Posts by Don

I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent here, but it's adjacent to ...

Quote from kochiekoch

You'd have to promote your symbol!

From my perspective (*broadly* generalizing to the point of stereotyping - there: caveat stated), the majority of humans - or at least *many* humans - don't like ambiguity. It's easier to live a world with cut and dried rules. Rules also make it easier to enforce a structure, a hierarchy, and in-group and an out-group. This also relates to this current thread...

Thread

What Makes Someone "An Epicurean?"

In a nearby thread the question was raised about who should be considered to be an Epicurean. No one has the authority to give such a list, and probably no one after Epicurus himself, or the last head of the Epicurean school in Athens in the ancient world, ever had that authority. But we ought to give thought to what the key components of the philosophy are, so we can consider how many of them fit the person we're considering labeling as an Epicurean.

My own first question is "Does the person…

Cassius

March 30, 2019 at 7:49 PM

Epicurean philosophy, as it's advocated for on this forum (and I think the interpretation here is generally in the right direction), is big on ambiguity, personal responsibility, contextual application of practice, etc. One does not find a Ten Commandments, A Five Pillars, etc. There is no cosmic authority or priesthood asserting "my way or the highway." People who want to point to a prooftext for their position will find it a little more difficult in the extant writings. For these reasons, it will always be difficult to get a wide community. That said, I also think there are "levels" of understanding that could benefit people of many inclinations. The contextual nature of the philosophy also could lend itself to misunderstanding and shallower and deeper students. But then we get into the "no true Epicurean" would do ABC that we got into in the other thread linked above. Who gets to name the "true Epicureans"?

Quote from kochiekoch

He gets us!

If we did have "He Gets Us" Super Bowl ads, what would that mean? IF we marketed WWED bracelets (What Would Epicurus Do? - It should be SFOTSE in my opinion but I digress), what *would* Epicurus do in any given situation (other than seek the most pleasure)? But what would that mean? And he "gets us"... what does that mean?

Okay, I'm admittedly being a little provocative.

From what I understand, Epicurus calls us:

• to see the material universe for what it is: atoms and void (in the widest possible modern sense)
• to understand there are no gods doling out punishment or gifts; our behavior is up to us, chance, or necessity
• to judge every desire in light of pleasure and pain
• to understand death exists only after we no longer exist; death is no thing for us because we aren't there when it is
• to understand that justice is a man-made construct; "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of expediency, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another." There are no universal rights - only what agreements to neither willfully harm nor to be harmed that can be agreed to at any given time and place (This is the BIG difference between Epicureanism and Humanism. And, I admit, I still struggle with this one.)
• And so on...

Epicureanism has a lot of gray areas, not a lot of black and white answers. There is no "Thou shalt not" list. If someone is even interested if they would see a "He Gets Us" commercial or sees a WWED/SFOTSE bracelet, where do you start?? AxA 's meet-ups are a great real-world example of the benefits (and potential hazards) of opening up an Epicurean social gathering for discussion.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I look at the way the Stoics have cornered the market for ancient philosophy reborn... So... I guess... if they can do it... Why not the Epicureans?

LOL... I may have talked myself out of a pessimistic perspective... then again.... (insert more pondering here )

FYI

PD10....the evil of life. ...ὅ περ ἐστὶ τὸ κακόν. NOTE: NO"of life" just "THAT (περ adds emphasis) is the evil. (I would suggest τὸ κακόν has the same connotation as ταγαθον (tagathon) "the highest good.")

PD28 Evil doesn't seem to be in the original. Hicks: 28. The same conviction which inspires confidence that nothing we have to fear is eternal or even of long duration, also enables us to see that even in our limited conditions of life nothing enhances our security so much as friendship. (See @Eikadistes ' PD compilation too)

PD34 Ἡ ἀδικία οὐ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν κακόν,

In Menoikeus, the word translated evil is overwhelmingly κακός (kakos). Except for 125: οὐθὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ζῆν δεινὸν τῷ κατειληφότι γνησίως τὸ μηθὲν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῷ μὴ ζῆν δεινόν.

