Talk:Epicurus

The article needs a cleanup
As I noted a few days ago at User talk:86.129.142.19 believe this article has become far too much filled with commentary rather than quotations. Much of the new material and organization might belong in a study-guide for Epicurus at Wikibooks but not here. I probably won't have the time to do much myself here for at least a few days, but I thought a note should be made of the situation. ~ Achilles 20:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * WTF? 18 months later and no one has removed these non-quotes?

SO TRUE! In fact, it has parts that ARE NOT in the original, such as David Hume's "quotations" about "Epicurus" formulation of the problem of God and Evil, grafted into "The Letter to Menoeceus." What source did the original article use...?


 * The very extensive commentary that was added to this article has now been removed, by reverting to a previous version and building a valid collection of quotations from that base. ~ Kalki 12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What a quote ...
This single quote (though it might have been some other thinker): ''Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?'' made me an atheist. What a great quote. Most people think like this when they lose a relative to a terrorist act or some other bad thing happens, or some unanswered prayers occur. Nothing of that sort has happened to me, but it's idiotic to believe literally in fairy-tales and very very old books.--76.112.207.80 16:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * can anyone find a source for that qoute?--190.246.77.135 16:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what Hume scholar J. C. A. Gaskin says in the Explanatory Notes to his edition of Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion:
 * "[N]o such terse and effective sequence of questions occurs in any extant work of Epicurus. The immediate source for Hume is very probably Bayle's Dictionary (which he is using extensively in this part of the Dialogues), the article on Paulicians, note E or (for both Bayle and Hume) On the Anger of God, ch. 13, by Lactantius (AD 260-340), for which see The Works of Lactantius, trans. W. Fletcher (Edinburgh, 1871; or London, 1951). A somewhat similar form of words occurs in Sextus Empiricus (second century AD), but there is no attribution to Epicurus. See his Outlines of Pyrrhonism, III. iii."
 * The Lactantius text can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0703.htm
 * "You see, therefore, that we have greater need of wisdom on account of evils; and unless these things had been proposed to us, we should not be a rational animal. But if this account is true, which the Stoics were in no manner able to see, that argument also of Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them? I know that many of the philosophers, who defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed by this argument, and are almost driven against their will to admit that God takes no interest in anything, which Epicurus especially aims at; but having examined the matter, we easily do away with this formidable argument. For God is able to do whatever He wishes, and there is no weakness or envy in God. He is able, therefore, to take away evils; but He does not wish to do so, and yet He is not on that account envious. For on this account He does not take them away, because He at the same time gives wisdom, as I have shown; and there is more of goodness and pleasure in wisdom than of annoyance in evils. For wisdom causes us even to know God, and by that knowledge to attain to immortality, which is the chief good. Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good. But Epicurus did not see this, nor did any other, that if evils are taken away, wisdom is in like manner taken away; and that no traces of virtue remain in man, the nature of which consists in enduring and overcoming the bitterness of evils. And thus, for the sake of a slight gain in the taking away of evils, we should be deprived of a good, which is very great, and true, and peculiar to us. It is plain, therefore, that all things are proposed for the sake of man, as well evils as also goods."
 * The Lactantius text can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0703.htm
 * "You see, therefore, that we have greater need of wisdom on account of evils; and unless these things had been proposed to us, we should not be a rational animal. But if this account is true, which the Stoics were in no manner able to see, that argument also of Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them? I know that many of the philosophers, who defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed by this argument, and are almost driven against their will to admit that God takes no interest in anything, which Epicurus especially aims at; but having examined the matter, we easily do away with this formidable argument. For God is able to do whatever He wishes, and there is no weakness or envy in God. He is able, therefore, to take away evils; but He does not wish to do so, and yet He is not on that account envious. For on this account He does not take them away, because He at the same time gives wisdom, as I have shown; and there is more of goodness and pleasure in wisdom than of annoyance in evils. For wisdom causes us even to know God, and by that knowledge to attain to immortality, which is the chief good. Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good. But Epicurus did not see this, nor did any other, that if evils are taken away, wisdom is in like manner taken away; and that no traces of virtue remain in man, the nature of which consists in enduring and overcoming the bitterness of evils. And thus, for the sake of a slight gain in the taking away of evils, we should be deprived of a good, which is very great, and true, and peculiar to us. It is plain, therefore, that all things are proposed for the sake of man, as well evils as also goods."
 * "You see, therefore, that we have greater need of wisdom on account of evils; and unless these things had been proposed to us, we should not be a rational animal. But if this account is true, which the Stoics were in no manner able to see, that argument also of Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them? I know that many of the philosophers, who defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed by this argument, and are almost driven against their will to admit that God takes no interest in anything, which Epicurus especially aims at; but having examined the matter, we easily do away with this formidable argument. For God is able to do whatever He wishes, and there is no weakness or envy in God. He is able, therefore, to take away evils; but He does not wish to do so, and yet He is not on that account envious. For on this account He does not take them away, because He at the same time gives wisdom, as I have shown; and there is more of goodness and pleasure in wisdom than of annoyance in evils. For wisdom causes us even to know God, and by that knowledge to attain to immortality, which is the chief good. Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good. But Epicurus did not see this, nor did any other, that if evils are taken away, wisdom is in like manner taken away; and that no traces of virtue remain in man, the nature of which consists in enduring and overcoming the bitterness of evils. And thus, for the sake of a slight gain in the taking away of evils, we should be deprived of a good, which is very great, and true, and peculiar to us. It is plain, therefore, that all things are proposed for the sake of man, as well evils as also goods."

