Posts by Don

Yes!!

Now I'm getting why you all have the affinity you do for DeWitt's work! The statement in this paper that stood out for me was:

Quote

I think it best to print the Greek text, which is undisputed, and to build up a version piecemeal

THIS is what I've been waiting for in Epicurus and His Philosophy (EaHP)!

Unfortunately, he seems to, for the most part, avoid this "building up" in that work. I realize EaHP is geared toward a more "popular" audience so in-depth erudite step by step arguments seem to have been put aside in favor of mere assertion on some points. Plus, he adulterated that work with the "Epicureanism in Christianity" stuff which seems superfluous to me but which Cassius had good arguments for DeWitt's inclusion that make sense to me. I don't necessarily accept DeWitt's assertions on those, but I get why he probably put them in (in addition to his obviously believing they're in the New Testament).

But these papers of DeWitt's are great! I have greatly enjoyed reading them! He is definitely striking a blow for Epicurus!

Now THIS is what I'm talking about!! This is DeWitt's full erudition and scholarship on display. He makes claims and then backs them up FULLY with citations, original text excerpts, and step-by-step reasoning. I enjoyed reading this VERY much.

My only initial hesitation was his claim that Lucretius mistranslated a certain term or concept. Uh oh, I thought. Lucretius WAS an Epicurean who understood both Greek and Latin (the latter as a first language). He knew what he wanted to say... BUT Dewitt did an excellent job of laying out why he thought Lucretius may have used the term he did in the cultural context of his time and because he was a poet.

Now, I'm still going to hold Dewitt accountable for unsubstantiated claims he makes in EaHP, but this essay was a welcome eye-opener on the professor's ability!

Thanks, Cassius , for posting!

I was just making dinner and was listening to a RadioLab episode entitled The Cataclysm Sentence. Here's the blurb:

One day in 1961, the famous physicist Richard Feynman stepped in front of a Caltech lecture hall and posed this question to a group of undergraduate students: “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence was passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words?” Now, Feynman had an answer to his own question - a good one.

I think you'll find Feynman's answer* satisfying from an Epicurean perspective (if you don't know it already). Just had to share. Enjoy.

*His answer had to do with passing on the atomic theory and I immediately thought of Lucretius and his "passing on" the atomic theory to the Renaissance.

Cassius , thank you SO much for your comments!! I can definitely see where you're coming from in explaining DeWitt's "Epicureanism in Christianity" directions and think you make some very valid conjectures and provide hearty food for thought. I especially liked your...

Quote

...hard to resist a significant degree of evangelical spirit.

Amen!

I certainly appreciate your perspectives. Thank you for taking the time to share them! I concur that it's important to not get hung up on details and miss the "big picture." I also freely admit that this may as well be my first reading of DeWitt as I only vaguely remember passages from my first reading as I'm reading this time. And I haven't even gotten to the meat of the philosophy chapters yet. You all have had years with DeWitt and so have a much broader perspective on his work. I hope you'll be patient with me as I dig into the rest of EAHP.

I also fully agree that a syncretic, cafeteria-style philosophy isn't worth much. Either a philosophy or "art of life" stands on its own or not. I apologize if I gave the impression I was going down that road. That is not my intention.

All that being said, I do not wish to be a DeWittean Epicurean, a Baileyan Epicurean, a Gassendian Epicurean, a Jeffersonian Epicurean, a Stoic Epicurean, but an Epicurean. I want to understand what Epicurus, Metrodorus, Philodemus, Lucretius, et al. taught and wrote to the best of my ability, using all the best scholarship available from multiple sources and using the example of Epicurus to question accepted wisdom and "culture" and to come to my own conclusions.

So, personally, I am withholding my judgement of DeWitt's claim of understanding Epicurus' philosophy better than any others. I definitely agree that academic consensus doesn't necessarily equate with "Truth." I also don't necessarily think the maverick freethinking scholar is always right either. DeWitt's agenda to find Epicureanism hidden in Christianity at every turn raises red flags for me. I fear he may try to make connections where none actually exist or are tenuous at best or have multiple valid explanations (like explanations for meterological events in Lucretius). However, I *am* looking forward to digging into his anti-Platonic arguments. Epicurus was definitely no fan of the prevailing educational system of his day and it makes sense that he would work to counter that.

