Posts by Eikadistes

Quote from Cassius

I note you're calling it criticism but you're also including the positive parts?

For sure, I'm including everything I can find. Most of it is complimentary.

Happy Eikas!

The spirit moved me and I created a section for Nietzschean criticism of Epicurus. Let me know if you aware of any texts with explicit analyses of Epicurean Philosophy in Nietzsche's works!

Philodemus' On Choice and Avoidance has also made its appearance.

Quote from Don

Look forward to reading your efforts and seeing your translation decisions.

I appreciate your review! It's a work in progress, and I imagine I'll continue tweaking it as my understanding of verbal adjective, and the various, aorist tenses expands.

In the meantime, piggy-backing off of Hiram 's initial effort, I've published his (with the help of Google translate's) English translation of the French translation of On Irrational Contempt.

I'm completed translating the Epistle to Menoikeus! I've taken a few more poetic liberties seizing opportunities for phrases like "the Spring of Philosophy" and "the Winter of the Mind". I am still polishing it, and will use this as a base upon which to make further edits.

My biggest takeaway is this: trying to read Epicurus in Epicurus' own words is a great exercise and tickles the minds in unexpected ways. It is a deeply pleasurable activity.

Cool name. Welcome!

I've completed translating Bailey's collection of 87 fragments. I've included the Greek (and also went back to the Vatican Sayings to do the same.) If nothing else, these are helpful exercises.

There are a number of other fragments, not included by Bailey I intend to add.

Quote from Don

I highly doubt the Garden had enough land to grow sufficient barley or wheat. That was likely purchased. Intriguing to consider.

Much of it was purchased with currency, but much of it was acquired through trade and good-will ... and other means. Usener fragments 184 and 185 (corresponding with Bailey 40 and 41) illuminate a lot of this. The employment of λήθω in the first fragment suggests to me that some of the provisions of grain were secured, to use a modern term, "under-the-table" or "off the top".

If Epicurus used as many resources as is alleged, he did not pay for it all (that's a big if).

Sweet Dreams or Space Ghosts? The Saga continues!

Quote from Cassius

A Death in no way exists for us; for that which has dissolved is imperceptible; and that which is imperceptible in no way exists for us. [see: Key Doctrine 2]

or at least:

B Death in no way exists for us; for that which has dissolved lacks perception; and that which lacks perception in no way exists for us. [see: Key Doctrine 2]

It comes down to how we want to read το διαλυθέν αναισθητει

• το - (art. sing. acc.) a, the, and occasionally that which or what [is]

• διαλυθέν -(v. aor. pass. nom. sing.) to loosen, dissolve, divorce, discharge, break off, weaken

• αναισθητει - a declension of ἀναίσθητος from ἀν- (an-, “not”) +‎ αἴσθησις (aísthēsis, “sensation”) meaning without sense or feeling, without perception, not perceptible by sense.

I take the subject of the sentence to be "that which has dissolved", which is the atomized soul, so we're not talking about (as I read it) the experience of our friends dying, and what that means to us, we're exploring what it would mean for myself to be dead, or what death excludes.

So, I don't like the first translation (personally), because it seems redundant to say "Those who survive will no longer visually witness those who have died". It would be more prudent to express the idea that "Those who have died are definitely not experiencing an afterlife."

I should mention, I did the same with the Sayings of the Wise, taken as a whole (and not as individual pronouncements like in Proverbs). I think it provides some context to (for ex.) the latter of these two clauses: "And they will in a time of crisis serve a monarch; and they will thereupon exalt anyone after being corrected", though, that's just my take on it, with the humble resources available to me.

I've published a new translation of the Sententiae Vaticana of early Epicureans.

As I continue to polish them, I'm moving to the fragments.

Quote from Kalosyni

When I attended a Buddhist group, there were two younger men who committed suicide a few years apart. I partially point to and blame the passive nature of the Buddhist philosophy and the constant preaching of the "acceptance of what is". (and of course Buddhists don't say much about seeking pleasure).

We learned that the leaders of a local Nichiren Buddhist community were unanimously engaged in discouraging the target of spousal abuse from seeking legal support when they showed the leaders the bruises on their body. There is nothing noble about that. (To be fair, upon learning this, a regional leader in the organization admonished the local leaders for their failure to prioritize the safety of an individual. Nonetheless, it seems like supernatural religion lends itself to misinterpretation).

I've been documenting my discoveries on biblical passages that directly reference Epicureans, and I was tickled to find them having referred to Paul as a "seed picker [like of out a gutter]".

I should add, that one, I would bet, came from Epicureans, who used the analogy of "seeds" to refer to everything from the constituents of reality to the pieces of the soul to sex fluids.

Quote from Joshua

The Riddle of Epicurus

We'll go over this during our Nov. 3rd recording, so here are a few links;

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm

(control+F search 'epicur' to locate the passage)

And the New Epicurean article on the history of the dilemma;

https://newepicurean.com/derivation-of-…le-of-epicurus/

Display More

I wanted to mention that I've recently com across a few scholars who suggested that this trilemma actually comes from a Skeptic (perhaps Carneades the Academic), and not Epicurus (Larrimore, Mark Joseph. The Problem of Evil: A Reader. Blackwell, 2001). Based on De Ira Dei David Hume attributes this argument to Epicurus: “Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?“ (Dialogues concerning Natural Religion 1779). While it comports with Epicurean theology, it does not correspond with any extant writings of Epicurus nor another Epicurean. I also note that Lactantius documented this material approximately 600 years after Epicurus was teaching in Athens. <https://twentiers.com/anger-of-god>

From Lactantius, On the Anger of God "You see, therefore, that we have greater need of wisdom on account of evils; and unless these things had been proposed to us, we should not be a rational animal. But if this account is true, which the Stoics were in no manner able to see, that argument also of Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them?² I know that many of the philosophers, who defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed by this argument, and are almost driven against their will to admit that God takes no interest in anything, which Epicurus especially aims at; but having examined the matter, we easily do away with this formidable argument. For God is able to do whatever He wishes, and there is no weakness or envy in God. He is able, therefore, to take away evils; but He does not wish to do so, and yet He is not on that account envious. For on this account He does not take them away, because He at the same time gives wisdom, as I have shown; and there is more of goodness and pleasure in wisdom than of annoyance in evils. For wisdom causes us even to know God, and by that knowledge to attain to immortality, which is the chief good. Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good. But Epicurus did not see this, nor did any other, that if evils are taken away, wisdom is in like manner taken away; and that no traces of virtue remain in man, the nature of which consists in enduring and overcoming the bitterness of evils. And thus, for the sake of a slight gain in the taking away of evils, we should be deprived of a good, which is very great, and true, and peculiar to us. It is plain, therefore, that all things are proposed for the sake of man, as well evils as also goods" (Chapter 13, translated by William Fletcher 1886).

Regarding part of that section, here is how White (2021) translates:

"119 Moreover, the wise man will both marry and have children, as Epicurus says in Perplexities and in On Nature; he will marry at a time suited to his circumstances in life, and some will refuse to do so. However, he will not chatter away over drink, says Epicurus in the Symposium. Nor will he participate in government, as in On Lives Book 1; nor will he be a tyrant. nor will he act like a Cynic, as in On Lives Book 2; nor will he go begging. But even if his sight is impaired, he will not take his own life, as he says in the same work. also the wise man will feel sorrow, says Diogenes in Selections Book 5; and he will go to court, and he will leave behind writings, but he will not deliver ceremonial addresses."

I'm re-visiting this.

Don do you have a copy of the original manuscript?

The error here is the original translators' rendering of the first three words of this sentence. Some render μηδὲ, which is very clearly the oppositional word "not", whereas others render μέν, which is not oppositional and may just be reinforcing the καί. This is the difference between "and will not marry" versus "and also will marry". This is a rather significant contention.

After citing this position to Epicurus' book Puzzles and On Nature, the following clause features the word δέ, which is another oppositional "but", denoting a change in direction from the last sentence. We have another future verb here ("will marry"), so that leads me to believe that the first sentence should be μηδὲ, that a wise person is "not" usually likely to marry. That seems consistent.

But then this phrase, which seems to sit by itself:

καὶ διατραπήσεσθαί τινας

There are no nominative or genitive words in this clause, so I'm assuming the subject is implied.

καὶ usually means "and" (or some other supportive conjunction)
τινας is a plural, indefinate, accusative pronoun, so it should have to be "them", right?

I'm also assuming that "them" is the recipient of the action in this sentence.

διατραπήσεσθαί is the action, and ugh ... I wish we had more examples.

So, breaking it down ... since there's only one example of it ... the root is διατρέπω, from δια- ("by, for, through") and τρέπω ("to turn, rotate, divert"). It ends in -esthai, so I assume this is the future, middle infinitive form. So, that leads me to interpret this word as "will turn away from".

Altogether, we've got "and will turn away from them."

So, regarding the pronoun "them" ... as far as I can tell, the only actual nouns that have been used so far (besides citing "Epicurus" and his books "Puzzles" and "On Nature") are "circumstances" and "of life". Otherwise, the concepts "wife", "children", and "marriage" are implied by verbs, but those nouns are not used by themselves. So the thing the wise person is turning away from ...

"and will turn away from [their family]" or "[the circumstance productive of family]."

Either way, as I'm now reading this, it seems like Epicurus was saying "Wise people don't start a family. Even if you find the right person, starting a family is still unwise."

One other discovery (I think) I've made is this:

By the Archonship of Sosistratus, beginning July of 270 BCE, Epicurus was already dead.

When he celebrated his 71st birthday in February of 270 BCE, he was still alive.

Most likely, Epicurus died in the Spring of that year.

I'm organizing the information here: https://twentiers.com/2024/10/27/dates-of-epicurean-works/

From Philodemus and the New Testament World:, approximations from Marcello Gigante: