School #68

Epicureanism

Epicurus, Lucretius

Epicureanism, founded by Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and magnificently expounded by Lucretius in 'De Rerum Natura' (c. 55 BCE), holds that reality consists entirely of atoms (atoma — indivisible, indestructible particles) and void (kenon — empty space through which atoms move). There is nothing else: no immaterial soul, no providential gods, no teleological purpose woven into the fabric of things. The gods exist — Epicurus never denied their existence — but they dwell in the intermundia (spaces between worlds) in perfect bliss, utterly unconcerned with human affairs; prayer, sacrifice, and fear of divine punishment are therefore pointless. The soul is a material structure of particularly fine atoms dispersed through the body; at death it dissolves, and consciousness ceases forever. The clinamen (swerve) — Epicurus’s most original physical hypothesis — introduces a minimal, uncaused deviation in the otherwise deterministic downward motion of atoms, breaking the iron chain of necessity and grounding the possibility of free will. The purpose of philosophy is therapeutic: to free human beings from the fear of death and the fear of the gods, enabling them to achieve ataraxia (tranquility) and aponia (freedom from bodily pain).

Worldview

The Epicurean adherent inhabits a cosmos that is vast, impersonal, and ultimately indifferent to human concerns, yet this recognition is experienced not as despair but as liberation. To hold this ontology is to feel that reality is atoms and void, all the way down, with no providential governance, no cosmic purpose, and no afterlife to fear or anticipate. The fundamental orientation is one of serene materialism: because death is the end of consciousness and the gods are unconcerned with human affairs, the only rational response is to pursue ataraxia (tranquility) and aponia (freedom from pain) in the company of friends. Reality feels solid, comprehensible, and stripped of the supernatural terrors that plague the unreflective mind. The framework classifies this as None: although Epicurean gods exist, they are detached and do not act on the world; effectively, agency runs entirely through atoms and void, with no operative cosmic ordering principle or intervening spirits. The framework reads this as None for moral authority: Epicurean ethics is grounded in observation of pleasure and pain, but the school recognizes no source — Scripture, Tradition, Reason as natural law, or mystical Experience — as normatively ultimate; the gods exist but, being detached, give no commands.

Moral Implications

The ethical framework of Epicureanism is grounded in the pursuit of pleasure understood as the absence of pain and anxiety rather than hedonistic indulgence. The cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, and friendship: prudence calculates which pleasures to pursue and which to avoid; justice is a social contract for mutual non-harm; and friendship is the highest good, valued above all material possessions. Because there is no afterlife, moral responsibility is confined to this life and grounded in the natural consequences of action. The tradition generates a strong ethic of moderation: extravagant desires lead to anxiety and dependence, while simple pleasures, including food, conversation, and philosophical reflection, yield the most reliable happiness.

Practical Implications

Practically, Epicureanism encourages a life of modest material needs, withdrawal from political ambition, and the cultivation of close friendships within a philosophical community (the Garden). It shapes attitudes toward death (there is nothing to fear), religion (the gods need not be propitiated), and politics (engagement is worthwhile only when it serves tranquility). In the modern world, Epicurean principles resonate with secular humanism, minimalism, and the evidence-based pursuit of well-being, while challenging consumerism, status competition, and the assumption that more is always better.

I. Time

Time is infinite, relational, and discrete — constituted by the successive motions of atoms through the void rather than existing as an independent substance. Epicurus posited minima temporis (smallest units of time) corresponding to the minimum intervals of atomic motion, making this one of the earliest discrete-time theories in Western philosophy. Time is linear and non-directional: there is no cosmic beginning, no eschatological end, no teleological purpose; atoms have been moving through infinite void for infinite time and will continue to do so forever, forming and dissolving worlds without purpose or design. Freedom is non-deterministic: the clinamen introduces genuine indeterminacy into atomic motion, breaking the Democritean chain of strict necessity.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Grain: Discrete Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Dimensionality: One Direction: Non-directional

II. Space

Space is infinite, substantival, and flat — the void (kenon) is a real, independently existing expanse through which atoms move. Unlike Aristotelian space, which is finite and bounded by the outermost celestial sphere, Epicurean space extends infinitely in all directions with no boundary, no center, and no privileged location. Space is flat: atoms move in straight lines (modified only by the clinamen and collisions), and there is no curvature or warping of the void. Locality is local: atoms interact only through direct physical contact and collision; there is no action at a distance.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Matter is infinite, substantival, and conserved — the atoms are eternal, indestructible, and uncreated. They have always existed and will always exist; no power can create them from nothing or destroy them into nothing. "Nothing comes from nothing" is the foundational principle. Matter is local: atoms occupy determinate positions in the void and interact only through direct physical collision. The infinite number of atoms moving through infinite void produces an infinite number of worlds — some like ours, some radically different — each arising through the chance collisions of atoms rather than through design.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The human observer is an entirely material being — a temporary arrangement of atoms that perceives the world through eidola (thin films of atoms shed by objects and received by the sense organs). Each person occupies a single moment and a single place; there is no preexistence, no reincarnation, and no afterlife. Knowledge is immediate, derived from the direct impact of eidola on the senses; sensation is always true (it is judgment that introduces error). Knowledge retainment is immediate: death dissolves the atomic compound of the soul, and all memory, personality, and consciousness cease absolutely — "where death is, I am not; where I am, death is not." The observer is radically embodied: there is no separable soul, no disembodied intellect, no survival beyond the dissolution of the body’s atoms. Agency is active: the clinamen (atomic swerve) breaks the deterministic chain and makes genuine choice possible; the philosopher actively cultivates ataraxia through rational reflection on the nature of things. Multiple observers share a common material world and can form communities of friendship (the Garden), but each person’s consciousness is private and mortal.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Extent of Knowledge: Immediate Retainment of Knowledge: Immediate Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None Moral Authority: None Theological Method: N/A

