Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

A similar instance is DeWitt's "sound mind in a sound body" which I think is more likely to be accurate and representative, but which might be an embellishment to imply that it was a formulation that the Epicureans used. It's a pretty obvious concept and the more obvious something is the less likely I think the Epicureans would have considered it something unique to them.

I'll give Dewitt that the Epicureans had that concept: health of the body and the serenity of the soul/mind/psychē (Letter to Menoikeus).

Not that I ever remember seeing. There is no mention of Epicureans in Thessalonians either only in Acts. And those Epicureans just say WTF about Paul's teaching.

I've personally chalked this one up to Dewitt's penchant for writing embellished historical fiction.

PS: I have no problem with DeWitt's historical fiction, but I find that in checking the citations in Epicurus and His Philosophy that he'll sometimes take a tiny detail or one word and extrapolate a whole story from that. This might be one of those instances unless someone knows where there is mention of Peace and Safety as a greeting or motto in the Epicurean texts. I'll happily give a mea culpa.

Quote from Cassius

What are you guys thinking about this way of asking the question. I think I see your answer, but can this be answered clearly yes or no?

"Does Epicurus' answer allow for the possibility of the Sun being larger than the earth?"

I think there are multiple possible responses that answer that question. But, if that's the case, I guess the answer to that specific question is yes.

Quote from Nate

It would be uncharacteristic and inconsistent of Epicurus to support this, especially when he posits the explicit existence of exoplanets.

All great points, @Nate , but I do want to fine tune your statement quoted here.

What Epicurus posited was an "infinite number of cosmoi (cosmoses?):"

τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων.

...tēn apeiran tōn cosmon.

We live in a cosmos composed of the Earth at the center with the sun and moon and stars encircling us.

Other cosmoses with their own sun, moon and stars exist according to his theory, but they're their own world-system. They don't inhabit our world-system or cosmos. And the gods live in between these cosmoi in the metacosmia/intermundia. And all those cosmoi are part of the All, Το Παν, To Pan, the Universe.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I don't want to equate our knowledge of exoplanets in our cosmos, as it were, with what Epicurus would have understood that to mean.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/fi…-and-cosmology/

"By the 5th century B.C., it was widely accepted that the Earth is a sphere. This is a critical point, as there is a widespread misconception that ancient peoples thought the Earth was flat. This was simply not the case."

Plato's cosmology outline

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/timaeus.htm

Plus, added bonus: This finally shows me why Epicurus wrote his "The Angles of the Atom." Plato thought atoms only came in 2 triangular shapes! Epicurus and Democritus had many shapes.

Also see section on Hellenistic astronomy here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_astronomy

As I interpret Lucretius, Epicurus believed that the sun and the moon inhabited the sphere of the air along with the Earth. Encircling that was the ether which held the stars. Lucretius says the sun MAY inflame the air around it which is why it's "small" but so hot. So, it appears to me, that the sun and moon were not seen as similar to the stars and that each (sun/moon then stars) inhabited different parts of our Cosmos. The Earth, sun, and moon were round celestial bodies surrounded by "air." The stars and planets ("wandering" stars) were fires, of some sort, embedded in the ether.

Quote

"The size of the sun and the remaining stars relatively to us is just as great as it appears.119 [This he states in the eleventh book "On Nature." For, says he, if it had diminished in size on account of the distance, it would much more have diminished its brightness ; for indeed there is no distance more proportionate to this diminution of size than is the distance at which the brightness begins to diminish.] But in itself and actually it may be a little larger or a little smaller, or precisely as great as it is seen to be. For so too fires of which we have experience are seen by sense when we see them at a distance. And every objection brought against this part of the theory will easily be met by anyone who attends to plain facts, as I show in my work On Nature.

Aarrrgh! Those is so frustrating! He's right there! Just tell us how big you think it is! One stadia? The size of a kylix? The height of the Acropolis?? Anything!
We also don't have the volumes of On Nature. I'm sure it's in there buried in a charred scroll still underground in Herculaneum.

Quote

"An eclipse of the sun or moon may be due to the extinction of their light, just as within our own experience this is observed to happen ; and again by interposition of something else--whether it be the earth or some other invisible body like it. And thus we must take in conjunction the explanations which agree with one another, and remember that the concurrence of more than one at the same time may not impossibly happen. [He says the same in Book XII. of his "De Natura," and further that the sun is eclipsed when the moon throws her shadow over him, and the moon is eclipsed by the shadow of the earth ; or again, eclipse may be due to the moon's withdrawal, [97] and this is cited by Diogenes the Epicurean in the first book of his "Epilecta."]

So, according to Epicurus (in Herodotus), the moon and sun and Earth don't necessarily interact the way Nate had laid out. So, Epicurus, viewing the eclipse wouldn't necessarily have had to conclude that the sizes of the bodies implied those sizes Nate was referring to. Epicurus had multiple explanations at his disposal.
This still doesn't address "How big did Epicurus think the moon and sun were?" however. Still looking into that.

Do we know if they recorded it? I'd be nice if her paper/presentation was available.

Quote from Cassius

I just posted a link to an article on Leonardo da Vinci and Epicurus/Lucretius, and this reference is relevant to this week's text:

Here's the full text of Leonardo's "paper" on the size of the sun:

https://archive.org/details/litera…ge/148/mode/2up

It's important to remember what we're talking about when we say a criteria of "truth." We're not talking about capital-T guru-on-the-mountain meaning-of-Life TRUTH. The word used in Laertius is that the Canon components are κριτήρια τῆς ἀληθείας "criteria of truth." Αλήθεια "truth" is defined in LSJ as http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l…0:chapter=1&i=1 "reality as opposed to appearance." I see this as a criteria for what exists. The physical world exists. It's not a reflection of a higher plane of Forms. It's not a dream of a god. The Canon allows us to experience the cosmos as it is. It is a very practical mechanism for existing and acting in the world.

I should add: that feeling isn't enough to prove the veracity or truthfulness of something. You need to observe with your senses. This is why I've harped on "the truth doesn't care about your feelings." It can be valuable to get that intuition feeling but without further confirmation it can lead you astray.

Good question. Going back to the etymology, it's a throwing upon or laying upon of the mind on a subject. I get the image of a blanket thrown on something then immediately the blanket takes the shape of the thing. It's automatic, so your "grasp" isn't a bad start.

That's why I'm still not convinced - although Tsouna may clarify - that this faculty doesn't in some way clarify the prolepses. It's not a fourth leg of the Canon but simply a refining of one of the three already there. I need to go back and read DeWitt's article on this term.

I see LSJ gives intuition as a definition. I could see that. You just "feel" something about an event or topic. This is maybe that "I can't put my finger on it, but this doesn't (does) feel right."

For the most basic, starting point of references, here's the LSJ entry for επιβολή:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…3De%29pibolh%2F

The two Philodemus excerpts are nice to have.

okay. I registered. We'll see what happens.

I wonder if it will be recorded and registrants will have access to the recording? I'm tempted to sign up but I can't attend at noon.

Epictetus wasn't blind, he had an injured leg if I remember correctly. That's why he used a crutch.

That being said, the guy with the crutch in the St Paul painting is obviously, to me, Epictetus. So, the Stoics are probably standing and the Epicureans are sitting.

Oh, this is fun!