For there is nothing terrible in living for the one who truly comprehends that there is nothing terrible in not living."

The same word as the 4th line of the Tetraphatmakos.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κα^κός

Wiktionary has 93 head words listed for this word from Woodhouse, S. C. (1910) English–Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language

κακός - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Quote from Joshua

Cassius We may want to move these posts to a new thread.

I believe Joshua is referring to these digressions on the three wheeled cart. Not exactly pertinent to the personal motto thread but a fascinating topic.

Quote from Bryan

Quote from Don

Glossarium

Yes on page 677, Usener says "τρικαλίνδητος, τρικυλίνδητος. ac similiter τρικυμία dicta. Epicurus dicit 'paratus sum ad vos quocumque iubebitis me ut trochum praecipiti cursu volventem agere (trudere)'"

So he takes it as as a colloquialism, but based on the wheel imagery.

"Epicurus says 'I am ready to go wherever you order me to go, as if I were a little whirling at a headlong course (to push)'" (via Google Translate)

Quote from Joshua

[footnote 35.] Clay (1998: 247), who offers the translation “on a three-wheeled cart,” stresses the writer’s “enthusiasm and warmth.”

Clay 1998 is from Diskin Clay. Paradosis & Survival: Three Chapters in the History of Epicurean Philsophy. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, 1998. p. 247.

Quote from Diskin Clay

...the letter Epicurus wrote to Themista in Lampsacus, telling her that if she and Leonteus could not come to him, he would join them "on a three-wheeled cart" (τρικυλιστος) wherever they say. 51

51. As the phrase is sometimes rendered; in his Loeb translation of Diogenes Laertius, R.D. Hicks renders the adjective "to spin thrice on my own axis." For a less enthusiastic interpretation, cf. Usener's Glossarium Epicureum, edd. M. Gigante and W. Schmid (Rome 1997) 677.

The Usnener reference might be available from Bryan. Bryan Do I remember you have a copy of the Glossarium?

I also saw:

So, the spinning three times and intertwining could refer to some kind of dancing. After all, friendship dances round in a circle as in a chorus.

For reference for the garland:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Κκ , κύκνοψις , κυ^λ-ιστός

I like the garland idea but I'm also intrigued by the dance possibility. Garlands are usually stephanos?

Quote from Joshua

More on garlands;

On first blush, I like where you're going since it has that festive connotation.

I'll get back to you ASAP

PS I'm also at a craft beer festival so ...

Quote from Joshua

I'm curious to know what you've found from Clay,

Definitely on my list of things to do. I was able to pick it up yesterday. On quick glance, he seems to entertain the 3-wheel cart but there's also footnote to the Glossarium Epicurean. I may have to hit Bryan up for a lookup.

Fascinating video from Luke Ranieri

Quote from Cassius

So I write just to emphasize that the "all we can" is limited to "under the present state of affairs," and that "present state of affairs" will almost certainly change.

Although, the more Epicureans; the more likelihood of schisms and denominations. Three vs four legs is just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote from Kalosyni

I'm pondering this question today (again)...of which there are two sides...1) "what would make me Epicurean" and 2) "what would make someone else Epicurean" or to "appear to be Epicurean" (such as people we know or characters in a movie).

Revisiting Kalosyni 's post that revitalized this thread.

My perspective is that both 1 and 2 hinge on motivation. We can't know someone else's (2) motivation. They can tell us, but we can't know what's really in their minds. That's why, I feel, we can assess behavior in others but not their motivation. Someone can say "I party because I'm an Epicurean, man!" We can ask "How did you feel the next day?" But we can't police (simply for lack of a better word) who calls themselves an Epicurean... Any more than Christians can't police who calls themselves a Christian.

Now, for (1), that's another thing. If I call myself an epicurean simply because I like to eat fancy food, and drink fine wine, that's one thing and a very surface stereotype understanding of what that word means (hence my not capitalizing the word). But we can't forbid that usage. If, on the other hand, we decide - are motivated - to lean about this philosophy and to apply it to living our lives, we think of ourselves as Epicureans. Someone who lives a minimalist lifestyle may also honestly call themselves an Epicurean from another popular understanding of the actual philosophy. We here would tend to disagree with them, but can we - should we - try to make them stop? I'd say no. None of us have that authority. There is no "apostolic succession" from Epicurus to our time. And there could be denominations if there even were! The most we can do is try to get a deeper understanding of the philosophy out there and encourage sincere students of Epicurus.

Quote from kochiekoch

The poet Lucretius, secular as he was, featured her prominently in his poem for that and other reasons.

Yes, at least 14 times by name, and most prominently, of course, right at the start.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=en&inContent=true&q=Venus&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0131

And the traditional gods are fine to use metaphorically. I always seem to go back to...

...whoso

Decides to call the ocean Neptune, or

The grain-crop Ceres, and prefers to abuse

The name of Bacchus rather than pronounce

The liquor's proper designation, him

Let us permit to go on calling earth

Mother of Gods, if only he will spare

To taint his soul with foul religion.

Quote from Cassius

So precision is generally a good idea. No true Epicurean would want to be less than clear!

Well played! I see what you did there.

Onenski has articulated much more eloquently than I could the thoughts that have been rolling around in my mind on this topic. Thank you!

The question comes down to "Who gets to be the gatekeeper?" and "Who defines the in-group and who gets to exclude the out-group?" That's what I like about Onenski 's five categories. They show the spectrum of potential inclusivity and exclusivity. Granted, *I* can say who *I* think should be "allowed" to carry the label of "Epicurean," but I cannot assert any authoritative mandate on the "proper" use of that "title."

We could maybe/probably assess someone's (or some character's) behavior as more or less prudent, more or less likely to lead to a pleasurable outcome. Even Epicurus, I would argue, did that! But do we get to assess whether someone gets to call themselves an "Epicurean"? Of that, I'm a little more skeptical. Honestly, I have a hard time "accepting" that Thomas Jefferson was a "real" Epicurean even though he was a self-professed one. But then I would appear to be falling into that fallacy I brought up, wouldn't I?

One thing to watch out for in conversations like this is not to fall into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

Realizing this is way off topic for the thread:

On the "three-wheeled cart", DeWitt cites his own paper in his footnote: 13 "N. W. DeWitt, "The Three-Wheeled Chair of Epicurus," CP 35(1940) 183-185.

For the Pamela Gordon footnotes, it appears that in Diskin Clay's Paradosis and survival : three chapters in the history of Epicurean philosophy. According to our library catalog, it's supposed to be on the shelf in our Main Library - Social Sciences Department B512 .C57 1998. I'm putting this here for reference so I can look it up tomorrow. I'm really curious if Clay himself translates it that way.. or if he's referencing DeWitt.

I've seen it glossed as metaphorically "easily influenced" (lit., thrice-rolled). So the line would end up being, “If you [plural], and Themista in particular invite me, I am capable of being easily influenced and rushing to wherever you are.” That seems more colloquial. The word also appears to be a hapax legomena (I just love that phrase. It just means "only occuring once in the corpus of texts"), so interpretation is virtually wide open.

Quote from Joshua

Maybe the symbol of Epicureanism should be a tricycle!

LOL. That's taken, sort of...

For what it's worth, here's my page on that...

Quote from Julia

Don, do you have a vector file of your Four Atoms version of it

I just threw that together on Paint.net. The image I posted is all I have.

Quote from Martin

the larger atom at the top

I couldn't not see that as a hair curl in the middle of his forehead, like Superman.

I guess my pareidolia is overactive.

Pareidolia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org