Posts by Don

This was a lively one!

I feel compelled to weigh in on the life of your fictitious scientist. I don't think one can just say that the pursuit of science bringing the scientist pleasure is the end of it. I seem to hear you saying that pleasure is the goal; the scientist experiences pleasure; that's it.

That's not the only aspect of the scientist's life we need to worry about. I agree that if the pursuit of science brings them pleasure, that's fine. But it cannot be the whole story and negate the need for the possession of a philosophy of life.

I would ask What is the totality of their life? How are they living it? Are they just? Are they making decisions to bring sustained pleasure to their whole life? The moment-by-moment experience of pleasure while researching or contemplating their scientific pursuit is not the goal. It is living a sustained pleasurable life. That's why Epicurus stressed that sometimes we should experience pain for the sake of later pleasure, and why we should abstain from some pleasure for more pleasure later.

It's not necessarily 24x7x365 immersion in pleasurable feelings all the time for your average human, Epicurean or not. The importance of a framework or philosophy of life is how you deal with life when it isn't providing pleasure. How do you return to that? How do you react when someone close to you dies? How do you experience hardship, disease, disappointment, and so on?

If experiencing individual pleasures is the only goal, and we come to this naturally (as I understand some of you were saying in this episode), of what use is Epicurus and his philosophy? If experiencing pleasure is the only important aspect of Epicureanism, and we naturally do this anyway, of what use is the philosophy at all? I have other things I could fill my time with.
I keep coming back to PD 10's "IF." IF the pleasure of the profligate dispelled their fears and anxieties, we'd have no quarrel with them. But their pleasures DON'T dispel their fears. But they're experiencing pleasure, so it's all okay then? I have to say no to that. I don't think that's the goal Epicurus taught. They are not living a life that can be sustained in pleasure. Now, if they were demonstrating they understood how to make prudent decisions to sustain their pleasure, that death is nothing to them and why, etc., and not simply running after every pleasure all the time, then, yeah, go forth and seize the day. I don't think that's what the "lost" (to translate the original word) are doing.

Likewise, the Letter to Menoikos:

Quote

So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasures of decadent people or the enjoyment of sleep, as is believed by those who are ignorant or who don't understand us or who are ill-disposed to us, but to be free from bodily pain and mental disturbance. For a pleasant life is produced not by drinking and endless parties and enjoying boys and women and consuming fish and other delicacies of an extravagant table, but by sober reasoning, searching out the cause of everything we accept or reject, and driving out opinions that cause the greatest trouble in the soul.

So the scientist's finding pleasure or joy in their work is fine as far as it goes. One should not tell them to stop. But pleasure or joy in that one thing is not the entirety of life.

Quote from Cassius

That's another angle on this to consider. Which position is more "prominent"? The one down front with the pudgy wreathed figure, or the position located very close to the central figures of the fresco (even if somewhat obscured)?

Oh! Good point!

I must admit I'm intrigued by Elli 's conjecture. That robed figure off to the side fits the bill for Epicurus, down to the cleft beard. I'm also skeptical whether Epicurus would have had so prominent a spot right down front if we take the traditional attribution.

As for the Boccaccio illustration, it doesn't appear Epicurus is even mentioned in Leontium's entry. I've attached my scan. I would think it more "scandalous" if it was just a random "John" sexually assaulting Leontium.

For those interested, here's the Internet Archive link to the Greek Anthology. Joshua 's discovery is #324.

The section the epigram is in is the Planudean Appendix:

Quote

EPIGRAMS OF THE PLANUDEAN ANTHOLOGY NOT IN THE PALATINE MANUSCRIPT The Anthology of Planudes is in seven Books, the contents of which are as follows : I. Declamatory and Descriptive Epigrams ; II. Satirical Epigrams ; III. Sepulchral Epigrams ; IV. Epigrams on monuments, statues, etc. ; V. Christodorus' description of the statues in the gymnasium of the Zeuxippus (= Anth. Pal., Book II.), and a collection of Epigrams from the Hippodrome in Constantinople ; VI. Dedicatory Epigrams ; Vil. Amatory Epigrams. As will be seen, while the other Books contain only a small number of Epigrams not included in the Palatine MS., almost the whole of Book IV. is absent from the latter, and we can only conclude that a Book of the Anthology of Cephalas was missing in the MS. of which the Palatine MS. is a transcript.

It seems the compiler of the appendix was similar to Diogenes Laertius in bringing together disparate sources so it might be impossible to have context. The epigram may have been literally on a pencil found somewhere.

Here's also an interesting post on Leontion from the British Museum.

The poem was new to me!

Excellent work, Joshua !

I was completely ignorant of the poem and you appear to have begun to provide a solid explication.

I listened to the "episode" on my walk this morning to see if I could follow along without the visuals. No problem! Your tone and cadence made it both enjoyable as well easy to follow.

My only suggestions would be:

You do jump right in. A little more context on who Lucretius was at the beginning might help those who are new to the poem and Epicurean philosophy. You do give excellent information as the episode goes on! If you post on a website, did you plan to give an intro to the episode in textual form? I think that might be enough to provide that context I'm talking about.

I am sincerely looking forward to episode 2!!

Just saw this article and seemed relevant here:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/a…than-christians

The two parts that stuck out:

Quote

As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”

And

Quote

Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff. This is a phenomenon spreading across the country, from the Seattle Atheist Church to the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Oasis Network, which brings together non-believers to sing and learn every Sunday morning, has affiliates in nine U.S. cities.

It made me wonder: What differentiates an "atheist church" from an Epicurean "garden" if the church-goers don't accept any supernatural causes? What do "we" offer as a distinct philosophy to secular "nones"?

I have some ideas but I pose the question for discussion. I also thought our international friends might have thoughts.

Great point, Joshua .

There is power in poetry, its succinct concentrated language.

That also reminds me of our conversations elsewhere on the forum about the prolepsis of "awe" or the "divine".

Solid episode, gentlemen, although Elayne leaves a hole in the conversation. Look forward to hearing her again.

On the modern use of divine metaphors and analogies, I seem to remember Dr. Michio Kaku getting heat for using phrases like " the mind of God" and "Creation." He was obviously using them in poetic ways and not literally but some in the science community asserted you can't talk like that. They said I seem to remember that they think it misleads people. I think a little poetry is fine personally. (cough... Lucretius... cough)

Are you all talking about Epicurus.info?

I checked https://whois-web.rrpproxy.net/ for the domain and most of the contact info was redacted for privacy. It looks looks it's registered in the Netherlands and the server names are three women's names but that doesn't mean anything. It looked like it was due for renewal in November 2020.

LOL. I had the exact opposite reaction. I saw the piercing eyes, serious brow, and clarity of the photo picking up the luster of the marble. Every curve of his hair and beard stood out. The fact that you could see it 360° in different lighting attracted me as well.

Quote from JJElbert

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/248475?searchField=All&sortBy=Relevance&ft=epicurus&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=1

This image is listed as public domain by the museum that holds it. At some point we should think about a central location for all images of Epicurus known to be in the public domain.

That's a great find!! Looking forward to your project!

There's also the Flickr Commons. I did a quick Epicurus search:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=commons&q=Epicurus

I'm not sure why some came up, but there are a couple public domain Epicurus statue drawings.

Oops, I guess it's the copyright holder that owns the rights to make derivative works. Mea culpa.

But you might be able to argue fair use on educational grounds. But honestly, I'm seeing that same image on book jackets and other things. I think you're in the clear Disclaimer: i am not a lawyer not do I give legal advice. Sorry, standard librarian disclaimer.

Quote from JJElbert

And a timeless quandary; to what extent are photographs of these old sculptures protected by copyright?

Call it fair use (unless you're making money) and derivative works.

I think it comes back to Elayne 's comment about evidence. It's not enough to use reason, we need evidence as "seen" by our senses (and the extension of our senses through instruments etc.).

"strikes me" Well done!

1. Agreed.

2. Partially agree. "Real to us" seems too subjective for everything. There are some things that are "real" or true for the individual but there is also an objective reality we all need to agree on. (We won't get into the ultimate nature of reality here! I'm just talking about the everyday real world in which we move around in here.)

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed. No God needed.

5. Agreed. No need for Platonic Forms.

Some great points to consider, Godfrey and Cassius . Jumping off from your points, here is what I'm beginning to formulate about the prolepses:

• The Canon has three parts and those need to be pre-rational and they react to incoming stimuli. As Godfrey said "the prolepses or feelings aren't activated without a stimulus." I would add, by definition, the Sensations as well.
• It seems to me that it would make sense if the Sensations registered physical stimuli: light, sound, touch, taste, odors; the Prolepses "registered" abstract stimuli: justice (how do we sense fairness?), divinity (how do we sense awe?), language (how do we sense meaning?), etc. Okay, I need to flesh that out but later. But these are inborn faculties that need only honing in humans and are present in rudimentary form in animals. Then both these faculties feed into the Feelings to register pleasure or pain. Only afterward our memory and reasoning kick in to give us information about those concepts and sensations.
• One question I'm rolling in my mind came with Godfrey saying: "seeing a beautiful sunset, burning your hand on the stove." I think these are two different circumstances. The latter is just the nociceptors directly registering pain. The Sensations register heat > Feeling of Pain > later reason kicks in (How bad did I burn myself? Will it scar? Do I need to go to the doctor?) The sunset seems to be registering something else. I think it can't be a simple registering of sight. I think it may be a Prolepsis but of what? Consider too the similar feeling when you're taking in a vast Vista (my go to is my first view across Yosemite Valley. Breath-taking awe is my only description). It's more than just registering the light coming into your eyes. I would contend there's a prolepsis of awe or something at work before the Feeling of pleasure kicks in.
•   Godfrey also mentioned "So we determine a concept of justice not necessarily from a single use of the Canon but through multiple exposures to situations that involve justice and stimulate resultant feelings of pleasure or pain." I would say that we recognize fair and just actions from a *very* young age (from research I've seen) and even animals have a rudimentary prolepsis of justice. The prolepsis stimulates pleasurable feelings and so we are attracted to people and situations which are just. The multiple exposures simply reinforce our intuition and begin to acculturate us to our specific culture's laws and justice. When that culture's laws conflict with our prolepsis and they don't keep people from harming or being harmed, we see them as injustice. That intuition is the prolepsis, I believe.

I need to think and read more but that gets thinking out there in summary for review.

I just read DeWitt's section of Anticipations and find myself largely in agreement with him. I also see that he did NOT accept the idea of having a prolepsis of an ox, etc., for individual words.

Just finishing lunch break so back to work... But more later!

Quote from Cassius

Don, I wonder if you have the same concern about this as your earlier concern?

Sort of. (Oh, that's helpful, right?)

The more I read the current scholarship (and there seems to be a WIDE spectrum of thoughts) on prolepses, there definitely seems to be a language component. So, a "prolepsis of truth" seems to me to maybe simply be the faculty to recognize a true vs false statement in some way.

My problem, consternation, uneasiness comes in when we have statements like:

1. That is a round tower.
2. God saved me from the accident.

Those are not equivalent statements when it comes to determining their being true vs. false.

(1) can be resolved from observation and doesn't really need a prolepsis of "truth" because our senses will resolve whether it's true.

(2) cannot be resolved by observation. That statement is connected to somebody's internal/personal Truth (capital T) and, so, again I don't think it falls under a prolepsis because it would be innate. That seems more like a case of holding an empty or incorrect opinion.

There also seems to be some scholarship that tries to make the prolepsis of the divine (That they are blessed, immortal, etc.) a special case, but I don't think - personally - that Epicurus would create a category - prolepsis - to cover only one case. And if the prolepsis about the gods is innate, I would *think* that all prolepses are innate and pre-rational, especially if they're part of the Canon and used in determining a correct version of reality.