About Us

EpicureanFriends.com was established online in 2015 as a place for the promotion and discussion of Classical Epicurean Philosophy, free from contemporary political controversies and unadulterated by Humanism, Platonism, Stoicism, Buddhism, or other competing viewpoints.

Our website is both a discussion forum and a resource hub for the study of Epicurean philosophy. Here you will find help and guidance in the study of important ancient texts, as well as many types of information helpful to the understanding of Epicurus. All are welcome to read the forums, but posting privileges are reserved for registered users.

There are many places on the internet where other philosophies can be studied, but few if any which are dedicated exclusively to Epicurus. We work hard to keep the forum both friendly to all but also firmly Epicurean, so if you are looking for a truly supportive community of Epicurean Friends, you've come to the right place.

Join us as we study Epicurus, apply Epicurean philosophy to our own lives, and “strike a blow for Epicurus, that great man whose holiness and divinity of nature were not shams, who alone had and imparted true insight into the good, and who brought deliverance to all that consorted with him.” (Lucian - “Alexander the Oracle-Monger”)

What follows on this page are our most important operating documents and rules. Complete agreement with every position of Epicurus is not required prior to registering an account, but you must agree to our Terms of Use and comply with our other rules of conduct if you wish to participate in our forums.

The EpicureanFriends forum works to ensure that the activities of the forum are consistent with the ancient Epicurean school by emphasizing the following points. Participants are not required to agree with all of these, but we do require that the spirit of the philosophy as presented here be respected in all public posting on the forum.

1. Major Implications:
   1. The universe as a whole is eternal and was never created by supernatural gods.
2. Citations:
   1. Epicurus to Herodotus, line 38
      1. Bailey: “[N]othing is created out of that which does not exist: for if it were, everything would be created out of everything with no need of seeds. ”
   2. Lucretius 1:146
      1. Bailey: “This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.”
3. Notes: A more precise translation than Bailey renders would likely be: “Nothing can be created from that which did not previously exist.” In general the point is that everything comes from that which already exists, meaning that nothing comes from that which does not already exist.
4. Discussion Forum

1. Major Implications:
   1. Supernatural gods do not exist.
2. Citations:
   1. Epicurus To Herodotus, line 77
      1. Bailey: Furthermore, the motions of the heavenly bodies and their turnings and eclipses and risings and settings, and kindred phenomena to these, must not be thought to be due to any being who controls and ordains or has ordained them and at the same time enjoys perfect bliss together with immortality (for trouble and care and anger and kindness are not consistent with a life of blessedness, but these things come to pass where there is weakness and fear and dependence on neighbors).
   2. Epicurus to Pythocles, line 97
      1. Bailey: Next the regularity of the periods of the heavenly bodies must be understood in the same way as such regularity is seen in some of the events that happen on earth. And do not let the divine nature be introduced at any point into these considerations, but let it be preserved free from burdensome duties and in entire blessedness.
   3. Lucretius Book 2 - 1090
      1. Bailey - “And if you learn this surely, and cling to it, nature is seen, free at once, and quit of her proud rulers, doing all things of her own accord alone, without control of gods .”
      2. Humphries - Holding this knowledge, you can't help but see, That nature has no tyrants over her , But always acts of her own will; she has no part of any godhead whatsoever.“
      3. Brown 1743 - “These things, if you rightly apprehend, Nature will appear free in her operations, wholly from under the power of domineering deities , and to act all things voluntarily, and of herself, without the assistance of gods.”
      4. Munro - “If you well apprehend and keep in mind these things, nature free at once and rid of her haughty lords is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the gods. ”
      5. M.F. Smith - “Once you obtain a firm grasp of these facts, you see that nature is her own mistress and is exempt from the oppression of arrogant despots, accomplishing everything by herself spontaneously and independently and free from the jurisdiction of the gods. ”
3. Notes: Alternate ways to consider this would include: “There are no supernatural causes,” or “The gods, however they are defined, have no impact on the cosmos,” or “If gods exist, they don't control the universe nor do they bestow blessings or curses on humans.” The point is that there are no supernatural, divine, or mystical forces that intervene in or create the universe.
4. Discussion Forum

1. Major Implications:
   1. It is necessary to have a proper view of the nature of divinity.
2. Citations:
   1. Letter to Menoeceus [123] The things which I used unceasingly to commend to you, these do and practice, considering them to be the first principles of the good life. First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his incorruption or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and incorruption. For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision. But they are not such as the many believe them to be: for indeed they do not consistently represent them as they believe them to be. And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many. [124] For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods. For men being accustomed always to their own virtues welcome those like themselves, but regard all that is not of their nature as alien.
   2. Lucretius 6:43. Brown: “The various wonders men behold in the earth and in the heavens perplex their minds, trembling and in suspense, and make them humble with the fear of the gods, and press them groveling to the ground; and being ignorant of the cause of these events, they are forced to confess the sovereignty and give up everything to the command of these deities. And the effects they are unable to account for by reason they imagine were brought about by the influence of the gods; for such as well know that the gods lead a life of tranquility and ease, if they should still wonder by what power the world is carried on, especially in the the things they see over their heads in the heavens above, they relapse again into their old superstition; they raise over themselves a set of cruel tyrants who, the wretches fancy, can do all things, because they know nothing of what can or what cannot be, or by what means a finite power is fixed to every being, and a boundary immovable which it cannot pass. Such are more liable to mistakes and to be carried widely from the right way. [68] Unless you purge your mind of such conceits, and banish them from your breast, and forebear to think unworthily of the gods, by charging them with things that break their peace, those sacred deities you will believe are always angry and offended with you; not that the supreme power of the gods can be so ruffled as to be eager to punish severely in their resentments, but because you fancy those beings, who enjoy a perfect peace in themselves, are subject to anger and the extravagances of revenge: and therefore you will no more approach their shrines with an easy mind, no more in tranquility and peace will you be able to receive the images, the representations of their divine forms, that form from their pure bodies and strike powerfully upon the minds of men: From hence you may collect what a wretched life you are to lead.”
   3. Lucretius 3:14-30 (Johnston): “For once that philosophy which arose in your godlike mind has begun to speak about the nature of things, then terrors in the mind disperse, the world’s walls fall open, I see what is going on in all the void, the majesty and calm habitations of the gods reveal themselves in places where no winds disturb, no clouds bring showers, no white snow falls congealed with bitter frost to harm them, the always cloudless aether vaults above, and they smile, as far and as wide as the light spreads out. Then, too, nature provides plentiful supplies of all things – their peace is not disturbed by anything at any time. The regions of Acheron, by contrast, are nowhere to be see, and earth presents no barrier to a full view of all events going on throughout the void lying underfoot. Godlike pleasure and awe take hold of me up there with these things, to think that nature, through your genius, is laid out so clearly, so openly exposed on every side.”
   4. Notes:
   5. Discussion Forum.

