New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Alie Ward released an episode of Ologies this month that complements this Eudemonology episode nicely:
Awe Psychology (WONDER) with Dr. Dacher Keltner
I've casually followed Dr. Keltner for a while and his book on Awe has been on my "to be read" list for since its release a couple years ago.
One part I liked about this podcast episode was Keltner's point about taking time for remembering past experiences of awe. That sounded very Epicurean to me.
Enjoy.
I completely missed the reference to New Epicurean!
It appears 251 at the end of his entry refers to the page number in Book Three:
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-MONTAIGNE-00001-00004-00004/279
So it appears to be referring to around DRN 3.860:
For shouldst thou gaze
Backwards across all yesterdays of time
The immeasurable, thinking how manifold
The motions of matter are, then couldst thou well
Credit this too: often these very seeds
(From which we are to-day) of old were set
In the same order as they are to-day-
Yet this we can't to consciousness recall
Through the remembering mind. For there hath been
An interposed pause of life, and wide
Have all the motions wandered everywhere
From these our senses.
Dr. Gregory Sadler has posted a recommended reading list of Ancient Epicurean Texts. Some I had forgotten about, so it's handy to have in one place (although I realize all these are likely posted somewhere around here)
I also posted a comment about the new MFS Oenoanda inscription text.
Here are both versions for ease of direct comparison. My guess is that either Cicero alone is correct, or Diogenes is also correct and multiple letters were sent out.
Gedney noted (as you did) that the letter is addressed to υμιν "you all" (plural 2nd person), so the letter could have been addressed to the members of the school or the "governing board" if you will, which could have included both Hermarchus and Idomeneus. Cicero is closer in time to Epicurus than Diogenes Laertius, so maybe giving him the upper hand in authenticity is warranted??
Welcome aboard, AlteFrau
Plus it never hit me until I read Gedney's article: Epicurus could say to look after Metrodorus's children because it was Epicurus himself who had responsibility for them currently. So, could Epicurus have been the head of a household taking care of the children?
"fear...of what the neighbors will think"
While Epicurus would not have advised fearing what our neighbors might think, he definitely did not recommend ignoring their opinions.
His advice was to live so as to avoid attracting either envy or contempt.
And also according to Diogenes Laertius' Lives:
The wise one will also pay just enough attention to their reputation as to avoid being looked down upon. (X.120, my own translation)
Hicks: He will pay just so much regard to his reputation as not to be looked down upon.
Yonge: He will show a regard for a fair reputation to such an extent as to avoid being despised;
Original text: εὐδοξίας ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον προνοήσεσθαι,
εὐδοξίας good repute
τοσοῦτον so far as
Provide for good repute for as far as...
ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μὴ καταφρονήσεσθαι:
καταφρονέω look down upon, think slightly of
So, the translations are accurate.
Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary
SUAVITY
Meaning & use
1.†
1.a.c1450–1661 Sweetness or agreeableness to the senses; esp. sweetness (of taste), fragrance (of odour). Obsolete.
1.b.1614–1821 † Sweetness (of sound, harmony, expression).
2.a.1594– Pleasurableness, agreeableness; plural delights, amenities. Now only as coloured by sense 4.
2.b.a1617–80 † A state of sweet calm in the soul when specially favoured by God; plural feelings of spiritual sweetness or delight. Obsolete.
religion
3.1508–1649 † Graciousness; sweetness of manner or treatment. Obsolete.
4.a.1815– The quality or condition of being suave in manner or outward behaviour; bland agreeableness or urbanity.
4.b.1852– plural. Suave actions.
1852Cajoled by the attentions of an electioneering politician with more ease than Aunt Chloe was won over by Master Sam's suavities.
H. B. Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin (U.K. edition) viiiCitation details for H. B. Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin
I freely admit I have no grasp on what "suavity" means, and I didn't think DeWitt adds anything to explain it. He just assumes I know what it means and keeps using it.
Being suave or having suavity didn't seem all that positive from what I was seeing in various dictionaries. Without looking anything up, it conveyed being smooth, cool, or slick in The Fonz sort of way. But I read some definitions as being pleasant to the extent of being insincere. Wiktionary at least has "The quality of being sweet or pleasing to the mind; agreeableness; pleasantness" which doesn't help a lot for me.
Bryan 's bringing up χαρις is much more helpful to what Dewitt is trying to convey.
unlike, say Plato or Aristotle, Epicurus’ ethics are derived from a proper understanding of nature
Nicely worded! Yes.
(LOL I'm sure Plato and Aristotle would beg to differ, but I don't think that have a leg to stand on with their arguments)
Don : But isn’t the standard tripartite division physics, ethics and canon? What am I missing?
Touché. Good point. And physics is the study of nature. However, physics was a fundamental component of philosophy for everyone. From Diogenes Laertius' Lives 1:18:
Philosophy has three parts, physics, ethics, and dialectic or logic. Physics is the part concerned with the universe and all that it contains; ethics that concerned with life and all that has to do with us; while the processes of reasoning employed by both form the province of dialectic. Physics flourished down to the time of Archelaus; ethics, as we have said, started with Socrates; while dialectic goes as far back as Zeno of Elea. In ethics there have been ten schools: the Academic, the Cyrenaic, the Elian, the Megarian, the Cynic, the Eretrian, the Dialectic, the Peripatetic, the Stoic, and the Epicurean.
I firmly agree that Epicurus sees the study of nature as fundamental, but other schools would probably have said something similar. That said, Epicurus also wrote to Herodotus that:
"Hence, since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science (φυσιολογίᾳ), I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this, have prepared for you just such an epitome and manual of the doctrines as a whole
Epicurus advised the study of nature though I don't know that he went so far as to say his philosophy is the study of nature
I see where you're going. I don't think we'll find a definitive "my philosophy is the study of nature" but PD11/12 comes close (emphasis added )
PD11/12. If we had never been molested by alarms at celestial and atmospheric phenomena, nor by the misgiving that death somehow affects us, nor by neglect of the proper limits of pains and desires, we should have had no need to study natural science (φυσιολογίας physiologias). It would be impossible to banish fear on matters of the highest importance, if a man did not know the nature of the whole universe, but lived in dread of what the legends tell us. Hence without the study of nature (φυσιολογίας) there was no enjoyment of unmixed pleasures.
I see where you're going, but to my mind there are strictly "mental" pains and pleasures, like:
And similar mental thoughts that at least start in the mind. The dread can make you nauseous physically. The memory can feel "warm." But I would categorize these primarily as mental pleasure and pain.
Yeah. I can switch to white...
have a quick technical question for you both... when you open the document, does it have a black background, or is the page mostly white?
Black, but I have a nighttime theme running
Don Your post got me thinking...perhaps we need to consider that there are "four feelings"...
1. Feelings of mental pleasure
2. Feelings of mental pain
3. Feelings of bodily pleasure
4. Feelings of bodily pain
I see where you're going. I would say more like:
The words Epicurus used can sometimes cover all pain, both physical and mental. But there is still only pain and pleasure as ways to experience the world, with innumerable ways within those two.
I will be among the first to advocate for the word "pleasure" to be foremost in a description of Epicurus' philosophy, but I have come around to seeing this "war of words," among those sincerely trying to incorporate Epicurean philosophy into their lives, to be more divisive (on both sides) than it needs to be. Sure, the "bread and water" crowd need to be addressed, but...
From my perspective after reading and commenting and responding to Jack Gedney on Substack, I don't believe his view and mine (I am speaking ONLY for me here!) are really that far apart. To use an analogy I used over there, we're two blind men describing the elephant by focusing on the trunk and tusks respectively. Even Epicurus felt the need to explain what he meant by pleasure: "whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say..." Within "pleasure" there is tranquility, blessedness, painlessness, joy, delight, happiness. They're all related, because "the feelings are two." To give the "camp" that emphasizes the absence or removal of pain their due, Epicurus does teach us to work to remove the pain of fear of gods, death; remove the pain from empty desires. Why? To live a pleasant, happy, blessed life, but that also means a life free from unnecessary pain, fear, and anxiety. That "freedom from pain" doesn't necessarily equate immediately hyperbolically to asceticism or "living in a cave." The absence of pain IS pleasure, and the absence of pleasure IS pain. We can't have one of those without the other. Do I personally prefer focusing on the pleasure? Yes. Is there an insurmountable problem with focusing on the philosophy as giving one a life free from pain? No, I don't think so. But BOTH those positions require explanation. From my perspective, it's not enough to use "pleasure" as a shibboleth to identify the "real" Epicureans. All that said, I do not agree with those who say "Epicureans lived on bread, water, and the occasional cheese." I'll push against that all day long. But I'm tiring of the fortified camps on both sides of this "war of words." Do misconceptions still exist out there? Absolutely. However, in the end, for those sincerely trying to incorporate Epicurean philosophy into their lives, I believe there is much more that unites us than divides us. I would much rather see a dialogue than a war.
