Posts by Don

[Admin note: This discussion began as a response by Don to a comment made by Charles in this Lucretius Today podcast thread: RE: Episode Forty-Seven - Death is Nothing To Us . It deserves to stand alone, so was cut from there and placed here. The thread now shows as started by Godfrey due to the way it was moved, but this post by Don was in fact the thread-starter.]

In light of this week's episode, I have to stand up for the Tetrapharmakos. I don't expect to change Charles's mind but I felt compelled to say at least my two cents in support of the 4-fold Medicine.

Personally, I find the Tetrapharmakos to be a satisfying direct link back to the classical Epicureans. I haven't been able to determine if Philodemus was pro or con regarding the Tetrapharmakos, but I know it's quoted in the ancient source. That appeals to me. And *some* Epicureans were using it for sure.

I also don't see it as an evangelizing tool but rather as a succinct "creed" encapsulating key points of Epicurus's philosophy.

To work through the four lines:

Ἄφοβον ὁ θεός,

Aphobon ho theos

(A+phobon > English phobia)

"The god causes no fear" or "We have nothing to fear from the gods."

Why? See PD1.

ἀνύποπτον ὁ θάνατος

Anupopton ho thanatos

ἀνύποπτον carries the idea of "without suspicion" or "free from risk" We should approach death (thanatos) without suspicion since it is free from risk. See PD2 and other writings of Epicurus.

καὶ τἀγαθὸν μὲν εὔκτητον,

kai t'agathon men euktēton,

Kai ...Men = and...on the one hand, ...

τἀγαθὸν is The (Highest) Good which is pleasure.

εὔκτητον means "easy to procure" but this refers to the fact that pleasure is readily at hand if we acknowledge it. Additionally, the necessary and natural desires are "easy to procure."

τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐεκκαρτέρητον

to de deinon euekkarterēton.

de = on the other hand..

to deinon = The Terrible, in contrast to The Good, = pain (deinon > dinosaur)

"Pain" can be "easily endured" or "easily endured with patience." Why? Because PD4.

I noted you referred to the author as "he" a couple times. At the risk of being pedantic, the author is a woman: https://portal.uniri.hr/portfelj/933

I was listening to this episode of the Hidden Brain podcast this morning:

https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/where-gratitude-gets-you/

I found echoes of Epicurus's mentions of gratitude throughout, but the section on the "emotions" starting around 17:41 stuck out at me. It seemed to me that their mention of "emotions" could easily be replaced by the pathē of pleasure/pain. They talk about choosing the best course of action, etc. The rower's "pride" could easily be replaced by the "sense of pleasure."

Interested to read thoughts if anyone listens to the episode.

Quote from Bartleby

Is there anything extant where Epicurus discusses the three types pleasures? Or is that all just second hand?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…0%3Achapter%3D1
That's a link to Diogenes Laertius's Lives, Book X. The discussion of the desires is toward the end of verse 127 in the Letter to Menoikeus. That's one place Epicurus talks about the categories of desires.

Welcome, Bartleby !

I don't know if this will help you answer your question, but I thought I'd share this section from the website I put together on the characteristics of the Epicurean sage per Diogenes Laertius's list. This is the section specifically on sexual relationships: https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…hips?authuser=0

Quote from Cassius

Don as for an example of the drift toward asceticism which is so widespread, check out this post: Is Romantic Love a Vainglory

Yep. Noticed that "drift" there too.

Quote from Cassius

i do have a tendency to be sarcastic and hyperbolic and without hearing my voice that can be a danger I have to watch.

But I will say in accord with the letter to Menoeceus that I would rather worship at the altar of a revealed religion any day of the week rather than give in to an across the board asceticism in the name of "freedom from pain" or in the name of "virtue."

How do you say amen in Greek? Oh, yeah....

ἀμήν!!

Hey! Be careful driving!

Quote from Cassius

general recommendation to be prudent in how you go about rocking the boat.

