User:Ethan Della Rocca/sandbox

Trying out a link.

Article Evaluation
For my article evaluation I've decided to look at the article for De Rerum Natura.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article is about the poem. Sections regarding the history of the text itself, the philosophy presented in the text, and responses by scholars all seemed like important and relevant information.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article does not seem particularly biased towards one particular position. At times the article presents multiple different interpretations and generally presented them fairly, unless the general scholarly consensus has since changed, in which case the article made a note of this shift in thought.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoint seemed to be overrepresented or underrepresented. However, as mentioned previously, qualifiers were added regarding some of the scholarly positions depending on their acceptance within the field.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links do seem to work, and it seems like most of the sources have been relatively well represented. The only exception to this I can see is the use of Cicero in the classical reception sections (the Talk page also discusses this).
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Bias does not ever seem to be really addressed, but none of the sources appear to be particularly biased in the first place. There are a few instances where a citation for a fact about the text (mainly statements summarizing the text in the synopsis) should probably be added.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Nothing seems particularly out of date. More information could be added about more modern receptions of the text however.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Very few recent conversations have been had (most being two or more years old) regarding the article. Most discussions are regarding sourcing issues, images, confirming if translations are correct, and debating if a source is being used correctly. There is one large discussion on the actually meaning of the text itself and how it should be interpreted as well as presented in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated start class and high or medium importance in a number of different WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The discussion on Wikipedia is much less focused on the works relationship to skepticism, and rather covers the entire text in broader strokes.

Possible Topics
Epicureanism:

Pretty much every section in this article could be edited to include more information, better/more citations, and more information on the topics already covered. The main sections I'd want to work on are Religion, Philosophy, Ethics, Epicurean Physics, and Epistemology. I will note what I plan to do for each section below:

Religion: There are only two short paragraphs on the religious position of Epicureanism in this section, and those two paragraphs are somewhat repetitive. The other information in the section, while interesting and probably relevant enough to stay in the article, do little to inform the reader about the Epicurean position. For this section I would like to add in much more detail about that position, and perhaps expand on the secondary information if it seems to be relevant or help explain the Epicurean position.

Philosophy: This section is in a better state than the religion section, however it is very poorly sourced. Providing sources would be one of my main goals for this section. Moreover the section could be expanded on, especially in regards to explaining the Epicurean view of pleasure and happiness.

Ethics: The ethics section has similar issues to the philosophy section. More sources are needed and nearly every topic touched on needs to be expanded in some way (e.g. the social contract theory and the fear of death).

Epicurean Physics: This section, while lengthy seems to need an almost total rewrite. The section is completely lacking in citations and doesn't really even meet Wikipedia's writing standards.

Epistemology: This section is perhaps the most complete. However, it should still be expanded further. More citations, along with a better explanation of the Epicurean theory of the mind, are sorely needed.

Ataraxia:

This article gives a basic idea of what ataraxia is and how it pertains to different ancient schools of philosophy. In general the entire article needs more citations and much more detail regarding how the concept mattered to the different ancient schools of philosophy. Each section (the Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Pyrrhonism sections) can be heavily expanded. For example, each section could do a better job of explaining both how ataraxia was conceived and the different methods different schools had achieving ataraxia. Since the article is rather incomplete, I may feel the need to add in another section or two, depending on where my research takes me. At this point I don't foresee having to do that, but I think there is a chance that I may end up feeling that way.

General Plan/Reasons for These Two Articles

With regards to these two topics, I would focus most of my efforts on the Epicureanism article over the ataraxia article simply because it seems to require more work overall. I also expect that much of my research will be able to transfer over to the ataraxia article, which should help me to manage the workload. I have two reasons for wanting to work on these articles. The first is that I can't help but feel that Epicureanism has been very relevant to many of the later authors that we've read thus far. It seems to find ways of creeping back in to nearly all of their works (Montaigne is the most recent one that comes to mind). That connection has piqued my interest in Epicureanism itself, and I want to learn more about it as a result. My second reason for choosing these two topics is the Lucretius class that I took last quarter. I found that class to be really interesting but that I was often lacking the background knowledge in Epicureanism itself to fully understand the poem and its philosophy at times. I think working on the Epicureanism article, but also focusing in on the topic of ataraxia will help me learn some of that information I was lacking.

Potential Sources
I've compiled here a list of potential sources for the two articles thus far. I've tried to include mostly recent scholarship as well as a few ancient sources as well. Depending on where I end up going with the articles I may look at other sources as well (which I will add to this list of course), potentially from the Medieval era or the Renaissance. It also should be noted that many of the sources for the Epicureanism article could also be used Ataraxia article (and vice versa), however the sources I've listed for the Epicureanism article will primarily be used for that article as opposed to the Ataraxia article, which is why I've listed them as such. If I plan to use a resource extensively for both articles, I will have listed it in both sections.

Ataraxia:

Machuca, Diego E. "The Pyrrhonist's Ἀταραξία and Φιλανθρωπία." Ancient Philosophy, vol. 26, no. (1)1, 2006, pp. 111-139.

McPherran, Mark L., "Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium" Ancient Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 1, 1989, 135-171.

Sextus, Empiricus, and Benson Mates. The Skeptic Way: Sextus Empiricus's Outlines of Pyrrhonism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Sextus Empiricus. Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Translated by R. G. Bury. Loeb Classical Library 273. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933.

Striker, Gisela. “ATARAXIA: HAPPINESS AS TRANQUILLITY.” The Monist, vol. 73, no. 1, 1990, pp. 97–110. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27903171.

Warren, James, (Ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Warren, James. Epicurus and Democritean Ethics: An Archaeology of Ataraxia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Epicureanism:

Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Volume II: Books 6-10. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library 185. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.

Holmes, Brooke, and W. H. Shearin. Dynamic Reading: Studies in the Reception of Epicureanism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Humphries, Rolfe. Lucretius: The Way Things Are: The Way Things Are: The De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius Carus. Indiana University Press, 1968.

Körte, Alfred, Vincenzo De Falco, and Metrodorus of Lampsacus. Epicureanism: Two Collections of Fragments and Studies. New York: Garland Pub., 1987.

Leonard, William Ellery, and Stanley Barney Smith (Eds). De Rerum Natura: The Latin Text of Lucretius. The University of Wisconsin Press, 2008.

O'Keefe, Tim. Epicureanism. Durham, UK: Acumen, 2010.

Warren, J. (Ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009.

Wilson, Catherine. Epicureanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Wilson, Catherine. Epicureanism At the Origins of Modernity. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 2008.

= Article Drafts = My general outline as to what I want to improve for each article can be found in the "Possible Topics" section.

Philosophy
(Note: I plan on switching the order of the Religion and Philosophy sections, as it makes sense for Philosophy to come first I feel because it gives a more general overview and each of the following sections provide more detailed information. I also would move to change the name of the Philosophy section to "Basic Tenets" or "Philosophy Overview." The first two paragraphs will be given citations for the claims lacking citations. If this is decided to be a bad idea, then I may try to merge the Philosophy section into the other sections, as it seems like an unneeded summary of topics meant to be discussed more in depth in the other sections. )

(Note 2: I have almost finished sourcing the material in this section (as of Sunday, Feb 25th, 2018). Some specific claims have been changed to reflect the sources and some material which I have been unable to find a source for and seems contradictory to other sources has been removed. A few edits to reduce redundancy have been and will continue to be made).

I am including the general edits I've made to the text to make it easier to see what I've changed thus far. I will add the original paragraph before my edits, and then replace it with the edited version that I produced. This way one can compare the original and my edited version more easily.

Intro paragraph:

Epicureanism argued that pleasure was the chief good in life. Hence, Epicurus advocated living in such a way as to derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one's lifetime, yet doing so moderately in order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence in such pleasure. Emphasis was placed on pleasures of the mind rather than on physical pleasures. Unnecessary and, especially, artificially produced desires were to be suppressed. Since the political life could give rise to desires that could disturb virtue and one's peace of mind, such as a lust for power or a desire for fame, participation in politics was discouraged. Further, Epicurus sought to eliminate the fear of the gods and of death, seeing those two fears as chief causes of strife in life. Epicurus actively recommended against passionate love, and believed it best to avoid marriage altogether. He viewed recreational sex as a natural, but not necessary desire that should be generally avoided.

2nd paragraph

The Epicurean understanding of justice was inherently self-interested. Justice was deemed good because it was seen as mutually beneficial. Individuals would not act unjustly even if the act was initially unnoticed because of possibly being caught and punished. Both punishment and fear of punishment would cause a person disturbance and prevent them from being happy.

Epicurus laid great emphasis on developing friendships as the basis of a satisfying life.

Final paragraph (note that there were three citations in this section (one for each of the quotes and one for the last sentence which I could not copy over))

Epicureanism rejects immortality. It believes in the soul, but suggests that the soul is mortal and material, just like the body. Epicurus rejected any possibility of an afterlife, while still contending that one need not fear death: "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us." From this doctrine arose the Epicurean Epitaph: Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo ("I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care"), which is inscribed on the gravestones of his followers and seen on many ancient gravestones of the Roman Empire. This quotation is often used today at humanist funerals.

