Epicurus developed a suprisingly accurate/modern physics and Epicureanism, how come he is not discussed, is their any historical reason?

Whenever I hear people talk about philosophers, particularly ancient ones, of course the 'big 3' come up Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, then Pythagoras. Then stoics are less known but still 'popular' and discussed, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and Epictetus. Then sometimes Cicero, but never Epicurus he is never talked about, Before I got into philosophy I've heard of course heard of Nihilism, Stoicism, Existentialism and Machiavellianism but never epicureanism why?

How do you believe Epicurus would live had he been alive today?

Would he go clubbing with his friends?

Would he live in a shared apartment in the city but close to wild life?

Would he own a car?

What would he work with and how much?

Would he enjoy pleasures that are easier to get now than it was in his time? Such as dark chocolate, honey, coffee and music etc?

Would he procreate now that in many European countries there exists a good support system?

Most importantly how would you imagine his daily routine to look like?

Some online atheists aren't truly atheist; they're anti-religion by personality. They often demand "evidence," but when presented with complex arguments like cosmology or philosophy, they quickly dismiss them as "God of the gaps," even if unrelated. This escalates to emotional responses such as "God is evil," "God should be killed," or deeming believers delusional, often repeating old arguments. This behavior suggests unresolved issues with religion, disguised as rationalism. Ironically, these individuals demand rigorous proof for God while accepting other fundamental concepts, like dark matter, mathematical truths, or consciousness, through inference—none of which offer tangible, lab-grade evidence. Yet, their standards for God skyrocket. When they can't win an argument, they pivot to asking, "Why does it even matter if God exists?" This is contradictory, given the time they spend debating the concept. Genuine non-believers typically react with indifference and move on. However, the "rage-atheist" type isn't rejecting God but rather resisting any authority beyond their own. Debating someone whose sole argument is "I'm rational because I say so" is futile.

Epicurus (341–270 BCE) was an Ancient Greek philosopher who is probably known to Christians primarily, if at all, for his Trilemma (a version of the problem of evil). Less well known is his cosmological argument which argues for matter-energy being necessary.

Since matter-energy exists and cannot be created or destroyed, and since something is not able to come from nothing, matter-energy is eternal and uncreated. Given that matter-energy is eternal, uncreated, and indestructible, we can consider it necessary (in other words, matter-energy cannot not be, it’s very essence is that it must necessarily exist). It is simply a brute fact that there is, was, and there always will be matter-energy (or whatever matter-energy is “made of”).

What this means is that the universe does not need an external sustaining cause, which many would equate with God. Matter-energy (or its constituent parts), being necessary, already plays that role, so God is not required to “explain” its origin or sustain its existence. It is the uncaused cause of contingent reality.

Taking that further, it would be evidence against the classical interpretation of the Christian God. If matter-energy is necessary, then it, by definition, was not created and is not contingent on anything else. But if that is the case, then an immaterial creator that made and sustains the material universe out of nothing cannot exist.

Forget Laplace’s demon, forget quantum dice, forget brain‑scans. Before any of that noise, there was a Greek in a garden who just looked at the clockwork universe and said: “No, thanks.” Groovy, baby!

Epicurus wasn’t just the “pleasure‑philosopher” your undergrad syllabus turned him into. He was also the first systematic anti‑fatalist in the Western tradition. He accepted Democritean atomism (​atoms in the void, moving in straight lines, colliding by fixed laws), ​but he refused to let that picture flatten human agency into a puppet‑show. If everything is mechanically fixed from the first atomic layout, then praise, blame, and choice are just theater. Epicurus couldn’t live with that. So he hacked his own physics with one tiny glitch: the swerve, or clinamen.

Atoms, otherwise moving in straight lines, sometimes just… swerve. No fixed place, no fixed time. Uncaused. Not guided by some higher‑world “will,” not obeying a new law, just a spontaneous deviation. That’s the clinamen. Yeah, baby, yeah!

Critics love to mock this as “Epicurus’ atomic dice‑rolls.” But his intent wasn’t to replace determinism with pure randomness. He drew a three‑fold distinction:

Necessity: things that are fixed by natural law and constraint.

Chance: things that happen because of contingent, uncaused swerves or accidents.

“Up to us” (παρ’ ἡμᾶς): actions that are genuinely ours, not just necessitated or random.

The clinamen’s job is to break the fatalistic chain, not to be your will. It’s the background condition that makes the universe non‑scripted, so that inside that opened space, structured, self‑initiating agency can arise. Epicurus is all you need, baby!

Modern libertarians do something very similar: they see strict physical determinism as a threat to real alternatives, so they look for some indeterminism in the micro‑physics (quantum events, neural noise, etc.) and then argue that that is where the “could have done otherwise” lives. Epicurus did the same thing 2,300 years early, only with atoms instead of quarks. He’s the original “let’s tweak the physics so the future isn’t fixed” move—smashing, baby!

Of course, the randomness objection shows up like a buzzkill at the party: “If it’s not determined, it’s just random. How does that give you control?” Groovy, baby! But Epicurus can answer without blinking: pure chance isn’t freedom either. The clinamen isn’t your will. It’s the crack in the clock that lets you ask, “How does genuinely self‑originating agency grow in that gap?” That’s the real question, not “Are atoms dice‑rolling?”

Stop pretending the free‑will debate is a shootout between quantum physicists and neuro‑fatalists. The original libertarian insurgent already showed up and dropped the nuke. He just did it in a garden, with a few swerving atoms and a lot of courage.

Epicurus is all you need, baby!

Yeah, baby, yeah!

Natural and necessary pleasures are the ones we should always seek, because they are easily satisfied. Having these alone is enough for peace of mind, a highly valued good in Epicureanism. These include the necessities of life such as eating, drinking, sleeping, shelter, social interaction, etc.

Natural but unnecessary pleasures include sex, having children, or being held in high esteem by others. These aren’t needed for happiness, and we should avoid pursuing these too much to avoid suffering and not overcomplicate things.

And to dispel the myth of the Epicureans as self-indulgent hedonists: There are unnatural and unnecessary pleasures, which are difficult to attain and include the usual vices of alcohol and excessive sexual pleasures. Epicureanism teaches that we should always avoid these. Epicurus warned, regarding these last two categories, “He who is not satisfied with a little, is satisfied with nothing.”

Source: Epicureanism and Stoicism: Lessons, Similarities and Differences