I like that take!

Ah, the Stoics! A thorn in our sides for 2,000 years

Quote from Cassius

A superficial hearing of "pleasure" as the guide of life leaves open the possibility that a human could find pleasure living in a cave on bread and water and never do anything else.

Cassius , I've seen you make the "bread & water + living in a cave" remark before and had some thoughts and questions.

"bread & water": I realize many people see Epicurus's remark about bread and water and that infamous "pot of cheese" as endorsing *only* living on bread and water and the occasional cheese. They posit an ascetic Epicureanism. I agree with you, that's just silly. It seems to be putting a Christian mortification of the flesh back onto Epicureanism. Here's my take:

I do remember some texts talking about Epicurus's occasional fasts as experiments to see how much he could live on and be satisfied. He seems to have wanted to learn what was the minimal level that could provide pleasure. I don't get the impression that that's what he did all the time; otherwise, the occasional nature of those fasts wouldn't have been noteworthy. But it seems to me he did experiment with minimalism. Not as a rule, but I'll call him minimal-curious.

In my interpretation, he does call his students to moderate their pleasures or at least to choose wisely, prudently. Not every pleasure is to be chosen, not every pain is to be avoided.

So, those who posit the "bread and water" diet take one instance as indicative of the whole experience. But it seems to me that you sometimes posit that Epicurus never ate just "bread and water" and that the idea is farcical. I come down somewhere in the middle. The division of desires appears to me to be a roadmap of what desires to pursue. And those you pursue should lead to an overall pleasurable well-being.

"Living in a cave": I don't remember the texts talking about a cave. Am I correct in assuming you use this as hyperbolic shorthand for your opposition to literal interpretations of lathe biosas "live unknown" and "Epicurus forbade being active in politics"? I complete agree that Epicureans shouldn't live in a cave. By Apollo! We have the Garden itself and the importance of friendship ready at hand to dismiss that idea! But... In my interpretation of the texts, there is, as a general rule in Epicurus's teaching, a recommendation to lathe biosas as in "keep your head down." Individuals can have different inclinations and Epicurus and Philodemus (among others) make allowances for those who do find pleasure in politics and an active political life. On the other hand, one is encouraged to write texts and to provide public instruction when invited to. And to start a school but don't attract a crowd, literally not to ὀχλαγωγῆσαι "to court the mob" or "to attract a crowd." So, by no means should Epicureans live in a cave. Leave that to Christian and Tibetan Buddhist monks. But I do see a general recommendation to not rock the boat, and I think this comes from Epicurus's own life experience. That's why, for example, he didn't teach publicly in the agora or a stoa or a gymnasium but taught in his own private property. Now, I also don't think those who see the Gardens as hippy communes have it quite right either. It seems there was a core that lived full time in the Garden including Epicurus (although I'm still not clear if there Garden was attached to his house or separate), senior members like Hermarchus, some slaves, some students, but I get the impression that it also allowed for "commuter students" too. Since they didn't combine their funds, the hippy commune or cult analogy also seems to break down fairly quickly.

To come back to the cave, you appear to advocate a strong, assertive Epicureanism and I think the philosophy makes allowances for those with that disposition. But, generally, I see a philosophy with a more nuanced approach to confronting society. Epicurus was a revolutionary radical thinker and believed he found the best route to achieving eudaimonia. But I think he knew if he tried to boldly proselytize in the agora he'd be risking a lot (see the fate of Socrates, for example) and the philosophy could be lost.

This absence of pain becomes nonsensical too when you take it a translation and replace pleasure with absence of pain, ex:

PD 3. The magnitude of absence of pain is limited by the removal of all pain. Wherever there is absence of pain, so long as it is present, there is no pain either of body or of mind or both. (Hicks)

Quote from Godfrey

Where is it that the Epicurean gods are described as being in human form and speaking Greek? Is that in Cicero? Lucretius? I wonder how that relates to this discussion....

"Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods. Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape. Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own." Xenophanes

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Xenophanes

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

They're both orderly conglomerations of atoms. The gods don't live in a cosmos. They live between cosmoi.

Yes I agree. I am thinking this stems from the proposition that in order to remain deathless they need to be living in an area of perfect calmness, but we're in an area with very little to work with. In this context I wish we had more on the ""similarities" as that might throw more light on the term "orderly conglomeration of atoms."

From what I can read, the "similarities" are simply compounds made up of identical types of atoms. The (realist) gods are "incorruptible" because all their atoms are the same and are constantly being replenished with the same. They're in equilibrium.

For cosmos, here's the LSJ entry:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…7:entry=ko/smos

I just came across another Jackson article ,(pdf) The Gods of Philodemus:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc…7Dxq3P6xcZehnbj

I don't think this is the same one previously posted.

Edit: Hmmm... I'm seeing some similar quotes. If it is the same article, mea culpa.

One thing that struck me this morning is that there has to be a difference between gods and life on other planets. By definition in some sources, the gods "live" in the intermundia/metakosmia - between cosmos. Other forms of life would have to live within a cosmos, on other worlds. If I remember correctly, the texts talk about other cosmoi cosmoses (for lack of a better plural). Whether that translates as "world" or "universe" is irrelevant here. They're both orderly conglomerations of atoms. The gods don't live in a cosmos. They live between cosmoi.

Quote from Godfrey

A prolepsis of the gods is more difficult to sort out: is this prolepsis supposed to be the same in all cultures

Fully agree about the sorting out My take has been that he was taking about a baseline across all cultures (or at least those Epicurus knew about!), and that baseline was incorruptibility άφθαρτος and blessedness μακάριος. That's it. Otherwise, the gods were not as the hoi polloi conceived of them. I love it that hoi polloi "the many" οι πολλοί is literally what Epicurus called other people with ill-conceived ideas about the gods

For trivia: Here's the Ancient Greek word for Thanksgiving:

εὐχαριστία

[eukharistía]

And, yes, it has been incorporated into Christianity as the "Eucharist."

Here's the LSJ entry: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ry=eu)xaristi/a

Food for thought, Cassius . Thanks for digging back into Jackson. Lots to think about.

For the time being, I'm still in the Sedley/idealist camp. From my perspective, either position remains within Epicureanism so we can have a vigorous debate within the big tent

I'm posting because I just had the thought that the reason that prolepses of both justice and the gods are talked about in the texts is because both are thought constructs. The whole prolepses thing is a hard nut to crack.

Glad you found it interesting. I realize it makes reference to other entries in their book but gives enough summary to understand the context of their argument. I thought posting it was a good counterpoint to the realist position stated in the article posted by Godfrey awhile back "The Polytheism of the Epicureans" by Paul T. M. Jackson

I'm sharing a scan from Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (1987). This is their commentary section on "Gods."

As Cassius pointed out on the announcements, Thanksgiving is this week in the US. I feel this is the most Epicurean of holidays with its emphasis on expressing gratitude. In celebration, I share two Vatican Sayings that emphasize this point. Have a safe and joyful holiday to our US friends and for those not in the US, don't forget to take a moment to remember and to take pleasure in the good things you've experienced.

VS 17. It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of. οὐ νέος μακαριστὸς ἀλλὰ γέρων βεβιωκὼς καλῶς· ὁ γὰρ νέος ἀκμῇ πολὺς ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης ἑτεροφρονῶν πλάζεται· ὁ δὲ γέρων καθάπερ ἐν λιμένι τῷ γήρᾳ καθώρμικεν, τὰ πρότερον δυσελπιστούμενα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀσφαλεῖ κατακλείσας χάριτι.

VS 19. He who forgets the good things he had yesterday becomes an old man today. τοῦ γεγονότος ἀμνήμων ἀγαθοῦ γέρων τήμερον γεγένηται.