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
the first step uses vivid exact description of exactly what happened or what was said...and they say: "describe what the video camera would see" as a way to be very objective.
That's how I'm thinking "setting before the eyes" goes except in reverse: "Here's what the video camera would see."
I noticed that the link just shows as "search results." It's every occurrence of the word oculus in De Rerum Natura. It wouldn't take the phrase ante oculus.
I need a good text version of Lucretius in latin somewhere -- I think there is or was a latinlibrary.com ?
Cassius , thanks for all that food for thought! That's a lot of material in those last few posts, and, I'll admit, I haven't waded through it all yet. Remembering that I'm still also wading through On Anger (both Philodemus's text and the translators' commentary in that book) and the articles I linked to, let me summarize where I'm at:
I'm intrigued by Cassius idea about possible links among the therapeutic technique of "setting before the eyes" in Philodemus, the use of the phrase "ante oculus" in Lucretius, and the sensory perception of images/eidolon in Epicurus. I have not seen that brought up anywhere else. I'm not saying I agree there's a link yet, but I'm intrigued.
That being said, my take is that "setting before the eyes" is - for the most part - just a part of the instruction/correction of fellow Epicureans. Philodemus talks about it in On Anger in relation to ridding oneself of harmful behaviors. It's also mentioned by name in On Frank Criticism. Granted, since we've lost SO many texts, there could have been many more detailed explanations of the technique and its place in the "therapy" sessions.
I originally thought Hiram may have been making more of it than was warranted. Now, Cassius might be imbuing it with more depth than is warranted. Maybe.
That being said, it was obviously specific enough for Philodemus to consistently use the phrase to refer to an integral part of the sessions of frank criticism engaged in by the school.
There is definitely an element of imagination involved. I do not think there is any evidence of an actual "seeing" from a visual perception perspective. The technique appears to have involved confronting the student/patient with vivid descriptions describing in detail the problem behavior and its consequences. But I seem to remember it wasn't meant to be preventative. It was employed after the behavior had been engaged in during a session of frank criticism to *correct* the behavior moving forward.
So, that's why I'm not convinced that the images/eidolon are involved... Although I'm still unclear of those connections. It does appear that memory habituated the mind to receiving images, but that's all a little murky, too.
This is interesting from a "what was actually going on inside the Epicurean community in ancient times" perspective, but also "how can we resurrect or re-use or re-interpret ancient practices for modern times" perspective. That's one reason why it's important to dig into this.
And I double-checked. ΑΙΡΕΣΕΩΣ is the "genitive singular form of αἵρεσῐς" so "of choice"
Yeah, the fact that it goes from meaning "choice" to "heresy" is so sad.
So I am not asking you (Don) to do it since we are all covered with work, and I don't have the time right now to offer to do it myself, but that would be a good goal for us at some point to pull together at least some preliminary English version of those cites for this project.
My posts 16 and 27 are directly from On Anger, not Tsouna's book. The translators appear very conservative, not trying to fill in. They're very clear where the papyrus is missing. But the papyrus is intact over long sections.
one: On the Nine Books of Metrodorus's Against the Sophists
Note that Diogenes Laertius mentions "Against the Sophists, in nine books" too. That vocabulary list got εννέα wrong. It's 9 not 7. Seven is ἑπτά (hepta).
I'm intrigued by your suggestion, Cassius . Hmm. You could be on to something... Just not sure what yet.
It may be instructive to look at what's covered under dying for a φίλος (philos). The people covered under philia φιλιά, according to the unimpeachable source of Wikipedia 
are:
"young lovers (1156b2), lifelong friends (1156b12), cities with one another (1157a26), political or business contacts (1158a28), parents and children (1158b20), fellow-voyagers and fellow-soldiers (1159b28), members of the same religious society (1160a19), or of the same tribe (1161b14), a cobbler and the person who buys from him. (1163b35)"
This is from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics but gives an idea of the range of who a philos may be. It goes beyond what we would necessarily call a "friend" in modern English.
Perhaps Don can help with these.
Let's try these. I'll admit, I'm intrigued... And I'm sure they're all lost to history 
:
Those things pertaining to the philosophy of Epicurus
On Eudaimonia and a Blessed Life According to Epicurus
two: On Diminished Pleasure According to Epicurus: That which produces pleasure defectively according to Epicurus
one: On the Pleasure of Choice:
If the Inquiry into Natural Causes (is) Useful in Regard to Moral Philosophy
one: On the Nine Books of Metrodorus's Against the Sophists:
Letter Against Celsius the Epicurean
Letter of Poudentianus the Epicurean
I neglected to look at the vocabulary you provided, Joshua . I was making it harder than it needed to be! 
I'll try and provide a more thorough translation tonight (unless Elli stops by here 
)
Perhaps Don can help with these.
Yay! A translation exercise! Wheee! Νice work on the transliteration, Joshua .
I should be able to puzzle through this unless someone with more fluent knowledge of ancient Greek comes along. I'll make this a priority tonight. Let me see if I can add anything with yours as a jumping off point:
XVI. On the things belonging to the philosophy of Epicurus
On Epicurus' Eudaimonia and the Happiness of Life (Trivia: That 2nd to last word is makariou - the word used in the first PD1)
two: On the Weakening/Obscuring(?) Pleasure according to Epicurus: That the produced things(?) of Greek pleasure said by Epicurus
one (ἕν hen "one"; evidently referring to the number of books?)
On Choosing Pleasure: (Good job!! I'll dig in if there's something else going on with the grammar there, too)
ἐννεα = "nine"
That's all I can do right now (off to work), but I'll dig back in tonight!
I'm thinking maybe (at least) a Google map of relevant locations, color coded by century or other criteria?
Logic in the sense of parsing definitions and categories. It's largely a word game until you connect back to emotions / pain / pleasure.
But that too begs the question between whether there is any "natural" connection between words and perceptions, and for that we might have to call in Godfrey and Don on visualization issues
There's some discussion of definitions and the Epicurean aversion to them in Philodemus's On Anger. Still digging through it, but it's been interesting. Not ready to report back in yet.
Which has me wondering...how often were festivals, celebrations, shared meal gatherings, etc. part of an ancient Epicurean lifestyle?
According to Philodemus's On Piety, Epicurus regularly took part in the rites inherent to the city of Athens. And it seems the ancient Greeks had some kind of religious observance or festival on a regular basis.
I've used Tsouna's book for reference primarily and haven't read beginning to end. I realize now that I should really do that. Now that I know we have access to the manuscripts or at least apographs and I can see the translation of On Anger, I'll need able to follow along with her references. Adding it to my list of to-do's.
In rethinking this, I think I should prioritize reading On Anger then read Tsouna's book. Having access to an ancient Epicurean text seems like it should take priority. ... So many books, so little time.
Godfrey , that's exactly it! I was about to start typing out a long explanation, but your water-skiing example is spot on. Just transferring that to a teacher/doctor-student/patient scenario where the teacher is trying to get the student to see how to deal with anger or their habit of dealing with an angry disposition and I think that's it.
The phrase that Tsouna keeps using is "vivid description."
Tsouna: "It seems reasonable to infer that the technique works by inducing the creation of pictures or images in the patient's mind and engages some form of imagination which has mental pictures and related items as its proper medium. An enraged person sees the evils deriving from anger, feels aversion towards the passion, and forms the desire to remove it."
I would conjecture Philodemus's On Anger excerpts below would serve as part of a session of setting before the eyes to get someone to abandon their angry ways:
Column 8 [ circa nineteen lines missing or untranslatable ] … [16] the rage … anger … if … whole … [20] as if composed of raging fever and swelling and irritation and indignation and a dreadful desire to get revenge and anxiety [26] whether one will be able to, as the utterances of those people will demonstrate, who sometimes boast they will “gird themselves with the guts” of the one who hurt them and other times “tear him up raw.” [32] Then (their anger progresses) to unstable movements distributed throughout their bodies; I mean, for example, the dislocation of their lungs, ribs and all, from their shouting, their very rapid, shallow breathing like that of men who have just run a thousand stadia, the throbbing of their heart … Column 9 [ circa seventeen lines missing ] … [18] trembling fits and [movements] of their parts and [paraly]ses, such as hap[pen] to epileptics [as well], so that, since (these effects) continually follow them, they are afflicted for their whole lives and take the greater part of their time in nursing their misery. [27] The fact is that it (sc. anger) and its consequences have produced breakings of lungs, pains in the sides, and many such afflictions that bring death in their wake—[34] as it is possible for those watching over them to hear from their doctors and to notice. At the same time, (these circumstances) dispose them to continual bouts of melancholy as well, so as often [to produce] black …"
Fragment 18: "he has the eyes of [madmen] in his outbursts of anger, eyes [5] sometimes even throwing out flashes, a thing that the greatest of the poets appear to have made a distinguishing mark (sc. of anger), and “gazing,” [10] that is looking, [“askance” ] at those with whom he is angry, and characteristically he has a flushed face in most cases, but some have [15] a blood-red one, and some have their neck stretched tight, and their veins swelling up, and their saliva very bitter and salty, [20] and in some such way"
These are just two examples.
On a different but related note, I found Column 45 to be very interesting:
Column 45
the Founders accept the idea that “the wise man will be enraged,” not according to that preconception, but according to the more general one. [5] In fact, Epicurus makes clear in his First Appellations *214 both that the sage “will experience rage” and (will experience it) “in moderation,” and Metrodorus, if he says “the rage of the wise man” in its proper sense, shows also that he feels it “very briefly.” [12] That “he will feel rage”… also to Hermarchus … [ two lines missing or untranslatable ] … [16] so that I am amazed at those who want to be textbook Epicureans, *215 that they ignored these and the things I mentioned before, and as a result tried to demonstrate that, according to our Founders, “the sage will become wrathful.” [23] And their proofs that he will become enraged are very far from establishing that he will become enraged according to every notion of rage, as they ought to have, since nowhere do they establish both anger and rage as separate categories, nor that “he (the wise man) will become angry” in the sense common (to both words), as we will show. [33] It is clear that both in magnitude and quality rage differs from anger and is not natural. [37] But they have reasoned wrongly about when anger and rage are referred to the same thing and when they are not,"
*214. The Anaphōnēseis is mentioned only here, and this is its only fragment.
*215. The βιβλιακοί are “Epicureans by the book,” or at least so they claimed. The school encouraged verbal disputations over the texts of the founders like those in Demetrius Laco’s Textual Problems . See Sedley 1998, 62– 93; and Del Mastro’s (2014, 184– 87) reconstruction of the title Πρὸϲ τοὺϲ φαϲκοβιβλιακούϲ Α , in P.Herc . 1005/862 (partially published in Angeli 1988a).
as I understand it (at least in the specific context of the scrolls) is to work on improving specific shortcomings of a student.
What you're describing is certainly valid as a practice, but I don't think that's what "setting before the eyes" is referring to. It seems very specific. As I recall, it's always referred to under discussion of "therapy".
That's my understanding as well, Godfrey .
And I concur that the list of + and - is a valid practice but it's not "setting before the eyes."
I've used Tsouna's book for reference primarily and haven't read beginning to end. I realize now that I should really do that. Now that I know we have access to the manuscripts or at least apographs and I can see the translation of On Anger, I'll need able to follow along with her references. Adding it to my list of to-do's.
Sedley's paper isn't an easy read but worthwhile. One of my favorite parts of Book XXVIII is still Epicurus's self-deprecation at the end about prattling on long enough.
