Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Because I think we all end up at the same position if we agree that "harm" is very subjective and relative. If we think "harm" can be defined objectively, then we're looking at an absolute standard of justice which I don't think Epicurus would allow.

Broken record that I am, I'm going back to the Greek text of the PDs. There word consistently throughout those PDs to talk about natural justice, the nature of justice, to describe the compact, etc. is βλάπτω.

Principal Doctrines, by Epicurus

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

If Epicurus or the early Epicureans wanted to use a word less "ambiguous" than βλάπτω to convey another meaning, they would have. Whether we think the English translation of "harm" is ambiguous doesn't matter. We need to grapple with why βλάπτω is the word chosen to convey the "basic grasp of justice" throughout those PDs and its connection to what is δίκαιος "just, right, etc."

Quote from Cassius

I would say that the Pds on justice are closely analogous to, and should be understood to be part of, Epicurus' overall view on virtue (justice generally being considered a virtue). As such, justice is ultimately a tool for the pleasure of ourselves and our friends, in the same way as is wisdom and prudence and the rest. And that's why it is so clear in those PD's that when circumstances change, that which was deemed "just" before is seen to be no longer just.

Hmm 🤔 I'm not entirely convinced, but I'll entertain your post.

As an exercise, I put PD31 to PD38 together as paragraphs and also threw in PD17 (see if y'all can pick it out ) to get away from looking at them as discrete thoughts.

Quote

Natural justice is a covenant for mutual benefit, to not harm one another or be harmed. Justice does not exist in itself; instead, it is always a compact to not harm one another or be harmed, which is agreed upon by those who gather together at some time and place. There is neither justice nor injustice with regard to those animals that do not have the power of making a covenant to not harm one another or be harmed similar to those peoples who have neither the power nor the desire of making a covenant to not harm one another or be harmed.

Injustice is not bad in itself, but only because of the fear caused by a suspicion that you will not avoid those who are appointed to punish wrongdoing. One who acts aright is utterly steady and serene, whereas one who goes astray is full of trouble and confusion. It is impossible to be confident that you will escape detection when secretly doing something contrary to an agreement to not harm one another or be harmed, even if currently you do so countless times; for until your death you will be uncertain that you have escaped detection.

In general, justice is the same for all: what is mutually advantageous among companions. But with respect to the particulars of a place or other causes, it does not follow that the same thing is just for all.

Among things that are thought to be just, that which has been witnessed to bring mutual advantage among companions has the nature of justice, whether or not it is the same for everyone. But if someone legislates something whose results are not in accord with what brings mutual advantage among companions, then it does not have the nature of justice. And if what brings advantage according to justice changes, but for some time fits our basic grasp of justice, then for that time it is just, at least to the person who is not confused by empty prattle but instead looks to the facts. When circumstances have not changed and things that were thought to be just are shown to not be in accord with our basic grasp of justice, then those things were not just. But when circumstances do change and things that were just are no longer useful, then those things were just while they brought mutual advantage among companions sharing the same community; but when later they did not bring advantage, then they were not just.

I will say that when you say:

Quote from Cassius

And that's why it is so clear in those PD's that when circumstances change, that which was deemed "just" before is seen to be no longer just.

I think the reason (which is started in the PD) is that something is no longer just is when it's no longer mutually beneficial and no longer adheres to the "basic grasp of justice" which, as I see it, is to neither harm nor be harmed.

Quote from Cassius

I was thinking that was a reference in Seneca, so I could be thinking wrong. Do you have a particular cite for it in Philodemus beyond what you quoted above? I am always more skeptical of Philodemus quotes too due to the uncertainties of the text.

That link in my post has the full PDF of Philodemus's On Frank Speech. It's in Fragment 45.

