Posts by Don

Quote from JJElbert

It's simple: he failed to refer each pleasure back to his philosophical control network. This is the meaning of choice and avoidance; if he had remembered the Principle Doctrines, it might have prevented some mistakes!

Well put, Joshua . I think that's a great analogy and demonstrates why it's important to decide on a philosophy of life. That way, you have a "North Star" so to speak to guide you. Having a proven, consistent philosophy (say... Epicureanism? ) provides objective criteria against which to weigh your choices and rejections. We don't follow every pleasure willy-nilly! That's where these people who denigrate Epicureanism go wrong.

Quote from Cassius

I would be very careful there. Fame is one thing, but "public life" is a broad term,...

Now that you put it that way, I would agree. Epicurus was arguably a public figure in the sense that he was a known figure. Did he seek out the publicity/fame? Arguably not, but he didn't shrink from a public fight in his works that were circulated. And we know people tried to malign him during and after his life.

To paraphrase: Some people seek fame; others have fame thrust upon them. It's also a matter of what they do with that fame once it is there.

KD 17 Ὁ δίκαιος ἀταρακτότατος, ὁ δ’ ἄδικος πλείστης ταραχῆς γέμων.

One who is just, moral, and virtuous has peace of mind; but one who is unjust and amoral is overflowing with agitation, confusion, and uncertainty. (Translation is my own)(ταραχῆς, i.e., the opposite of αταραξία).

This Principal Doctrine just makes sense. If you are just in your dealings with other people, moral in your actions, and do your best to display fair behavior, you have no need to be troubled. You've done your best. Don't get me wrong. Bad things will happen to you, and some people still won't like you. But you don't control that. Your mind can be at peace. On the other hand, if you treat people poorly, display amoral behavior, and are basically an objectively poor excuse for a human being, you have reason to be troubled! People will be out to get you. If you're the latter, you need to have some frank speech with yourself and get on the right track.

To quote (Wil) Wheaton's Law: "Don't be a dick!"* If you take his advice, you and all of us who interact with you will be the better for it.

Wheaton's Law: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law

(Updated 7/15/23)

Exactly! I hadn't thought of that, but I would agree with you. That makes sense!

And what are left with from most people?

Λάθε βιώσας = (In a stuffy, stereotypical academic accent) "Oh, yes. From these two words taken out of context, we can *clearly* see that Epicurus advocated being a hermit." LOL

Quote

"Now for my part I have long been firmly convinced that Epicurus was mistaken in that view of his, but whether it be proper to urge into public life any and every man, both him who lacks natural abilities and him who is not yet completely equipped, is a point that deserves the most careful consideration." Julian

I hear you! Julian was the last gasp of pagan learning, but he wasn't an Epicurean advocate for sure. That emphasis I added above to his quote is what's making me think that Epicurus was just talking about "urg[ing] into public life any and every man." Romans were VERY big into getting involved in politics, so any suggestion that this wasn't laudatory would have been jumped on.

I did find another source for this from the Emperor Julian in his letter to Themistius the Philosopher. From this, it appears Julian is saying the context of Epicurus' láthe biōsas was simply "Don't get involved in politics" plain and simple. Julian was writing 200+ years after Plutarch but could still easily have had access to far more primary Epicurean sources than we do. If that's the case, it would seem Plutarch was purposefully mischaracterizing the saying and taking it out of context, blowing it all out of proportion to its original intent. I know... Hard to believe he'd do that!

EXCELLENT points, Cassius ! Fragments are just that: fragments devoid of context, tantalizing though they may be. And I firmly agree we shouldn't get too hung up on them. They're so tempting, though, since we have so little of Epicurus' texts to dig into. Alas!

I had also forgotten before writing this that the source for this fragment is Plutarch's diatribe against this very Fragment itself. So, already in that respect, we're at a disadvantage! The very source of the (let's say) "infamous" saying of Epicurus is a polemic against that very "infamous" saying of Epicurus taken out of context to attack him! That's a vicious circle if I ever saw one.

And these lines from Plutarch lead me to believe I *may* be on the right track (or I have enough to cover myself), emphasis added:

And in fine, to what purpose, Epicurus, did you keep a public table? Why that concourse of friends, that resort of fair young men, at your doors? Why so many thousand lines so elaborately composed and writ upon Metrodorus, Aristobulus, and Chaeredemus, that death itself might not rob us of them; if virtue must be doomed to oblivion, art to idleness and inactivity, philosophy to silence, and all a man's happiness must be forgotten?

Again, I freely admit we do not have Epicurus' context, merely the disgruntled ramblings of a fierce critic. But from my perspective as an aspiring Epicurean, I see that Epicurus invited people in to his public table. He greeted people at his door. He wrote but didn't see the need to pontificate in the agora. One may say he lived, let's say at most, unobtrusively but was NOT disengaged from society, his friends, and those that sought him out. He most likely said/wrote the words láthe biōsas since Plutarch is so worked up about it in ancient times, but we have no surviving text of his. Plutarch simply takes láthe biōsas out of context and runs with it... And HE gets to be the last word on it for posterity! That's aggravating.

[Note: I've also found Attalus' website helpful for the sources, U551 in our current case here.]

Fragment 551 famously reads λάθε βιώσας and is usually translated as "Live unknown." It could also be translated as "Live hidden," "Live unnoticed," or "Live while escaping notice."

But how do we square this coming from Epicurus who is known two thousand years after he died. Did he live by this maxim? We can't say Epicurus was even unknown during his life. So how are we to understand láthe biōsas as it pertains to him and ourselves?

Epicurus encouraged people to shun the world of politics and the public life. Attracting notice to yourself in politics or in pursuit of power was a dangerous path and didn't lead to pleasure, nor aponia, nor ataraxia. This appears to have direct applicability to Epicureans in general.

"Keep your head down!" might be a more appropriate way of paraphrasing this Fragment. Or even better maybe "Don't be obtrusive" or "Don't get in people's faces."

Epicurus certainly advocated helping people find their way to ataraxia. Why else would he have written letters and epitomes, have founded the Garden, and have insisted that we cultivate friendships one-on-one. Epicurus didn't say "live unknown to all of existence." He didn't say "go live as a hermit." He was known to close friends and those who had an interest in listening to his philosophy and deciding which pleasures to choose and which to reject. He even made a point of arguing his case against his detractors and those he found espousing unsound doctrine. He didn't "live unknown." You could find him *if* you wanted to. He just didn't teach in the agora or in the stoas. You came to him. "Hey, you know where to find me. It's not hard. But I'm not going to get in your face or make you listen to me if you don't want to. But you could really use my help."

Look at Diogenes of Oenoanda. He put up a solid stone wall that's stood the test of time, albeit in a ruined state. He made Epicureanism available to the masses, but you could walk by his wall and not read it if you wanted to. He lived unknown again in the sense that "I'm going to undertake building this wall, but I can't make you read it. But you could really use my help."

We need to be *willing* to live unknown to the masses, not to go looking for celebrity, but to be available to our friends and those who may seek our advice. Don't go looking for your name in lights or your face on the cover of TIME magazine. If it *happens,* roll with it. But don't seek it out. However, you can have meaningful conversations. You can form the bonds of friendship. You can even make plans for your funerals and write your wills just as Epicurus did! Just know that there are no guarantees once you die that you'll be known… and learn to be okay with that. It's nothing to us. We can make ourselves available to the curious, but we don't need to stand on the street corner like some itinerant preacher handing out tracts and screaming at passers-by.

To get a more nuanced idea of λάθε, consider VS 7: It is easy to commit an injustice undetected, but impossible to be sure that you have escaped detection. ἀδικοῦντα λαθεῖν μὲν δύσκολον, πίστιν δὲ λαβεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαθεῖν ἀδύνατον. This "undetected" connotation sheds another light on λαθε βιωσας. It appears to be saying that we can think we're "undetected" or unnoticed, but chances are that somehow we're going to be found out sooner or later. If we take Fragment 551 and VS 7 in tandem, both can seem to inform the other. Consider if we would say "It is easy to attempt to live undetected, but impossible to be sure that you have escaped detection." I'm not saying that's entirely legitimate but indulge it as a thought experiment and it expands the meaning of both.

This is how I'm beginning to understand the meaning of λάθε βιώσας.

I'm curious to read how others interpret this well-known fragment and how they believe it may be applicable (or not) to an Epicurean practice.

Quote from Godfrey

A more pleasant practice, aside from Josh's, is semi-regular viewing of the movie Harold and Maude. I haven't watched it in a long, long time though so I'm not aware of where it falls on the philosophical spectrum.

I know of that film but never had the opportunity to watch it. I'll admit that after reading the synopsis on Wikipedia, I'm intrigued. Thanks for the recommendation!

It doesn't take much urging for me to go down the research route And so…

VS 46 τὰς φαύλας συνηθείας ὥσπερ ἄνδρας πονηροὺς πολὺν χρόνον μέγα βλάψαντες τελείως ἐκδιώκομεν.

I would agree that VS 46 encourages us to take our choices seriously. The key words are τελείως ἐκδιώκομεν. I've seen them translated various ways:

• We utterly eliminate
• ...let us utterly drive from us.
• We cast off…
• Let us completely banish…

These do get at the general connotation of the words, but we must remember to never be satisfied with one translation for each brings a shade of meaning and dig into dictionaries to see how the original classical Greek was used:

τελείως means "absolutely, completely"

ἐκδιώκομεν means "We chase away, we banish"

So we are encouraged not simply to "get rid of" or "eliminate" something (what we'll get to in one moment) but to banish it completely so it will never return; chase it away absolutely, so far away it won't ever come back.

What are we chasing away? τὰς φαύλας συνηθείας St-Andre translates this as "common customs." I prefer "trivial, worthless habits" to make it more personal. I interpret these to be those habits that you don't even think of but that are harming your ability to pursue pleasure and are of no positive value. VS 46 describes these habits as being akin to "worthless, no-good people" that have been harming you for a long time. Too long! Drive them away from you completely, so far they'll never return!

This gets at the same immediacy and energy with which we should make our choices and rejections.

Quote from JJElbert

Another good practice, which I have occasionally employed; try to visualize the field of void and matter that stretches away from you in every direction as you stand, for example, in a quiet wood, or a crowded and busy intersection.

I like that! I can see how it would put things into perspective.

Powerful posts, Joshua . Thank you very much for those insights, especially the Auden quote.

One of my incentives for posting this thread was to get a conversation going on what it means for an Epicurean to "meditare mortem" as Epicurus urged us (via Seneca at least), and I've been pleased with everyone's passion and insights.

I fully agree that Buddhists and Epicureans come at this from two diametrically opposed sides, and you did an excellent job in summarizing that difference. Your brief notes on the Buddhist view of a human existence was spot on! It's merely the best vehicle for getting out of the cycle of rebirth. That isn't even in the same realm as Epicurus!

And an Epicurean meditation, reflection, or practice (choose your translation of meditatio or μελετά) of death would not necessarily include the visualizations of dead bodies, one's own or others, but it could. That's nature! There's nothing intrinsically morbid about it - only culturally. I would recommend anyone look into the "death positive" and "green burial" movement especially Caitlin Doughty's work. I've found it fascinating and eye-opening recently.

From my perspective then, what should I get from engaging in "Meditare mortem" as an Epicurean?

• By meditating on my own death, I should come to an unshakeable understanding of the briefness of my life and the necessity of pursuing pleasure now and remembering past pleasures while I can.
• By meditating on the death and eventual decomposition of my body, I should come to a visceral understanding that I am not separate from these arrangements of atoms and, when I die, that arrangement goes away. I no longer exist and therefore death is nothing to me.
• By meditating on the death of friends and loved ones, I should firmly grasp the reality that everyone's life is brief and we get only one chance to show those closest to us how we love and appreciate them. We have no assurance that when we part from someone (as in going to work or leaving the house) we will see them again, we should be mindful of leaving pleasantly.

That last one contrasts starkly with the Stoic reflection on death which has the potential to engender a detachment... Although it doesn't need to. I've seen Stoic articles reflect similar sentiments to the one above, but I didn't really but it entirely from them.

None of this is necessarily easy and in some respects may be painful at first. But, from my perspective, it falls into the "experiencing a pain now for long-term pleasure in the future" practice.

Powerful posts, Joshua . Thank you very much for those insights, especially the Auden quote.

One of my incentives for posting this thread was to get a conversation going on what it means for an Epicurean to "meditare mortem" as Epicurus urged us (via Seneca at least), and I've been pleased with everyone's passion and insights.

I fully agree that Buddhists and Epicureans come at this from two diametrically opposed sides, and you did an excellent job in summarizing that difference. Your brief notes on the Buddhist view of a human existence was spot on! It's merely the best vehicle for getting out of the cycle of rebirth. That isn't even in the same realm as Epicurus!

And an Epicurean meditation, reflection, or practice (choose your translation of meditatio or μελετά) of death would not necessarily include the visualizations of dead bodies, one's own or others, but it could. That's nature! There's nothing intrinsically morbid about it - only culturally. I would recommend anyone look into the "death positive" and "green burial" movement especially Caitlin Doughty's work. I've found it fascinating and eye-opening recently.

From my perspective then, what should I get from engaging in "Meditare mortem" as an Epicurean?

• By meditating on my own death, I should come to an unshakeable understanding of the briefness of my life and the necessity of pursuing pleasure now and remembering past pleasures while I can.
• By meditating on the death and eventual decomposition of my body, I should come to a visceral understanding that I am not separate from these arrangements of atoms and, when I die, that arrangement goes away. I no longer exist and therefore death is nothing to me.
• By meditating on the death of friends and loved ones, I should firmly grasp the reality that everyone's life is brief and we get only one chance to show those closest to us how we love and appreciate them. We have no assurance that when we part from someone (as in going to work or leaving the house) we will see them again, we should be mindful of leaving pleasantly.

That last one contrasts starkly with the Stoic reflection on death which has the potential to engender a detachment... Although it doesn't need to. I've seen Stoic articles reflect similar sentiments to the one above, but I didn't really but it entirely from them.

None of this is necessarily easy and in some respects may be painful at first. But, from my perspective, it falls into the "experiencing a pain now for long-term pleasure in the future" practice.

I'm not sure this counts as a daily practice but I'm sharing an image of my keychain I carry every day. I made both the SFOTSE ring (Sic Fac Omnia Tamquam Spectet Epicurus) to remind me of my Epicurean practice and the ring with the 4 wooden beads behind it to remind me of the Tetrapharmakos. I will find myself "rosary-ing" the 4 beads in the elevator of my parking garage at the end of the day sometimes silently reciting the Tetrapharmakos (in ancient Greek, of course ).

Quote from elli

So, the main point of Epicurean Philosophy is to liberate us from those fears that are produced with empty beliefs and the opinions by the many which say that there is god's providence that a god created the Universe, so here comes and the lust of immortality and the worse here comes the necessity.

Well said, Elli !

This has been a pleasurable intellectual exercise (and one I'll plan on exploring on my own for awhile) but, for the time being, I can't think of a better way to tie up this particular thread. Thanks!

Okay, after reading DeWitt I remain intrigued by this possibility of the gods' mental "incorruptibility". It sounds like the gods' "imperishability" isn't a given according to DeWitt (if I'm reading him and his ancient sources correctly); the gods have to work at it. Physically, they are animals composed of atoms and void, just like us. But it could be that their disposition or mental faculties are "eternally" unchanged - if they maintain control.

And so we are urged to consider living a life worthy of the gods in Epicurean writings, something that would at least theoretically be achievable if we look at it in this sense.

Okay, I need to dig a little more in the sources. I fully realize I could be WAAAY off base here... But I am finding pleasure in doing the research and in entertaining the ideas!

Quote from Cassius

Eugenious I am not sure I understand your comment. As far as getting hung up, the original point, was it not, was whether an Epicurean god is "immortal" or not by nature? And your secondary point was that you were concerned that "immortal" might mean that this attribute was irrelevant to humans, since humans are not immortal? And perhaps an even more subtle point was whether DeWitt was correct in not using "immortal" in his translation?

I think ultimately Dewitt is indicating his value by pointing us in the direction that you are looking, which is not what "immortal" conveys. DeWitt's view is at least in part that like humans, gods too must act to sustain their lives and happiness; they are not mystically immortal.

Sorry on two counts:

1) I haven't had a chance to read all the DeWitts you graciously posted. Mea culpa on that. That's next on my list.

2) My initial hang up was indeed not being able to get past the idea that the "gods" (blessed beings) were said to be ἄφθαρτον which I took to mean "immortal" as that was my initial understanding of the word. How could that work, I wanted to know.

BUT now, with Elli 's post I find myself very fascinated by the idea that ἄφθαρτον could mean "immortal" in the sense of "unchanging" when confronted by external circumstances. Blessed beings remain unchanged ("eternally" the same) whether they are confronted by anger or gratitude, making the second part of KD 1 directly enhancing the meaning of the first part. Neither anger nor gratitude matters to them. They are self-sufficient, they are not buffeted by the waves of Chance, they remain unperturbed and choose to not concern themselves with the worries of the world. THAT is an intriguing concept to me. It's not a PHYSICAL "imperishability" but a MENTAL one! And that would be of direct applicability to our own existence. One that could serve as an exemplar to us mortals.

Now, whether any of this is correct and/or orthodox and/or novel and/or academically accepted is another matter entirely.

Now, after all that, I'm off to read DeWitt's excerpts and your previous posts!!

Quote from elli

Yes, I agree totally with the word as used by DeWitt. The word in english and greek for "άφθαρτα" is "incorruptible" or "untouched" by the corruptible, and on the basis of Ethics I explained - as much as I could - the reasons why this word is the accurate one.

I may be mistaken but I think what Elli is saying is that "άφθαρτα" means "incorruptible" or "un-corruptible" in the sense of "untouchable" by anything "corrupt". Which, to me, makes perfect sense when you look at the last half of KD 1. That says "affected by neither anger nor gratitude." So what is being described is not a being that is eternal or imperishable in the sense that it lasts forever, but rather a being that is "untouched", that "remains the same" whether battered by gratitude or anger. That is very intriguing to me (if I'm understanding her correctly).

We seem to be getting hung up on what English word is used in translation. That's secondary from my perspective. Epicurus didn't speak English. We need to understand the connotations of the ancient Greek text itself and then decide the best English paraphrase, whether that's a single word or a phrase that best encapsulates the meaning of the original.

I greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion. It's truly a pleasure and also a way for me to investigate my own understanding. I'll need to read your post thoroughly before responding but am sure, in the end, there will be more that unites us as Epicureans than divides is.

Thank you. And that image is a thrill!! I was not aware it was online. I immediately went to the British Library site to view the whole digitized manuscript! I even added the website as an External Link to Diogenes' Wikipedia article. Ευχαριστώ!!