As tightly argued as it is, I don't even think it's a correct quote from Hume: "Epicurus's old questions are yet unanswered. / Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? / You ascribe, Cleanthes (and I believe justly), a purpose and intention to Nature." (http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm) I like the snappier version better, but I don't know who it really belongs to.

Unsourced
Wikiquote no longer allows unsourced quotations, and they are in process of being removed from our pages (see Wikiquote:Limits on quotations); but if you can provide a reliable, precise and verifiable source for any quote on this list please move it to Epicurus. --Antiquary 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.


 * We begin every act of choice and avoidance from pleasure, and it is to pleasure that we return using our experience of pleasure as the criterion of every good thing.


 * Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

i added this quote: "He who is not satisfied with a little, is satisfied with nothing". i didn't encountered a really good source, but please don't remove (instead, find a better source). a philosophy teacher of mine once wrote this on the blackboard, and i was searching for much time (in portuguese: "Aquele que não se sadisfaz com pouco, não se sadisfaz com nada", I will add to portuguese wikiquote too). Searching in English was impossible because I didn't had the spelling. I was looking for the author, but I then remembered it might be epicurus. (It was like 5 years ago). Anyway, such a nice project BTW, =) --187.40.168.157 04:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Εἰ βούλει πλούσιόν τινα ποιῆσα, μὴ χρημάτων προστίθει, τῆς δὲ ἐπιθυμίας ἀφαίρει
 * If you would make a man rich do not add to his possessions, but take away from his desires
 * Claimed to be from Strobaeus' Florilegium IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please Help this article needs a cleanup
"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" from Atheism: Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief quotes this. I don't have any source or citation info, sorry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFa8i3oB550. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2250104590805018608#

This is an anonymous, unsourced quote known around the world and should be saved for posterity. just cite this video form BBC it's on youtube for crying out loud. Anyway here's a couple videos from youtube. some one else please update. Maybe someone from the U.K. And also delete half the posts on this sad sand box of a page. Thx.

This is an anonymous, unsourced quote known around the world and should be saved for posterity. And is a good contemporary English translation of Epicurius. I don't have any source or citation info, sorry. just cite this video form BBC. BBC FOUR has had 3 years to remove it and not bothered. Anyway here's a couple videos from youtube. some one else please update. Maybe someone from the U.K. And also delete half the posts on this sad sand box of a page. Thx.

24/3/11