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 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
The continuing problem with that, howevrer, is that Epicurus and the other texts seem much more firm about the gods than just "possibilities."
θεοὶ ... εἰσιν· "Gods exist"
It doesn't get much more clear than that... Or does it? Here's the excerpt from my translation of the letter to Menoikeus...
123e. θεοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν·
If we take out the μὲν (and look for the inevitable δε in the next phrase) and move γάρ "because, for" out of the way for now, we can pare this down to its essential:
θεοὶ εἰσιν. "Gods exist." "There are gods."
The implications of those two words have had entire essays (if not whole books) written about them. We looked at this a little in 123b with ζώον. But Epicurus is not equivocating here: Gods exist. What he means by this we simply have to discover from his extant works and fragments. Again, if we take Sedley's position, each person has their own personal concept of a god. Many people, many individual gods.
123f. ἐναργὴς γαρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις.
Here's our δέ "on the other hand."
ἐναργὴς [δέ] ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις
"And the knowledge (ἡ γνῶσις (gnōsis)) of them (θεοί "gods", note the plural here) is ἐναργὴς." But what does ἐναργὴς mean?
It has two primary definitions:
visible, palpable, in bodily shape, properly of gods appearing in their own forms (in Homer); so of a dream or vision; ex., ἐναργὴς ταῦρος "in visible form a bull, a very bull"
manifest to the mind's eye, distinct
Epicurus can't mean the first meaning since he's adamant that the gods don't interact with humans. But the second definition coincides with his contention (and the idea of the prolepsis of the gods) that the gods are apprehended by the mind only. That also sets up a nice contrast with the first definition's use by Homer in describing the Olympian gods appearing "in visible form." Homer's gods were εναργής in one sense of the word; Epicurus's in the other sense.
Unfortunately, this does nothing to resolve our problem with puzzling out how the gods are ζώον. Are they physically-existent material beings? Are they existing only as mental perceptions manifest merely to the mind's eye? The ambiguous nature of εναργής doesn't necessarily help us fully. It does, however, set up some of Epicurus's clever wordplay contrasting his view with Homer's.
I think you might be in y to something with that line of thinking. "It is not impossible that..." and "Nothing contradicts..." seems firmly inline with the way different options are presented for other physical phenomena.
The word used in the texts for "clearly" in this context is ἐναργὴς:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἐναργ-ής
One can try and cram Epicurus's concept of "bodies emitting είδωλον and these images/films impinging on our physical senses and minds" into a modern paradigm of bodies emitting infrared electromagnetic energy or visible light reflecting off of bodies and reaching our visual senses. And Epicurus, were he to somehow be transported to our time, would be curious about modern scientific findings and, I believe, be able and willing to incorporate that into his natural, physical universe and his physics.
BUT we cannot say that Epicurus prognosticated or predicted modern science. His system is coherent within itself, but his concept of the mind receiving fine particles/atoms leading to our thoughts is factually wrong. It's ingenious and provides a purely material basis for sensation. But it does a disservice to Epicurus and to us to shoehorn his ideas into a modern paradigm.
For me, what Epicurus got absolutely correct was the physical explanation of all phenomena without the need for supernatural intervention. THAT we can build on. THAT we can incorporate seamlessly into any modern paradigm.
We can try to analogize and see his είδωλον "images" as metaphors for light, but I do not think it's intellectually honest to think he foresaw radio waves or the electromagnetic spectrum. That was not his mechanism for films of atoms. We can be impressed at his intellectual creativity within his contemporary worldview. And he was "less wrong" than Plato or Pythagoras. But my perspective is that a modern Epicurean position is to respect the founders' position that we use our senses to make sense of the cosmos. Our senses now have additional range through instruments we use to augment them. We are not beholden to 2,000+ year old texts when it comes to explaining physical phenomena which we can literally see now thanks to advances in science. Modern Epicurean physics has to incorporate modern scientific facts. This does not preclude an openness and humility that we'll find out more in the future! (I'm looking at you multiverses and dark energy and dark matter.) This ability to incorporate new scientific knowledge into the philosophy with barely a ripple is one of the strengths of Epicurus's system! Think of the cataclysm it was to Christianity for Galileo to say Jupiter had moons!! Epicureans would have said, "Cool!" and went about their day. That's the attitude I'm advocating when it comes to the Physics leg of the Canon.
