Read La felicità by Epicurus Online


"Non aspetti il giovane a filosofare, né il vecchio di filosofare si stanchi: nessuno è troppo giovane o troppo vecchio per la salute dell'anima. Chi dice che non è ancora giunta l'età di filosofare o che è già trascorsa, è come se dicesse che non è ancora o non è più l'età per essere felici."...

Title : La felicità
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9788817014779
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 97 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

La felicità Reviews

  • Steve
    2019-05-13 11:13

    Let me begin by asserting that the equation Epicureanism = Hedonism is absurdly false. I'll elaborate on this below.Like the works of all of the philosophers who actually initiated and developed Stoicism (lately much on my mind), very little of Epicurus' (c. 342-270 BCE) prolific writings have come down to us. The editor of this volume, George K. Strodach, claims to have translated everything that remains which is not unintelligibly fragmentary. If true, we have only 3 letters (essays), a collection of sayings and aphorisms called Leading Doctrines, and another incomplete collection of such aphorisms now called the Vatican Sayings.According to Strodach, Epicurus wrote in a deliberately dry and nonliterary Greek, using technical philosophical terms in an extremely idiosyncratic manner. To supplement the paucity of sources and the uninviting prose of Epicurus, Strodach also brings parallel passages from the great Latin philosophical poem De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) composed by one of Epicurus' greatest followers, Titus Lucretius Carus (94-55 BCE).(*) Strodach also translates excerpts of that portion of Diogenes Laertius' 2nd century CE compilation Lives of the Philosophers which concerned Epicurus. Along with useful endnotes, Strodach adds a decent 90 page essay on Epicurean philosophy and its antecedents, where he quickly reveals himself to be a committed materialist who particularly admires Democritus' thought and reproaches Epicurus for modifying for the worse his predecessor's system...Like the founders of Stoicism, and unlike Epictetus, Epicurus begins with physics and metaphysics.(**) One can incompletely summarize his position as a very pure materialism - philosophical materialism, not the "materialism" associated with modern life. In the universe there is only uncreated and indestructible atomic matter in its eternal motions, collisions, adhesions and subsequent dissolutions placed in empty space. Both are infinite in spatial and temporal extent. The only true existents are atomic matter and empty space - all else are more or less temporary manifestations of those two. There is no divine creator or guide. There is a soul, but at death it dissipates into its constituent atoms, so there is no Afterlife, no Heaven, no Hell, and so, as Lucretius explains at length, there is no need to fear death.This concentrates the mind mightily on the here and now. So, how to live this life in such a universe?Not as an automaton. Such a rigidly mechanistic and deterministic metaphysics leaves little room for freedom and responsibility, so Epicurus introduced the curious notion of an atomic "swerve" which the "soul" atoms can carry out. It's not clear to me how either freedom or moral responsibility are recovered by this ploy, but I do recognize a deus ex machina when I see one...Nonetheless, free will and moral responsibility are part of Epicurus' system (as opposed to that of his godfather in physics and metaphysics, Democritus). Forewarned by reading John M. Cooper's Pursuits of Wisdom, I knew that the commonly parroted view of Epicurus' thought was wrong, but now that I have read the sources which survive I see that he wasn't merely misunderstood, he was deliberately slandered by Christian theologians (and others) in every manner available to them. It is no wonder that the theists abhorred him - from his follower Lucretius:I shall account for how men's minds oftentimes hang fearfully in the balance at the sight of what comes to pass on earth and in the sky. Their spirits are demeaned by the dread of the gods and crushed drooping to the dust because their ignorance of natural causes forces them to ascribe all to divine rule and to concede the reign of gods.The Epicureans wanted to replace divine causes with naturalistic causes, to replace religious superstition with causal chains of natural events, to replace superstitious fear with an understanding much like that of our contemporary scientific community's. Moreover, Epicurus wrote repeatedly that ordinary religion was not just mistaken, it was destructive of mankind's happiness. As Lucretius wrote, "True religion is rather the power to contemplate nature with a mind set at peace."Although Epicurus' book On the Gods was lost (Diogenes Laertius informs us of its existence in his lengthy essay on Epicurus), it is clear from the bits and pieces that remain that the existence of gods is not denied at all by the Epicureans; but the gods' interest in meddling in the affairs of man and nature is denied, for the gods are complete unto themselves and have no concern for us whatsoever. They could not have an effect on man or nature even if they wanted to.The role of the gods in Epicurus' system was to serve as exemplars of the highest form of happiness - ataraxia - a unique state (though it shares certain qualities with satori) which includes serenity, detachment, unadulterated happiness and freedom from irrational fears and anxieties of all sorts as attributes. This happiness has absolutely nothing at all to do with our senses, except insofar as the absence of pain is implied, and therefore Epicureanism has nothing in common with hedonism.(***) It is impossible to misunderstand this from his writings; I speculate that Epicurus was the object of character assassination because his view of the gods was so contrary to that of the Christians and the mystic neo-Platonists that they had to do away with him in any manner available. Diogenes Laertius affirms that other, non-Christian philosophers forged compromising letters they attributed to Epicurus and spread other lies (he even names some names). Stoics and Skeptics attacked versions of "Epicureanism" which had little or nothing to do with his writings. I now see Epicureanism as a quietistic humanism whose core is understanding natural causes in a mechanistic universe, thereby obviating the necessity of gods and relieving irrational fears and anxieties, and withdrawal within oneself to this remarkable state of ataraxia. The books which explain how to attain this state and how to live with the rest of humanity when one is in this state are gone...Note: I read the original 1963 version of this book, entitled The Philosophy of Epicurus. Penguin has changed the title and added a forward from a "popular" author for reasons which seem obvious if not quite laudable.(*) These dates are controversial. One knows almost nothing about Lucretius beyond that which can be deduced from De rerum natura.(**) His Letter to Herodotus is primarily occupied with the physical and metaphysical setting of his philosophy, where also some arguments are provided for these positions. Passages of De rerum natura which deliver an interesting combination of argument and persuasive imagery give further grounds for thought.(***) Diogenes Laertius writes of Epicurus' modest, even ascetic lifestyle. Rating

