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
I'm light of my last post, I'll propose:
Ἄφοβον ὁ θεός, - God causes no fear
ἀνύποπτον ὁ θάνατος - Death causes no worry
καὶ τἀγαθὸν μὲν εὔκτητον, - and so there's no effort neeed to acquire The Good (pleasure);
τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐεκκαρτέρητον - and The Terrible (pain) can be endured without struggle.
I'm getting the sense of, instead of "easy" which to me implies a level of dismissiveness, a better idea would be "without effort or struggle." To illustrate this point, here are some of the other words in the same area of the LSJ dictionary:
So, I don't necessarily like the "easy" or "easily" connotations in English, but I could easily (pun intended) see the εὐ- and εὐεκ- conveying whatever action is implied by the rest of the word, that it involved no effort, no struggle.
In relation to the tetrapharmakos:
Pleasure really is attainable without effort, it's always readily available if we look for it.
Pain is endurable without struggle in the sense of adding suffering on top of pain. Pain is inevitable but suffering, adding an additional layer to pain, is not necessary. ex. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/medita…ing-is-optional
That's my take this morning.
Don also what about the "easy" part -- do you agree with Wikipedia that "easy" is a fair translation, or would you modify that as well?
εὔκτητος , ον, honestly acquired, ex., “πλοῦτος” (wealth); easily gotten
εὐεκ-καρτέρητος , ον, easy to endure; written for εὐεγκ.
From
εὐ- had a wide semantic spectrum: easily but also honorably; well, thoroughly, competently;
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , ἔτυ^μος , εὖ
εὐ- Woodhouse, S. C. (1910), English–Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language[1], London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.
PLUS
--ἐγκαρτερέω , persevere or persist in a thing, τινί v.l. in X.Mem.2.6.22; “ἐγκαρτερεῖν [τούτοις] ἃ ἔγνωτε” Th.2.61; “πρὸς δίψαν” Plu.2.987e: c. inf., “μὴ φιληθῆναι” Id.Ages.11.
2. c. acc., await stedfastly, “θάνατον” E.HF1351, Andr.262.
3. abs., hold out, remain firm under, c. dat., “ταῖς πληγαῖς” Plu.Pomp.79; “τοῖς δεινοῖς” Luc.Anach.38: abs., Plu.Lyc.18, PAmh.2.78 (ii A. D.).
So, it doesn't have to be "easily endured." That's the LSJ definition, but it's not a widely attested word, so I'm going to leave my jury out.
At risk of being a broken record, is important to remember that the first two lines are *not* commands. They're not in the imperative: "Don't do this." They are statements of fact:
God causes no fear.
Death causes no need for anxiety.
Austin herself admits the less than optimal choice of extravagant and corrosive. See (note 2)...
Corrosive desires are corrosive to one's well-being. Take away something corrosive, and one can begin to heal.
She herself admits she couldn't go through the book repeating natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, not natural nor necessary over and over. I have no problem with her final compromise.
Welcome aboard!
Epicurus: Fragments - translation
See U67 for even more (copied here for convenience. These include Joshua's citations, too; just with additional context.)
[ U67 ]
Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, XII p. 546E: Not only Aristippus and his followers, but also Epicurus and his welcomed kinetic pleasure; I will mention what follows, to avoid speaking of the "storms" {of passion} and the "delicacies" which Epicurus often cites, and the "stimuli" which he mentions in his On the End-Goal. For he says "For I at least do not even know what I should conceive the good to be, if I eliminate the pleasures of taste, and eliminate the pleasures of sex, and eliminate the pleasures of listening, and eliminate the pleasant motions caused in our vision by a visible form."
Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, VII p. 280A: Again, in the work On the End-Goal, he says something like this: "As for myself, I cannot conceive of the good if exclude the pleasures derived from taste, or those derived from sexual intercourse, or those derived from entertainments to which we listen, or those derived from the motions of a figure delightful to the eye."
Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, VII p. 278F: For Epicurus does not speak with face muffled, but in a loud voice he declares: "As for myself, I cannot conceive of the good if exclude the pleasures derived from taste, or those derived from sexual intercourse."
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Philosophers, X.6: It is observed too that in his treatise On the End-Goal, he writes in these terms: "I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, sexual pleasures, the pleasures of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form."
Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, III.18.41: Why do we shirk the question, Epicurus, and why do we not confess that we mean by pleasure what you habitually say it is, when you have thrown off all sense of shame? Are these your words or not? For instance, in that book which embraces all your teaching (for I shall now play the part of translator, so no one may think I am inventing) you say this: "For my part I find no meaning which I can attach to what is termed good, if I take away from it the pleasures obtained by taste, if I take away the pleasures which come from listening to music, if I take away too the charm derived by the eyes from the sight of figures in movement, or other pleasures by any of the senses in the whole man. Nor indeed is it possible to make such a statement as this – that it is joy of the mind which is alone to be reckoned as a good; for I understand by a mind in a state of joy, that it is so, when it has the hope of all the pleasures I have named – that is to say the hope that nature will be free to enjoy them without any blending of pain." And this much he says in the words I have quoted, so that anyone you please may realize what Epicurus understands by pleasure.
Ibid., III.20.46: For he has not only used the term pleasure, but stated clearly what he meant by it. "Taste," he says, "and embraces and spectacles and music and the shapes of objects fitted to give a pleasant impression to the eyes,"
Cicero, On End-Goals, Good and Bad, II.3.7 (Torquatus to Cicero): "Does not Epicurus recognize pleasure in your sense?" (Cicero): "Not always," said I, "now and then, I admit, he recognizes it only too fully, for he solemnly avows that he cannot even understand what good there can be or where it can be found, apart form that which is derived from food and drink, the delight of the ears, and the grosser forms of gratification. Do I misrepresent his words?" Ibid., II.7.20: In a number of passages where he is commending that real pleasure which all of us call by the same name, he goes so far as to say that he cannot even imagine any Good that is not connected with pleasure of the kind intended by Aristippus. Such is the language that he uses in the lecture dealing solely with the topic of the Chief Good. II.8.23: Men of taste and refinement, with first-rate chefs... the accompaniment of dramatic performances and their usual sequel – these are pleasures without which Epicurus, as he loudly proclaims, does not know what Good is. II.10.29: But fancy his failing to see how strong a proof it is that the sort of pleasure, without which he declares he has no idea at all what Good means (and he defines it in detail as the pleasure of the palate, of the ears, and subjoins the other kinds of pleasure, which cannot be specified without an apology). I.10.30: the kinetic sort of pleasure ... he extols it so much that he tells us he is incapable even of imagining what other good there can be. II.20:64: ... Nor did he forgo those other indulgences in the absence of which Epicurus declares that he cannot understand what good is.
Cicero, On The Nature of The Gods, I.40.111 (Cotta speaking): Your school recognizes no pleasure of the mind which does not have its beginning and end in the physical body. I take it that you, Velleius, are not like the rest of our Epicureans, who are ashamed of those sayings of Epicurus in which he states that he does not understand how there can be anything good except sensual and sexual pleasures. And he then goes on quite unashamed to enumerate these pleasures one by one.
Cicero, Against Lucius Calpurnius Piso, 28.69: {Piso} would have it that Epicurus was an eloquent fellow; and indeed he does, I believe, assert that he cannot conceive any good apart from bodily pleasure.
And LAST one, promise, Epicurus Ancient:
Ancient - The Ancient color palette is meant to simulate older plant dyes, which would generally come out lighter in color. In the tartan cloth, the following colors (as defined in the tartans' thread count) have the following shades: Red turns to orange; Blue turns to a light sky blue; Green is a grassy green; Yellow is a pale yellow
Okay, now I'm obsessed 
so I decided to try some variation on the "Epicurus Tartan." Here is the tartan in a Weathered (or "Reproduction") Palette. You'll note that the sett is the same (the thread count and order) but the specific colors themselves have been swapped out for "weathered" versions:
Weathered (aka reproduction) - The Weathered color palette (also known as "Reproduction" by one mill) is meant to look like the tartan has been recovered from a bog and affected by the weather. It uses lots of browns and grays to drive that look home.
Red turns to a "salmon" red; Blue turns to bluish grey; Green becomes brown; Yellow turns to pale gold
PS: I just realized I didn't put the right thread count on the "atoms and void" stripes. My bad.
I was playing around with the Tartan Designer at the USAKilts.com website and decided to see if I could come up with anything relating to Epicurus. I grant you that it's not a great design, but I was curious how much symbolism I could incorporate. To that end:
I encourage others to try out the Tartan Designer and come up with a better design . There is ZERO chance this design will EVER be woven or worn, but this was a fun exercise to see what's possible in this art form.
Display MoreThanks to Michele Pinto I see these two paintings of Epicurus by Agostino ScilliI have never before seen!
http://epicuro.org/gli-epicuro-di-agostino-scilla/
The blog post linked here tells about them. That blog post also mentions the Raphael School of Athens, and the representation that is ATTRIBUTED as being Epicurus, but which Elli has shown, is probably not, as there is another character who DOES look very much like Epicurus! As soon as I can find a good link I will post that discussion here in this thread too -- perhaps Elli already has a good link (?()
I'm bumping this up in this thread because I just came across the first image in an online article with a link to Wikimedia Commons. I had never seen this before and like the overall vibe.
It's also used in this article: https://antigonejournal.com/2024/02/epicurus-on-pleasure/
The older figure has RESPICE FINEM "Consider the final outcome."
Today, I came across this section of Diogenes of Oenoanda (emphasis added):
But, as I have said before, the majority of people suffer from a common disease, as in a plague, with their false notions about things, and their number is increasing (for in mutual emulation they catch the disease from one another, like sheep) moreover, [it is] right to help [also] generations to come (for they too belong to us, though they are still unborn) and, besides, love of humanity prompts us to aid also the foreigners who come here. Now, since the remedies of the inscription reach a larger number of people, I wished to use this stoa to advertise publicly the [medicines] that bring salvation. These medicines we have put [fully] to the test; for we have dispelled the fears [that grip] us without justification, and, as for pains, those that are groundless we have completely excised, while those that are natural we have reduced to an absolute minimum, making their magnitude minute.
And the last part in Greek, emphasis added...
column 6
ρίας προθεῖ̣ν̣[αι φάρμα-]
κα, ὧν δὴ φαρ̣μ[άκων]
πεῖραν ἡμε[ῖ]ς̣ ̣π̣[άντως]
εἰλήφαμεν. [τοὺς]
γὰρ ματαίως [κ]ατ[έχον-]
τας ἡμᾶς φόβους [ἀ-]
πελυσάμεθα, vac. 1 τῶν τε
λυπῶν τὰς μὲν κ̣εν̣ὰ̣ς
ἐξεκόψαμεν εἰς τέ-
λειον, vac. 1 τὰς δ̣ὲ φυσικὰς
εἰς μεικρὸν κομιδῇ
συνεστείλαμεν, ἐλα-
χιστιαῖον αὐτῶν τ̣[ὸ]
μέγεθος ποι̣ή̣σ̣α̣[ντες]
Diogenes specifically used φαρμακος (6.1 & 2) "[pharmakos] medicine." This medicine metaphor is in keeping with U221 and VS54. It's not a stretch for me to see this extrapolated to use in the Tetrapharmakos.
Diogenes' wording is also interesting in that I see it being a perfect encapsulation and summary of ataraxia and aponia:
These medicines we have put [fully] to the test; for we have dispelled the fears [that grip] us without justification ([τοὺς] γὰρ ματαίως [κ]ατ[έχον]τας ἡμᾶς φόβους [ἀ]πελυσάμεθα) and, as for pains (λυπῶν), those that are groundless (κ̣εν̣ὰ̣ς "empty") we have completely excised, while those that are natural we have reduced to an absolute minimum, making their magnitude minute.
The "fears [that grip] us without justification" are fears of the gods and death. Dispelling those fears that have no justification is what calms the troubles in the mind. That is, by definition and etymology, is ataraxia. These are also the first two lines of the tetrapharmakos.
Λυπων , genitive of λύπη (lupē) is grief, sadness; pain (of mind or body), suffering, affliction, distress.
These musings hit me this morning, so I'm placing them in this thread for thoughts and comments.
It's really a fun time here, more focused on the joy of someones life, the memories they left and the lessons taught. Let alone the celebration of our still being alive.
That sounds like a perfect fit.
Welcome aboard, AthenianGarden !
If you haven't come across Emily Austin's Living for Pleasure yet, I highly recommend that as an intro to the philosophy: well researched, accessible, conversational. We also have interviews with her that served as podcast episodes.
While the voice still needs much improvement
Do you want some of us to provide human voices instead of AI? How many minutes is the segment to read?
Welcome aboard, MarkJW
I'm grateful for Emily Austin's fantastic book, Living for Pleasure
I, too, am a big fan of Dr. Austin's book. That book is my personal recommendation for the best, most accessible introduction to the philosophy currently available. She's a great person, too. If you liked the book, don't miss our podcast episode conversations with her!
I'm in Athens right now, heading off to the Dipylon Gate to walk towards Plato's Acedemy, hopefully passing by where the Garden was. Reading some books and excerpts from his writing
Very jealous but happy for you!
If you're interested:
I looked at that not that long ago and still stand by what I wrote there.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO KALOSYNI AND JOSHUA!
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!
Δίδωσι δ᾽ ἣ γενέθλιον δόσιν τῷ Ῐ̓ησοῖ και Καλοσύνῇ
Offering birthday gifts to Joshua and Kalosyni
(Best I can do quickly, based on a line from Aeschylus' Eumenides. And, yes, Joshua translates the same as "Jesus" in ancient Greek.)
I was under the impression that the gods were "incorruptible" and not "immortal." Are the gods athanatos in some texts? Here's my commentary to Menoikeus:
ἄφθαρτον
LSJ gives the definition of "incorruptible, eternal, immortal, uncorrupted, undecaying" and gives references to Epicurus, Philodemus, and Diogenes of Oenoanda. At its root, the word is α- "not" + φθαρτον "destructible, perishable." LSJ states φθαρτον is the opposite of ἀίδιος "everlasting, eternal" (related to ἀεί "ever, always") which poses an interesting question: Why did Epicurus choose to use ἄφθαρτον instead of ἀίδιος or ἀθάνατος? Φθαρτον is related to θνητός "liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος [athanatos]" (LSJ) Φθαρτον is also connected to the verb φθείρω "destroy, pass away, cease to be, perish." It seems that Epicurus didn't want to evoke that the gods (a god?) were simply immortal or eternal but that he wanted to impress upon us the sense that they would not pass away or cease to be. This is in contrast to everything else composed of atoms and void. Everything else is subject to be φθαρτον; only the gods are ἄφθαρτον! How can this be? Could it be that they are ἄφθαρτον precisely because they are mental concepts? That's one of the reasons I find Sedley's so-called "idealist" nature of the Epicurean gods intriguing.
I have also seen arguments that the stress should not be on the "eternal," as in everlasting in time, but rather the "incorruptible," as in the state of being. A "god" is "incorruptible" or "not able to be corrupted or to decay." They are unaffected by the vicissitudes of fortune, unaffected by anger or gratitude. To me, this is an intriguing perspective and gives a possible reason why Epicurus made the decision to use ἄφθαρτον and not an alternative that evokes the "eternal in time" connotation like ἀθάνατος. From my perspective, this argument is a strong one and deserves some study and thought.
