Epicurus is the Single Most Influential Philosopher of all Time

But being dogmatic about these issues and using words like "clearly, for sure, SINGLE, one and only etc isn't the right attitude. There is nothing "single" in these matters.

My understanding is Epicurus and his followers discouraged participation in politics. Yet it seems you emphasize its relation to and impact upon political systems/theories in arguing for its influence.

focus on politics we see in Western history indicates that Epicureanism is less influential than you believe.

why is that the wrong approach? Why, clearly, the wrong one?

Stated it already in my previous post. Never used the word "clearly" though.

Oh, it has most certainly lost a great deal of ground. But the U.S. Constitution, and by extension the copy-cat states it produced, is an Epicurean document for an Epicurean society at base function,

The Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence for that matter, as well as the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and Citizens which Revolutionary France created, are based on the concept of human or natural rights.

The concept of such "rights" was foreign to both Epicureanism and Stoicism, I think.

The Epicurean and the Stoic weren't motivated by a concern for their rights or the rights of others in their quest for tranquility.

I think that you're being anachronistic when you call the Constitution an Epicurean document, or the U.S. of the time an Epicurean society.

The most important one is that Epicureans espouse belief while I eschew it
entirely. The entire premise of good and evil is predicated on universal
morality rather than relative enlightened ethics.

My mind must have a bias. It's an essential component of function. I must
therefore lean towards one probable truth over another in order to form any
opinions. If I (or anyone) wishes to retain their mental plasticity it is
essential that they examine all information from multiple perspectives,
however, and that is impossible if one embraces belief over probability.

Of course if one speaks English then it's nearly impossible to avoid using the
word belief or I believe since it is so tightly entwined with talking or
writing about perspectives.

I don't understand what philosophical point you are making. What has influence got to do with anything?

What matters to a philosopher is what's true, not who or what influenced who.

Epicurus thought death was not a harm to the one who dies. That's obviously false, is it not?

He arrived at his highly counter-intuitive conclusion by combining a very plausible principle about harm -namely, that, to be harmed, you need to exist at the time of the harm - with the assumption that death marks the cessation of our existence, and in this way concluded that death was not a harm (he had another argument too, but it appeals to a far less plausible principle about a harm).

That's not a very good argument though, regardless of how influential it has been (indeed, the form the influence has taken as been to try and locate the fault in it). It's not a very good argument because the conclusion is so counter-intuitive that you need both premises to be extremely strong such that rejecting either would be more counter-intuitive than accepting the conclusion.

That is simply not the case with either premise. Thus, a rational person will reject one or other of the premises rather than draw the conclusion. That is, the fact their combination leads to that conclusion is good evidence that at least one of them is false.

So he's quite a bad philosopher, however influential he might have been.

'll have to read the article you cite, but I think Epicureanism like Stoicism teaches that happiness, or the good life, is in large part dependent on a person not acting in a manner which exposes us to harm or disturbance, as reason tells us that we won't achieve tranquility, happiness, and peacefulness in that case.

So, we shouldn't engage in conflict with others, or harm them, seek power over others, covet riches, fame and power.

I don't think Epicureans or Stoics were concerned with what a good government would be; in fact, I think that to a sage of either school it ultimately wouldn't matter what a government was or did.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that government must nonetheless be of a particular kind in order for us to achieve the Epicurean (maybe Stoic too) goals or that particular forms of government are more conducive to achievement of those goals than others.

I assume those governments would be less intrusive than others in the sense that their citizens wouldn't be compelled to act in a manner contrary to the achievement of tranquility and happiness.

If the goal of government is to promote happiness and tranquility

we have to address the possibility that in that case a government would have to be intrusive enough to prevent citizens from preventing other citizens from achieving Epicurean goals

In other words, compelling citizens to act like Epicureans

That would mean citizens should be prohibited from engaging in conflict with others, acquisition of wealth and power, to the detriment of others, etc. and doing anything which would inhibit the peace and tranquility of their fellow citizens.

You may say that's where the concept of rights comes in to play. It may, within limits. But the well-being of fellow citizens has never been of much significance to those who claim to have rights.

But the well-being of fellow citizens has never been of much significance to those who claim to have rights.

But, essentially, no, it isn't a pain. It's not as if you are around to experience your own death. Leading up to dying may be painful, but not death itself. Pain is a neurological phenomenon, and death is the end of neurological phenomena.

No, I don't think so. All you need is knowledge of the function of the brain. It's crazy to think that he was thinking on this level almost 3000 years ago. He really was right.

So, Epicurus has not shown us that death is harmless, but rather that we do not cease to exist upon dying.

You're appealing to a different version of the argument, one that is even less plausible.
One version of the argument appeals to the 'experience' condition (that to be harmed, you need to experience the harm in question). The other appeals to the 'existence' condition (that to be harmed, you need to exist at the time).

He just assumes the mind is the brain. Or rather, that the mind is made of soul atoms (he didn't believe our minds are our brains, but rather that they are nevertheless material entities composed of invisible soul atoms - the difference is moot, however).

He infers that sensible things are made of atoms. But the mind is not a sensible thing.

Thus he simply assumes - on the basis of no positive evidence - that our minds are also made of atoms and that they cease to exist when the atoms disperse. That's just an assumption.

My point also was about arguments. If you have a deductively valid argument that leads to a highly counter-intuitive conclusion - that is, a conclusion that our reason tells us is false - then that's prima facie evidence that at least one of the premises is false.

The conclusion flies in the face of what our reason tells us: our reason tells us that death is a harm - the gravest of all harms.

That's the main reason why killing others is wrong - it harms them.

That's why suicide is irrational under most circumstances: it is not in your best interests unless you are in unending agony or something

Premise 1 is self-evident to reason. It is to mine and it was to Epicurus's and it is to many people's. So, it does have some rational support and we should not reject it lightly. However, it does not have greater self-evidence than the proposition that death is a harm.

So, Epicurus has not shown us that death is harmless, but rather that we do not cease to exist upon dying.

On the assumption that we continue to exist after death, is death still to be considered harmful?

Would the answer to that not depend on the conditions we find ourselves in after death?

Harm requires existence.

You do have exist and to experience pain to be in pain. What exactly are you highlighting is the issue.

The mind is the brain and the brain is literally made of atoms.

If existence presupposes harm, then non-existence (death) is not harmful. Death most certainly is the end of our existence according to all gathered empirical evidence. Should I assume that you're talking some afterlife, religious stuff?

You don't know your Epicurus.

It is 'harm' not 'pain'. Yes, pain has to be experienced to be pain, for pain 'is' a kind of experience.

But not all harms are pains. And we can be harmed without experiencing the harm.

So, the 'experience' condition on harm is implausible. The 'existence' condition, by contrast, is highly plausible. It is why there is a debate over the harmfulness of death to this day. The experience condition, by contrast, is almost universally rejected as it is simply exposed to too many counterexamples. Hard, however, to come up with a counterexample to the existence condition that would not simply beg the question. So, Epicurus's lasting influence on the philosophy of death comes via his existence condition, not his experience condition.

He did not think the mind was the brain. He thought it was made of atoms. And he thought that brain was made of atoms. But he didn't think the mind was the brain. He thought our entire bodies are suffused with invisible soul atoms.

It's beside the point, however, for his atomism about the mind is simply false and has no support from reason. It's as stupid as thinking that as my spoon is made of metal, I am made of metal.

The rest is just you dogmatically insisting that materialism about everything is true in defiance of what our reason says. If you don't care to listen to Reason when Reason contradicts what you believe then you're fated never to learn that you're wrong.

And then you just assert that death ends our existence. Er, no it doesn't. Look:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths.

Death is not the end: listen to reason. It's the beginning of something - of something really bad.

Epicurus assumes that death is the end. That's precisely what his own principle implies is 'not' the case! He's not a good reasoner.

Spare me the insults in favor of arguments. That's the only time I'm going to be polite about it.

How do we know he didn't mean "harm" in the sense of pain? Especially considering he's been translated from an old, old language.

If Epicurus drew a distinction himself, then you and I are in accord and I regard Epicurus' assertion as clearly, and demonstrably false.

I think you need to revisit his philosophy of mind. What he thought was that the thinking/experiencing element of was an organ located in the chest. If you transfer the ideas over 1 to 1, they're the same. He made no distinction between the mind, and the organ that was responsible for producing experience. https://iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH3f

Again, we're talking about a philosopher from almost 3 millennia ago, let's keep that in mind.

What have you presented that is accurately characterized by "reason?" What you said was reason has no definition, and flies in the face of modern neuroscience and long-held logical validity, which I literally checked myself via truth-table to investigate.

And then you just assert that death ends our existence. Er, no it doesn't. Look:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths.
— Bartricks

Yes, this is valid. But, is it true.

Is this your usage of harm:

physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.

If so, then death is the definition of harm in its final form individually.

I don't know what this means. Death is not the end of... what? And, how do you know?

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths.

Seems you do not know your insults either - that's not an insult, but just an observation: you kept conflating the experience and existence conditions.

but then his argument would be even weaker than it is.

The experience condition on harm is not very plausible

It's exposed to loads of counterexamples and it is only plausible when harm is taken to be synonymous with pain.

The existence condition on harm is, by contrast, very plausible. Our reason represents it to be true - mine does and clearly Epicurus's does too and so too does the reason of countless others, for otherwise we would not still be debating Epicurus's argument - and it is not exposed to counterexamples.

He didn't explicitly draw it, rather two distinct lines of argument can be discerned in his writings on death, one that assumes the experience condition and one that assumes the existence condition.

If that's true, it is nevertheless beside the point for what's wrong about his philosophy of mind is not where he locates the mind in the sensible body, but his assumption that the mind is a sensible body. It's just an assumption. There's no evidence the mind is a sensible body - all the evidence is the other way. The reasoning, then as now, is just that 'sensible things are made of sensible things.....therefore the mind is too'. Or, more cautiously 'as sensible things are made of yet smaller sensible things, let's have as our working hypothesis that the mind is too', only at some point it ceases to be a working hypothesis and instead becomes an article of faith.

I don't see the relevance. Materialism about the mind was just an assumption back then, and it is just an assumption now.

There's no evidence the mind is material and plenty that it isn't

Yet it does mark the end of body's functioning. Thus, we - the minds who are harmed by dying - are not our sensible bodies.

I don't know what you mean here. I think you have faith in materialism and thus take any argument that implies materialism is false to be unsound on that basis alone.

It's not just valid. It is sound. If you reject 1, you reject one of Epicurus's principles. And anyway, we would need an argument against 1, given it seems self-evidently true (that which seems self-evidently true can, of course, be false, but an argument showing that its truth would conflict with even more apparently self-evidently true truths would be needed).

And 2 is manifest to reason, is it not?

No, I have no definition of harm. Most harm - not all by any means, but most - involves some kind of suffering. And so my working hypothesis is that our deaths alter our condition such that we are exposed to far, far greater risks of suffering after it than before.

It may be that the cessation of the functioning of our bodies results in us suffering from locked-in syndrome. That is, we are conscious, but lack sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch. And are thus tormented in that way. This is just guesswork however. That our deaths harm us is, I think, beyond doubt; what form that harm takes is a matter of speculation.

Death is not the end of our existence. And I know because I listen to reason. Here, once more, is how I know:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths.

I wasn't asking. I kept conflating, and you kept asserting no distinction was made by Epicurus, which is elemental.

No, it would be precisely correct and in accord with modern neuroscience.

Any evidence at all will do.

I don't know what this means, either.

A valid argument. But, valid does not imply correct.

You see?

He made two distinct arguments for the harmlessness of death, as you should know. One appeals to the experience condition, the other to the existence condition.

But i imagine that this is going to be your response to all the arguments i make. Oh, but, but, but, science

Your argument is wrong, because science.

And I don't even realize that science isn't investigating what the mind is, as that's a topic in metaphysics, not phsyics or biology, but science.

i have read popular books in which scientists with no expertise in philosophy make philosophical pronouncements, and on this basis 'science' refutes you, Dr Bartricks. Science!!!

Yes, I am sure you don't. This isn't going well is it? Would it help if you imagined I'm a scientist? I think you must be one of those people that those deodorant and facial cream adverts are designed for - you know, the ones that show little red or white orbs travelling through our skin. "Oo, them's atoms - I want atom deodorant as it is used by science and I want to smell of science. This must be good deodorant - look at the atoms! I want some. i want to smell of science and atoms".

Yes, but it does mean that if its premises are true, then so too is its conclusion. And its premises are true.

I see something, certainly. Maybe we should move onto the Epicurean paradox and you can show me how science has shown God doesn't exist.

I already said to keep your fuckin arguments to yourself, it seems you didn't get the point. Let me be more clear: If you stand to deny a vast body of scientific data, then you are a god damn quack and you need to go somewhere that is accepting of quacks and holy-fools.

That which does not exist leaves no evidence behind to analyze except the absence of evidence itself.

No, best not discuss Epicurus with someone who knows about him and is able to show him to be a poor reasoner, albeit an ingenious one.
But arguments, it seems, do not interest you.

If violations of the Human Consciousness are occuring within our purview, then perhaps such action is on the table, but the acknowledgement of such an obligation would need to uniformly consensual, and rationally planned to the absolute best of our ability.

If everyone would live an Epicurean (or Stoic, I would say) life most if not all our problems would be resolved.

That we should be free to live such a life is clear; that others (not just the government, but other people) should be free to prevent us from living such a life by living however they see fit isn't at all clear, to me.

Legal rights which protect our freedom, and ability, to live a tranquil, wise, virtuous life are desirable.

Legal rights which allow others to restrict that freedom, or limit or extinguish our ability to live that life, are not.

It's a conundrum I struggle with more and more in these dark times.

So you reason like this: materialism is true because science.

Now, put down your microscope and turn on your reason and try - try - and do some philosophy.

If you think its conclusion is true, then you think killing someone does not harm them. So punching you would be a more harmful thing to do to you than killing you. If you are about to stub your toe and I can prevent that by killing you, then that would bein your best interests. That is stupider than a stupid thing on stupid day, is it not?

If the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is false

If it helps, read that via a microscope, as then it would be scientific as you observed it using an instrument of science.

Again, look down the microscope at this: if 1 or 2 is false, and 1 is true, then 2 is false.

But how can 2 be false if some scientists who don't understand the boundaries of their own discipline or expertise think it is true? How can that be? How could Garret be wrong.

Now, this is a good argument:

1. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist at time t1.
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore our deaths do not end our existence

That you cannot reconcile the conclusion with your worldview is 'your' problem, not evidence the conclusion is false.

So, your argument that materialism is true, is that it is true. Good stuff!! A+

1. If p, then q
2. P
3. Therefore q

You accept that death is a harm. Well then you are rationally obliged to accept the conclusion if you accept the existence condition.

Then you said some patently false things about deductively valid arguments.

if the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is false, then at least one premise is false.

Incidentally, how do you know an argument is valid? Do you look at it down a microscope? Can you weigh validity or touch it? Is it made of molecules?

Yes, all true and valid propositions are tautological by definition, both logically and inductively. A=A.

No, it didn't, or Q would have been repeated instead of modified. Plain and simple. Your conclusion was R, not Q.

A harm as in an injury to my body.

Now, this is a good argument:

1. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist at time t1.
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore our deaths do not end our existence
— Bartricks

P>Q
P
_____
R

This is your argument in terms of logic. The ending of existence is not a conclusion that follows logically from this proposition. Properly written in modus ponens, the proposition would look thus:

P(harm at t1)>Q(t1 existence)
P(harmed at t1)
_____
Q(existed at t1)

not R (existed at t2)

Which means my death cannot be the cessation of my existence.

Because death is a harm. If death improves our condition, then it is not a harm. If death is nothing, then it is not a harm. If death makes our condition worse, then it is a harm and we have reason to avoid it - and that is clearly the case, for the reason of virtually everyone confirms that death is a great harm. So great we use it as the most severe punishment. So great it is only if you are in agony with no prospect of it ending that you have reason to opt for death. We can reasonably conclude then that life after death is worse than life before it by some margin.

People are afraid of death (apart from the being afraid of the suffering that dying might entail) because it is the unknown.

I said the reason of virtually everyone represents it to be a great harm

Only because they are reasoning from their fears. That is the point you are failing to get.

And none of my arguments assume their conclusions.

1. If I am harmed by an event at time t1, then I exist at time t1

And the meaning of 2 can be expressed thusly:

2. I am harmed by the event of my death when it occurs.

From which it follows that:

3. Therefore, I exist at the time of my death.

Question begging. Read what I wrote. Don't substitute my words for yours.

You don't really know what you're talking about. Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions. And yes, this argument - your argument -

is valid. It's just shit, that's all. And it's all you've got.

Yes it did, it's just you don't understand the meaning of the sentences I used in the original. Anyway, like so many others here, what you've done is read about argument form without actually being able to recognize a valid argument intuitively. You are the equivalent of a parrot who says 'hello' without at all understanding what 'hello' means.

Shall i refute materialism for you? What's that? Squawk? I'll take that to be a yes.

1. A material object can be infinitely divided
2. That which can be infinitely divided has infinite parts
3. Nothing has infinite parts
4. Therefore nothing is a material object.

1. A material object can be infinitely divided
2. That which can be infinitely divided has infinite parts
3. Nothing has infinite parts
4. Therefore nothing is a material object.

1. The sensible world is the place that some of our sensations resemble
2. Sensations can only resemble sensations
3. Therefore, the sensible world is made of sensations (not mind external extended objects)

1. Materialism is the view that everything is material
2. My mind is not material
3. Therefore materialism is false.

I don't know whether death is a harm or not because I don't know whether I will exist when I am dead. And neither do you.

Well of course his logic seems valid to you!

In the above argument you assume both that you exist at the time of your death and that you are harmed by the event of your death.

Make an argument or fuck off.

So, just to be clear, do you think you exist at the time of your death, or not? That is, do you think death marks the cessation of your existence - in which case you do not exist at the time of your death - or not? Be clear.

It's literally the basic principle of validity: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

No I don't. I conclude that I exist at the time of my death.

No I don't. I conclude that I exist at the time of my death. Jesus.

Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions.

And a valid argument can have a false conclusion. You're confusing validity with soundness.

If a valid argument has a false conclusion, then we have discovered by it that at least one premise is false.

Now, I have a book to write and I am behind so I will have to reply to the rest of your squawkings later.

Charming, Hugh.

Hugh Janus, get it? He's clever this boy, but he still doesn't know how valid arguments work. Willful blindness?

I find no pleasure in that.

Yeah, you may be right. I've had a bit of to and fro with Bartricks, and he is an odd one with a very weird conception of reason and what it entitles one to claim.

Bullshit which I have clearly demonstrated to be guiding his consistently invalid and unsound logic, and with pleasure.

Lots of fun bullshit coming from Bartricks. Also he wants to make sure everyone knows he has a PhD in philosophy.

Nietzscheans

Just curious, what's your beef with Nietzsche?

Just about everything that he said that mattered, I have a beef with.

What's my beef

Have you looked at Zarathustra?

I'm persuaded, via what I've experienced and the little that I know, that the OP is on the mark. My hunch is that the history of the world, humanity especially, begins to make (more) sense if contextualized hedonically. The history of life is the history of pain & pleasure. I hope I understood the OP.

I have, my issue is inconsistency with his good stuff and his bad. That's realy why I put him in the pit. He could have been great, instead was practically schizo in his assertions.

I'm going to be honest, I haven't been this excited about learning a piece of philosophical history in years, and I have maintained a passionate love for this tradition. I genuinely mean to say that according to what I know of history, this man was the single greatest contributor to our tradition. And his societies, the most peaceful and prosperous of the ancient world, were fucking murdered out of history. This man who laid the foundation of everything we cherish in the world from science, to free societies, I am unbelievably stricken with gratitutude for this man. And, I don't ever want to here a socialist open their mouth to me about communes for the rest of my days, I'm gonna let em have it.

a PhD in philosophy. :lol:

Also he wants to make sure everyone knows he has

Epicurus got straight to the point. Stop trying to rationalize/sublimate; he cut through all the BS/noise that most other thinkers/philosophers were going on and on about. I like him for that.

As an aside, I think it's pretty hilarious that the autobiographical Ecce Homo is almost pronounced: A Gay Homo.

The first 50 pages or so of Zarathustra are a constant inspiration to me.

His reactionary shoutings down of effete Christian slave-virtue have helped a lot of sheep break away from the flock, myself included.

But sure, in the main he's a master ranter and raver, bitter, egocentric, etc.

Epicureanism is the philosophical platform that directly gave rise to rationalism, science, capitalism, feminism, abolition, Anarchism, Communism, Utilitarianism, Objectivism, cognitivism, and the United States among other things...

Hehaha!

What kinda laugh is this? :chin:

I would say all these isms and whatnot are a mere smokescreen, a blind for what's really going on under the hood so to speak. If you disagree, here's a take that may be more suited to your sensibilities: at the heart of all these points of view, these ideas, etc., lies Epicureanism.

But sure, in the main he's a master ranter and raver, bitter, egocentric, etc.

I put that laugh down when I read something that actually makes me laugh, as your statement did

I make you laugh, huh? God has answered my prayers. Praise the lord!

Oh, just praise that big ole, sweet, sky-baby, making on the fermaments, and killing his own kids, talking through donkeys and bushes about being worshipped, and not being gay cuz eww, hims just so sweet.

(now imagine me saying this to you in the voice of Zack Galifinakis in The Campaign)

That's true, arguments not propositions. But no, you're still wrong:

"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

Not replying to anyone but what's up with the philosophical hero worship? Who has the time!?

That is specifically why he isn't a philosopher.

The Academy is overrun with social-constructionists, Marxists, relativists, Kantians, Cartesians, Nietzscheans and all other manner of plagiarised, deformed, Christian-Mysticism adapted bullshit used by the controllers to ensure a faith in a non-reality. Which is why I started this thread, to provide an example of a real philosopher, and the most important in the history of the tradition.

What I said is that if a deductively valid argument has a false conclusion, then at least one premise is false.

Quite. In this particular case it is really a form of Garret Travers self-love, for Epicurus is the philosopher that Garret Travers has been most influenced by and thus he is the most influential philosopher of all, even though he obviously isn't.

Here are Epicurus's arguments:

1. To be harmed by something you have to experience the harm
2. You can't experience your own death
3. Therefore, you can't be harmed by your own death

That's a shit argument because premise 1 is false. There is nothing inconsistent in God existing and evil existing. For example, there is no logical inconsistency in God existing and a person with an evil disposition existing. God would not have created such a person, but nothing in the definition of God entails that he created anyone. And thus God can exist and another person can exist that God did not create and that person can have an evil disposition. And thus evil can exist consistent with God existing.

The rest of what Epicurus had to teach was really more to do with how best to make oneself happy, and as such it is not really philosopher proper, but therapy. Don't fear death (for the bad reasons given above). Recognize that there is no God or divine retribution (partly for the bad reason given above). Recognize that most pain is either intense but short lived, or dull and easy to cope with. And don't cultivate expensive tastes or hard to satisfy desires. And don't fall in love or have sex.

But I am.

Social constructivists and marxists and relativists and Nietzscheans are mainly in English departments and other disney disciplines. Needless to say, they should all be shut down.

I am quite a fan of Descartes and think he was quite right about the immateriality of the mind and the existence of God. But most analytic philosophers would reject immaterialism about the mind and don't believe in God and don't generally have much time for Descartes. So you clearly don't know much about the academy, at least not the philosophy end of it.

Be honest, all you've done is read some popular science books by people talking outside their areas of expertise and some of them have mentioned Epicurus in approving terms (even though that's a bit odd, given his materialism comes from Democritus) and you've thereby decided that Epicurus is the bee's knees, even though no serious philosopher in their right mind would declare him the most influential of all. I mean, have you heard of Plato? What did he do again? Oh, started the first university and provided the metaphysical foundations of Christianity. Whatever happened to those? Did universities take off? They're called Academies, not Gardens.

Oh, I see. That makes a bit more sense. You've spoken a good deal of horse shit, hard to sift through. Yes, this is true.

This is not his argument. You'll find his argument here

No, it's a first good start for something the vast majority of the population still doesn't understand nearly 2000 years later. And, it's a perfectly good argument because no rational human would create a world with evil in it, and where as god would have to be beyond rational capabilities of any man, then it's not possible for there to be a god. And no, god cannot exist, he will have to be demonstrated to exist, thus both of your arguments are shit, but yours is shittier as it has been 2000 years.

These aren't arguments against Epicurus' positions, they're angry tantrums at his superiority over the philosophers you worship that plagiarised him. Again, his societies are the most successful ever. There's no arguing with the record.

But I am.
— Bartricks

That remains to be seen.

I'm in the Academy. I know exactly what is going on.

It does not make 'more' sense - it has the same sense it always had, it is just that now you see it, whereas before you loudly declared what I said to be false.

Seems you don't understand Epicurus either.

Do you think that it is impossible for God to exist and for an evilly disposed person to exist? If so, why? Don't tell me God wouldn't create such a person, for I have not suggested he would.

I explicitly said that they weren't even philosophical points he was making, but therapeutic ones. But again, understanding is not strong with this one.

No. I am.

Well, there are kitchens in the Academy and burgers won't flip themselves.

Anyway, you clearly don't a clue. You've just been watching too much Jordan Peterson or something.

The rest was just silly.

The premise claims that to be [deleterious effect] by [thing] you must [experience pro/con effect] of [thing] but never mentions the axiomatic truth that nothing in the universe has ever been observed to be composed of a pure or base elment.

I would put forward that it's the unknown and our experience with the negative side of facing the unknown without preparation that we fear (as well as quite possibly the painful transition).

This is not what any premise of his states. This is his argument right here:

Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us.

Here are Epicurus's arguments:

1. To be harmed by something you have to experience the harm
2. You can't experience your own death
3. Therefore, you can't be harmed by your own death

. that's just a totally different epicurean quote vs. a paraphrase of Bartricks summary:

his rationale is more shallow than my 9yo's.

specious and subjective to an excessively biased portrayal of all humanity from his own personal perspective which itself is incredibly limited in understanding compared to ... say ... Aristotle's

I haven't read deeply enough to say if E was an atheist or not, I only know he didn't believe in an afterlife and we already know that some very religious sects (like the Sadducees of Judaism) were theists but didn't believe in an afterlife. It's very rare for a greek not to believe in the gods, as you alluded to.

At any rate I wanted to encourage both you and Bartricks to stop taking things so personally. We are human and our emotions, once they get volitile, will prevent us from being objective and carefully considering the arguments in front of us.

Aristotle did it first and was obviously a very clear and direct first-cause for Epicureanism.

I'm finding it really hard to see where he actually added anything substantial to what Aristotle taught. I'm not implying worthless contribution, far from it, merely that as an intigation rather than a natural propagation and growth your argument seems lacking.

Given that I haven't studied him and I have no intention of studying what he taught and wrote on my own please allow me to clearly state our impasse

I don't want to know what some fatuous fanboy wrote (not you, your links). I don't want to read appaels to fame or appeals to authority... I want a quote or two.

Otherwise I just don't have sufficient reason to put any time into investigating this. I'm curious, but it takes a very profound insight to get me to rearrange my insane learning schedule.