Posts by Don

I was going to bring up the problem of eyewitness testimony, Cassius . You beat me to it.

Quote from Cassius

I dunno, I think you guys are off in useless speculation. Why would you care about arcane rules of reasoning like limits and boundaries, and how to weigh conflicting evidence? Don't you know that you're supposed to leave that to the Academic Experts, and that the only thing that matters about Epicurus is that the greatest pleasure is the absence of pain? Don't you know realize that all you have to know to be a true Epicurean is that you need to barricade yourself in a cave, drink only water and eat only a little cheese, reduce your bodily experiences to the smallest possible amount, concentrate on asceticism, and ignore the rest of the word?

Boy you guys have been drinking from the wrong fountain!

LOL

As for the Tetrapharmakos, I find it a helpful condensation of the teachings. Dare I say a "dumbed down" popular version, but helpful. An analogy I thought of is the Bible school song:

Jesus loves me

This i know

For the Bible tells me so.

Or something along those lines or the summary of the Christian creed in I Corinthians 15:3-10 or the Apostle's Creed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed?wprov=sfla1

Quote

All of this keeps constantly bouncing me back and forth between the divinity and the "methods of inference" discussion. I don't think we have any choice in much of what we do but to rely on "experts." I certainly don't know a word of Greek myself. But even worse than that is that we have to trust that the texts are not corrupted, and in many cases we have no idea about the chain of transmission.

Cmon, Cassius , you know some Greek! Don't be so hard on yourself eudaimonia, ataraxia, ....

But I hear you on the fragmentary nature of our sources. That's why that digitized Diogenes Laertius manuscript at Oxford is so helpful. The Herculaneum papyri especially are problematic, both from a preservation perspective and from a public access perspective. That seems to be some closely guarded scholarship there!

Biblical scholars have similar issues; however, it doesn't seem to slow them down. That's one of the reasons I like Bart Ehrman so much! He doesn't shy away from sharing the difficulties in biblical scholarship, but he's also not shy about sharing conclusions and how he gets there.

Quote

1) Epicurus' own words take precedence over all other source material. Anywhere Epicurus leaves room for different interpretations is not narrowed down by commentary from other sources, such as Philodemus or DeWitt. Neither will individual quotes be taken out of context with his whole body of work.

I just read this a little closer and need to convey concerns about Philodemus and Dewitt being mentioned as examples of "other sources."

I firmly agree that Epicurus's extant works take precedence. No question. It's hard to know what Epicurus wrote if it is quoted in a hostile source like a rival pagan writer or early Christian, but the Letters and Herculaneum scrolls that survive are number one.

However, I would consider Philodemus as a primary source of classical Epicureanism with his direct links to the Garden in Athens. I would place Philodemus higher as a reliable source than Cicero certainly. Cicero is helpful, but he had an agenda to write his version of Epicurean doctrine and then contest against it. Philodemus had an agenda but it was transmitting and documenting Epicurus's philosophy to the best of his ability and understanding. And again, Philodemus was a student of Zeno of Sidon who was the successor of Epicurus in Athens.

All the modern academics and commentators - Dewitt included - are looking through a glass darkly and are definitely secondary sources. I understand we have to rely on their scholarship and translations, but I would not include Philodemus among them as just an "other source."

Quote

From Philodemus "On Piety", referring to Epicurus' "On Nature", Bk. 13. Translation from "The Epicurus Reader" by Brad Inwood: "In book 13 [he mentions] the congeniality which god feels for some and the alienation [for others]."

This sounds also like the section of the Letter to Menoikeus that is notoriously difficult to translate (not just by me, but by others)

124c. ταῖς γὰρ ἰδίαις οἰκειούμενοι διὰ παν τὸς ἀρεταῖς τοὺς ὁμοίους ἀποδέχονται,

Again, γάρ "for, because"...

ταῖς ἰδίαις = tais idiais (dative)

"to/for the peculiar, distinct, personal … "

οἰκειούμενοι = oikeioumenoi "to be familiarized to; become familiar with" (Note: again connected with the οικείος "house, family, household, private sphere.")