  • Borum
    2019-05-06 08:57

    I needed some help in figuring out what Lucretius or Epicurus was trying to convey in De Rerum Natura, so I started reading 'The Art of Happiness'. I was surprised to find out that some ideas that I believed to belong to Epicurus may have been misinterpreted. (Of course, I might be wrong in my interpretation of THIS book as well...) I started reading Lucretius after reading the Swerve by Greenblatt and now I'm trying to get a firmer grasp on it through the discussion in our group and this book on Epicurus' Art of Happiness. It seems that he tried to overlook some faults in the physical and etymological theories in order to focus on the ethical impact of atomism. The book has a bit too much commentary and I don't recommend reading this before reading Lucretius but it might be of some help.As Epicurus' own writings are scant, it IS more of Strodach's book, but it offered me a chance to see the prose translation of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (which is just as beautiful as the verse translation) and made me realize how extremely dry and bland Epicurus' style of composition is in comparison. Before, I was a bit doubtful about the efficiency of Lucretius's poetic format in presenting a scientific theory but after reading this, I fully appreciate it. :-) Kudos to Luc. Though it did help me understand some less clear points of epicurism and provided some background knowledge and I liked the Vatican collection of epicureanist aphorisms, I didn't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Lucretius version of epicureanism.

  • Meg
    2019-05-24 11:03

    LaLettera a Meneceo dovrebbe essere letta da tutti, almeno una volta nella vita, e magari anche ricopiata sul proprio quadernetto delle poesie, e perché no? Anche sul proprio diario.I consigli di Epicuro per una vita felice non colpiscono per la loro originalità quanto per la loro banalità, perché in fin dei conti li conosciamo già nel nostro intimo, ma spesso non li ammettiamo neanche a noi stessi, oppure ci pensiamo molto meno di quanto dovremmo. E facciamo male, perché sicuramente viviamo meno felicemente di quanto potremmo.

  • Yann
    2019-05-25 02:59

    Malgré le fait que le texte soit très court, c'est une tès bonne édition qui privilégie la clarté sur l'érudition. Une introduction brosse un tableau clair de l'épicurisme en mettant en évidence les écarts avec sa "rivale" stoïque. Les notes sont abondantes, et on trouveras des extraits du magnifique "De Natura Rerum" de Lucrèce (le philosophe, pas la Vestale ). Les parallèles que l'on pourrait faire avec le Philèbe de Platon sont nombreux.Je viens de relire ce texte, il est magnifique!

  • alice
    2019-05-08 10:17

    sto iniziando ad apprezzare l'abilità comune agli antichi filosofi greci, capaci di esprimere in termini semplici e frasi concise quello che tutti pensiamo, ma non siamo in grado di condensare in parole che si succedano con logica.

  • Francesca
    2019-05-10 06:01

    Lettura interessante e chiarificatrice. Grazie a questo libricino ho compreso che non potevo essere "epicurea", sebbene il mio ingenuo cuore di diciassettenne con tutte le sue forze ambisse a quello (e già questa ambizione mi doveva risultare sospetta... ). Tuttavia l'ho letto con piacere. Lo consiglio a chi ha interesse nelle filosofia in generale: nonostante fosse un'edizione economicissima (dubito si trovi ancora), l'economicità non condanna il contenuto.

  • Christopher Brennan
    2019-05-09 06:58

    I think I could have done with a little more Epicurus in this and less pulling in from Lucretius and commentary but it was a quick distillation otherwise. The introduction does a great job of providing context, but as a result the translators cometary throughout felt repetitive rather than expanding.

  • Michael de Percy
    2019-05-04 02:52

    I found this book quite perplexing. I expected a hedonistic discussion of the life of reading, conversation, and communal living. Instead, I was learning about atomic theory and the atomic "swerve" (a way to explain randomness in the universe and the subsequent collision of atoms), the logic of the sun, moon,stars, and weather, and the need to be ever-vigilant to ignore the popular gods and to rely on empirical evidence rather than determinism (fate) and mythology to comprehend the otherwise unknown. The letters to Herodotus and Pythocles were all about such concepts, with only the letter to Menoeceus even touching upon the concept of happiness. I was surprised by the depth of the logos of Epicurean thought, and the loftiness of its ideals when compared to Stoic philosophy. Physics was originally known as natural philosophy, and out Epicurus' understanding of the universe (based on the ideas of others and not just his own, of course), led to an anti-religious philosophy. Yet God is not absent in Epicurean thought. In the "Leading Doctrines" (pp. 174-5), Epicurus explains: 10. If the things that produce the debauchee's pleasures dissolved the mind's fears regarding the heavenly bodies, death, and pain and also told us how to limit our desires, we would never have any reason to find fault with such people, because they would be glutting themselves with every sort of pleasure and never suffer any physical or mental pain, which is the real evil. 11. We would have no need for natural science unless we were worried by apprehensiveness regarding the heavenly bodies, by anxiety about the meaning of death, and also by our failure to understand the limitations of pain and desire. 12. It is impossible to get rid of our anxieties about essentials if we do not understand the nature of the universe and are apprehensive about some of the theological accounts. Hence it is impossible to enjoy our pleasures unadulterated without natural science.Moral acts involve deliberate "choices" of possible concrete pleasures and "aversions", e.e., the deliberate avoidance of prospective pain. An act is moral if in the long run, all things considered, it produces in the agent a surplus of pleasure over pain; otherwise it is immoral. Our choices, desires, and aversions play a prominent role in Stoic philosophy, too. So too, are our impressions, and Epicurus outlines his theology thus: The gods do indeed exist, since our knowledge of them is a matter of clear and distinct perception. However, Epicurus warned against anthropomorphising the gods or Gods, and that the gods did not control nature. Rather, their role was ethical, and the gods were abstract (p. 41): psychological projections of what every good Epicurean wanted himself to be... Thus a relapse into "the old-time religion" of a god-controlled universe has very serious consequences: It cuts the worshipper off from the gods' images - that is, alienates him from the divine communion - and it plunges the naive believer once more into the ancient fears that Epicurus seeks to allay: namely, that the gods will avenge themselves on wicked men by causing natural disasters, political upheavals, and finally the torments of death and hell. For the Roman poet, Lucretius: True religion is rather the power to contemplate nature with a mind set at peace. Nevertheless, Epicurus was keen to attack other philosophies and religions, so it is not surprising that he got some of his own back! When I was schooled in snippets of Greek philosophy, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were the godhead "gang of three" (see De Bono), and the Presocratics and others were treated as the great pretenders. Yet Epicurus, too, was asking those two great questions: How to live and what to believe (see Murray in my previous article), and his atomic theory addressed the second question in order to address the first. God exists, but, like the atomic swerve, free will exists otherwise there would be no need for ethics, for our behaviour would be pre-determined. According to Strodach's Introduction, the Epicurean materialism (which was morphed or "garbled" into "eat, drink, and be merry") was "so unpalatable" to the ancient and medieval worlds that Epicurus' atomic theory was lost until the 17th Century (uncovered by "the Jesuit priest Pierre Gassendi, a contemporary of Descartes", see p. 76). And so I find myself in agreement with Daniel Klein (see Foreword): For a moment, the twenty-first-century mind might recoil at the idea of a self-anointed pundit proclaiming to his students - and to us - exactly how to live. But I, for one, read on for the simple reason that I suspect Epicurus may, in fact, have gotten it right.

  • Orlane
    2019-05-01 05:53

    This book was really interesting and short at the same time.Even though the quality of language is really high, this book was less complicated than I thought it would be.So in the end I understood the message and the philisophy theory behind this. And that's what matters.

  • Fábio Rachid
    2019-05-19 09:56

    A very short book where Epicurus lays down his philosophy in a very simple and clear way to one of his students.It is Epicurus' definition of happiness, which means a body without suffering and a mind without perturbation, and how to achieve it, by looking for pleasure (not purely in the material, sensorial way), which is what leads you to have a sane mind and body. So he differs from hedonism, since banquets, drinking and search for sex, which are a sensorial pleasure, should not be actively sought, choosing instead to live in a more simplistic way, so as to understand that a man does not need much to achieve happiness.The search of pleasure should be to rid oneself of basic needs, which would prepare one to an incertain, and sometimes negative, future. Also, by living like that, good moments would be even better savoured. Putting it simply, you should be used to having water, because, in the future, you may not be able to enjoy having juice. And, of course, if you have the chance to drink juice, you'd enjoy it even more after weeks of water.Yet, he does not deny the importance of pain, which should be taken if will lead to a greater pleasure in the future. So, putting it simply, instead of avoiding physical exercising because it's painful now, understand that it will pay off in the future.In summary:- Happiness is both having a body without suffering and an undisturbed mind;- Moderately seek pleasure that helps you achieve that; deny active search just for sensorial pleasures such as banquets, drinking and etc.;- Learn to live with less, for the future is uncertain and bountiful moments will be enjoyed more intensely;- Do not run away from pain if it will lead to an even greater pleasure in the future.A short, simple, yet important reminder to reflect upon what happiness means, upon what our choices may lead to and an appraisal of a more simple and plentiful life.

  • Wouter
    2019-05-16 04:00

    The introduction of the translator actually pulled me through the rest of the book (the letters of Epicurus himself as they are a bit hard to get into at first). The nature part provides a base layer for us people who are "afraid of the solar system and the gods" so that we can rest assured some things are explained - but not too much in detail. Epicurus simply aims to attain a peace of mind. The rest of physics and mathematics are completely useless to us, according to him. This principle reminds me of Alain de Botton's status fear lemma: we cope with entropy by imagining gods as an explanation of the chaos happening around us (it must have been fate that brought me to read this book!). The part about happiness looks like plain hedonism but isn't that easily distilled into one word. We seek to avoid suffering: mentally and physically. That sounds like buddhism. Don't just give in to lust as it might have even worse repercussions: make an educated decision.One of the more entertaining Greek parts of philosophy to read.

  • Trounin
    2019-04-28 09:07

    Прав был Лейбниц, считая, что нет лучше в философии того, чего коснулись умы древних греков. Они мыслили масштабно и всё покорялось их взору, не нисходили до мелочной суеты и говорили так, как ныне считают потомки. В чём-то можно не согласиться, но это до той поры, пока свежие мысли не опровергнут последователи, вновь готовые отдать лавры первоначальным мыслителям. Наука будет изменять представления о действительности, разрабатывать похожие на правду теории, рождаемые от познания скрытого в космических глубинах. Однако, ещё Эпикур говорил, всё познаётся в сравнении с самим собой, то есть не надо изобретать того, о чём никто не в состоянии помыслить. Любой рассматриваемый вопрос всегда имеет решение под рукой, достаточно рассмотреть его под требуемым для того углом, и далёкое становится близким, а непонятное — логически доказанным.(c) Trounin

  • Roberto/Isairon
    2019-05-07 07:20

    Testo scritto più di 2.200 anni fa! Impressionante come uomini di quel periodo già affrontavano, discutevano di problemi che tutt'oggi sono di una attualità sorprendente. Stupendo quando parla della morte "Quando noi viviamo la morte non c'è, quando c'è lei non ci siamo noi" allora perché aver paura o preoccuparsi? Molto bella anche la frase di chiusura dove Epicuro esorta a meditare e quindi fare autocritica su se stessi e sul modo di agire e di pensare. Invita anche a condividere il proprio pensiero con chi ci è vicino, a dire il vero usa l'espressione "con chi ti è simile". Meditazione e amicizia, per lo scrittore fondamentali nel raggiungere la felicità! :)

  • Mauricio Garcia
    2019-05-15 06:09

    Can't say I disagree with anything as presented by Epicurus. Succinct and practical advice on how to lead a life of contentment, that is as relevant today as ever....So how again is this supposed to have anything to do with hedonism???

  • Flaminia
    2019-05-05 05:06

    Poche parole ma buone. Con una chiarezza sintattica e lessicale Epicuro è riuscito a presentare e dare una soluzione ad uno dei problemi più intrinsechi dell'uomo.

  • Evan Micheals
    2019-05-03 06:13

    I am liking the interpretations of modern scholars, rather than the originals... I will persist with my on going reading into Stoicism.

  • Elliott Bignell
    2019-05-19 05:59

    Epicurus seems to have been a prolific writer whose work has mainly been lost, but whose philosophy was preserved by the school which followed him. This work comprises three lengthy letters which have survived in his own hand, along with the later interpretations and interpolations of Lucretius and the introduction and commentary of the modern translator. It has less directly to do with happiness than one might imagine, and consists of a startling mixture of ideas advanced before their time, thus eerily familiar, and jarring dissonances with the modern mind.Epicurus himself seems to have been following in the footsteps of Democritus, and his philosophy can be understood under atomism. According to the commentaries, he found himself in the midst of a culture war between his naturalistic philosophy and the idealism of the Platonists, also the supersitions concerning active, anthropomorphic gods, and this explains a certain dogmatism in his assertions: This was the middle of a an ongoing fight for the soul of a society. One sees a foreshadowing of empiricism and scientific naturalism in his writing, but the conception of falsification had not emerged in the ancient world, so there is also an excess of faith in his hypotheses. Mostly this model of the world emerges by the application of pure reason to dogmatic presumptions, and if this process can in principle explain what we see in nature it is considered to have been explained. Conjecture and refutation is not applied.Epicurus offers a fatalistic, almost Eastern conception of human being. Its naturalism frees us from the superstitions of religion, as the gods remain distant like Newton's master clockmaker and do not concern themselves with punishing sinners or rewarding the virtuous. The only virtue is "pleasure", which I interpret loosely as the freedom from privations, compulsions and dependencies, leading Epicurus to have led a rather ascetic life. The only life we have is the one we now live, and it should be lived in comfort, but comfort means to be content with simplicity, because the addiction to rich foods or the pursuit of political power lead us into compulsions and addictions. There is much to admire here, even if it leads him to eschew public life and service. As we are merely a temporary accumulation of atoms falling through space, free only in that the atoms "swerve" arbitrarily - a shameful ad hoc rationalisation - to render our choices undetermined, there is no self after death breaks up that pattern of atomic relations. Death, therefore, is nothing to us, and no more an inconvenience than was the state of not yet having been born. Live now, therefore!Like all the ancients in my experience, Epicurus is a clear voice and quite easy to follow, while Lucretius' rich prose is outright pleasurable to read. The Greeks' world was not ours, and the modern mind rails at some of this dogmatism in the service of a long-overturned Weltanschauung, but there are fascinating elements of our modern selves to be seen here. This was an important voice, and played an important part in shaping that Greek world of the mind.

  • Michael A
    2019-05-12 02:59

    I see I am the first review here.The thing that bugs me about original philosophy texts -- well, this is a translation, but it has to do -- is that they are often too esoteric and abstruse to really understand. Epicurus is one of many who is not so easy to understand, though I guess it could be a lot worse (ever try reading Hegel?).To illustrate this confusion, let me offer you some of the things I learned from reading this book. For starters, did you know that sensation results from the collision of the atoms in the universe? Did you know that atoms naturally fall in a downward, parallel kind of direction, but sometimes they swerve out of line so we have consciousness and free will? Did you know that we can accept that gods exist because we can sense them enter our brain in dreams through atomic films? Did you know we can use our daily sense experiences to make grand theories about cosmic bodies? That is, since we know a fire eventually burns out from lack of fuel, we can safely say that an eclipse is simply a process of the star not having an internal fire? In this way, analogies through common sense can be used to justify absurd scientific claims -- they just have to make sense in our daily sensory life.Of course, a lot of this is outdated and it makes for terrible science as it we know it today, but just as big of a problem is that Epicurus doesn't write very well either. Given those faults, does his work have any value to me as I try to live my own life?It does in a way. His focus on living a life free from irrational religious beliefs does strike a chord for me. That said, I wonder why he even needs to posit the existence of a deity if said deity is just supposed to be floating in the sky in a state of undisturbed bliss. I also appreciate his historical importance in the development of a scientific method. Lastly, I generally agree with him when he wants people to live a tranquil life not overly concerned with the outside world or death. Basically, I don't mind the general outline of his philosophy. It's how he tries to fill in details and explain it all that are odd. Having read him in this volume, it hasn't left a terribly big impact on me in the grand scheme of things.The reason I give this volume four stars is for the introduction. It's wonderful -- far more helpful and informative than reading Epicurus has been. The translator/compiler did such a great job that I don't even have much of a desire to read Lucretius. Anything I wanted to know of Epicurus's theory has been explained here along with lucid commentary to help readers think about the implications of the ideas. I wish more philosophy books came with introductory sections this helpful!Read this (especially the introduction) before tackling Epicurus head on.

  • Aidan
    2019-05-26 02:59

    Epicurus had a remarkably sane and a healthy view on a lot of things (e.g. religion, money, death), but he was thoroughly misguided in his judgment on sex, and its implications on the physical and mental health and human happiness. For someone so keen on bettering the quality of human life, he missed the importance of sexual intercourse. According to Epicurus and his followers (Lucretius), sex was pointless and something to be avoided, even (for reasons that are not entirely clear to me). Which is a peculiarly amiss judgment for someone who preached about the importance of physical senses in determining what is right and wrong. He was right, of course, about trusting your senses (under normal, neurologically healthy physiological conditions, one might add in the 21st century), but he was wrong about sex. Physical intimacy with another man plays a key part in human happiness. It is something predicted and confirmed by our physical senses.Thus, although his tenets on religions, gods, wealth and some other minor things are a welcome development, you'll have to throw away the rest of it. He couldn't even follow his own advice about trusting one's physical senses (of which the most obvious one is the sensual pleasure inherent in sex). Which is inconsistent of him. It is also entirely disagreeable about him, distasteful and unfortunate, that he missed the benefit and importance of sex in human life and well-being. Furthermore, his later clarification that by 'pleasure' he meant 'freedom from pain' sounds more like tracing back in response to criticism, rather than an actual stance. When people talk of 'pleasure' they clearly do not mean 'freedom from pain' (although, that is there by default); when they say 'pleasure' they mean 'pleasure'. Epicurus couldn't have been so ignorant. Which casts a doubt on his whole clarification on this term. Although I don't doubt his aversion for sensual excesses, I don't buy it that he saw the terms 'pleasure' and 'absence of pain' as synonymous and interchangeable. That just does not add up.

  • Matt
    2019-05-14 07:06

    This is a great little introduction to a fascinating branch of ancient philosophy. The book is a bit deceptive, as this is really just a reprint of a book from 1963 (The Philosophy of Epicurus : Letters, Doctrines, and Parallel Passages from Lucretius by George K. Strodach) with a little preface by Daniel Klein tacked onto it. I'm used to Dover Thrift Editions and Everyman's Library issuing disguised reprints of old translations, but it seems that Penguin is getting in the business too. This title is better than your average Everyman reprint for several reasons though: the translation is clear and serviceable, it is followed by a lengthy section of endnotes that clarify and elucidate the text, and it is preceded by a lengthy introduction which provides an overview of Epicurus and Epicurean philosophy. None of this has been revised or updated in any way, so there are frequent references to the cold war, communism, and some dated ideas about sexuality and relationships. Some of these are actually pretty funny. My favorite gem is a note on page 195 that earnestly references UFOs as a modern example of something unknown which begets multi-cause explanations. There is also a great 5-page diatribe in the introduction called "A sermon by a modern Epicurean on the evils of religion." These alone make this volume worth reading. The clear translations, helpful notes, and useful collection of passages from Lucretius make this a great way to get acquainted with ancient Epicurean philosophy. The biggest concern, of course, is that there have been over 5 decades of scholarship on Epicurus since this volume was published, so some of his analysis may turn out to be falsified by later scholarship. But for the relative neophyte, this may be a good place to start.

  • Alessandro Paci
    2019-05-25 10:22

    Recensione tratta da:“Lettera sulla felicità” è un libretto dal contenuto di pagine modesto, appena 30, e dal costo irrisorio di 50 centesimi, che racchiude un messaggio inviato dal filosofo Greco Epicuro al suo amico Meneceo, nel quale tratta per l’appunto il tema della felicità.Nonostante prezzo, spessore fisico, rilegatura, e ogni altro particolare tenderebbe ad indicarne la poca importanza, tuttavia io sono convinto che in questo libretto così umile vi sia più di quanto sembra. Il tempo di lettura di questo testo si aggira intorno alla mezzora, il tempo che invece si può impiegare nella riflessione è una vita; breve, conciso, privo di elementi superflui, tratta però pressoché ognuno dei maggiori problemi che ci allontanano dalla felicità, e lo fa con parole semplici, facilmente comprensibili da chiunque, poiché chiunque ha diritto alla felicità.Consiglio vivamente la lettura – e la rilettura – attenta di questo libricino, e la consiglio a chiunque. Posso assicurarvi che non potreste impiegare una mezzora in modo migliore.Voto: 4/5

  • Jessica
    2019-04-27 03:10

    Acostúmbrate a pensar que la muerte no tiene nada quever con nosotros, porque todo bien y todo mal radica en lasensación, y la muerte es la privación de sensación. De ahíque la idea correcta de que la muerte no tiene nada que vercon nosotros hace gozosa la mortalidad de la vida, no porqueañada un tiempo infinito sino porque quita las ansiasde inmortalidad.125. Pues no hay nada temible en el hecho de vivir paraquien ha comprendido auténticamente que no acontecenada temible en el hecho de no vivir. De modo que es estúpidoquien asegura que teme la muerte no porque hará sufrircon su presencia, sino porque hace sufrir con su inminencia.Pues lo que con su presencia no molesta sin razónalguna hace sufrir cuando se espera. Así pues, el mal quemás pone los pelos de punta, la muerte, no va nada con nosotros,justamente porque cuando existimos nosotros lamuerte no está presente, y cuando la muerte está presenteentonces nosotros no existimos. Por tanto, la muerte no tienenada que ver ni con los vivos ni con los muertos, justamenteporque con aquellos no tiene nada que ver y éstos yano existen.Carta a Meneceo, Epicuro

  • Procyon Lotor
    2019-05-08 05:05

    Altissima Teoria. Realistica pratica: Er primo gusto der Monno(1) Sentite, sposa:(2) er nun zudasse(3) er pane, lo st� in ozzio ar focone in ne l�inverno, er vince un amb�al lotto e mmejjo un terno, l�av� ppieno er cammino de bbefane, er beve auffa,(4) er cojjon� er Governo e ff�lla in barba ar fisco e a le dogane, lo sguazz� ttra un diluvio de puttane che nun abbi pavura de l�inferno, l��sse(5) appraudito, er divent� ssiggnore, prelato, cardinale, santo padre... s�(6) ttutti gusti che vve vanno ar core. Ma de tanti ggnisuno s�assomijja manco per ombra ar gusto c�ha una madre d��sse cresa(7) sorella de la fijja. G.G. Belli - 20 febbraio 1837 -------------------------------------------------- 1 Del mondo. 2 Pronunziato colla o stretta. 3 Il non sudarsi, ecc. 4 Il bere a ufo, gratis. 5 L�essere. 6 Sono. 7 D�essere creduta.

  • Ivan Probst
    2019-05-23 06:53

    By taking what Epicurus has written himself (or so we think), and Lucretius versions, the author manages to build a solid summary of Epicureanism. The book is directed to novices more than advanced persons, and offers a simple way to dig into this ideal of happiness, without much background in philosophy.If all of it is true I don’t know, as philosophy is always open to personal interpretation. But I feel much of what is said is simply stated facts and a run through what makes the basics of Epicureanism. It then lets you then evaluate your own position within this set of values, and this is great.

  • Christian, Kelanth, Scala
    2019-05-08 08:54

    Meneceo, Mai si è troppo giovani o troppo vecchi per la conoscenza della felicità. Così parte questo libricino che acquistai tanto tempo fa in una giornata uggiosa da un edicolante sotto la metropolitana mentre guardavo fuori piovere e aspettavo che smettesse per poter uscire. Non c'era niente di felice in tutto quello e queste poche pagine arrivate a me da un tempo così lontano aprirono uno squarcio di luce in una giornata così buia. Un lettera da leggere e rileggere per capire come in fondo la felicità è alla portata di ognuno di noi, basta solo sapere dove guardare.

  • Jason Williams
    2019-04-27 08:17

    This book is an excellent example of early Greek philosophy that attempts to explain the world through natural observations.Without properly developed scientific methods and lacking any scientific instruments, the conclusions and explanations lean heavily on pseudoscience.A saving grace is that Epicurus does not appear to be dogmatic and would likely change his viewpoint with sufficient evidence.I would recommend this book to anybody who enjoys skepticism and all of its various forms.

  • Germano Dalcielo
    2019-04-29 11:06

    Niente da eccepire, alcuni pensieri sono condivisibili e attuali ancora oggi, a distanza di duemila anni e nonostante siano profondamente cambiati la società, la cultura e il mondo stesso. Eppure gli aneliti, le tensioni dell’animo umano sono e rimangono universali, quindi non si può che chiudere questa breve lettera in perfetto accordo con quello che espresse questo grande filosofo greco, noto per la sua benevolenza e magnanimità oltre che per l’intelligenza e la profondità di pensiero.

  • disastrino
    2019-05-22 10:14

    da leggere assolutamente appena si hanno 10 minuti. e poi da rileggere ad ogni occasione, perchè alcuni consigli a Meneceo sono universali e senza tempo."ricordiamoci poi che il futuro non è tutto nostro, ma neanche del tutto non nostro. solo così possiamo non aspettarci che assolutamente s'avveri, né allo stesso modo disperare del contrario."

  • Roberta
    2019-05-19 06:18

    "Scacciamo da noi le cattive abitudini, come nemici malvagi che ci abbiano per lungo tempo danneggiato.""Se l'ira dei genitori nei confronti dei propri figli è giustificata, è sciocco opporvisi e non chiedere loro perdono, ma è ancor più folle sfidarli esasperando col proprio risentimento la loro irragionevolezza senza tentare di mitigarla con miti ragionamenti."

  • Martyspringsteen98
    2019-05-14 11:06

    "Non esiste nulla di terribile nella vita per chi davvero sappia che nulla c'è da temere nel non vivere più. Perciò è sciocco chi sostiene di aver paura della morte, non tanto perché il suo arrivo lo farà soffrire, ma in quanto l'afflige la sua continua attesa.Ciò che una volta presente non ci turba, stoltamente atteso ci fa impazzire."