This is why I firmly believe, no matter the difficulty, that it is so important to look at the original works (on digitised manuscripts if possible), to compare numerous translations, and to consult authoritative dictionaries and other reference works. Is it a long involved process? Sure! Lifelong maybe. But I want to understand *why* translators and scholars chose the words they did. Because the words of Epicurus and Lucretius and Philodemus et al. - extant and buried in their critics - are the only connection we have to them. I'm reluctant to accept any one person's filter (other than Epicurus' ) through which to see this philosophy. If I'm going to make decisions about how to live my life using this philosophy, I'm going to base them on the words of Epicurus (and the other classical Epicureans) as I can reasonably come to understand them. I will gladly and enthusiastically accept the help of fellow aspiring Epicureans online. I will gladly and enthusiastically accept the help of scholars in the field - DeWitt included, of course! - but I'm going to check footnotes and citations and hold their feet to the proverbial fire to see if their conclusions are confirmed by the words in the original texts that they cite. If they're adding attributes that aren't there or making broad assumptions or trying to make tenuous connections to disparate facts, I'm going to be skeptical of other claims they make that aren't so easily questioned.

And I'm looking forward to taking pleasure in the journey!

Thanks, Cassius , for the articles. I'm looking forward to reading them.

While I have respect for DeWitt's credentials as a classical scholar and translator, I admit I'm somewhat skeptical of his proclivity for saying, in effect "everyone has been mistranslating [fill in the blank] and I'm the only one who really figured out what it means." Especially if the novel translation also fits with an unorthodox or idiosyncratic interpretation. I'm not saying that's always the case with him, but that is the kind of thing that give me pause.

Glad to hear your power is back! Hope that was the extent of your inconvenience! Welcome back.

Oh, DeWitticism!! That's a keeper

As I continue my romp through DeWitt, I've assembled the following thoughts and comments on Chapter 3:

Quote

Quote P. 61: Epicurus, in turn, becoming the pupil of Nausiphanes, conceived a like admiration of Pyrrho's conduct "and was continually asking for more information about him."27 Here may consequently be discerned one possible origin for the famous Epicurean doctrine of ataraxy or tranquillity of soul. The practice of Pyrrho was closer to this than to the cheerfulness (euthumia) of Democritus, although Epicurus cultivated this also. It is to be remembered too that Pyrrho recommended abstention from public life (apragmosune), which should remind us that Epicurus disapproved of all public careers.

Thanks, DeWitt! I finally get to dig into another part of Diogenes Laertius' Lives! Footnote 27 refers to DL IX.64:

Quote

"...and [Nausiphanes] would often remark that Epicurus, greatly admiring Pyrrho's way of life, regularly asked him for information about Pyrrho,..."

For more on Pyrrho, we have a good-sized section in Chapter 9 of DL. So, if Epicurus found Pyrrho's life so admirable, it would probably profit us to see why. I'm assuming Pyrrho will come up again in DeWitt, but this is an interesting part of Epicurus' origin story which makes him sound like a superhero but, if the sandal fits...

Quote

Quote P. 63: In the case of Nausiphanes there is another item of evidence from the pen of Epicurus: "As for my own opinion, I presume that the high-steppers (Platonists) will think me really a pupil of the 'lung-fish' and that I listened to his lectures in the company of certain lads who were stupid from the night's carousing. For he was both an immoral man and addicted to such practices as made it impossible for him to arrive at wisdom." 34 The practices here referred to have been interpreted as the study of mathematics, 35 but the mention of adolescent lads, of drinking, and of immorality make the true reference unmistakable to any reader conversant with the shadier side of student life among the Greeks.

This initially struck me as holier-than-thou judgementalism on the part of DeWitt, especially the "shadier side of student life." I decided to check the Footnotes 34 and 35 citations which reference Usener 114 which refers to Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors, I.3 (Translated at Attalus.org and the original in Usener and another translation at Stoic Therapy). The term DeWitt translates as "certain lads who were stupid from the night's carousing" is, in the original (transliterated), kraipalonton from κραιπάλη which means "bout of drinking; intoxication, inebration; hangover." SO, DeWitt's translation is not far from the mark although it seems "hungover students" might be better than "stupid" although those with hangovers are not known to be at the top of their game. It seems other translators are less forthcoming or literal than DeWitt was here. So, I'll tip my hat to DeWitt on this one.

However, the second part of DeWitt's translation is less cut-and-dried:

Quote

"For [Nausiphanes] was both an immoral man and addicted to such practices as made it impossible for him to arrive at wisdom."

The original describes Nausiphanes as a πονηρός άνθρωπος (poneros anthropos) which appears to be more "good-for-nothing, worthless, knavish, base, cowardly person." I'm just wondering - PURE conjecture - if DeWitt is reading this as something like πορνηρός* (porneros* not attested but that extra "r" would make it look connected with porne "prostitute" or porneion "brothel") to get at DeWitt's "immoral". Also, DeWitt's "addicted" is έπιτετηδευκώ from ἐπιτηδεύω which appears to simply mean "to pursue or practise a thing, make a practice of, make it one's business." As I've said before, I am NOT any kind of classical scholar or any more than a novice student of Ancient Greek, but I don't think it should be hard to find a definition near to "addicted" using standard reference works.

So, it would appear to me, that Epicurus was saying that Nausiphanes' students were all hungover, and the teacher himself was "pursuing" things that didn't lead one, in the end, to wisdom "και έπιτετηδευκώς τοιαύτα έ ων ου δυνατόν εις σοφίαν έλθεΐν." I don't see a connection between the students being out drinking and engaged in sex (which would have most likely been part of their activities on some nights) and Nausiphanes' pursuit of certain subjects. I read this as Epicurus saying that he was disillusioned with Nausiphanes because his students didn't give the teacher any respect for the material being taught (they showed up hungover!) and Nausiphanes himself not doing anything worthwhile, in the eyes of Epicurus anyway.

Quote

Quote P. 66: states. In order to escape from these logical dead ends Epicurus worked his way to a novel division of pleasures into those that were basic and those that were decorative.48 The pleasure of being sane and in health is basic and can be enjoyed continually.

I found the designation of pleasures as "basic" or "decorative" novel so followed up on Footnote 48 which cites DL's Live II: 11. DL II: 11 doesn't say anything about pleasure but does mention Metrodorus of Lampsacus. The word usually used to describe "empty" pleasures in the Greek is κενός but I can't see an alternative definition as "decorative" so I was both curious and amused by that description. If someone has a better source for "decorative" pleasures, by all means please share! This is also another "sane mind/sane body" allusion.

Quote

Quote P. 67: This amounts to saying that a nonpurposive Nature had produced a purposive creature, for whom alone an end or goal of living could have a meaning. This is teleology at a minimum. For such a belief no teacher had set a precedent.

I'm actually giving kudos to DeWitt on this one. I like the way he describes that a "nonpurposive" universe can produce a "purposive" being. Thumbs up!

Quote

Quote P. 68: "From the outset you must believe that no other end is gained from the knowledge of celestial phenomena, whether viewed in their associations [with the astral deities] or by themselves, than peace of soul and an abiding faith." 56

The "abiding faith" struck me as another potential way for DeWitt to sneak in the Epicureanism/Christianity parallel, so I took a look at Footnote 56 which references DL X:85:

Quote

"In the first place, remember that, like everything else, knowledge of celestial phenomena, whether taken along with other things or in isolation, has no other end in view than peace of mind and firm conviction."

"Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν μὴ ἄλλο τι τέλος ἐκ132 τῆς περὶ μετεώρων γνώσεως εἴτε κατὰ συναφὴν λεγομένων εἴτε αὐτοτελῶς νομίζειν εἶναι ἤπερ ἀταραξίαν καὶ πίστιν βέβαιον, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν."

DeWitt's "abiding faith" and the Perseus Project's "firm conviction" both translate πίστιν βέβαιον. πίστιν is indeed defined as "trust in others, 'faith' (translated into Latin as fides), belief" so "faith" is a fine translation, but I would prefer the other one's "firm conviction." DeWitt's translation just gave me pause in light of his "Epicureanism is hiding in Christianity" proclivities. βέβαιον is simply "firm, steady". Basically, Epicurus is saying this knowledge should give one peace of mind (ἀταραξία in the original) and a firm trust that it's the truth.

Quote

Quote P. 68: This new note is promptly and beautifully struck in the opening words of his exhortation to philosophy, the letter to Menoeceus, which was perhaps intended to compete with the famous Protrepticus of Aristotle: "There is no one for whom the hour has not yet come nor for whom the hour has passed for attending to the health of his soul." 57

This is a novel translation of the beginning of the letter to Menoikos and, I'll give DeWitt kudos for the poetic wordsmithing. Now, the original actually uses νέος "young/youth" and γέρων "old man" so DeWitt's translation is more paraphrase than literal, but that's certainly an acceptable path to take, basically the difference between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence in Bible translations.

I had to also look up the Protrepticus of Aristotle (reconstructed version) since I was unfamiliar with that work. It sounds like it was written to encourage the young to study philosophy and it is a lost work of that philosopher.

Quote

P. 69 Quote: sage. It must consequently be inferred that before leaving Colophon he had already worked out to its pragmatic implications the old analogy between philosophy and medicine, that all human beings, regardless of age or sex, stood in need of health of mind and the services of the teacher no less than of health of body and the services of the physician.

This appears to hint again at that "Epicurean prayer" notion of "a sound mind in a sound body." I'm still not sold on that characterization of that saying; however, I think DeWitt does a good job here of summing up the universal nature of Epicurean philosophy and the medical analogy.

So, we're ending the chapter on a high note On to Chapter 4!

Quote from Cassius

If I am delayed in responding to more posts in the next 24 hours or so don't be concerned:-) My area had a tornado come through with a wide power outage and I am having to ration my cell phone battery!

OMG Take care and I hope everything is alright soon!

Thanks again! I am finding DeWitt an interesting intellectual and philosophical endeavor. I would agree with you that:

Quote

The value of the DeWitt book is not that it is perfect, but that it raises issues and arguments that are almost totally excluded from contemporary writing about Epicurus. We just have to read and judge for ourselves how much value those arguments have.

And I greatly appreciate your openness to addressing the concerns I posted here and in Chapter 1's thread! I see this as an expression of Epicurean frank speech among friends of the Garden. Thank you!

Your comments were very helpful here!! I think I see the synopsis vs detail approach now. Maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself on that one. I'll definitely be sticking with DeWitt and am looking forward to forging ahead.

I mentioned in a thread on Chapter 2 that I had concerns with DeWitt's penchant for making assertions with no context or citations or context. Here are several that I noted as I read Chapter 2.

Quote

P. 45 Quote: "[Epicureanism] attracted men like Lucretius, Horace, and Virgil. At a later time the Christians Arnobius and Lactantius knew their Epicureanism better than their Bibles. St. Augustine was tempted to award it the palm."

The phrase "knew their Epicureanism better than their Bibles" makes it sound - whether DeWitt meant it that way or not - like Arnobius and Lactantius had Epicurean affinities, but that is not the case. Arnobius appears to have been familiar with Epicureanism but was also a critic of the philosophy.

Lactantius' De ira Dei ("On the Wrath of God" or "On the Anger of God") was directed specifically against both Stoics and Epicureans. See also the New Advent Encyclopedia: Chapter 4.— Of God and His Affections, and the Censure of Epicurus.

Quote

The treatise on The Anger of God is directed mainly against the tenets of the Epicureans and Stoics, who maintained that the deeds of men could produce no emotions of pleasure or anger in the Deity. Lactantius holds that the love of the good necessarily implies the hatred of evil; and that the tenets of these philosophers, as tending to overthrow the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, are subversive of the principles of true religion.

And while Augustine of Hippo wrote in his Confessions (Book VI, Chapter XVI):

Quote

Thine be the praise; unto thee be the glory, O Fountain of mercies. I became more wretched and thou didst come nearer. Thy right hand was ever ready to pluck me out of the mire and to cleanse me, but I did not know it. Nor did anything call me back from a still deeper plunge into carnal pleasure except the fear of death and of thy future judgment, which, amid all the waverings of my opinions, never faded from my breast. And I discussed with my friends, Alypius and Nebridius, the nature of good and evil, maintaining that, in my judgment, Epicurus would have carried off the palm if I had not believed what Epicurus would not believe: that after death there remains a life for the soul, and places of recompense. And I demanded of them: “Suppose we are immortal and live in the enjoyment of perpetual bodily pleasure, and that without any fear of losing it--why, then, should we not be happy, or why should we search for anything else?” I did not know that this was in fact the root of my misery: that I was so fallen and blinded that I could not discern the light of virtue and of beauty which must be embraced for its own sake, which the eye of flesh cannot see, and only the inner vision can see. Nor did I, alas, consider the reason why I found delight in discussing these very perplexities, shameful as they were, with my friends. For I could not be happy without friends, even according to the notions of happiness I had then, and no matter how rich the store of my carnal pleasures might be. Yet of a truth I loved my friends for their own sakes, and felt that they in turn loved me for my own sake.

Augustine appears to be saying *in his youth* he thought "Epicurus would have carried off the palm" if he had believed in an afterlife. In fact, he appears to say that this kind of palm-worthy Epicureanism "was in fact the root of my misery." In other works, Augustine firmly rejects both Stoicism and Epicureanism, but DeWitt - from my reading - implies that Augustine was almost an Epicurean.

Quote

P. 50 Quote: "...Epicurus taught men to defy, and with commendation of the Epicurean prayer for 'a sound mind in a sound body.'"

This is another of DeWitt's assertions that he doesn't seem to back up with any citation. "A sound mind in a sound body" is NOT an Epicurean prayer from any research I can see. That specific phrase is from the Satire X of Juvenal in the last stanza:

Quote

"Is there nothing then for which men shall pray? If you ask my counsel, you will leave it to the gods themselves to provide what is good for us, and what will be serviceable for our state; for, in place of what is pleasing, they will give us what is best, Man is dearer to them than he is to himself. Impelled by strong and blind desire, we ask for wife and offspring; but the gods know of what sort the sons, of what sort the wife, will be. Nevertheless that you may have something to pray for, and be able to offer to the shrines entrails and presaging sausages from a white porker, you should pray for a sound mind in a sound body; for a stout heart that has no fear of death, and deems length of days the least of Nature's gifts; that can endure any kind of toil; that knows neither wrath or desire and thinks that the woes and hard labours of Hercules are better than the loves and the banquets and the down cushions of Sardanapalus. What I commend to you, you can give to yourself; for it is assuredly through virtue that lies the one and only road to a life of peace. Thou wouldst have no divinity, O Fortune, if we had but wisdom; it is we that make a goddess of thee, and place thee, in the skies."

The lines seem almost Stoic, not Epicurean, to me. And the sentiment if much older than Epicurus anyway with similar thoughts written by Thales:

"What man is happy?" "He who has a healthy body, a resourceful mind and a docile nature."

Quote

Pg. 53 Quote: For instance, one of the teachings of Epicurus was the following: "Human nature is not to be coerced but persuaded."

DeWitt is quoting an excerpt from VS 21 which doesn't appear to say anything about "Human nature" but rather "Nature." The text of VS 21 reads:

Quote

"Nature must be persuaded, not forced. And we will persuade nature by fulfilling the necessary desires, and the natural desires too if they cause no harm, but sharply rejecting the harmful desires. οὐ βιαστέον τὴν φύσιν ἀλλὰ πειστέον· πείσομεν δὲ τὰς ἀναγκαίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐκπληροῦντες, τάς τε φυσικὰς ἂν μὴ βλάπτωσι, τὰς δὲ βλαβερὰς πικρῶς ἐλέγχοντες."

Another translation reads:

Quote

XXI. We must not violate nature, but obey her; and we shall obey her if we fulfil the necessary desires and also the physical, if they bring no harm to us, but sternly reject the harmful.

The "nature" here is φύσιν which appears in other texts as well including:

Fr. 548. Happiness and bliss are produced not by great riches nor vast possessions nor exalted occupations nor positions of power, but rather by peace of mind, freedom from pain, and a disposition of the soul that sets its limits in accordance with nature. τὸ εὔδαιμον καὶ μακάριον [happiness and blessedness] οὐ χρημάτων πλῆθος οὐδὲ πραγμάτων ὄγκος οὐδʼ ἀρχαί τινες ἔχουσιν οὐδὲ δυνάμεις, ἀλλʼ ἀλυπία καὶ πραότης παθῶν καὶ διάθεσις ψυχῆς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὁρίζουσα.

And also PD 6:

As far as concerns protection from other men, any means of procuring this was a natural good [φύσιν ἀγαθόν]. Ἕνεκα τοῦ θαρρεῖν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἦν κατὰ φύσιν ἀγαθόν, ἐξ ὧν ἄν ποτε τοῦτο οἷός τ’ ᾖ παρασκευάζεσθαι.

And also PD 30:

Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind. Ἐν αἷς τῶν φυσικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, μὴ ἐπ’ ἀλγοῦν δὲ ἐπαναγουσῶν ἐὰν μὴ συντελεσθῶσιν, ὑπάρχει ἡ σπουδὴ σύντονος, παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν αὗται γίνονται, καὶ οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν οὐ διαχέονται ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κενοδοξίαν.

This is my second reading through DeWitt, but, admittedly, the first was several years ago and I did not have a firm recollection. I'm currently through Chapter 2 on this reading.

It is valuable that DeWitt has undertaken a comprehensive look at Epicureanism, both in synopsis and in detail. Additionally, his scholarship is obviously deep, and he taught in a number of schools in North America. I also find it interesting that he uses the terms Epicureanism and Epicurean philosophy somewhat interchangeably. I will say that I like his line "the most revered and the most reviled of all founders of thought in the Graeco-Roman world." This is actually a good line and some clever wordplay on DeWitt's part.

However, I find DeWitt has the habit of often asserting certain things with no context or citations which, with a little digging, turn up to be much less definitive or under debate or to be taken out of context. The items I've found just through Chapter 2 give me pause and make me feel that I can't quite take what he writes at face value.

As stated elsewhere on this forum, he also seems to have an agenda in seeing Epicureanism around every Christian corner. His book on Paul delved deeper into that (and I need to re-read that one as well), but he seems to go out of his way to show Epicurus and his philosophy as being incorporated into Christianity albeit hidden until he came along to shine a light on these hidden threads. He reminds me of Gassendi in some respects that way.

Again, I realize I'm only through Chapter 2 and hope these concerns recede into the background, but, right now when they pop up, they serve as barriers to my reading DeWitt with an entirely open mind. The following are illustrative examples from Chapter 1. I'll post other assertions that concern me in the Chapter 2 thread.

Quote

P. 8 Quote: "The mistake is to overlook the terminology and ideology of Epicureanism in the New Testament and to think of its founder as an enemy of religion."

On the idea that Epicurus was not an "enemy of religion," it does seem that Epicurus allowed - even encouraged - participation in the festivals of pagan Greece. He did not want to be seen as an atheist. But to see Epicurean philosophy as not an "enemy of religion," I'd just point to Lucretius' "Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."

Quote

P. 28: Quote: "As a missionary enterprise the activity of Epicureanism was not confined to the school premises. Every convert everywhere became a missionary. In the view of Epicurus philosophy should begin at home and be disseminated from the home. It was his injunction to his disciples "to apply it in their own households, to take advantage of all other intimacies and under no circumstances to slacken in proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy." This feature of the creed possessed the advantage of rendering it independent of schools and tutors; it was able to infiltrate itself into small towns and villages where no schools existed and even into rural areas. It was capable also of winning adherents in social groups untouched by more strictly intellectual systems."

DeWitt is quoting VS 41, but the saying, from my perspective, doesn't seem to sound entirely like what DeWitt says it does:

Quote

VS 41. One must laugh and seek wisdom and tend to one's home life and use one's other goods, and always recount the pronouncements of true philosophy. (γελᾶν ἅμα [simultaneously, together with, at the same time] δεῖ [one must] καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ οἰκονομεῖν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς οἰκειώμασι χρῆσθαι καὶ μηδαμῇ λήγειν τὰς ἐκ τῆς ὀρθῆς φιλοσοφίας φωνὰς ἀφιέντας.)

To me, the saying appears to be instructing us to "to love wisdom" (philosophize) while we do everything in our daily lives. Don't let up! Do all these things simultaneously (ἅμα). Note that several of the alternative translations below put philosophize first when the first word in the original Greek is actually γελᾶν, the infinitive of γελάω "laugh." So the emphasis first in the phrase is on the laughing. The translations should really be something like: "One must laugh and - at the same time - pursue the love of wisdom, administer the rest of one's household affairs, etc." Additionally, I interpret the "never ceasing to proclaim the words of true philosophy" in the sense of "walking the talk." Let others see the true philosophy living through your actions. Proclaim it through the conduct of your life. I don't think this necessarily means you don't also share it verbally with people, but it seemed to me that DeWitt was making more of the "proclaim" part than is necessary. I realize this witnessing theme is *my* interpretation and certainly open to criticism.

Alternative Translations of VS 41:

Quote

Translation 1: At one and the same time we must philosophize, laugh, and manage our household and other business, while never ceasing to proclaim the words of true philosophy.

Translation 2: One must philosophize and at the same time laugh and take care of one’s household and use the rest of our personal goods, and never stop proclaiming the utterances of correct philosophy.

Translation 3: We must laugh and philosophize at the same time and do our household duties and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.

DeWitt also has this to say about Stoicism:

Quote

P. 29: "The battle is not always to the strong. Inherent in Epicureanism was a quiet crusading spirit which quickly extended it over the contemporary world and endowed it with a tenacity unequaled by rival creeds; it flourished for almost seven centuries. The vogue of Stoicism as a militant creed lasted a mere two centuries."

This is one of the assertions just thrown in with no context with which I have problems. I'm no fan of the Stoics but saying they lasted "a mere two centuries" is specious at best. Zeno taught around the 300s BCE, and Marcus Aurelius was a firm adherent of Stoic philosophy in the mid-2nd century CE. That's at least four centuries right there. Additionally, Stoicism may possibly have even influenced the concept of Christ as the Logos in the Gospel of John.

LOL... Point well taken on DRN! I am working through DeWitt and hopefully will be able to share some comments/thoughts soon on Chapt 1 & 2.

I would agree with you on the Buddhist path leading to a more Stoic outlook, at least in my rudimentary understanding of both. I could also see the Buddhist saying it's not "acceptance or resignation" but transcendence of both of those positions... release from samsara and the cycle of rebirth and all that.

Luckily, we have no cycle to be released from as Epicureans! Carpe diem! Death is nothing to us!

Just finished listening to the episode and enjoyed the discussion. I did want to respond to the brief mention of Buddhism and Emptiness and Dependent Arising. From my perspective - or should I say from my subjective perception - I don't think Epicurean philosophy and Buddhist philosophy are that far apart in this regard. They quickly diverge but on these I find echoes in each other.

The idea that entities do not have independent existence (Buddh.), I believe, echoes the idea that the only things that truly exists are atoms and void (Epic.). Buddhists assert the doctrine of the Two Truths: one truth is that the conventional reality of our everyday perceptions *does* exist and this is how we interact with our world on a day-to-day basis; however, the underlying truth is that everything is dependent on everything else and is ultimately empty of its own inherent existence. The examples I've heard are that there's nothing you can point to in a "table" that is the essence of its table-ness. It relies on its component parts to function as a table. Or consider the Greek story of the ship of Theseus. Additionally, I've also heard dependent arising being described as "the universe in a cup of tea": the tea in my cup is dependent on the tea grown in the fields, on the people who pick the leaves, on the sun that shines to make the tea grow, on the parents and grand-parents who gave birth to the people working in the fields, on the clouds that rain on the fields, on the lay of the land that makes the clouds form, on the Earth itself that contains that land, on the solar system, etc., etc., etc. Everything is dependent on everything else.

I find echoes then of this in Epicurean philosophy. Conventional reality exists, that's how we perceive the world. However, ultimately, we are all aggregates of atoms and void and everything reverts to atoms and void and is re-configured into other entities eventually. This is one of the reasons that "death is nothing to us." If our atoms were re-assembled into something that looked like us, it wouldn't be us. We don't ultimately exist (we are atoms and void) although we do conventionally exist and can perceive the world through the Canon and make choices and rejections and have free will (although, I would say, our choices and rejections are predicated on previous choices we've made and our choices are not infinite)... but that might be for another future post.

Keep up the great work. I do hear a much more casual, conversational tone as the group continues the podcasts... and you've made me want to get back to studying De Rerum Natura. Thanks!

I tried taking it again to see which questions I good wrong, and then hit the wrong button to see my individual scores Oops!

The only feedback I would give is that "Which of these is NOT X" questions are sometimes tricky. Maybe more T/F questions? Or can you do select all that apply kinds of questions?

I agree with you that we're not very far apart at all. It sounds to me like it's a matter of emphasis. In fact, I think we agree completely on the idea of the "goal." I think the "pursuit" is the "goal". Happiness, a joyous life, eudaimonia is not really a literal goal - an end-point - but a process. The *goal* is to *lead* a pleasant life.

As to the use of the word "eudaimonia," I'm truly ambivalent.

On the one hand, I fully agree that we need to understand the philosophy in our own language. It doesn't do anybody any good to use words one doesn't understand. It would be like saying "We should pursue удовольствие" if I don't speak Russian (which I don't... I used Google Translate ). That is why good translations are so crucial.

On the other hand, I feel strongly that that's why we should not rely solely on translations and need to return again and again to the actual original Greek or Latin. What did Epicurus, Lucretius, Philodemus and all the others actually write? If there's a discrepancy among translations, what are they translating? Eudaimonia is one of those "untranslatable" words (not really, but bear with me) that pack a lot of meaning into one Greek word but should really be translated as a phrase or several words in English. Eudaimonia is not some cosmic, mysterious, ethereal concept. It's a fine word and meant something concrete to ancient Greeks using it. But when it gets translated simply as "happiness" or "fulfilment" in English those words bring along their own connotations with them, obscuring what ευδαιμονία actually meant when Epicurus decided to use it in his own works. I gladly use Sedley, DeWitt, Tsouna, Nussbaum, Bailey, and many others to inform my understanding of the original texts, but I'll always try to puzzle out from the original and work forward. Translations are sometimes barriers instead of gates.

Quote from Cassius

There are so many details of the philosophy to drill down to verify. Is the Epicurean goal properly described as "eudaimonia?" Would they have maintained that their goal, whatever the term used to describe it, was achievable by everyone?

I am not sure either of those statements apply to either the Stoics or Epicureans....

Sorry it's taken so long to respond to your comments. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to read that talk (warts and all).

There's a lot I would change in this talk, but I think I'll stand by this statement, at least in principle. I'll answer with my understanding from my readings in reverse order:

1. Would they have maintained that their goal, whatever the term used to describe it, was achievable by everyone?

I would say fairly strongly, Yes. Even DeWitt uses the term evangelical to describe there philosophy. There would have been no need to evangelize if the philosophy wasn't applicable to the world. Both the Stoics and Epicureans made their philosophy available to - and attracted to their respective schools of thought - all kinds of people: citizen, slave; Greek, non-Greek; men, women (at least in the case of the Epicureans). The Garden was open to all who sought it out. The philosophy of both schools was taught, as far as I can see, as a way of life open to all. I don't think either school would say *everyone* who tried to live the Stoic or Epicurean life would do it successfully. However, the teachings themselves were made available to all who were curious and asked for instruction. The Academy and Lyceum, on the other hand, were more of exclusive clubs. The Stoic and Epicurean ways of life were achievable by all in the sense that the philosophies were taught for the good of all people and, as far as Epicurus was concerned, the goal of living a pleasurable life was achievable for those who applied his teachings steadfastly.

2. Is the Epicurean goal properly described as "eudaimonia?"

Again, I would say, Yes. Eudaimonia is simply, from my reading, another term for living joyously or pleasantly. "Happiness" is such a watered-down definition. Wikipedia seems to do half decent job of getting at the nuance of the term.

PD 20 and 21 talk about the "the life complete and perfect" (τὸ ... βίον παντελῆ) and PD 5 about the joyous/pleasant life (ἡδέως ζῆν). Eudaimonia is spoken of in similar terms in several places in Epicurus' own works.

The Letter to Menoikos talks several times specifically about eudaimonia:

Quote

Someone who says that the time to love and practice wisdom has not yet come or has passed is like someone who says that the time for happiness [eudaimonia] has not yet come or has passed.

ὁ δὲ λέγων ἢ μήπω τοῦ φιλοσοφεῖν ὑπάρχειν ὥραν ἢ παρεληλυθέναι τὴν ὥραν, ὅμοιός ἐστιν τῷ λέγοντι πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ἢ μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν ὥραν ἢ μηκέτι εἶναι.

Quote

Reflect on what brings happiness [eudaimonia], because if you have that you have everything, but if not you will do everything to attain it.

μελετᾶν οὖν χρὴ τὰ ποιοῦντα τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν [happiness], εἴπερ παρούσης μὲν αὐτῆς πάντα ἔχομεν, ἀπούσης δέ πάντα πράττομεν εἰς τὸ ταύτην ἔχειν.

Quote

Third, keep in mind that some desires are natural whereas others are groundless; that among the natural desires some are natural and necessary whereas others are merely natural; and that among the necessary desires some are necessary for happiness [eudaimonia], some for physical health, and some for life itself.

ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί, καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον· τῶν δὲ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.

The Letter to Pythocles also stresses the importance of eudaimonia:

Quote

For such folly as this would not possess the most ordinary being if ever so little enlightened, much less one who enjoys perfect felicity [eudaimonia].

"All this, Pythocles, you should keep in mind...

οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ζῷον, κἂν <εἰ> μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη, ἡ τοιαύτη μωρία ἐμπέσοι, μὴ ὅτι εἰς παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν [translated as "perfect felicity" above] κεκτημένον.

"Ταῦτα δὴ πάντα, Πυθόκλεις, μνημόνευσον:

παντελῆ is the word meaning "complete and perfect" in PD 20/21. So, here eudaimonia is getting the same modifier: complete and perfect eudaimonia.

Likewise, in VS 33, we read:

Quote

The body cries out to not be hungry, not be thirsty, not be cold. Anyone who has these things, and who is confident of continuing to have them, can rival the gods for happiness [eudaimonia].

σαρκὸς φωνὴ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγοῦν· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν [hope or expect to have] κἂν <διὶ> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο.

Also in Fragment 548, Epicurus writes:

Quote

Happiness [eudaimon] and bliss are not produced by great riches nor vast possessions nor exalted occupations nor positions of power, but rather by peace of mind, freedom from pain, and a disposition of the soul that sets its limits in accordance with nature.

τὸ εὔδαιμον καὶ μακάριον [happiness and blessedness] οὐ χρημάτων πλῆθος οὐδὲ πραγμάτων ὄγκος οὐδʼ ἀρχαί τινες ἔχουσιν οὐδὲ δυνάμεις, ἀλλʼ ἀλυπία καὶ πραότης παθῶν καὶ διάθεσις ψυχῆς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὁρίζουσα.

Diogenes Laertius also uses the word eudaimonia when discussing Epicurus' philosophy in Book X:

[121] Two sorts of happiness [eudaimonia] can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures.

We must now proceed to his letter.

[121] Τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν διχῆ νοεῖσθαι, τήν τε ἀκροτάτην, οἵα ἐστὶ περὶ τὸν θεόν, ἐπίτασιν οὐκ ἔχουσαν: καὶ τὴν <κατὰ τὴν> προσθήκην καὶ ἀφαίρεσιν ἡδονῶν.

Μετιτέον δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐπιστολήν.

And in the paragraph directly before he introduces the Principal Doctrines:

Come, then, let me set the seal, so to say, on my entire work as well as on this philosopher's life by citing his Sovran Maxims,138 therewith bringing the whole work to a close and making the end of it to coincide with the beginning of happiness (eudaimonia).

Καὶ φέρε οὖν δὴ νῦν τὸν κολοφῶνα, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, ἐπιθῶμεν τοῦ παντὸς συγγράμματος καὶ τοῦ βίου τοῦ φιλοσόφου, τὰς Κυρίας αὐτοῦ δόξας παραθέμενοι καὶ ταύταις τὸ πᾶν σύγγραμμα κατακλείσαντες, τέλει χρησάμενοι τῇ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ἀρχῇ.

These demonstrate to me that Epicurus saw eudaimonia as equivalent to leading a joyous, pleasant, and complete life, the goal of following the path laid out by Epicurean philosophy

Very good episode. I wanted to thank Julie in particular for sharing her background as I was also someone initially drawn just to the Ethics of the philosophy. That was the bread and butter as far as I was concerned. "How do I live an Epicurean practice?" Initially, I was similar to how Elayne described some people's reaction with the Physics: It's just science, duh! (to paraphrase). But the more I investigate I can begin to understand how Epicurus built the whole structure to stand on each successive step. I want to delve a little deeper into the Letter to Herodotus now with a different perspective.

And thank you, Julie, for standing up for the Letter to Menoikos

Thank you all for the work you're doing on these!