V. Energy

Energy is infinite and substantival — identical with the kinetic power of atoms in motion through the void. Atoms have always existed and have always been in motion; there was no first moment of creation and no external source of energy. Conservation holds absolutely: "nothing comes from nothing" (nil ex nihilo) and nothing is destroyed into nothing; the total matter-energy content of the cosmos is constant and eternal. Dispersibility is irreversible: atoms scatter and recombine, but the dissolution of any particular compound (including the human body and soul) is permanent and irreversible; there is no cosmic force that reassembles what has been dispersed.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Information is emergent and non-conserved — it arises from the temporary arrangements of atoms and ceases when those arrangements dissolve. There is no cosmic memory, no Akashic record, no divine omniscience preserving the history of events. When a person dies, their memories, knowledge, and personality are genuinely destroyed. Information is discrete because reality is atomic: knowledge consists of discrete sensory impressions (eidola) received from discrete material objects, and the atoms themselves are indivisible units. The framework places this as non-conserved at both scales: at the cosmic scale atomic configurations come and go without a preserving record, and at the personal-identity scale 'death is nothing to us' precisely because no pattern of the self survives the dispersal of its atoms.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Emergent Cosmic Conservation: Non-conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Discrete

Experiments This School Responds To (1)

Films Reading Through This School (1)

Debates Where This School Is Allied (1)

← #67 Sikhism All Schools #69 Dvaita Vedanta →

Works that name Epicureanism in their embodiments

Foundational texts that draw on this school, with each work's declared weight.

75%
Letter to Menoeceus
Epicurus · c. 300 BC
50%
Letter to Herodotus (Mature)
Epicurus · c. 300 BC
50%
Principal Doctrines (Mature)
Epicurus · c. 300 BC
40%
De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) (Mid)
Titus Lucretius Carus · c. 55 BCE
40%
Odes
Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus) · c. 23–13 BCE (Books I–III published c. 23 BCE; Book IV c. 13 BCE)
30%
Vatican Sayings (Mature)
Epicurus · c. 306-270 BC (compiled later)
30%
Fragments and Testimonia
Aristippus of Cyrene · c. early 4th century BCE (original teachings); testimonia from antiquity
30%
Satyricon
Petronius · c. 60s CE
25%
Letter to Pythocles (Mature)
Epicurus · c. 306-270 BC
20%
On Cheerfulness (Mature)
Democritus of Abdera · c. 420 BCE
20%
De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum (Mature)
Marcus Tullius Cicero · 45 BCE
20%
Metamorphoses
Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso) · c. 8 CE
16%
The Therapy of Desire (Middle)
Martha Nussbaum · 1994
15%
On the Nature of the Gods (Late)
Marcus Tullius Cicero · 45 BC
15%
Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (Late)
Diogenes Laertius · c. 3rd century CE
10%
De Vita Beata (Mid-late)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca · c. 58 AD
10%
The Importance of Living (Mid)
Lin Yutang · 1937
10%
Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium (Late (Seneca's last completed major work, composed in retirement))
Lucius Annaeus Seneca · 63-65 CE (Seneca's last years, after retirement from Nero's court and before his forced suicide)
10%
The Great World-System (Megas Diakosmos) (Mature)
Democritus of Abdera · c. 430 BCE
10%
On the Mind (Mature)
Democritus of Abdera · c. 420 BCE
10%
On Forms (Peri Ideōn) (Mature)
Democritus of Abdera · c. 430 BCE
5%
De Brevitate Vitae (Mid)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca · c. 49 AD
5%
Adagia (Long (composed across Erasmus's entire mature career))
Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam · 1500 (1st edition, c. 800 adages); 1536 (final edition, c. 4,151 adages)
5%
De Tranquillitate Animi (Mid-late)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca · c. 60 AD
5%
Eros and Civilization (Mid)
Herbert Marcuse · 1955
5%
Moralia (Ēthika) (Late)
Plutarch of Chaeronea · c. 100 CE
5%
Adversus Mathematicos (Against the Mathematicians / Professors) (Late)
Sextus Empiricus · c. 180-200 CE
5%
The Essays (Late)
Michel de Montaigne · 1580 (Books I-II); 1588 (Book III); 1595 (posthumous augmented)
5%
Tusculan Disputations (Late (composed in the year of Cicero's daughter's death, in his most intense period of philosophical writing))
Marcus Tullius Cicero · 45 BC (Tusculanae Disputationes; composed at Tusculum after the death of his daughter Tullia)

Personas with Epicureanism as a declared influence

75%  Epicurus 50%  Titus Lucretius Carus 40%  Quintus Horatius Flaccus 30%  Democritus of Abdera 30%  Aristippus of Cyrene 30%  Gaius Petronius Arbiter (Petronius) 20%  Publius Vergilius Maro 20%  Publius Ovidius Naso 10%  Marcus Tullius Cicero 10%  Martha Nussbaum 10%  Peter Singer 5%  Marcus Aurelius

How Epicureanism resolves each dilemma

56 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 18 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 1 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/208)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/208)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/208)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
6 mainstream positions

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 4 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (33/208)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it.
On this view, money is exactly what societies do that performs the monetary functions. There is no fact about whether something is 'really' money beyond whether it is used as money. A community that decides shell beads or carbon credits or proof-of-work hashes count as …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (55%) · Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (14%) · “Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (33/208)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
On this view, nations are made: by treaties, by wars, by deliberate institution-building, by the slow work of collective practice. There is nothing intrinsic about a national kind; what exists is the practice. What we owe the nation is what we owe any institution we …
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (55%) · A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people. (14%) · “Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (33/208)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice.
On this view, while biological features exist, what they socially mean — what counts as a man or a woman, what roles attach, how the categories are policed and revised — is the work of social practice. The categories are real but constructed; revising them …
Roads not taken Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (55%) · Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition. (14%) · “Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (33/208)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other.
On this view, biological facts about the genome exist, but what we count as 'human nature' is downstream of practice. The germline is one more thing humans now have technical access to; the question is not whether the practice transgresses an essence but whether the …
Roads not taken Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (55%) · Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric. (14%) · 'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical. (8%)
3 mainstream positions

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/208)
Could causation work backwards?
If the laws of physics are time-symmetric, what makes causes precede their effects? And if the asymmetry isn't metaphysical, could retroactive causation be coherent?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
On this view, the categories of past, present, and future are useful designations rather than real directions of an underlying time. The question of whether causation could run backward presupposes the directionality the view denies. Causation just is the pattern of correlation we find; calling …
Roads not taken Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. (68%) · Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle. (18%) · From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/208)
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
You remember the past but anticipate the future. Whether that asymmetry tracks something deep about time, or just something contingent about how minds happen to be wired, depends on what direction time has.
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
On this view, calling some experiences 'memories' and others 'anticipations' is a useful categorisation. The asymmetry between them tracks the categorisation, not a deeper temporal structure. The question of whether we could 'really' remember the future is a question about category use, not metaphysics.
Roads not taken The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. (68%) · Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions. (18%) · From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/208)
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Penrose, Carroll, and many cosmologists argue the arrow of time is built into the cosmos's specific initial low-entropy state. Others read it as a feature of perspective. The question's answer changes what time is.
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
On this view, the question of whether time has a real arrow is itself a question that doesn't admit of a definite answer. Different conventions of description produce different framings; no convention is more accurate than another to a single underlying fact. The Penrose-Carroll dispute …
Roads not taken The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. (68%) · Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't. (18%) · From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/208)
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Pancomputationalism, Planck-scale quanta, simulation theory and Kabbalistic letter-mysticism all say yes — but for very different reasons. The rest of the atlas says no.
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
On this view, the world is at bottom discrete and law-governed, with no metaphysical agency above or behind the substrate. Reality reduces to bits or their physical analogues; the continuous appearance of fields and flows is coarse-graining over discrete underlying structure.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. (44%) · No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. (36%) · Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism. (7%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/208)
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Whiteheadian actual occasions, Buddhist moments of mind, Kabbalistic letter-cognitions, IIT phi-units — or the unbroken Jamesian stream? The atomism of experience cuts across naturalism and theism alike.
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
On this view, experience comes in discrete units defined by the substrate: information-theoretic phi-units, computational frames, discrete neural events. There is no further metaphysical agency that knits them; the appearance of a stream is the way many discrete events present to introspection.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. (44%) · No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. (36%) · Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions. (7%)
31 mainstream positions
Is memory stored or reconstructed? Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights. 13% What makes someone the same person over time? There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose. 14% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here. 14% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed. 14% When does a person begin? A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop. 16% What is marriage? Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it. 16% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 66% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 50% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 50% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 50% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 47% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 47% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 43% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? The category does not apply — the school is non-religious. 42% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The discrete person is the moral primary. 38% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is not where the deepest truth lives. 36% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 31% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 31% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 29% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 29% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through controlled empirical investigation. 17% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary. 8% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense. 8% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice. 8%
1 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (208)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 #134 #135 #136 #137 #138 #139 #140 #141 #142 #143 #144 #145 #146 #147 #148 #149 #150 #151 #152 #153 #154 #155 #156 #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 #167 #168 #169 #170 #171 #172 #173 #174 #175 #176 #177 #178 #179 #180 #181 #182 #183 #184 #185 #186 #187 #188 #189 #190 #191 #192 #193 #194 #195 #196 #197 #198 #199 #200 #201 #202 #203 #204 #205 #206 #207 #208