Religion
(Note: This first paragraph is set to replace the first paragraph that is currently in the article. Moreover, all the uncited information in the last three paragraphs of this section will be struck unless citations can be found.)

(Note 2: Redundant information regarding Dante and reception in other works has also been removed from the main article).

Epicureanism does not deny the existence of the gods, rather it denies their involvement in the world. According to Epicureanism, the gods do not interfere with human lives or the rest of the universe in any way. The manner in which the Epicurean gods exist is still disputed. Some scholars say that Epicureanism believes that the gods exist outside the mind as material objects (the realist position), while others assert that the gods only exist in our minds as ideals (the idealist position). The realist position holds that Epicureans understand the gods as existing as physical and immortal beings made of atoms that reside somewhere in reality. However, the gods are completely separate from the rest of reality; they are uninterested in it, play no role in it, and remain completely undisturbed by it. Instead, the gods live in what is called the metakosmia, or the space between worlds. Contrarily, the idealist position holds that Epicurus did not actually conceive of the gods as existing in reality. Rather, Epicurus is said to have viewed the gods as just idealized forms of the best human life. The debate between these two positions was revived by A. A. Long and David Sedley in their 1987 book, The Hellenistic Philosophers, in which the two argued in favor of the idealist position. While a scholarly consensus has yet to be reached, the realist position remains the prevailing viewpoint at this time.

Epicureanism also offered arguments against the existence of the gods in the manner proposed by other belief systems. The Riddle of Epicurus, or Problem of evil, is a famous argument against the existence of an all-powerful and providential god or gods. As recorded by Lactantius:

Ethics
(Note: This section would start the ethics section and would be followed by the discussion of the Epicurean social contract. The rest of the ethics section would be removed.)

(Note 2: Citations have been added to the social contract section along with slight rewrites regarding phrasing, but no large edits)

Epicureanism bases its ethics on a hedonistic set of values. In the most basic sense, Epicureans see pleasure as the purpose of life. As evidence for this, Epicureans say that nature seems to command us to avoid pain, and they point out that all animals try to avoid pain as much as possible. Epicureans had a very specific understand of what the greatest pleasure was, and the focus of their ethics was on the avoidance of pain rather than seeking out pleasure.

Epicureanism divided pleasure into two broad categories: pleasures of the body and pleasures of the mind. The Epicureans further divided each of these types of pleasures into two categories: kinetic pleasure and katastematic pleasure. From this understanding, Epicureans concluded that the greatest pleasure a person could reach was the complete removal of all pain, both physical and mental. The ultimate goal then of Epicurean ethics was to reach a state of aponia and ataraxia. In order to do this an Epicurean had to control their desires, because desire itself was seen as painful. Not only will controlling one's desires bring about aponia, as one will rarely suffer from not being physically satisfied, but controlling one's desires will also help to bring about ataraxia because one will not be anxious about becoming discomforted since one would have so few desires anyway.
 * Pleasures of the body: These pleasures involve sensations of the body, such as the act of eating delicious food or of being in a state of comfort free from pain, and exist only the present. One can only experience pleasures of the body in the moment, meaning they only exist as a person is experiencing them.
 * Pleasures of the mind: These pleasures involve mental processes and states; feelings of joy, the lack of fear, and pleasant memories are all examples of pleasures of the mind. These pleasures of the mind do not only exist in the present, but also in the past and future, since memory of a past pleasant experience or the expectation of some potentially pleasing future can both be pleasurable experiences. Because of this, the pleasures of the mind are considered to greater than those of the body.
 * Kinetic Pleasure: Kinetic pleasure describes the physical or mental pleasures that involve action or change. Eating delicious food, as well as fulfilling desires and removing pain, which is itself considered a pleasurable act, are all examples of kinetic pleasure in the physical sense. According to Epicurus, feelings of joy would be an example of mental kinetic pleasure.
 * Katastematic pleasure: Katastematic pleasure describes the pleasure one feels while in a state without pain. Like kinetic pleasures, katastematic pleasures can also be physical, such as the state of not being thirsty, or mental, such as freedom from a state of fear. Complete physical katastematic pleasure is called aponia, and complete mental katastematic pleasure is called ataraxia.

