Posts by Don

Those are really some great excerpts from that article. I'm not ready to embrace the idea of chakras (maybe a little too "woo" for me, but taken metaphorically... Maybe?), but I fully endorse the idea of the importance of listening to what one's body is saying. Western inculcation has a generally bad relationship with the body.

But an aspect of this is one's sense of interoception. From researchers like Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett and many others, this sense is linked to well-being. See for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985305/

Quote from Cassius

I would say Philodemus has a much better grasp of the teachings than does this writer

Is that an endorsement of Philodemus?

FYI:

HADZSITS, George Depue

Hadzsits, George Depue, 1875-1954 | The Online Books Page

The last line is DRN, Book 1, line 28: Wherefore indeed, Divine one, give my words

Immortal charm

It's always a little frustrating when authors/academics of that bygone era just expect their readers to be fluent in Greek and Latin, although I suppose at the time, it was a reasonable expectation.

A nice YouTube summary of Lucian's A True Story.

"The sage will declare a definite position and not remain in doubt or be puzzled."

Quote from Matt

We are equals, the shark and I.

In an absolute/objective perspective, no question. Totally agree.

From my relative/subjective perspective, I am much more important than the shark.

I am in awe of the universe and its complexity and my miniscule existence in it, and I can take pleasure in that contemplation.

In my choices and rejections, I operate as if I have importance... Because I do... to me.

In *some* ways, it echoes the Buddhist Two Truths as to absolute and relative existence.

Quote from Matt

nature has its own plans that I’m subject to. Nature operates upon certain reliable principles and the real magic is observing them and understanding that everything operates according to its will.

I can deeply appreciate where you're coming from. I too have/had some affinity for that line of thought.

My only caution would be to echo Lucretius (e.g., say Bacchus for wine, etc) and to see that language as purely poetic and not literal.

Quote from EricR

Here is what I asked: is it accepted within the community that it's an indisputable fact that "there is nothing other than atoms and void", or is it thought to be a belief that may or may not be true or provable?

I would say it is accepted as fact that it is true that we live in a purely material universe. "Atoms and void" is the shorthand for this foundational tenet of the philosophy. From my perspective, it's no more a "belief" than to say that someone hasa "belief" in biological evolution or a "belief" in gravity.

Excellent question and opportunity for discussion. Here's a quick response from me for now. We know "atoms and void" are not exactly the fundamental building blocks of the universe now. Physics tells us that the universe is made of quantum fields. But, at the level we at which humans need to "care about," we can deal with atoms (and their direct constituents: protons, electrons; quarks, and so on) and the void that surrounds them.

What this means to me is that "atoms and void" is shorthand for a fully material universe. There is no "guiding hand", nothing that can't be measured (eventually). Our "mind" is based on a physical reality. We dissolve into physical parts when we die, nothing immaterial left over. Nothing hiding behind the material universe of which to fear.

I'm currently listening to the book The Knowledge Illusion

The Knowledge Illusion — Philip Fernbach

I'm only on chapter 4, but they've been talking about the unique capacity of humans to engage in "causal reasoning"

Causal reasoning - Wikipedia

with an eye to the consequences/effects of one's actions or diagnosing the causes of one's current situation to determine future actions.

This whole thing struck me as linked to making choices and rejections.

Liked I said, just started the book but felt it's food for thought.

Quote from Nate

he Don e

LOL! Well played, @Nate , well played! If you put it that way, what other philosophy *could* I have been attracted to!

Quote from Godfrey

implies a degree of mathematical precision

Wasn't it literally adding up the hedons and the dolors?

Quote from EricR

the winter of grim Stoicism...

Yeah, I'm a sucker for some fine wordsmithing. That's a good line.

Quote from Cassius

unruly children "You little Hedon!"

LOL! I always thought that was "little Heathens"

Agreed. The term is definitely not ancient. It appears to have started with Bentham:

Felicific calculus - Wikipedia

The Epicureans seemed to have consistently used "choices and rejections" as the key phrase: αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν (hairesin (kai "and") phugēn).

Here's my translation of 130, maybe a little more literal than Bailey:

Quote from Epicurus in Letter to Menoikeus

[130] So, all pleasure, through its nature, belongs to us as a good; however, not all are elected; and just as all pains are entirely evil by their nature, so not all are always to be shunned.It is proper when judging these things to consider what is advantageous and what is not advantageous for you; in other words, what the consequences will be. We consult the consequences of our actions; because, on the one hand, pleasure over time can lead to pain; and on the other hand, pain can lead to pleasure.

Hedonic calculus also seems to be popular with positive psychology researchers, as well as hedonic treadmill. I think we can potentially learn a lot from this field of research as long as we don't get hung up on terms and approach with a critical eye.

Ἄφοβον ὁ θεός,

ἀνύποπτον ὁ θάνατος

καὶ τἀγαθὸν μὲν εὔκτητον,

τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐεκκαρτέρητον

The 4 lines of the Tetrapharmakos are statements of fact, not commands or commandments. I can't help that some translate them that way. Ἄφοβον is an accusative noun not an imperative verb. If the creator of the Tetrapharmakos epitome wanted to command people to "Don't fear the gods!" or say "I will not fear the gods", they could have used the imperative of φοβέομαι, δείδω, or ὀκνέω, but they didn't

Literally, the first line reads something more like:

The god causes no fear.

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

Same for line 2:

Death is free from risk. (i.e., there is no afterlife)

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Α α, , ἀνυπ-εξαιρέτως , ἀνύποπτος

The Tetrapharmakos is nothing more than an epitome or summary of the first four Principal Doctrines. They are no more a full presentation of the whole philosophy than are the Letters to Herodotus or Menoikeus or the Principal Doctrines themselves. Just as those summaries are meant to keep the key points of the philosophy ready in one's mind, so the Tetrapharmakos keeps the first four Doctrines ready for application in one's mind. There's a reason Epicurus placed those first four Doctrines first, and, as far as I know, we can't say definitively that Epicurus himself didn't write the Tetrapharmakos. We know it from the writings of Philodemus, but there's nothing stating who actually composed it as far as I know. People seem to have asked Epicurus on multiple occasions for summaries of his philosophy. I see no reason to think the Tetrapharmakos might not be another one.

Saying a reason to ignore or downplay or dismiss the Tetrapharmakos is that some may misconstrue or misinterpret it is the the wrong way to handle it. This is an epitome gleaned from an authentic ancient Epicurean text (multiple texts!) that exemplifies the kernels of the philosophy. Philodemus goes to great pains to expand those four maxims, using the first four Doctrines, and expanding beyond those summaries in [On Choices and Avoidances]. Philodemus himself urged people to return to the books and that the summaries weren't sufficient in themselves. They are reminders and outlines, and always point back to the texts.

An understanding that, to paraphrase...

The gods provide no reason to fear them... because they're not motivated by anger or gratitude.

Death is to be approached with no suspicion... because we don't exist after we die.

The Good is easily obtained... because of the reasons laid out in various texts.

The Terrible is easily endured... because ditto.

These are fundamental to the whole philosophy. It's not dumbed down. It's to make it crystal clear that the philosophy as a whole is eminently able to be grasped by everyone. It's not open to a select few but is appropriate to everyone. That's one reason Diogenes had his wall carved in Oenoanda. You get benefit in your life *starting* at the beginning with the summaries but you can also go as deep as you want to or are able to with the volumes of texts. We are at a disadvantage because all we have had for a long time are summaries.

I will continue to defend the Tetrapharmakos, especially because I don't know who wrote it and I don't see any reason to think it may not have been Epicurus or one of the other early scholarchs of the Garden. Plus any kernel from authentically Epicurean sources not filtered through a Cicero or Plutarch is a precious gem.

Yes, we're definitely clear that's what he's referring to. Go further along, too. He mentions the first four of the Principal Doctrines at the beginning in that order. That's the Tetrapharmakos. As I understand, he mentions it/them in other works. Which means I have to keep working on the other ones of his works in Les Epicuriens.

PS: I'm also going through Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus and checking her translations of excerpts from [On Choices and Avoidances], comparing against PHerc.1251, and sizing up my translations from French to English, and I'm finding the French (if my English ones are right) seems to be more literal in matching up to the papyrus while Tsouna's is more paraphrased or colloquial English. This is turning into a fascinating exercise, *and* shedding light on authentic, ancient Epicurean texts not generally available to us... at least not to me

Oh, plus it strengthens, from my perspective, the importance of Philodemus's works.

Quote from Cassius

Do you see anything in it that stands out as remarkable and that needs more scrutiny?

I was pleased, as I said, to see the advocacy of the Tetrapharmakos primarily.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

some sort of "Other Philosophies and their faults" course

Some comparative look might not be a bad idea. I'm trying to think of a more "diplomatic" word for "faults" . Maybe "shortcomings" or "differences"... Or just cut to the chase with "Why other philosophies are wrong"