Video

Great Podcast Cassius. Thank you very much!

This is great. THANK YOU!

Excellent Podcast! Thank YOU!

"PromoSM"

She’s an amazing guest with a very lucid and intelligent understanding of the philosophy. Props to you all for an excellent interview with thoughtful questions.

we must crush all followers of plato

So... How did he get the 80 minas? Cheers

Very enlightening on "Prolepsis"! Keep up the good work. Cheers

I've listened to hundreds of hours of philosophy podcasts on YT ... but nothing beats the original text of the respective philosopher (albeit in simplified language). Bra--vo for uploading this video!

Very good conversation - and so many good points. Pleasure as a goal - that is true deep pleasure - is obviously a good place to be. And I agree about modern Stoics - they are more Epicurean than Stoic.

Very nice talk. It’s a shame that philosophy departments today cannot be in gardens. I love my allotment and do a great deal of thinking there. We think best when we are in contract with nature. Philosophers should be gardeners and farmers.

this is totally awesome! thanks :)

I really enjoyed this episode. I only recently discovered Epicurus, having appreciated the stoics and leaned away from hedonism as been there, done that and found it progressively hollow as I trudged the road along the spiritual marketplace. My University interests and exposure was almost exclusively STEM, and Philosophy was cool, for other people. Increasingly folks have questioned my philosophical stance and stoicism was just too damn staunch. I sense a low level disdain many philosophy presenters have reporting but not really reflecting on The Garden as not a place to influence the elite and power brokers as the stoics attempted. In the modern vernacular, Epicurus might say, "You do you, boo."

I have practice of epicurean philosophy since I found it's principal about 45 years ago. I live about 10 miles from where you went to college I live in mayflower. Fascinating. Anyway.i think the young generation have much to gain from the concept of living a life you can be hear in the present without fear in joy life without the content striving for more.i believe the illness of the modern world is being told you must always strive for more.as a member of the counterculture we learned how to charish friends.i always wonted to start a suitable group away from the status seaking culture.i think Gen z most young are looking for meaning and reject the capitalist system is coming Thay don't listen to the great lie now. May your friends always be with you and find Joy in the every day things

This is serious stuff. A philosophy to give a more meaningful live. Give it up for Epicurus

great words, thank you

I love your work. Thanks and regards from Austria

this is beautifull and well read. Regards from Austria

I enjoyed the discussions. Thank you so much

Thanks very much for these discussions. It was a pleasure to listen to the 4 of you. Wish you all well.

Thanks very much for the delightful conversation. I found you by listening to Hiram Crespo in discussion with Massimo Pigliucci & Dan Kaufman when Hiram spoke of AFDIA. I may have heard of Fanny Wright in history books but do not recall her writings. Not a careful, eager reader but appreciative of good discussion about the ancients, especially, Epicurus whom I find appealing. CZcams has given me so much. Thanks again, for EpicureanFriends

A very elegant presentation. If only we had the Epicurean Philosophy taught to High School kids and University students this Planet would have been a much more safe and beautiful place to live .

This book is absolutely amazing and an Epicureanism treasure in my opinion. Great video, thank you!

thanks!

Who can listen to this?

Very nice summary of this teaching.

Is she saying that for Lucretius there is no such thing as teaching objective reality? Then what is his physics? How is he able to say of the Greek poets’ praise of the Earth-Mother that “all this is wonderfully told, a marvel of tradition, _yet far from the real truth.”_ [II.644-6] Or does she admit Lucretius thought we could arrive at genuine truth about the causes of things, but when it comes to _ethical_ judgement, how best to live in the light of that truth, he had nothing to say? Then what can one make of his judgment between “holding the serene regions well fortified on high by the teaching of wise men” and the life of “others wandering below, men lost, confused, competing with each other with their minds and nobility, continually making the greatest efforts to become wealthy and powerful. O wretched minds of men! O hearts in darkness!” [II.8-15] Or this: “So it would be a better thing by far to obey quietly than to wish to rule; the ambitious toil painfully in vain, since indeed they are wise from the mouth of others and seek things from what they hear rather than from the senses themselves.” [V.1132-35] So she’s wrong about Lucretius‘s ethical subjectivity, or that his teaching is barren when it comes to painting the human ideal. This ideal however, is a _private_ good, namely the private life of the philosopher. He did not hope for mass enlightenment. “The mob shrinks back in horror” [I.945] from his doctrine. He did not think his honey-like poetical smearing would work in most cases to overcome revulsion at its grimness. Most people would remain ignorant of the causes of the heaviness in their mind that tired them out. Not knowing what they want, they always seek a change of place; they try to flee from themselves. If they knew the cause of their sickness, they would drop other things and be eager to know the nature of things; for what is at issue is not of an hour, but of eternal time in which mortals must remain after death [III.1053-75]. Their unwillingness to face up to their situation, their semi-conscious anxious hopefulness that they can somehow escape it, will always go on to characterize _most_ lives. Thus Lucretius thought about the irresolvable difference between the philosophic and the common life. In the preface to his _Philosophy of Right_ Hegel asserted that the problem of the tension between philosophy and civil society is resolved in the modern state, in which philosophic knowledge becomes concretely accessible to every citizen. According, “philosophy with us is not, as it was with the Greeks for instance, pursued in private like an art, but has an existence in the open, in contact with the public, and especially, _or even only,_ in service to the state.”

A fine voice and translation, thank you!

Is triumphalist music really the most appropriate to adorn an introduction to Lucretius? I would have chosen the song of Seikilos or something similarly meditative with a lyre. czcams.com/video/9RjBePQV4xE/video.html A triumphalist tone seems mistaken to me because it catches the spirit of the work’s opening, especially the portrayal of “the man from Greece[‘s]” daring to lift his “mortal eyes” to the heavens and being the first to “break down the bars of the gates to nature” and “victoriously brought back to us knowledge of what can and cannot come into being, and in what way each thing has a limited power and deep set boundary,” but it misses the increasingly somber, or as Lucretius would say, _bitter_ aspect of his teaching, which ends with a foreshadowing of the world’s end in its description of the plague of Athens, where even the “calm heights, well built, well fortified by wise men’s teaching [from which] to look down at others wandering below” [bk 2 proem] would be swept away by a plague of such power that it “battered all the bastions of life” [6.1153] reaching even to the mind to make them “blind victims of amnesia, gone from all the selves they used to know” [6. 1207]. In short the tone catches only a part but misses that Lucretius wrote the whole by mixing “sweet talking” with bitter truth, the former being laid on more heavily the nearer to the opening, the latter the closer to the end.

Thank you my old friend .

What's wrong with the voice? This doesn't sound human.

The reader was a robot

thanks. it was great especially the accent of the reader!

Great introduction. Thank you!

Love the content of this video and the website... but the unfriendly unfeeling mechanical voice of the narrator is very hard on the ears.

Was Epicurus a stoic? I don't find many differences between the two philosophies.