We'll continue to deal with individual topics as they occur. Just message me and we will set up an agenda each week that allows for new topics.

We'll attack Lucretius as the gold standard of Epicurean Philosophy. It is the most complete summary of the philosophy left to us from the ancient world, and it was written by a fervent supporter of Epicurus. Where it speaks it can be trusted, and there is much more to be dug out even on areas such as prolepsis where it does not speak as explicitly as we would like.
Lucretius gives us a model of how to explain Epicurean philosophy to a person who is not familiar with it. That is exactly what we ourselves need to do much more of.

After we finish Tusculan Disputations and other Cicero mop-up on the Lucretius Today podcast, we will turn our attention back to going through Lucretius in the same way. This will allow us to prepare an edited "professional" presentation of the major points which will be reusable basically forever. Going through the same topics ahead of time on Sunday will allow us to build a notebook of important topics that we want to be sure to cover.

Every session let's try to cover questions like:

This meeting focused on discussing Lucretius' poem "On the Nature of Things" (De Rerum Natura) and its relationship to Epicurean philosophy. Participants explored the opening passages of the poem, particularly the invocation to Venus, and debated its symbolic meaning within Epicurean thought. The group also discussed approaches to studying Epicurean philosophy, the relationship between Lucretius and Epicurus, and plans for systematically working through the text in future meetings.

The meeting began with an extensive discussion about why Lucretius opens his Epicurean poem with an invocation to Venus, which seems contradictory to Epicurean theology. Several interpretations were offered. Tau suggested it serves dual purposes: as a poetic device and as flattery toward Memmius (the poem's dedicatee), who claimed descent from a hero in Aeneas' army. By addressing Venus as "mother of Aeneas' sons," Lucretius creates an ancestral connection that would appeal to Memmius. Raphael proposed that Venus represents a symbol of natural forces rather than a literal deity, suggesting educated Romans would understand this symbolism. Cassius noted that the specific attributes described in the opening passage might more precisely represent pleasure rather than nature in general, as there's no mention of pain or fear. Joshua contributed that Lucretius was heavily influenced by Empedocles, who described forces of love and strife in nature, which Lucretius transformed into Venus and Mars.

Dave: Who was Lucretius writing to? Who was this Memmius pointed to?

Joshua: He dedicates the poem to Gaius Memmius, a Roman politician who was exiled to Athens and bought the derelict house that belonged to Epicurus. Cicero wrote to Memmius asking him not to tear down the house, as it was a pilgrimage site for Epicureans. The poem may have been part of a campaign to convince Memmius to preserve this important Epicurean landmark.

Dave: I thought the Greeks really considered their gods to be individuals residing somewhere.

Raphael: The educated Greeks and Romans knew that these stories (mythos) were conjured up by poets. They understood them as symbolic personifications of forces of nature.

The group discussed various approaches to studying and understanding Epicurean philosophy. Dave observed that most new members of the forum mention reading DeWitt as their introduction to Epicureanism, wondering why this particular text seems to be the common starting point. Tau shared that he came to Epicureanism through other sources and only read DeWitt later, expressing criticism that DeWitt "takes too many liberties" and presents speculation as fact. Patrikios agreed that DeWitt might not be the best starting point for newcomers, suggesting that more accessible modern works might serve better as introductions. Raphael emphasized the importance of primary sources, arguing that readers should begin with Epicurus' own words before moving to interpretations. The discussion highlighted the challenge of finding appropriate entry points for people at different stages of understanding.

Dave: I usually look at the About section of anyone that joins. It seems like every single person says their reading is DeWitt. Nobody comes in from some other material or reading background. I wonder why that is.

Cassius: People probably pick up the emphasis we place on it on the forum. They likely lurk for a while before setting up an account, see the reading list, and notice that book is included.

Tau: I joined the forum after I studied Epicureanism for some time. I only read DeWitt's book much later, and I was never impressed with it because he takes too many liberties and presents stuff as fact when he has absolutely no ground to do that.

Cassius: There are many different opinions about many different things, and that's part of what we discuss.

Cassius established his position that Lucretius was attempting to faithfully and accurately represent Epicurus rather than extend or modify Epicurean philosophy. He suggested that Lucretius likely had Epicurus' books "On Nature" in front of him and was following not only the content but also the sequence of Epicurus' presentation. Tau agreed, noting that this would explain the heavy emphasis on physics in Lucretius' poem, as Epicurus' "On Nature" primarily dealt with physics. The group discussed the value of Lucretius as a well-preserved, extensive text from someone attempting to explain Epicureanism about 200 years after Epicurus, at a time when there had been sufficient opportunity to process and develop the philosophy. Joshua mentioned David Sedley's book "Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom," which attempts to reconstruct Epicurus' "On Nature" using Lucretius as a guide.

Cassius: I'm coming to this with a position that Lucretius is doing everything he can to faithfully and accurately represent Epicurus. I do not think that Lucretius is trying to extend anything, or change anything, or improvise, or improve anything in Epicurus. Not everybody takes that position, and there are some articles out there that imply that Lucretius, for example, on the swerve, was improvising.

Tau: Lucretius was not really a philosopher himself, he was a brilliant poet, but he didn't try to philosophize or push Epicureanism further. He didn't try to develop the philosophy. He just tried to put the philosophy in the most beautiful words he could.