Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

I think Don and i are together on that point and he probably will agree with me - I am sure he will say so if he does not

I was at work today so only got to briefly add to this conversation.

Quote from reneliza

It's less about "every pleasure is good yet not every pleasure would be chosen" and is more about whether a pleasurable sensation in the body is even a pleasure at all if it's not appreciated by the mind.

My reaction to that is somewhat of a tautology: Every pleasurable feeling is pleasurable. Epicurus equates "the good" with pleasure, therefore, "the good is good" and "pleasure is pleasure." Any pleasurable feeling is good... BUT - the BIG Epicurean BUT - not every pleasurable feeling should be chosen because some pleasurable feelings will lead to pain.

For example, drinking alcohol can provide a pleasurable feeling. Endless all-night drinking parties will lead to pain and are therefore not choiceworthy. Eating a succulent [insert favorite fruit] is pleasurable. Eating a bushel of your favorite fruit is going to lead to a gastrointestinal distress. BUT the pleasurable feeling doesn't change, it is the assessment and consequences. We can't control whether we *feel* pleasure or not.

Epicurus maintained we have two feelings - two guides - for making choices and rejections: pleasure and pain. MANY actions and thoughts provide pleasure and pain. But Epicurus (per Diogenes Laertius) said, "The feelings are two, pleasure and pain."

Quote from reneliza

is that original sensation still "good"? Is masochistic fulfillment "evil"? If the sheer sensations would be painful or pleasurable out of context then how do we classify them (especially as in my example where the context is initially unknown)?

Excellent questions, and all ones we've dealt with and continue to deal with! "Good" and "evil" seem to only be equated with "pleasure" and "pain" according to Epicurus. BUT - there's that BUT again - we can't classify things that provide pleasure or pain in any kind of absolute, eternal hierarchy. (See my alcohol and fruit analogy above). However, Epicurus says "it is not an endless string of drinking parties and festivals, and not taking advantage of slaves and women, nor does an extravagant table of fish and other things bring forth a sweet life but self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble." This also brings in the measure of Epicurean justice in "to neither harm nor be harmed."

You bring up some very good questions, so keep them coming... and I hope you're willing to investigate the answers along with the other members of this little online Garden.

67. "I do not think I could conceive of the good without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms."

οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω τἀγαθὸν ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονάς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀφροδισίων, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀκροαμάτῶν, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφῆς κατʼ ὄψιν [those by way of shapes and along with vision] ἡδείας κινήσεις [pleasing motion].

PS: I really like the fact that the word simply translated as "sex" is ἀφροδισίων "aphrodisiōn"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Α α, , ?αφριος , Ἀφροδίσ-ιος

So, he's referring to those things related to Aphrodite which include sexual desire but encompass a wider range of pleasures:

https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Aphrodite.html

I just happened on this Atlantic article again on Instagram, and - yes - it still annoys me. I was about to post then did a search here on the forum. I thought I remembered our discussion. To be very clear from my perspective, Arthur C. Brooks, the author, is just doing some "clever" Platonic/Ciceronian word play and parsing for his own ends. Epicurus recognized different kinds of pleasure, writ large, including (but not limited to!) ataraxia, aponia, euphrosyne (mirth, merriment, gleefulness), and khara (joy, exultation). Interestingly, Euphrosyne was one of the Graces/Charites in Greek mythology

Charites - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The idea that "enjoyment" is "superior" to "pleasure" just displays an ignorance of the topic under discussion and sloppy wordplay.

And that's my rant for this morning (Steps off soapbox)

Quote from reneliza

it took only about 1/4 of a book on Seneca to determine that this guy Epicurus who he kept quoting (favorably yet still with great disdain??) seemed way more interesting to me

Ditto

Quote from Pacatus

Memento Mori." I know this is a phrase generally adopted by and associated with the Stoics.

Don't forget Seneca attributes "meditare mortem" specifically to Epicurus as well, so the Stoics don't have the practice of remembering death all to themselves.

Quote from Kalosyni

This is good stuff! And I can imagine it all being assembled into a short Epicurean reader -- titled as "Epicurean Pharmakos" (will put this on my to-do list).

To alleviate anyone's confusion over what a "pharmakos" is, maybe even title it "Epicurean Medicine" or something like that.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, φάρμακον

Quote from Kalosyni

Back then it was said that Epicurus did not teach publicly.

I think that just means he taught in his private property and not in the agora or the stoa. Book 28 of In Nature is written like a lecture with Metrodorus playing a supporting role.

Quote from Joshua

Don, do you think there is a connection between 'elements' in that sense and the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:18?

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Interesting question! That would be one interpretation; however, in light of the info below, it would seem to refer specifically to the *written* law, the Torah.

Matthew 5 :: King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 5 - And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

www.blueletterbible.org

jot = ἰῶτα

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἰῶτα

tittle = κεραία "in writing, apex of a letter"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κεραία

Democritus - Wikiquote

en.wikiquote.org

νόμωι (γάρ φησι) γλυκὺ καὶ νόμωι πικρόν, νόμωι θερμόν, νόμωι ψυχρόν, νόμωι χροιή, ἐτεῆι δὲ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν (Tetralogies of Thrasyllus, 9; Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII 135)

(nomōi (gar phēsi "for he says") gluku ("sweet" > glucose) kai nomōi pikron ("bitter"), nomōi thermon ("hot" > thermal), nomōi psykhron ("cold"), nomōi khroiē ("color"), eteēi de atoma kai kenon ("atoms and void" same words as Epicurus))

Sweet exists by convention, bitter by convention, colour by convention; atoms and Void [alone] exist in reality. (trans. Freeman 1948)[1], p. 92.

By convention sweet is sweet, bitter is bitter, hot is hot, cold is cold, color is color; but in truth there are only atoms and the void. (trans. Durant 1939)[2], Ch. XVI, §II, p. 353; citing C. Bakewell, Sourcebook in Ancient Philosophy, New York, 1909, "Fragment O" (Diels), p. 60

νόμωι

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, νόμος

ἐτεῆι

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἐτεός

Galatians 4:9

G4747 - stoicheion - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G4747 - στοιχεῖον stoicheîon, stoy-khi'-on; neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of ; something orderly in arrangement, i.e. (by implication) a serial…

www.blueletterbible.org

The word translated as "elements" is στοιχεῖα. These can be elements as in chemical elements or "dirt" as Cassius paraphrased. But These are also elements or principles or "steps" as in the letter to Menoikeus. I've posted the link to Strong's concordance for Galatians. Here is the link to the KJV interlinear:

Galatians 4 :: King James Version (KJV)

Galatians 4 - But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again…

www.blueletterbible.org

(Click on Tools at 4:9)

Interestingly, στοιχεῖα *is* the exact word Epicurus used in the letter to Menoikeus to talk about the "elements of a blessed life." But they can also be atoms.

Hmm... Am I going down Dewitt's path of seeing Epicurus around every Pauline corner? Not necessarily. BUT per LSJ, one of the definitions of στοιχεῖα *can* be "in Physics, στοιχεῖα were the components into which matter is ultimately divisible, elements, reduced to four by Empedocles, who called them ῥιζὤματα, the word στοιχεῖα being first used...ἄτομας. Epicur.Ep.2p.36U.; equivalent to ἀρχαί"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, στοιχεῖον

So, was Paul referring to returning to believed in the atoms espoused by Epicureanism? Unfortunately, I don't think so. Here's a compilation of biblical commentary:

Galatians 4:9 Commentaries: But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

It seems to me that an Occam's razor approach is more likely the στοιχεῖα definition of steps or "one in a series" sense of the word. In which case, it is the sense used in Menoikeus but need not have any connection to Epicurus's "elements of the blessed life." Especially since the same word is used a few verses earlier in Galatians 4:3:

"To the weak and beggarly elements - To the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law, imposing a servitude really not less severe than the customs of paganism. On the word elements, see the note at Galatians 4:3."

Galatians 4:3 So also, when we were children, we were enslaved under the basic principles of the world.

‘by convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void’

Two truths doctrine - Wikipedia

Great catch, Joshua , on the Democritus quote. I was unaware of that.

I can easily see Democritus' statement being used to describe the Buddhist doctrine of Two Truths with no difficulty whatsoever. In fact, the Wikipedia article uses "conventional truth" as one of the aspects of the Buddhist doctrine.

That said, I see no reason why that Democritean observation has to end with Buddhist ethics. There's nothing incorrect about Democritus' declaration. That's Epicurus's implication as well. In fact, I believe he says, to paraphrase, "it's atoms and void all the way down." BUT the "truth of reality" does NOT negate the fact that all we have to work with on a day to day basis is the conventional truth. We don't live on the level of "ultimate" truth. We live in the level of conventional, perceptible truth.

Translation is everything. I wouldn't go too far down that road until you see the Greek.

That being said, if you're right, that would have made him more palatable to the early Church Fathers. Hence, making him more likely to be incorporated into orthodoxy and to be transcribed and passed on.

PS: Homoiosis theoi did use the plural theoi, so a better translation might be "to be like the gods."

I'll admit I didn't know where to post this, but it can always be moved. Here's the link to the paper:

The ideal of godlikeness

The ideal of godlikeness

www.academia.edu

I was browsing Sedley's papers on Academia to see if I'd missed anything interesting and came across this one. Typically, I'd pass over one on Plato but the title caught my eye.The idea that Plato advocated that we should "become like god as much as possible" (homoiosis theoi kata to dunaton) struck me as sounding somewhat Epicuruean. We know that Epicurus, in many ways, was responding to Plato and other contemporary philosophical schools. Epicurus was also working within the culture of his time as well, using and reworking aspects of existing Greek culture. So, I looked through this article and wanted to mention a few selections and to post for comment.

Quote

The standard for justice is not the Form of justice. It is god:

But it is not possible for evils to be eliminated, Theodorus-there must always exist some opposite to good-nor can evils be established among the gods. Of necessity, it is mortal nature and our vicinity that are haunted by evils. And that is why we should also try to escape from here to there as quickly as we can. To escape is to become like god so far as is possible (phuge de homoiosis theoi kata to dunaton), and to become like god is to become just and holy, together with wisdom.5 The trouble is, my friend, that it is not all that easy to persuade anyone that the reason why most people think we should escape wickedness and pursue goodness, namely so as to seem not wicked but good, is not the real reason. It's just an old wives' tale, I'd say..Let's put the true reason as follows. God is not at all in any respect unjust, but as Just as can be; and there is nothing more like him than anyone of us who becomes in his own turn as just as possible.

It could hardly be made clearer that the absolute standard for justice described here is not the Form ofjustice, but god.

I found it interesting that Plato used phuge (Sedley translates as "escape") since this is the exact word Epicurus used for what is usually translated "choices and rejections." Plato addresses an absolute standard of justice being god, but as we know Epicurus talked about a prolepsis of justice as well as a "standard" being "to neither harm nor be harmed." Epicurus couldn't use god as a standard because the gods don't interfere in human affairs.

Another part I found interesting was:

Quote

it is easy to see how this text licensed the later Platonist view that homoiosis theoi was Plato's telos or goal, since becoming godlike is here described as the telos of the best life. This is not quite what we think of as the familiar Aristotelian use of telos to mean the goal aimed for, but rather the closely allied and often overlapping sense 'supreme fulfilment'. This may in fact be, and remain, the fundamental ethical sense of telos, even in the context of Hellenistic and later philosophy where each philosopher must state what the telos is. When Epicurus (Letter to Menoeceus 128) calls health and tranquillity 'the telos of the blessed life', he means its supreme fulfilment, not the goal it aims at. And Cicero's great dialogue on ethics is called de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum: again it is clearly the ethical telos that is meant, but 'fulfilment' rather than 'goal' is the proper translation (bad does not have a goal, but it does have a supreme fulfilment). Plato's usage in the Timaeus may therefore not implausibly claim to be the earliest formulation of a telos for a good human life. Arguably, this is the dominant ethical sense of telos for Aristotle too.

With all our discussion on the telos, I thought this could be important food for thought on the diverse connotations of that word in Epicurus's time and before.

I found especially interesting, however, the very first lines that prompted me to post here:

Quote

Try asking any moderately well-educated citizen of the Roman empire to name the official moral goal, or telos, of each major current philosophical system. Among others, you will hear that Plato's is homoiosis theoi kata to dunaton, 'becoming like god so far as is possible'. Few people today, even those well informed about Plato, would come up with the same answer. Homoiosis theoi, universally accepted in antiquity as the official Platonic goal, does not even appear in the index to any modern study of Plato known to me, nor as far as I am aware does it playa part in any modern reconstruction of Plato's thought.

This idea of becoming godlike "so far as possible" seemed to echo recent conversations about references to Epicurus's godlike status as well as the idea of "gods as exemplars of the Epicuruean life." So, I guess I should leave open the possibility that we could learn something from Plato even if it's only to compare and contrast him with Epicurus. Yet again, Sedley provides some interesting and thought-provoking reading!

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cc7uVcqj2XF/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY=

It's amazing ANY ancient artwork, writing, or artifacts survived given the zeal with which early Christmas engaged in this kind of erasure and destruction of pagan culture.

A great book on this is The Darkening Age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darkening_Age#%3A%7E%3Atext%3D978-0544800885-%2CThe_Darkening_Age%3A_The_Christian_Destruction_of_the_Classical_World%2Cand_caused_the_Dark_Ages.?wprov=sfla1

Festivals – Hellenion

This link gives an idea of the rites and festivals in which Epicurus may have participated. It's an Ancient Greek neo-pagan website, but they give a good description of each of the festivals. This is also my preferred source for a reconstructed Ancient Greek calendar for determining Epicurus's birthday. Enjoy.

Quote from Nate

Cheers, Adam ! I follow you on Twitter under ShazdarTheBard. Glad to meet you!

Small world... or should I say μικρόκοσμος

Finishing up the podcast episode and listening to section at 39:00. You found the Lucretius section that is connected to the following. If I remember correctly, somewhere else I remember something about if we think about something repeatedly, that makes our minds receptive to those images. The images create grooves or channels or holes that match their shape. This makes it easier for images of the same shape to enter the mind, whether in sleeping or in waking, and that's how we think of things or dream of things.

And I think Joshua was getting there when his mention of impressions at 50:00 when talking about prolepses.

I get the idea that the ONLY thing that is εναργής about the gods is that they are ἄφθαρτον and μακάριον. That's it. That's the extent of our prolepsis. But I'm open to other thoughts...

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἄφθαρ-τος

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, μα^κα?́ρ-ιος