Epicurus distinguishes three kinds of desires: the natural and necessary, the natural but not necessary, and those that are neither natural or necessary.
 * Natural and necessary: These desires are limited desires that are innately present in all humans; it is part of human nature to have them. They are necessary for one of three reasons: necessary for happiness, necessary for freedom from bodily discomfort, and necessary for life. Clothing would belong to the first two categories, while something like food would belong to the third.
 * Natural but not necessary: These desires are innate to humans, but they do not need to be fulfilled for our happiness or our survival. Wanting to eat delicious food when one is hungry would be an example of a natural but not necessary desire. The main problem with these desires is that they fail to substantially increase a person's happiness, and at the same time require effort to obtain and are desired by people due to false beliefs that they are actually necessary. It is for this reason that they should be avoided.
 * Those that are not natural nor necessary: These desires are neither innate to humans nor required for happiness or health; indeed, they are also limitless and can never be fulfilled. Desires of wealth or fame would fall under this category, and such desires are to be avoided because they will ultimately only bring about discomfort.

If one follows only natural and necessary desires, then, according to Epicurus, one would be able to reach aponia and ataraxia and thereby the highest form of happiness.

Epicurean Physics
(Note: This section is meant to replace the current Epicurean Physics section)

Epicurean physics held that the entire universe consisted of two things: matter and void. Matter is made up of atoms, which are tiny bodies that have only the unchanging qualities of shape, size, and weight. Atoms were felt to be unchanging because the Epicureans believed that the world was ordered and that changes had to have specific and consistent sources, e.g. a plant species only grows from a seed of that the same species.

Epicurus holds that there must be an infinite supply of atoms, although only a finite number of types of atoms, as well as an infinite amount of void. Epicurus explains this position in his letter to Herodotus:"“Moreover, the sum of things is unlimited both by reason of the multitude of the atoms and the extent of the void. For if the void were infinite and bodies finite, the bodies would not have stayed anywhere but would have been dispersed in their course through the infinite void, not having any supports or counterchecks to send them back on their upward rebound. Again, if the void were finite, the infinity of bodies would not have anywhere to be.'"Because of the infinite supply of atoms, there are an infinite amount of worlds, or cosmoi. Some of these worlds could be vastly different than our own, some quite similar, and all of the worlds were separated from each other by vast areas of void (metakosmia).

Epicureanism states that atoms are unable to be broken down into any smaller parts, and Epicureans offered multiple arguments to support this position. Epicureans argue that because void is necessary for matter to move, anything which consists of both void and matter can be broken down, while if something contains no void then it has no way to break apart because no part of the substance could be broken down into a smaller subsection of the substance. They also argued that in order for the universe to persist, what it is ultimately made up of must not be able to be changed or else the universe would be essentially destroyed.

Atoms are constantly moving in one of four different ways. Atoms can simply collide with each other and then bounce off of each other. When joined with each other and forming a larger object, atoms can vibrate as they into each other while still maintaining the overall shape of the larger object. When not prevented by other atoms, all atoms move at the same speed naturally downwards in relation to the rest world. This downwards motion is natural for atoms; however, as their fourth means of motion, atoms can at times randomly swerve out of their usual downwards path. This swerving motion is what allowed for the creation of the universe, since as more and more atoms swerved and collided with each other, objects were able to take shape as the atoms joined together; without the swerve, the atoms would never have interacted with each other, and simply continued to move downwards at the same speed.

Epicurus also felt that the swerve was what accounted for humanity's free will. If it were not for the swerve, humans would be subject to a never-ending chain of cause and effect. This was an point which Epicureans often used to criticize Democritus' atomic theory.

Epicureans believed that senses also relied on atoms. Every object was continually emitting particles from itself that would then interact with the observer. All sensations, such as sight, smell, or sound, relied on these particles. While the atoms that were emitted did not have the qualities that the senses were perceiving, the manner in which they were emitted caused the observer to experience those sensations, e.g. red particles were not themselves red but were emitted in a manner that caused the viewer to experience the color red. The atoms are not perceived individually, but rather as a continuous sensation because of how quickly they move.

Epistemology
(Note: All this section needs are specific citations for each of its uncited claims throughout the section.)

(Note 2 (As of Saturday, Feb 24): After looking at this section more I realized that it may simply be paraphrasing the source noted at the end of the section, so before citing the claims I want to first check if the section too closely paraphrases the book and needs to be re-written in order to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. I will have access to the book on Monday (Feb 26, 2018) and can make the requisite changes then.)

(Note 3 (as of Thursday, March 1st): I've received the book and am currently working on section. Portions that need to be rewritten because they plagiarize from the book/lack information I will copy over and rewrite as has been normally done throughout this process, portions that only need citations will be copied over but a note will be added above the text that the only change is the added citation.)

