I've now moved on from Epicurean/Atomist metaphysics, which were umm hit and miss, onto Epicurean ethics. Here are some interesting and/or fun bits I've come across:

So Epicurus, by his belief system at least, was a complete fucking freak. He essentially rejected everything that was consensus and social norm for the Greeks at the time and he was catching strays from philosophers of every side of the aisle for it. But just as a guy he was apparently such fun to hang out with and he had so many friends from all over Greece that even people that disagreed with him talked him up. This allowed him to avoid legal trouble or outright closure of his school.

Before getting into this I knew the Epicureans were kinda like ancient atheists/kinda not but functionally the same. Having actually read this stuff my opinion fluctuated wildly, I started off from "they've gotta be", went into "ok they're definitely not" and ended up as "maybe they actually are?". They straight up say multiple times "yes the gods exists even if they are not what you think they are" but then they also say
>The gods are "contemplated by reason".
and the one that flipped me
>[...]and dreams are true, for they cause motion in minds, and what does not exist does not move anything.
So to these guys dreams are real and exist, because they cause "motion in minds". The same definition seems to fit very neatly into their views on divinity, the gods are as real as dreams are to them, so it could be that they see them as some sort of mental projections. We will never know for sure because their more detailed doctrinal texts where this stuff is explained were lost.

Now here's Epicurus take on the sense-perception vs reason debate that was so prevalent in Greece:
>It is indeed ludicrous to imply that sense-perceptions can be refuted by reason, for all reasoning depends upon the sense-perceptions to form itself.
Plato absolutely BTFO beyond recovery.

1/3

Epicurus is also known as the wholesome chungus Reddit philosopher because he thought women were capable of attaining wisdom, which was an extremely fringe opinion in Greece at the time. This much is true he really did believe that and he allowed women to learn and debate at his school.
...But then he also believed
>People with certain bodily conditions (illnesses, deformations) are not capable of attaining wisdom.
oh well that's kinda fu-
>Nor can people from every race.
OH NO NO NO NO SHUT IT DOWN!!!!

He's also notable for his extremely exotic stance on slavery, which is that it's bad. A bad system. Mind you he did own slaves, but it was essentially impossible not to own slaves as an Athenian citizen at the time. He ended up freeing them all.

Now for his stance on sex:
>"Sexual intercourse has never helped anyone and one must be satisfied if it has not harmed."
Oh so he's like a volcel anti-nationalist or something? WRONG!
>And indeed the wise man will marry and father children. But he will marry only when it is indicated by the circumstances of his life. And some will be derived from this."
So he's essentially saying to only have kids if you have the means to support them. But otherwise he considered family life a good Ataraxia-boosting pleasure maxxed activity, while chasing sex for the high he considered dangerous and inherently a bad strat.

Also, banger Epicurus quote:
>The wise man will not have intercourse with a woman! (...in a manner forbidden by the law)
Very epic, I rate 5/5.

I've also seen a bunch of people, including an university professor, say "Epicurus was the first amoral philosopher" but I don't think that's actually the case. Rather his opinion differed in where morality arises from. He considered it a mutually-beneficial rational thing for people to act morally around each other. He even goes as far as to outright state
>And he [the wise man] will sometimes die for a friend.
which is not something that goes along with the idea of a strictly self-centered personal pleasure maxxer.

2/3

On politics though he did believe you should never kill yourself over some abstract ideal like honor or loyalty to a king. If you do serve, it should be a transactional relationship.

He differed from the Cyrenaics that came before him in that he thought pain of the soul was worse than pain of the flesh and his focus was firstly set on eliminating pain before seeking pleasure.

A nice quote on the previous point:
>The flesh is troubled only by the present, but the soul is troubled by the past and the present and the future.

He believed in virtue, as a thing that generates pleasure for the soul. He went as far as to say you can deprive the body of food and it would still not be as damaging to your Ataraxia as depriving the soul of virtue.

On wealth he thought it's fine if you already have it but you should not go out of your way to pursue it, and if you do end up with a lot of it then you should probably donate it to others because you don't need it to get the Ataraxia flowing.

Also he says at one point that wise men do not write poems? I guess poor Lucretius didn't get the memo that poetry is not Epicurean-pilled.

Ending with another banger quote:
>Moreover, once a man has become wise he can no longer take on the opposite disposition, nor feign it willingly.
"BRO I'M SO FUCKING SMART I CAN'T EVEN PRETEND TO BE STUPID ANYMORE"

3/3

>>24498794 (OP)
>>24498798
>>24498801
Incredibly awesome effortposts, especially in contrast with all the exceptionally shitty ai threads popping up. Here's your well-earned (You).

>>24498794 (OP)
>>24498798
>>24498801
he seems ok but it basically the polar opposite of evola who i also like. how to merge these two outlooks? E(vola)picurus ethics?

>>24499004
You don't. The muse exists in the psychic anguish of knowingly holding conflicting beliefs.

>>24499004
esoteric monarchism with epicurean characteristics

what books do I get to read epicurus

>>24498794 (OP)
Perhaps the highest praise of his works comes from Diogenes Laertius, who was a later scholar in the Roman Empire that studied, wrote about and catalogued all major Greek philosophers from the pre-Socratics onwards. He had access to a lot more material than we do today and apparently he favoured Epicureanism above all other schools. Some scholars even suggest he may have been one himself.
>>24499420
Any compilation of the surviving material is good, it makes little difference. IMO the Brad Inwood translations are the best.

>>24498798
Even people who give an enthusiastic amoral stance are bound to their learnt sensibilities and beliefs and norms, which means not amoral. It's styling those things a certain way to achieve one's preferences.

>>24498798
>white women are more intelligent than niggers
Yep

>>24499019
Nice. Books about that feel?

>>24498794 (OP)

>>24498794 (OP)
One more unusual thing he did is he wrote summaries of his own works as he wanted them to be accessible for all classes of people. So if you were a dimwit you'd have Epicurean sayings and maxims, if you were a midwit you'd have his summaries and letters, if you were high level and really wanted to analyze his reasoning you had his seminal works like On Nature.
The metaphysics part of his philosophy was also completely optional in the sense that you are only supposed to get into it if such things worry you but if they do not then you can skip right to attaining ataraxia.