1. Major Implications:
   1. Consciousness ends forever at death.
   2. There is no life after death.
   3. There is no punishment or reward after death.
   4. The manner of our death in terms of whether the steps leading up to it are painful, and the timing of our death, in terms of how long we live, are significant to us. This doctrine focuses on what happens (nothing) to the individual after death.
   5. The reverse is also true: Given that for an eternity before birth and for an eternity after death we have no life at all, our life while we have it is extremely important to us.
2. Citations:
   1. Epicurus' Principal Doctrine 2
      1. Bailey: “Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.”
   2. Epicurus to Menoeceus Line 125
      1. Bailey: “For there is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. So that the man speaks but idly who says that he fears death not because it will be painful when it comes, but because it is painful in anticipation. For that which gives no trouble when it comes is but an empty pain in anticipation. So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more.”
   3. Lucretius 3:912
      1. Bailey: [912] This too men often do, when they are lying at the board, and hold their cups in their hands, and shade their faces with garlands: they say from the heart, ‘Brief is this enjoyment for us puny men: soon it will be past, nor ever thereafter will it be ours to call it back.’ As though in death this were to be foremost among their ills, that thirst would burn the poor wretches and parch them with its drought, or that there would abide with them a yearning for any other thing. For never does any man long for himself and life, when mind and body alike rest in slumber. For all we care sleep may then be never-ending, nor does any yearning for ourselves then beset us. And yet at that time those first-beginnings stray not at all far through our frame away from the motions that bring sense, when a man springs up from sleep and gathers himself together. Much less then should we think that death is to us, if there can be less than what we see to be nothing; for at our dying there follows a greater turmoil and scattering abroad of matter, nor does any one wake and rise again, whom the chill breach of life has once overtaken.
   4. Lucretius Book Three [560]
      1. Munro: “Therefore, again and again I say, when the enveloping body has been all broken up and the vital airs have been forced out, you must admit that the senses of the mind and the soul are dissolved, since the cause of destruction is one and inseparable for both body and soul.”
   5. Lucretius Book Three [679]
      1. Munro: “Wherefore, again and again I say, we must believe souls to be neither without a birth nor exempted from the law of death; for we must not believe that they could have been so completely united with our bodies, if they found their way into them from without, nor since they are so closely interwoven with them, does it appear that they can get out unharmed and unloose themselves unscathed from all the sinews and bones and joints.”
3. Notes: There is no existence after death. There is one life to live, and, afterwards, we no longer exist except in the memories of friends and loved ones.
4. Discussion Forum

1. Major Implications:
   1. “Hard determinism” is observably wrong because we can control when we exit life.
   2. This is not an invitation to conclude that suicide is a proper course because necessity rules our existence, but to the contrary an affirmation that the fact that we have the power to end our lives is an example of how necessity does not rule every aspect of our existence, implying also that not only life and death but many decisions of lesser importance are also under our control.
2. Citations:
   1. Epicurus' Vatican Saying 9
      1. Bailey: “Necessity is an evil, but there is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.”
   2. Epicurus' Vatican Saying 40
      1. Bailey: “The man who says that all things come to pass by necessity cannot criticize one who denies that all things come to pass by necessity: for he admits that this too happens of necessity.”
   3. Epicurus to Menoeceus Line 133
      1. Bailey: ”[133] For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame. [134] For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it. [135] He therefore thinks it better to be unfortunate in reasonable action than to prosper in unreason. For it is better in a man’s actions that what is well chosen (should fail, rather than that what is ill chosen) should be successful owing to chance.
3. Notes:
4. Discussion Forum

1. Major Implications
   1. Radical skepticism is self-contradictory nonsense.
2. Citations:
   1. Lucretius 4:469
      1. [469] Again, if any one thinks that nothing is known, he knows not whether that can be known either, since he admits that he knows nothing. Against him then I will refrain from joining issue, who plants himself with his head in the place of his feet. And yet were I to grant that he knows this too, yet I would ask this one question; since he has never before seen any truth in things, whence does he know what is knowing, and not knowing each in turn, what thing has begotten the concept of the true and the false, what thing has proved that the doubtful differs from the certain?
   2. Diogenes of Oinoanda, Fragment 5
      1. Smith: “Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.”
3. Notes:
4. Discussion Forum