διὰ παντὸς ἀρεταῖς = dia pantos aretais "through/by means of all ἀρεταῖς" ἀρεταῖς is the plural of ἀρετή = aretē which is usually translated "virtue" especially in works of other schools of philosophy. However, its semantic spectrum is a little wider than this:

goodness, excellence

manliness, prowess, rank, valour

virtue

character, reputation, glory, fame, dignity, distinction

miracle, wonder

More on the difficulty of translating this passage below, but suffice it to say that we should regroup in smaller passages. So, so far we have:

ταῖς γὰρ ἰδίαις οἰκειούμενοι διὰ παντὸς ἀρεταῖς… "Because those who are familiar with each other through all excellences and goodness

ὁμοίους ἀποδέχονται, = homoious apodekhontai, τούς ὁμοίους (accusative) "those who are like, resembling" ἀποδέχονται "admit, accept, demonstrate" (3d person plural)

"Because those who are familiar with each other through all excellences and goodness (the gods) accept those who resemble themselves.."

124d. πᾶν τὸ μὴ τοιοῦτον ὡς ἀλλότριον νομίζοντες. = pan to mē toiouton hōs allotrion nomizontes. πᾶν "all, everything" τὸ μὴ τοιοῦτον "one not of this sort" ὡς "like, as" ἀλλότριον "foreign, strange, alien" (accusative) νομῐ́ζοντες = "believing" (masculine nominative/vocative plural of νομῐ́ζων)

124b-d isn't the easiest section to parse, evidently for both myself and scholars. According to Peter Saint-Andre: "This is a puzzling sentence. Some translators understand it as applying to "the gods" from the previous sentence, with the sense that the gods would not interfere in human affairs because they don't care about ("consider as alien") mortal creatures who are so different from themselves. Other translators understand it as applying to "most people" from the previous sentence, with the sense that most people assume that immortal beings so different from themselves must want to interfere in human affairs. I lean toward the former interpretation." I am inclined to agree with Saint-Andre's position here and have used a variation on this understanding to get the literal translation below.

Since 124a-d finish the topic started in 123, let's bring together that section before proceeding:

Greek: οὐ γὰρ προλήψεις εἰσίν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπολήψεις ψευδεῖς αἱ τῶν πολλῶν ὑπὲρ θεῶν ἀποφάσεις: ἔνθεν αἱ μέγισται βλάβαι τε τοῖς κακοῖς ἐκ θεῶν ἐπάγονται καὶ ὠφέλειαι τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς. ταῖς γὰρ ἰδίαις οἰκειούμενοι διὰ παντὸς ἀρεταῖς τοὺς ὁμοίους ἀποδέχονται, πᾶν τὸ μὴ τοιοῦτον ὡς ἀλλότριον νομίζοντες.

Literal translation: "For they are not prolepses, but the judgements of the hoi polloi concerning the gods [are] false hasty assumptions. Thence, the greatest evils are brought to the wicked from the gods as well as the greatest aid to the good. Because they (the hoi polloi) are believing that those who are familiar with each other through all excellences and goodness (the gods) accept those who resemble themselves; all those not of their sort (are) strange and alien."

I take this to mean the gods, as conceived of by the hoi polloi, believe that they gods - who are full of all excellences and virtue - grant favors and aid to good humans because they are like themselves; those who are evil, the gods reject as foreign and strange.

The fact that Epicurus then uses ὑπεγράφη hypegraphē which has an etymology of tracing an image I find quite intriguing.

Oh my, that pro-con reverse-a-palooza sounds like a lot of work. I see where you're going - and can appreciate the sentiment - but that's getting to a conference presentation level of work.

That's part of it.

My surprise came more at the ambiguous nature of the word ζώον which is usually just translated animal or being. That second option seems to play right into the "idealist" perspective of the nature of a god/divinity.

Okay, so here's the first draft of my notes on the section of Menoikeus to which I was referring. I apologize for the length! 123 refers to Diogenes's Book X:123.:

123b. πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη,

μὲν can stand in its own, as here, in which case it might mean "so, whereas, and so" but it can also be left untranslated.

The passage begins, appropriately enough, with πρῶτον = prōton "first."

The verb comes last - νομίζων = nomizōn - which means "believe, hold, consider." What are we to believe? That τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον.

τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον = ton theon zōon aphtharton kai makarion

τὸν θεὸν is singular, but, singular or plural, this *could* refer to a god, the gods, the divine. However, Sedley in "Epicurus' theological innatism" places some significance on the singular construction. So, where the word is singular, I will translate it as such as to not obscure the semantics.

τὸν θεὸν ζῷον "a god (is a) ζῷον. But what is a ζῷον?

LSJ gives two primary definitions:

• living being, animal
• in art, figure, image, not necessarily of animals (or a sign of the Zodiac)

So, unfortunately, at this point in the Letter we can't necessarily resolve the question of what the nature of the gods were according to Epicurus. Some scholars think Epicurus believed the gods were material beings ("living being, animal"). Some think Epicurus believed the gods were mental representions or personifications of the concepts of blessedness ("figure, image, sign").

The Letter goes on to describe what kind of ζῷον the god is: ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον

These are the exact words used in the first Principal Doctrine (Κυριαι Δοξαι): Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον = To makarion kai aphtharton "One who is blessed and imperishable." (Note, this is again singular.) The words held primary place in the Principal Doctrines, and Epicurus chooses this as the first element of which to remind Menoikeus. Epicurus obviously placed a great deal of importance on this topic so it may behoove us to study it in-depth or to engage in some μελέτα.

μακάριον = makarion

The meaning of this word is "blessed, fortunate, wealthy, 'well-off.'" There appears to be no certain etymology of the root [makar] or the longer form [makarios/on]. It appears to possibly have something to do with being wealthy, either literally or figuratively. Taking Ancient Mythology Economically

By Morris Silver had a very interesting section on the origins of the word. See https://books.google.com/books?id=sPCww…ymology&f=false . This is yet another example of the inadequacy of using one word to translate from one language to another.

ἄφθαρτον = aphtharton

LSJ gives the definition of "incorruptible, eternal, immortal, uncorrupted, undecaying" and gives references to Epicurus, Philodemus, and Diogenes of Oenoanda. At its root, the word is α- "not" + Φθαρτον "destructible, perishable." LSJ states Φθαρτον is the opposite of ἀίδιος = aidios "everlasting, eternal" (related to ἀεί "ever, always") which poses an interesting question: Why did Epicurus choose to use ἄφθαρτον instead of ἀίδιος or ἀθάνατος? Φθαρτον is related to θνητός = thnētos "liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος [athanatos]" (LSJ) Φθαρτον is connected to the verb φθείρω = phtheirō "destroy, pass away, cease to be, perish." It seems that Epicurus didn't want to evoke that the gods were simply immortal or eternal but that he wanted to impress upon us the sense that they would not pass away or cease to be. This is in contrast to everything else composed of atoms and void. Everything else is subject to be Φθαρτον; only the gods are ἄφθαρτον! How can this be? Could it be that they are ἄφθαρτον precisely because they are mental perceptions, because we do have a Prolepsis of them (More on this difficult term later!) For now, let's move on to see if there are more clues.

123b.ii: ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη,... = hōs hē koinē tou theou noēsis hypegraphē,...

ὡς introduces similes or qualifies statements and so a good translation is something like "like, as, such as, so far as."

ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις = hē koinē "the common, the general understanding of the god" Note that this is also why we speak of the later evolution of the Greek language as "koine Greek" "the common Greek, the Greek spoken by a wide population across the Greek-speaking world." Is Epicurus talking here about the general understanding of Greeks among the general population? Or is he talking about the common understanding of the god among Epicureans? He does specifically talk about the wrong understanding of the "hoi polloi'" below. Epicurus is writing to a fellow Epicurean. So, if he's referring to just ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις among Epicureans, how are we then to take that word ζωον?

ὑπεγράφη "has been outlined, traced"

Epicurus is using the image of outlining or tracing an image to be filled in by another. The image of letters indicated by a teacher by an outline or tracing for the student to then follow. So the idea that the gods are imperishable and blessed is, basically, how the gods are commonly understood to be -- that is the general indication of the nature of the gods. Whether that is the general indication among just Epicureans or the general public remains a question.

123c. μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε:

After μηθὲν = mēthen "one, not even one, nobody", we find another μήτε... μήτε…:

μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον

μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον

τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον = tēs aphtharsias allotrion

μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον "neither the incorruption or immortality (is) foreign or strange"

μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον = mēte tēs makariotētos anoikeion "nor (is) the 'blessedness' foreign to or incongruous with"

ἀνοίκειον literally means "not of the family" or "not of the household" where οἶκος is the house or domestic sphere. Related to 123b.ii and the "common" understanding, ἀνοίκειον *could* refer to the "house/family" of Epicurus.

This line then finishes with αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε: = autō "(dative) to itself"

prosapte "You attribute to! You attach to, You fasten upon." (Imperative)

123c. μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε:

"Do not attribute anything foreign to the incorruptibility or incongruous with the blessedness of the gods!"

Through my work on the Letter to Menoikeus, I'm not convinced that the idealist perspective isn't plausible due to the ambiguity of some of the Greek.

Was also just browsing ebooks in library catalog and came across this one. Just checked it out, so no review but seemed relevant:

In Awe: Rediscover Your Childlike Wonder to Unleash Inspiration, Meaning, and Joy

by John O'Leary

There once was a time when we joyfully raised our hands to answer questions, connected easily with others, believed that anything was possible, and fearlessly jumped into new experiences. A time when we viewed each day not as something to endure, but as a marvelous gift to explore and savor—when we danced through our lives in awe of the ordinary moments and eager for the promise of tomorrow.
Unfortunately, that's far from our experience today. Instead, we feel disconnected and jaded. Social media reminds us that we don't measure up, and the mainstream media barrages us with constant negativity. Many of us find ourselves caught in a life of dogged responsibility and mind-numbing repetition. The daily struggle to earn a living has caused us to lose the sense of wonder with which we once greeted every day.
In his new book, bestselling author John O'Leary invites us to consider that it is possible to once again navigate the world as a child does. Identifying five senses children innately possess and that we've lost touch with as we age, O'Leary shares emotional, humorous, and inspirational stories intertwined with fascinating new research showing how each of us can reclaim our childlike joy, and why doing so will change how we interact with the world.
In Awe reveals how we can regain that ability to see fresh insights, reach for new solutions, and live our best lives.

Oops! I don't find a link after your "here" above, Cassius .

That's an interesting take, Godfrey , and one I think I'm in agreement with for the most part... with a couple caveats and addenda:

• Unfortunately, I think you'll still find some people imagining their God anthropomorphically.
• I'd like to read more about the generative force from you. Can you extend those remarks? Are you saying we could call that generative force Venus then like Lucretius?
• Are you also saying we could adapt other religions' practices to our needs by changing the mental content? Epicurus only had the Greek cultural practices and rituals. We're aware of more cultures now and were maybe born into other religions (not me - mainstream evangelicalism here).

Just came across this and didn't know if it would be helpful. Posting here for reference:

https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/157/

I'll claim ignorance here, but was Aristotle also one who amassed evidence before attempting to come to any conclusion? I see articles claiming Aristotle as originator of the/a "scientific method." Or is that because Aristotle was more palatable to the Christians and was allowed to have his writings survive?

@Susan Hill : Are you aware of Academia.edu? https://www.academia.edu/ I know they have some of Konstan's papers there for download. Not sure if it's accessible in Canada but worth a try.

I just checked and we have that volume in the library. I'll be checking it out today. Right now, I fall into the Sedley camp (if I remember his position correctly), but I'm looking forward to re-reading his chapter and Konstan's.

Quote from Cassius

I should have figured Don would like PAIAN ANAX

Ok so what does that mean?

That's Epicurus's favorite "expletive" using the name of the gods. See Thoughts on DeWitt, Chapter 5

I vote for "divinity" since θεός theos can have that connotation in addition to "god."

Check out the length of this dictionary entry for λόγος:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ntry%3Dlo%2Fgos