Epicurean indifference revisited

Wes Callihan writes, in response to my brief quotation from Lucretius:

“Possibly, however, Lucretius wouldn’t consider the indifferent watcher from the porch outside Pompeii a true Epicurean. Doesn’t the very next line go on to say something about how the pleasure is *not* in the other person’s suffering but in recognizing your own safety? And that seems to be the context in which we should take his conclusion, that it’s with this kind of pleasure that the philosophical man should look down from his citadel of wisdom on those struggling in ignorance below — not pleasure in their ignorance but in his own rescue from it. And isn’t the entire poem evidence that Lucretius himself is not indifferent, but interested in raising others up to his safe height by teaching them the nature of things?

“Of course, if he’s right about the nature of things, why shouldn’t we be indifferent, and why should try to elevate others to understanding . . .

“Since Lucretius describes the cosmos as merely the result of unaccountable veerings and bonkings-together of the ever falling atoms, my students like to call it the Great Swerve, and unfortunate occurences are ‘bad swerve’ and good occurences are ‘good swerve.’ ‘Good swerve on your test tomorrow!’ ‘I’m sorry you stubbed your toe — bad swerve.’”