(Note 4 (As of Tuesday, March 13th): This is set to replace the current Epistemology section)

Epicurean philosophy employs an empirical epistemology. The Epicureans believed that all sense perceptions were true, and that errors arise in how we judge those perceptions. When we form judgments about things (hupolepsis), they can be verified and corrected through further sensory information. For example, if someone sees a tower from far away that appears to be round, and upon approaching the tower they see that it is actually square, they would come to realize that their original judgement was wrong and correct their wrong opinion.

Epicurus is said to have proposed three criteria of truth: sensations (aisthêsis), preconceptions (prolepsis), and feelings (pathê). A fourth criterion called "presentational applications of the mind" (phantastikai epibolai tês dianoias) was said to have been added by later Epicureans. These criteria formed the method through which Epicureans thought we gained knowledge.

Since Epicureans thought that sensations could not deceive, sensations are the first and main criterion of truth for Epicureans. Even in cases where sensory input seems to mislead, the input itself is true and the error arises from our judgments about the input. For example, when one places a straight oar in the water, it appears bent. The Epicurean would argue that image of the oar, that is the atoms traveling from the oar to the observer's eyes, have been shifted and thus really do arrive at the observer's eyes in the shape of a bent oar. The observer makes the error in assuming that the image he or she receives correctly represents the oar and has not been distorted in some way. In order to not make erroneous judgments about perceivable things and instead verify one's judgment, Epicureans believed that one needed to obtain "clear vision" (enargeia) of the perceivable thing by closer examination. This acted as a justification for one's judgements about the thing being perceived. Enargeia is characterized as sensation of an object that has been unchanged by judgments or opinions and is a clear and direct perception of that object.

An individual's preconceptions are his or her concepts of what things are, e.g. what someone's idea of a horse is, and these concepts are formed in a person's mind through sensory input over time. When the word that relates to the preconception is used, these preconceptions are summoned up by the mind into the person's thoughts. It is through our preconceptions that we are able to make judgments about the things that we perceive. Preconceptions were also used by Epicureans to avoid the paradox proposed by Plato in the Meno regarding learning. Plato argues that learning requires us to already have knowledge of what we are learning, or else we would be unable to recognize when we had successfully learned the information. Preconceptions, Epicureans argue, provide individuals with that pre-knowledge required for learning.

Our feelings or emotions (pathê) are how we perceive pleasure and pain. They are analogous to sensations in that they are a means of perception, but they perceive our internal state as opposed to external things. According to Diogenes Laertius, feelings are how we determine our actions. If something is pleasurable, we pursue that thing, and if something is painful, we avoid that thing.

The idea of "presentational applications of the mind" is an explanation for how we can discuss and inquire about things we cannot directly perceive. We receive impressions of such things directly in our minds, instead of perceiving them through other senses. The concept of "presentational applications of the mind" may have been introduced to explain how we learn about things that we cannot directly perceive, such as the gods.

General Input:
Generally very well written and cited. However, why do you choose to address ideas as "Epicureans think" vs. "Epicurus thinks" because I am not sure if we have concrete/well preserved knowledge of what he himself wrote? Just something to take into consideration.

Also, I think you should reuse citations. You can cite the same number if it's the same book such as [28] and [36], which are both the same book by Tim O'Keefe. (This might be a bit tedious-- let me know if you would like me to help you do that on your draft.)

''Good point on the phrasing note. I'll take a look back over when I say stuff like that and make changes. Also in regards to citations I want to make sure that the page number is noted because something I found is that often page numbers were never cited and this gave me a lot of trouble while editing. I don't want future editors to have the same issue. There may be a way to do that without having to repeat citations, but I need to check.'' Ethan Della Rocca (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

On Philosophy:
"Individuals would not act unjustly both due to the punishments for such acts and the fear of being eventually caught even if one initially does the act unnoticed. "I feel like this sentence is a little bit clunky. I propose changing it to "Individuals would not act unjustly even if the act was initially unnoticed because of possibly being caught and punished."

''Good point. Changed'' Ethan Della Rocca (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

On Religion:
"Epicureanism also offered arguments against the existence of the gods in the manner proposed by other belief systems. The Riddle of Epicurus, or Problem of evil, is a famous argument against the existence of an all-powerful and providential God or gods. As recorded by Lactantius:"I feel that this part isn't complete...?

''It's just like that because the rest of the article after that sentence is unchanged pretty much and flows from this point. Ethan Della Rocca (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)''

On Epicurean Physics:
"Matter is made up of atoms, which are tiny body that have only the unchanging qualities of shape, size, and weight. "I think it should be: Matter is made up of atoms, which are tiny bodies that have only the unchanging qualities of shape, size, and weight. "Atoms were felt to be unchanging because the Epicureans believed that the world was ordered and that changes had to have specific and consistent sources, e.g. a plant species only grows from a seed of that the same species. The Epicureans felt that this consistency occurred because atoms had unchanging qualities. "I think the second sentence is a bit redundant since it is pretty much expressed in the first sentence as "Atoms were felt to be unchanging.""When not prevented by other atoms, all atoms move at the same speed natually downwards in relation to the rest world. "copy-editing (spelling): naturally"Epicurus also felt that the swerve was what accounted for humanity's free will. If it were not for the swerve, Epicurus thought that humans would be subject to a never-ending chain of cause and effect and would not be free as a result. This was an issue which Epicureans often used to criticize Democritus' atomic theory. "I would suggest simplifying the sentence structure into "Epicurus also felt that the swerve accounts humanity's free will: if it were not for the swerve, humans would be subject to a never-ending chain of cause and effect. " since some of the sentence is a little redundant and it would be obvious that this is what Epicurus proposes due to the beginning of the sentence. As for the second part, I would suggest changing the word issue since this is more like a point, not so much an issue. Maybe " Epicureans often used this point to criticize Democritus' atomic theory. ""Every object was continually emitting particles from itself; particles that would then interact with the observer. "Copy-editing: The second clause is a dependent clause, so using a colon would be better. I propose changing this to: "Every object was continually emitting particles from itself: particles that would then interact with the observer. ""While the atoms that were emitted did not have the qualities of that the senses were perceiving, e.g. red particles were not themselves red, the manner in which they were emitted caused the observer to experience those sensations. "It is hard to tell where the example ends and the rest of the sentence continues. I propose putting the example after the sentence is done: "While the atoms that were emitted did not have the qualities of that the senses were perceiving, the manner in which they were emitted caused the observer to experience those sensations, e.g. red particles were not themselves red. "

''All of this was really helpful, and I've changed around stuff to address the points you've made. Thanks!'' Ethan Della Rocca (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ataraxia Article:
Ataraxia (ἀταραξία, literally, "not perturbed", generally translated as "imperturbability", "equanimity", or "tranquillity") is a Greek philosophy term used to describe a lucid state of robust equanimity that was characterized by ongoing freedom from distress and worry.

Achieving the state of ataraxia was a common goal for many Ancient Greek philosophies. As a result, the term plays an important role in many different Ancient Greek philosophical schools. The use of the term ataraxia to describe a state free from mental distress is similar throughout these different schools, but the role of the state of ataraxia within a philosophical school varied depending on the school's own philosophical theory. The mental disturbances that prevented one from achieving ataraxia often varied between schools, and each school often had a different understanding as to how to achieve ataraxia. Some schools valued ataraxia more highly than others. Three schools that often employed the term ataraxia within their philosophies were Epicureanism, Pyrrhonism, and Stoicism.

Epicureanism
Ataraxia, considered by Epicureans to be freedom from mental discomfort, was a key component of the Epicurean conception of the highest good. Ataraxia was extremely important to Epicurean ethics, since Epicurean ethics, like almost all other Greek philosophies, was concerned with determining the nature of and reaching the highest good.

Epicureans valued ataraxia so highly because of how they understood pleasure. Epicureans argued that pleasure was the highest good, and they broke pleasure down into two categories: the physical and the mental. They considered mental, not physical, pleasures to be greatest sort of pleasure because physical pleasures exist only in the present and mental pleasures exist in the past, the present, and the future.

Epicureans further separated pleasure into what they called kinetic and katastematic pleasures. Kinetic pleasures are those pleasures which come about through action or change. Such an action could be satisfying a desire or removing a pain, as that very sort of act is pleasurable in itself. Actions that feel good, even if not done to satisfy a desire or remove a pain, such as eating good-tasting food, also fall under the category of kinetic pleasures. Mental pleasures could also be kinetic in nature. Epicurus is said to have described joy as an example of a kinetic mental pleasure.

Katastematic pleasure is pleasure which comes about from the absence of pain or distress. This sort of pleasure could be physical or mental. Physical katastematic pleasures comes in freedom from physical disturbances, such as simply being in the state of not being thirsty. Comparatively, mental katastematic pleasure comes in freedom from mental disturbance. Those who achieved freedom from physical disturbance were said to be in a state of aponia, while those who achieved freedom from mental disturbances were said to be in a state of ataraxia.

Katastematic pleasures were regarded to be better than kinetic pleasures by Epicurus, believing that one could feel no more pleasure than the removal of all pain. Indeed, he is reported to have said,"'The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together.'"Being both a mental and katastematic pleasure, ataraxia retained a supreme importance in Epicurean ethics and was key to a person's happiness. Under the Epicurean system, a person would experience the highest form of happiness should they ever be both in a state of aponia and aparaxia at the time.

Pyrrhonism
Pyrrhonists viewed ataraxia as a state of mental tranquility, and they felt that not only could Pyrrhonism lead to ataraxia, but also that the tranquility of that ataraxia would bring about happiness for a person. Moreover, Pyrrhonists felt that this sort of happiness, one resulting from the tranquility of ataraxia, was life's ultimate purpose.

Pyrrhonists offered multiple arguments for how Pyrrhonism could lead to ataraxia. The general form of these arguments was that by refraining from all judgment, a Pyrrhonist would not be perturbed by anything and enter into a state of tranquility. The Pyrrhonist Timon supposedly pointed to the life of Pyrrho as an example of Pyrrhonism leading to ataraxia. According to Timon, because Pyrrho remained skeptical and made no judgements about the world, he was able to successfully live a peaceful and undisturbed life.

Other Pyrrhonists also gave arguments for how Pyrrhonism can lead to ataraxia. Sextus Empiricus gave a number of arguments for why Pyrrhonism leads to ataraxia. In Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Sextus Empiricus argues that by making judgments about what is good and what is bad, an individual causes themselves to be disturbed since they will be distressed when they lack the good things and will constantly worry about losing those good things should they ever come into possession of them. "'For the person who believes that something is by nature good or bad is constantly upset; when he does not possess the things that seem to be good, he thinks he is being tormented by things that are by nature bad, and he chases after the things he supposes to be good; then, when he gets these, he falls into still more torments because of irrational and immoderate exultation, and, fearing any change, he does absolutely everything in order not to lose the things that seem to him good. But the person who takes no position as to what is by nature good or bad neither avoids nor pursues intensely. As a result, he achieves ataraxia.'"Sextus Empiricus offers further variations on this core argument to explain why Pyrrhonism could lead to ataraxia. Among such arguments, he claimed that even when one has good things, one would still feel troubled because the enjoyment of good things often comes from being the sole person with access to those things, and one might have anger or jealous feelings towards others who also have those same things.

Stoicism
In Stoic philosophy, the mental tranquility that was ataraxia was not the ultimate goal of life. Instead, a life according to nature was the goal of life. Despite this, ataraxia was still an important part of Stoic philosophy. Although ataraxia was not an explicit goal of Stoicism, stoics felt that by living in accordance with nature, one would also end up in a state of ataraxia. In essence, ataraxia was a byproduct of a virtuous life.

An important distinction to be made is the difference in Stoicism between ataraxia and the Stoic idea of apatheia. While closely related to ataraxia, the state of apatheia was the absence of unhealthy passions, a state obtained by the ideal Stoic sage. This is not the same as ataraxia. Apatheia describes the freedom from the disturbance of emotions, not tranquility of the mind. However, apatheia was integral for a Stoic sage to reach the stage of ataraxia. Since the Stoic sage does not care about matters outside of himself and is not susceptible to emotion because of his state of apatheia, the Stoic sage would be unable to be disturbed by anything at all, meaning that he was in a stage of mental tranquility and thus was in the state of ataraxia.

Reflection Essay
The option to edit Wikipedia articles for my final project was an exciting one that I immediately jumped at when I saw that it was a possibility. I really liked the idea of writing about something that I was interested in and putting it out into the world. Of course my own content will be changed over time as other editors come and further improve the articles that I’ve edited, but I’m happy that I was able to contribute something. I felt that I learned a lot, not just about the material that I researched, but also about Wikipedia as a whole. The process was also somewhat collaborative, which I found to be helpful at times. Overall I’m happy that I chose to do this project, and I really enjoyed the researching and writing/editing process for this project over the past few weeks.

Perhaps the first thing to discuss in detail is the content that I found on Wikipedia when beginning this project. This was the first time that I turned a really critical eye to Wikipedia articles, especially regarding topics that I’m interested in. In general, I looked for three main things: accuracy, depth, and writing quality. I certainly got mixed results. For example, the De Rerum Natura article was generally a good article. It generally did a good job of presenting non-biased information that was relevant to the topic. However, the article did not give a great amount of depth regarding the work and still had room for improvement. This was a consistent theme that I saw in the articles I looked at. They were generally well written and accurate, but could provide a lot more depth for the reader and still remain accessible to a general audience (I’ve only come to realize how hard of a thing this is to do, and I certainly struggled with striking this balance at times). An article that gives only cursory information is okay, indeed that’s really the point of an encyclopedia, but often that cursory information was presented in such a way that would give the reader a poor or misguided sense of the material. This definitely was the case for the Epicureanism article. While the article was by no means incomplete, much of the information was irrelevant, repetitive, poorly written, or simply misleading. Perhaps the worst offender of this was the Epicurean Physics section of the article. That section seemed to be essentially copy pasted from a poor translation of some of Diogenes Laertius’ writings. The article had problem areas with all of the criteria I had been using. Moreover, the article heavily lacked sources, and this was another large problem. The article on ataraxia suffered both from being too cursory (there was practically no information on the page) and what was there gave the reader a poor idea of what ataraxia meant. When I had finally chosen to edit these two articles, I looked at what was already there and evaluated if each of the main sections fulfilled the criteria I had set out. This meant I rewrote pretty much all of the ataraxia article and large sections of the Epicureanism article.

In regards to to the ataraxia article, my edits can be summarized rather briefly. I rewrote the introduction of the article as well as each of the three sections present that describes the term’s usage in one of three main ancient Greek philosophical schools. I felt that these edits were valuable in that the article now presents a lot more in-depth and accurate information to the reader while still remaining accessible. Previously a reader would only get a very limited understanding of the term from the article from information that was poorly explained. There is still room for improvement, such as how the term is used outside of ancient Greek philosophy, but I think I’ve put the article in very good place when compared to its previous state, that it’s ready for future additions and improvements.

While the ataraxia article did take a lot of research and writing, the Epicureanism article required much more work overall. I ended up editing five different sections of the article, all of which address the main tenets of the philosophy. Some sections, like the Religion, Philosophy, and Ethics sections, did not require too much work. Only a partial rewrite was needed in each case, as the rest of each section was relatively well written and well sourced. Other sections, like the Epicurean Physics section and the Epistemology section, needed complete rewrites. The section on physics was just hard to understand, and the section on epistemology was nearly all plagiarized and used poor sources with rather poor information. Initially I thought that the epistemology section would not require as much work, but after doing further research I realized how much work needed to be done. Indeed, plagiarizing and complete lack of citations was a large problem for this article. This made it really hard to correct and verify the information that was being presented. That is also why I made sure to be very meticulous with my citations. This way future editors can very easily see where my information comes from and evaluate its quality. Moreover, I hope that the sources I’ve used can help futures readers conduct their own research by looking at the sources I’ve drawn from. Overall I think my edits have added a lot of clarity to this article, provided new information, more in-depth information, and corrected information coming from no or poor sources.

As I was editing, I found the peer review process to be a useful step. Peer reviewing other people’s work helped me to look at my own work and critically evaluate it. I tried to look at my own work the same way I was looking at other people’s work when evaluating theirs. When I gave peer reviews, I focused on how writers were presenting the information (structure of the overall article) as well as what content could be added to better inform the reader and what was still unclear and needed to be rewritten (e.g. using too many technical terms at times). The peer reviews that I received were also helpful and gave me good advice on the best ways to present the information that I wanted to get across. I received advice on content that needed to be expanded, grammar/spelling issues, formatting, and general writing quality advice. I would have perhaps liked more criticism regarding what information I chose to keep and what I chose to strike from the existing article when rewriting sections, as sometimes it was hard to decide what to do, but overall I still found the critiques to be useful. While I did invite other Wikipedia editors to comment on my work via the talk pages of the articles, I did not receive any feedback from editors outside of this course. This was unsurprising considering the pages are not too active (when I posted my comment on the ataraxia article’s talk page, the most recent comment was about nine years old).

Overall I felt that I learned a lot about both Wikipedia and the material I was covering while doing this project. I felt much more motivated to do this work than I would have been if I were just writing a traditional essay. Having to focus so heavily on sources, and reporting what scholars have argued while refraining from inserting my own opinions really forced me to fully understand the material that I was writing about. I felt that I had to be certain that what I was writing was both accurate and neutral. While I did enjoy this work and tried my best to hold myself to high standards, I’m not sure if Wikipedia can really be used as an effective tool for promoting general knowledge about philosophy and classics. Writing good articles about these topics requires a lot of work and very specialized knowledge. Presenting that information in an accessible format is good, and that will certainly promote knowledge about the fields, but making sure that that information is accurate, especially when anyone can be an editor on Wikipedia, may prove especially difficult in cases of philosophy and classics. Nevertheless it is important that such materials are available in order to keep people interested in these topics and see how they apply to their own lives. I’m happy that I was able to make that information just a little bit easier to access by working on this project. I think this project was a good idea and I enjoyed the entire process.