The SFOTSE is Seneca:

Quote

(Seneca’s Letters, Book I- Letter XXV) But do you yourself, as indeed you are doing, show me that you are stout-hearted; lighten your baggage for the march. None of our possessions is essential. Let us return to the law of nature; for then riches are laid up for us. The things which we actually need are free for all, or else cheap; nature craves only bread and water. No one is poor according to this standard; when a man has limited his desires within these bounds, be can challenge the happiness of Jove himself, as Epicurus says. I must insert in this letter one or two more of his sayings: “Do everything as if Epicurus were watching you.” (Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus) There is no real doubt that it is good for one to have appointed a guardian over oneself, and to have someone whom you may look up to, someone whom you may regard as a witness of your thoughts. It is, indeed, nobler by far to live as you would live under the eyes of some good man, always at your side; but nevertheless I am content if you only act, in whatever you do, as you would act if anyone at all were looking on; because solitude prompts us to all kinds of evil. And when you have progressed so far that you have also respect for yourself, you may send away your attendant; but until then, set as a guard over yourself the authority of some man, whether your choice be the great Cato or Scipio, or Laelius, – or any man in whose presence even abandoned wretches would check their bad impulses. Meantime, you are engaged in making of yourself the sort of person in whose company you would not dare to sin. When this aim has been accomplished and you begin to hold yourself in some esteem, I shall gradually allow you to do what Epicurus, in another passage, suggests: “The time when you should most of all withdraw into yourself is when you are forced to be in a crowd.”

Yeah, it's not an oath in Philodemus's original text. Just a statement of how Philodemus sees how one applies Epicurus's teachings to his life... And how he thinks others in the community should, too.

"the encompassing and most important thing is that we shall obey Epicurus according to whom we have chosen to live,"

I agree this is more of a WWJD reminder than any oath. Epicureans can have their own SFOTSE bracelets anyway

I came across this over on The Humanist in a review of Hiram's book:

Quote

Epicurus is famous for demanding that his followers swear an oath of loyalty: “I will be faithful to Epicurus according to whom it has been my choice to live.”

Tending the Epicurean Garden - TheHumanist.com

Ours is the age of science. We live in a time in which technology has performed such wondrous feats that many have come to believe, if only half consciously,…

thehumanist.com

Then, one of Cassius's sites gave me the citation:

Philodemus, On Frankness, fragment 45.9-11

Letter to Herodotus

Editions: Elemental Edition – Paraphrased in modern English to assist new readers in grasping the concepts before reviewing in greater detail. Reference…

epicureanfriends.com

The text of Fragment 45 runs:

Fr. 45: ...we shall admonish others with great confidence, both now and when those {of us} who have become offshoots of our teachers have become eminent. And the encompassing and most important thing is, we shall obey Epicurus, according to whom we have chosen to live, as even...

https://librosycultura2.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/filodemo-1998-on-frank-criticism-konstan-y-clay-griego-e-ingles.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiDobb0sZH1AhUUjYkEHc7kBSMQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3BQTMX-rvoiFIAdzhRXK5-

Quote from Kalosyni

Since so much of what Epicurus wrote was lost, we can't know if back in Epicurus' time, his community had some sort of precepts that were taken or agreed upon.

That is an interesting question. How did you "convert" to being an Epicurean in ancient times? Was it formal? Or did you just show up at your local Garden and start attending lectures and celebrations? Hmmm... Back to the books!

Discussions of the Epicurean community always bring me back to ask "What was the Epicurean community in Hellenistic times?" "What was The Garden (Ο Κήπος) like?" Here are my thoughts:

• Ο Κήπος was only partially residential. Epicurus and the senior "instructors" probably lived on the grounds or associated house. Many students visited, maybe daily as life allowed, then went back to their regular lives to live the philosophy.
• It was not a commune! Epicurus specifically started property was not held in common. That would imply mistrust, that aid would not be given if needed.
• It was situated on a major thoroughfare between the city walls and the Academy. It was not a remote retreat out in the hills.
• This also appears to be the case for other κήποι in other cities. They were accessible to the citizens of the polis.

Not sure if this is applicable to the current discussion, but it seemed like an appropriate place to drop it in.

Quote from Kalosyni

My question is how to trust other people who are in a shared real life environment? If everyone is pursuing firstly their own individual pleasure, they must also have a believe in the mutual motivation "to cause no harm"...or else there is no trust, and without trust there is no safety.

Good question. As far as trusting people, the old Russian adage "Trust but verify" may be applicable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust%2C_…ify?wprov=sfla1

Do people's actions agree with their words? Let's say it's a matter of observation by our senses (to keep in the spirit of Epicurus).

For me and my understanding, my pleasure depends on warm, cordial and/or friendly relations with those around me. If I extend kindness to someone, there's a hope (or societal expectation?) that I'll receive kindness in turn when needed. I'm not an idiot and know this isn't always the case! But, overall, it's not a ridiculous way to operate.

I also need to point out that, from my reading, personal pleasure and pain don't enter into Epicurus's formulation of justice in the PDs. There's no mention on them in PD31 to PD38. It's all about the basic agreement, contract, covenant, mutual benefit, etc. These agreements should lead to a pleasurable life of safety from fellow members of society, but that's outside the direct scope of those PDs. That realization (just now for me) is food for my thought.

Book 2.1042?

Si falsum est, accingere contra. ?

Kalosyni , I'll write up a response to your post soon. I, too, see a place for ataraxia "tranquility" but I'm still, as I said elsewhere, seeing a better translation of it as "biological homeostasis," balance in body (aponia) and mind (ataraxia).

I find it also interesting that δίκαιος, usually translated as "justice," also has a basic connotation of balance: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…:entry=di/kaios then expanding to what is right/legal... To me, what maintains balance in society which blends right into the connotation of keeping to a contract or agreement.

I think I need to emphasize, from my understanding, that balance, homeostasis, equanimity is NOT numbness or lack of feeling or similar ideas. It's proper functioning of the body, society, etc.

Random thoughts on a New Year's morning. More later.

Καλή Χρονιά! Happy New Year!

Quote from Cassius

But not a direct synonym for pain?

Unless that word is more etymologically helpful then "harm" is going to be just as ephemeral as "Justice" itself.

Pain means something we can understand clearly, but "harm"?

Pain doesn't even enter into it, and there's no clear etymology for βλάπτω. It is definitely not connected to "feel pain" or "cause pain" or anything similar. It conveys hindering, damaging hurting, robbing, etc. "Natural justice is an agreement not to hurt or to be hurt."

This is also one of the PDs that, from my perspective, is better read as part of a paragraph with the following ones, not as some stand-alone aphorism.

From Nate's compilation:

“Natural justice is a covenant of what is suitable for leading men to avoid injuring onanother, and being injured.” Yonge (1853)

“Natural justice is a contract of expediency, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.” Hicks (1910)

“Natural justice is a symbol or expression of expediency, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.” Hicks (1925)

“The justice which arises from nature is a pledge of mutual advantage to restrain men from harming one another and save them from being harmed.” Bailey (1926)

“The justice of Nature is a covenant of advantage to the end that men shall not injure one another nor be injured.” De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy (1954)

“Natural justice is a compact resulting from expediency by which men seek to prevent one man from injuring others and to protect him from being injured by them.” Geer (1964)

“Nature's justice is a guarantee of utility with a view to not harming one another and not being harmed.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 125 (1987)

“Natural justice is a pledge guaranteeing mutual advantage, to prevent one from harming others and to keep oneself from being harmed.” O'Connor (1993)

“The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, [i.e.,] neither to harm one another nor be harmed.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“Natural justice is the advantage conferred by mutual agreements not to infict nor allow harm.” Anderson (2004)

“Natural justice is an expression of the <natural> interest <everyone has> and consists in both: a) not causing harm to others, and b) not suffering harm for oneself.” Makridis (2005)

“Natural justice is a covenant for mutual beneft, to not harm one another or be harmed.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“The justice that seeks nature's goal is a utilitarian pledge of men not to harm each other or be harmed.” Strodach (2012)

“Natural justice is a pledge of the advantage associated with preventing men from harming or being harmed by one another.” Mensch (2018)

“Nature's justice is a token [or pledge] of something that promotes not harming one another or being harmed.” White (2021)

We're probably straying from the title of this thread, but ..

I find it interesting that the word used for "harm" is βλάπτω (blaptō):

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

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

βλάπτω does NOT seem to convey willful harm just harm. Willful, unjust harm seems to be ἀδικεῖν which itself is connected to the meaning "unjust"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀδι^κέω

No conclusions, just food for thought.

There's actually a link to the Bronowski chapter at the link Joshua posted.

I have to slightly disagree or provide an alternative perspective on the last few posts. PD31, to me, states that the "justice of nature (What is naturally just)" is that agreement "to not harm each other nor to not be harmed oneself." I don't know if that's "universal" (probably not since the agreements aren't universal... but theoretically could be with international organizations and treaties).

PD31 Τὸ τῆς φύσεως δίκαιόν ἐστι σύμβολον τοῦ συμφέροντος εἰς τὸ μὴ βλάπτειν ἀλλήλους μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι.

Looking at Nate's compilation may be helpful, but for now, here's my translation:

"The justice of nature (What is naturally just) is an agreement of interests to not harm each other nor to not be harmed oneself." right, lawful, just, τὸ δίκαιον right, opp. to τὸ ἄδικονσῠ́μβολον n (genitive σῠμβόλου); second declension

• a sign or token by which one infers a thing
• a pledge or pawn, on which money was advanced
• in pl. tallies
• at Athens, a ticket, counter
• a permit or licence to reside, given to aliens
• n Eccl. the distinctive mark of Christians, a confession of faith, a creed
• in legal phrase, σύμβολα were covenants between two states for protection of commerce

συμφέρον n (plural συμφέροντα)

• interest, rights (business connection with material advantage)

Βλάπτω III. after Hom. to damage, hurt, mar, opp. to wilful wrong (ἀδικεῖν), Aesch., etc.αλλήλους reciprocal or reflexive pronoun

• each other, one another

Quote from Kalosyni

Don you gave my post on ethics a confused smilie. Do you think that what I posted about ethics might not be Epicurean, or possibly goes beyond Epicureanism? What part were you confused about?

Oh!! My bad! I didn't see its connection to the specific article right before it. That's the only reason for the confused emoji.

That's a good article. I especially liked the last line:

Quote from Shermer

The fact that science progresses toward, say, eradicating diseases and landing spacecraft on Mars must mean that our perceptions of reality are growing ever closer to the truth, even if it is with a small “t.”

I think the canonical faculties are there to give us a "true" presentation of what's "out there" in the real world. Epicurus says as much, to me, when he wrote (emphasis added):

Quote from Epicurus

For the presentations which, e.g., are received in a picture or arise in dreams, or from any other form of apprehension by the mind or by the other criteria of truth, would never have resembled what we call the real and true things, had it not been for certain actual things of the kind with which we come in contact.

Those things "with which we come in contact" are the things in the real world which our senses sense. I will say Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's research augments my understanding on this. We jump from a stick or rope on the ground, thinking it is a snake, because it's easier for our brains to identify "long, thin shape on ground = snake > Run!" than to analyze every instance. Save yourself first; Laugh at false alarm later. That's a nutshell from me. Thanks for posting!

Quote from Don

Quote from Kalosyni

The zine would just be an 8-1/2" x 11" piece of paper that is folded, and anyone could download it and print copies.

Hmmm... An 8-page zine... Wheels are turning...

Okay, so here's my quick rough draft of a basic outline of what could be covered in an 8-page zine from a folded 8.5x11 paper. Each page would need illustrations and be eye-catching. In any case, for your consideration:

1 General invitation/intro/cover

2 Who is Epicurus?

3 Living in a material world (physics, atoms and void, etc)

4 Knowing what you know (Canon, evidence from senses)

5 Choosing the best life (Ethics, personal responsibility)

6 If it feels good, consider the consequences (all pleasure feels good, some pleasures aren't chosen)

7 Epicureanism vs Stoicism

8 Where do I find more information?

Quote from Scott

Quote from Kalosyni

I feel like I want to thoroughly understand the ethics of Epicureanism before I start "proselytizing"

Right there with you, Kalosyni. I'm not there yet.

We're all on this journey together.

Quote from Kalosyni

The zine would just be an 8-1/2" x 11" piece of paper that is folded, and anyone could download it and print copies.

Hmmm... An 8-page zine... Wheels are turning...