I am not even sure what we think of these today:. Are they electrical impulses? Chemicals?
The brain and nervous system work with both electrical and chemical signals. Nerve impulses are electrical. But the signals are carried between synapses in the brain are (primarily) by chemical compounds (neurotransmitters).
Listened to this on my way to work. Seemed to me to confirm some basic Epicuruean ideas on the value of emotions/feelings. I'll have to dig into what gets translated as"emotion" and/or "feeling" in the texts. Enjoy!
And of course this book is now on my ever-expanding reading list.
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
Hail Eostre, goddess of Spring and renewal!
Hail Aphrodite, hail Venus, goddess praised by Lucretius, from whom new life springs!
(.... Metaphorically speaking, of course 
)
Collections Online | British Museum
So, there's the link to the British Museum
Not British but putting this article on the Villa dei Papyri here for future reference. Some great photos.
I realized this thread dovetails with our discussion on this thread regarding the Celts and Gauls since these mosaics are in a Gallo-Roman villa.
Plus the Celts were unrivaled (in my opinion) in their artwork* and metallurgy... And they invented the iron-rimmed wheel used for chariots! They were also courageous and respected for their prowess in battle, even in defeat, as portrayed in at least two ancient statues of defeated Gauls. The Celtic and German tribes were formidable enemies, the former eventually embraced within the Empire, that latter kicking the Romans butts (not the least in Teutoburg Forest) and setting a clear boundary to Roman ambition.
But my pride in my ancestral heritage may be showing just a bit with this post.
*PS: Okay, I'll give the Greeks their statuary and pottery, but Celtic artwork remains stunning. I'm including later Celtic artwork in the Christian era but items like the Books of Kells and Lindisfarne are unrivaled (again, my opinion)
Probably far more Italian in mannerisms than their Gallic or British counterparts.
Let's not sell the Gauls short. Take a look at the Gallo-Roman city of Nimes and its preserved colosseum and temple.
The Gauls weren't all Asterix and Obelix (although I have a soft spot for them as well as the historical Vercingetorix himself)
Yet ANOTHER modern scientific insight that Epicurus found 2,000 years ago: listening to your feelings leads to better decision making...
Can't start around the ~20 minute mark if you don't want to listen to the whole episode.
I would dearly love to find some surviving Catius and - whose the other one - Rufinius?
I heard a sobering statistic on a podcast the other day. It is estimated that we only have 1-3% of all the writings that survived from the ancient world. We will never have access to 97-99% of it all. 
Lucian was also Syrian, but has long been noted for his command of the Greek Language.
Agreed. Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Ancient World for quite some time. That's one reason Marcus Aurelius, a Roman *emperor* could choose to write his diary in Greek.
Joshua 's note about Lucian is one of the reasons Luke Ranieri chose to call his ancient Greek pronunciation convention "Lucian" https://lukeranieri.com/lucianpronunciation/
And I continue to think that it makes sense to situate Epicurus as particularly Ionian. Among the Pre-Socratics, Aristotle called the Ionians physiologoi---"those who study nature".
Agreed, he seems to be firmly in that Ionian tradition, although I wonder how Epicurus would feel about being seen as an Ionian and not Athenian. 
Oh, so according to that map, the Insubrians were a Celtic people. Interesting.
From Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods:
The Latin section starts for what it's worth here:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…%3Asection%3D46
Catius the Insubrian, an Epicurean, who died lately, gives the name of spectres to what the famous Gargettian [Epicurus], and long before that Democritus, called images
In the translated letter:
English "spectres" = Latin: spectris
Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, spectrum
English "images" = Greek εἴδωλον (we've seen before!)
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, εἴδωλον
'Mental images" might be a better description.
Of possible interest:
