know what body is, and what blood is; but I cannot possibly find out the meaning of quasi-body and quasi-blood. Not that you intentionally conceal your principles from me, as Pythagoras did his from those who were not his disciples; or that you are intentionally obscure, like Heraclitus. But the truth is (which I may venture to say in this company), you do not understand them yourself.

Welcome to Episode 242 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 24 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, responds to Velleius, and we - in turn - will respond to Cotta in particular and the Skeptical argument in general. XXIV. ... But where is truth? Is it in your innumerable worlds, some of which are rising, some falling, at every moment of time? Or is it in your atomical corpuscles, which form such excellent works without the direction of any natural power or reason? But I was forgetting my liberality, which I had promised to exert in your case, and exceeding the bounds which I at first proposed to myself. Granting, then, everything to be made of atoms, what advantage is that to your argument? For we are searching after the nature of the Gods; and allowing them to be made of atoms, they cannot be eternal, because whatever is made of atoms must have had a beginning: if so, there were no Gods till there was this beginning; and if the Gods have had a beginning, they must necessarily have an end, as you have before contended when you were discussing Plato's world. Where, then, is your beatitude and immortality, in which two words you say that God is expressed, the endeavor to prove which reduces you to the greatest perplexities? For you said that God had no body, but something like body; and no blood, but something like blood. XXV. It is a frequent practice among you, when you assert anything that has no resemblance to truth, and wish to avoid reprehension, to advance something else which is absolutely and utterly impossible, in order that it may seem to your adversaries better to grant that point which has been a matter of doubt than to keep on pertinaciously contradicting you on every point: like Epicurus, who, when he found that if his atoms were allowed to descend by their own weight, our actions could not be in our own power, because their motions would be certain and necessary, invented an expedient, which escaped Democritus, to avoid necessity. He says that when the atoms descend by their own weight and gravity, they move a little obliquely. Surely, to make such an assertion as this is what one ought more to be ashamed of than the acknowledging ourselves unable to defend the proposition. His practice is the same against the logicians, who say that in all propositions in which yes or no is required, one of them must be true; he was afraid that if this were granted, then, in such a proposition as “Epicurus will be alive or dead to-morrow,” either one or the other must necessarily be admitted; therefore he absolutely denied the necessity of yes or no. Can anything show stupidity in a greater degree? Zeno, being pressed by Arcesilas, who pronounced all things to be false which are perceived by the senses, said that some things were false, but not all. Epicurus was afraid that if any one thing seen should be false, nothing could be true; and therefore he asserted all the senses to be infallible directors of truth. Nothing can be more rash than this; for by endeavoring to repel a light stroke, he receives a heavy blow. On the subject of the nature of the Gods, he falls into the same errors. While he would avoid the concretion of individual bodies, lest death and dissolution should be the consequence, he denies that the Gods have body, but says they have something like body; and says they have no blood, but something like blood."

Welcome to Episode 241 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. Today's Text XXIII. ... I allow that there are Gods. Instruct me, then, concerning their origin; inform me where they are, what sort of body, what mind, they have, and what is their course of life; for these I am desirous of knowing. You attribute the most absolute power and efficacy to atoms. Out of them you pretend that everything is made. But there are no atoms, for there is nothing without body; every place is occupied by body, therefore there can be no such thing as a vacuum or an atom. XXIV. I advance these principles of the naturalists without knowing whether they are true or false; yet they are more like truth than those statements of yours; for they are the absurdities in which Democritus, or before him Leucippus, used to indulge, saying that there are certain light corpuscles—some smooth, some rough, some round, some square, some crooked and bent as bows—which by a fortuitous concourse made heaven and earth, without the influence of any natural power. This opinion, C. Velleius, you have brought down to these our times; and you would sooner be deprived of the greatest advantages of life than of that authority; for before you were acquainted with those tenets, you thought that you ought to profess yourself an Epicurean; so that it was necessary that you should either embrace these absurdities or lose the philosophical character which you had taken upon you; and what could bribe you to renounce the Epicurean opinion? Nothing, you say, can prevail on you to forsake the truth and the sure means of a happy life. But is that the truth? for I shall not contest your happy life, which you think the Deity himself does not enjoy unless he languishes in idleness. But where is truth? Is it in your innumerable worlds, some of which are rising, some falling, at every moment of time? Or is it in your atomical corpuscles, which form such excellent works without the direction of any natural power or reason? But I was forgetting my liberality, which I had promised to exert in your case, and exceeding the bounds which I at first proposed to myself. Granting, then, everything to be made of atoms, what advantage is that to your argument? For we are searching after the nature of the Gods; and allowing them to be made of atoms, they cannot be eternal, because whatever is made of atoms must have had a beginning: if so, there were no Gods till there was this beginning; and if the Gods have had a beginning, they must necessarily have an end, as you have before contended when you were discussing Plato's world. Where, then, is your beatitude and immortality, in which two words you say that God is expressed, the endeavor to prove which reduces you to the greatest perplexities? For you said that God had no body, but something like body; and no blood, but something like blood.

Welcome to Episode 240 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 Episode 240 - The Academic Skeptic Falsely Alleges That Epicurus Bases His Argument For Divinity On The General Opinion Of Mankind - Not Yet Releasedyou 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 23 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 TextXXIII. You have said that the general assent of men of all nations and all degrees is an argument strong enough to induce us to acknowledge the being of the Gods. This is not only a weak, but a false, argument; for, first of all, how do you know the opinions of all nations? I really believe there are many people so savage that they have no thoughts of a Deity. What think you of Diagoras, who was called the atheist; and of Theodorus after him? Did not they plainly deny the very essence of a Deity? Protagoras of Abdera, whom you just now mentioned, the greatest sophist of his age, was banished by order of the Athenians from their city and territories, and his books were publicly burned, because these words were in the beginning of his treatise concerning the Gods: “I am unable to arrive at any knowledge whether there are, or are not, any Gods.” This treatment of him, I imagine, restrained many from professing their disbelief of a Deity, since the doubt of it only could not escape punishment. What shall we say of the sacrilegious, the impious, and the perjured? If Tubulus Lucius, Lupus, or Carbo the son of Neptune, as Lucilius says, had believed that there were Gods, would either of them have carried his perjuries and impieties to such excess? Your reasoning, therefore, to confirm your assertion is not so conclusive as you think it is. But as this is the manner in which other philosophers have argued on the same subject, I will take no further notice of it at present; I rather choose to proceed to what is properly your own.I allow that there are Gods. Instruct me, then, concerning their origin; inform me where they are, what sort of body, what mind, they have, and what is their course of life; for these I am desirous of knowing. You attribute the most absolute power and efficacy to atoms. Out of them you pretend that everything is made. But there are no atoms, for there is nothing without body; every place is occupied by body, therefore there can be no such thing as a vacuum or an atom.

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

It feels like it will make a difference, that long awaited trip. That exciting new job that will keep you very busy, make you very rich. That pioneering new plant medicine. That distracting pleasure.“Thus does each man flee himself,” Seneca says, quoting Lucretius, in his criticism of those Romans who sought out every opportunity to indulge their wanderlust. We like to think we can get away from our problems, that it will be different there, that a change of scenery will change us.✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail