Posts by Don

Today, I came across this section of Diogenes of Oenoanda (emphasis added):

Quote

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...

Quote from Diogenes of O

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]

Display More

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.

Quote from sanantoniogarden

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.

Quote from Cassius

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

Quote from 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!

Quote

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:

File

Where was the Garden of Epicurus? The Evidence from the Ancient Sources and Archaeology

While we will probably never know the exact location of Epicurus’s Garden in ancient Athens, we can take a number of educated guesses.

Don

April 19, 2023 at 11:10 PM

I looked at that not that long ago and still stand by what I wrote there.

Quote from Cassius

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.

Quote from Patrikios

Is this a correct understanding of how to interpret how Epicurus referred to 'god(s)'?

That's my understanding, but certainly not the universal understanding here in our little virtual Garden.

I'm wondering if this is a point of difference between Epicurus (3rd-4th c BCE, Greek) and Lucretius (1st c BCE, Roman) if we accept the authenticity of Epicurus' letters in Diogenes Laertius (3rd c CE).

Epicurus' will clearly states that he wants burnt sacrifices offered for his family: "make separate provision (1) for the funeral offerings (enagisma) to my father, mother, and brothers."

Philodemus also discussed Epicurus taking part in the festivals and Mysteries. So, even if Epicurus kept idiosyncratic meanings of these festivals, sacrifices, and rites in his mind, he obviously was taking an active role in them.

Genesia (and Epops) – Hellenion

A festival dedicated to remembering the dead

Also the funerary offerings Epicurus mandated for parents and brothers is ἐνάγισμα, (enagisma) offering sacrifice to the dead, opp. θύω (to the gods). See

https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-3058?p=emailA6b40nxTfemOU&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-3058

Quote

Heroes (ἥρωες, fem. ἡρωῖναι, ἡρώισσαι) were a class of beings worshipped by the Greeks, generally conceived as the powerful dead, and often as forming a class intermediate between gods and men. Hero-cult was apparently unknown to the Mycenaeans; features suggestive of the fully developed phenomenon have been found in 10th-cent. bce contexts, but it is not until the 8th cent. that such cults become widespread and normal. The reasons for its rise have been much debated, but seem likely to be somehow connected with more general social changes at that date.Although Greek authors expect the phrase ‘heroic honours’ to convey something definite, there was in practice much variation in the type of cult given to heroes. At one end of the spectrum it could have a strong resemblance to the offerings given to a dead relative; at the other, it might be barely distinguishable from worship paid to a god. Many late sources suggest features for heroic sacrifice which set it apart from the usual form of sacrifice to a god: holocaust sacrifice on a low altar, using dark animals, performed at night. But often only one of these markers is used in a particular rite, and that rite is not invariably addressed to a hero. The form of sacrifice known as enagismos (or enagisma), also used in offerings to the dead and probably indicating a form in which the victim is completely destroyed and there is no participatory feast, is found in heroic cult not infrequently, but by no means universally.

Quote from Cassius

Planning yes, but schedule unknown. It's a big effort. However I am coming around to the idea that the podcast audio versions can serve as a "first draft" that when edited further turn into really good articles with wider impact. So yes I am going to work on more of these!

FWIW: We use Temi/Rev for our transcription on our podcast: https://www.rev.com/pricing

Quote from Cassius

Cicero is mischaracterizing what Epicure says about pleasure, and secondly he’s mischaracterizing what Epicure says about doing everything for your own advantage. Epicurus never says that the Epicurean standard is pleasure, and anyone who’s at all familiar with what Epicurus does say knows how much emphasis Epicurus places on his friends and the pleasure of his friends, and how much we value that type of pleasure which comes from engagement in society and working with light minded people. Epicurus is not always looking to his own advantage.

This could be a matter of semantics, but I'm going to push back ever so slightly on the "Epicurus is not always looking to his own advantage." Pleasure is subjective. The only standard we have to assess if we're living happily/pleasurably is ourselves. We can only, in the end, "look to" our own happiness/pleasure. That isn't to say we don't care about other people. Our friends' happiness affects our own happiness, but it still means we help them in service to a wise selfishness for ourselves. They happy = I happy.

Quote from Cassius

Substack transcript version of this podcast available here:

https://epicureanfriends.substack.com/p/is-it-truly-impossible-as-cicero

Oh! This makes searching for particular parts SO much easier! Thanks for this! Are you planning on posting episodes going forward?

I will admit I didn't read this entire thread, but that's never slowed me down before.

Traditions like Halowe'en, Samhain, and El Dia de la Muertos have to do (in part) with remembering the dead and breaking down the barrier between the living and the dead, and making offerings and dedications to those who've passed. I would argue that Epicurus was doing exactly these things (okay, maybe not exactly) in his mandated regular "*funeral offerings* to my father, mother, and brothers" and for Metrodorus. That word used in Greek refers to rites associated with burnt offerings. This aspect of this holiday seems right in line with the Garden: reliving pleasant memories of those who have died.

The trick or treating and parties are just having fun, so if they provide pleasure with a minimum of pain, why not participate in the popular civic festival.

Welcome aboard!

FYI

DCLP/Trismegistos 62382 = LDAB 3547

***

DCLP/Trismegistos 62384 = LDAB 3549

***

DCLP/Trismegistos 62386 = LDAB 3551

***

These plus additional fragments:

PN Search

PS: I realize this is not a translation but I'm posting here to give us an idea of the amount of the text of On God's that has survived from the ancient world not counting any cited fragments quoted by other ancient authors.

As Joshua notes, I certainly agree that Cicero believes he had his good intentions and is sincere. But he certainly also throws up strawman arguments against the Garden with no attempts to steelman anything.

Fair enough. I certainly see where you're coming from.

I personally find it hard to believe Epicurus and his school really thought that the sun was about the size of a football when he wrote it "may be a little larger or a little smaller, or precisely as great as it is seen to be." They could see the sun set behind the hills or fall over the horizon where they had seen ships pass into the distance. The sun "as it is seen to be" is larger than one of those ships of it's in the distance or larger than the hill it is passing behind. That's why Gellar-Goad's article at least made me take a second look at what those texts could be saying. The school said to trust the senses, and my senses would tell me the sun is bigger than a hill or boat at least. The moon obscures the sun during an eclipse, and the moon is bigger than the hills too. Or maybe I'm biased by the modern knowledge I can't unknow?

That said, I certainly don't discount the possibility that they could have just got it wrong.

Quote from wbernys

My favorite part of Epicureanism is probably the Tetra pharmakos "Fourfold Cure" (I know Cassian expressed a disliked for it, but i myself consider to be a nice summary of Epicurean philosophy).

I completely agree with you on having an affinity for the Tetrapharmakos. I like that it is a documented connection to the ancient Epicurean community. Granted, it's not clear from Philodemus' work if he was approving or disapproving of its use, but there's no doubt that it was being used in Epicurean communities as the philosophy distilled down to one of its smallest summaries.