Posts by Don

For what it's worth, here's my translation of the pertinent section in the letter to Menoikeus:

127f. Ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί,

• Ἀναλογιστέον "consider..."
• τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν "of the desires, yearnings"
  • "Consider then of the desires, on the one hand, are the φυσικαί "natural ones'
  • φυσικαί (physikai)
    • English physical, physics
  • on the other, the κεναί 'empty, fruitless, vain, void ones."
    • κεναί is also again the word used when Epicurus talks about atoms and void.

127g. καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον·

• "And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessities; on the other hand, the natural ones only."
  • ἀναγκαῖαι "necessary, essential; (if a plural noun as here) necessities"

127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι,

• "then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, there are those necessary for eudaimonia;

Those necessary for eudaimonia are open to interpretation but must be based on Epicurus's philosophy.

127i. αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.

• ἀοχλησία "freedom from disturbance"
• σώματος genitive singular of σῶμᾰ
• σῶμᾰ "the body; one's material body or existence"

“then, those [necessary] for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those [necessary] for life itself.”

There are some translations that interpret αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν to mean only things like clothing and shelter - those things that provide "freedom from disturbance" for the body, that is for one's physical existence. That isn't literally what is written so that is simply one interpretation. Those kinds of things - clothing and shelter - would seem to fall under the final category of those necessary for life. So, this category should catch those between eudaimonia and those necessary for life. This is an interesting category.

I would contend that those "necessary for life itself" are those essentials at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, sleep, air, etc. Again, clothing and shelter would seem to fall into this category.

PS. It's important to remember that this categorization tool deals with desires for something. I realize it's hard to distinguish between desires for specific pleasurable outcomes or activities and the pleasurable outcomes or activities themselves. I find it difficult myself. To provide a different way of reading that section with additional context adding in the word desires instead of just "ones" and "those":

Furthermore, on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain desires.' And of the natural desires, on the one hand, are the necessary desires; on the other, the desires which are only natural; then, of the necessary desires: on the one hand, those desires necessary for eudaimonia; then, those desires necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those desires necessary for life itself.

Those are fascinating articles. Thanks for sharing, Godfrey . To directly respond to:

Quote from Godfrey

Something that needed water mixed in just to be palatable as well as safe to drink?

No, I don't see any evidence of that. One thing counter to that idea I've read in the past is about the symposiarch who ran the drinking parties (symposia, literally "together-drinking") being in charge of how much water to mix in the wine as the evening progressed to regulate the level of drunkenness.

Wine was a ubiquitous beverage with a wide range of qualities and flavors. But it was, from everything I've read, all potable. Granted, we may find some products less palatable ourselves but we're spoiled from modern stabilisation and consistency.

I found this intriguing in the one article:

Quote

Drinking wine that was not mixed with water (άκρατος οίνος) was considered barbaric. Such wine without water was used only as medicine for the sick or during travel as a tonic.

That Greek is the same word that showed up in our texts above.

For anyone curious about retsina:

Retsina - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Bryan

could go (emphasis added)

Letter to Herodotus: "Furthermore, the atoms, which have no void in them--out of which composite bodies arise and into which they are dissolved--vary indefinitely in their shapes ..."

For every quality changes, but the atoms do not change, since, when the composite bodies are dissolved, there must needs be a permanent something, solid and indissoluble, left behind, which makes change possible...

For all these, whether small or great, have been separated off from special conglomerations of atoms ; and all things are again dissolved, some faster, some slower, some through the action of one set of causes, others through the action of another. [It is clear, then, that he also makes the worlds perishable, as their parts are subject to change. Elsewhere he says the earth is supported on the air.]

Quote from Cassius

Yes it seems that the battle of Philippi could easily have gone the other way, and it's fascinating to think of what might have changed if a devoted Epicurean (as opposed to Caesar, who may have been Epicurean to some extent but didn't seem so philosophically inclined) had become one of the most powerful men in Rome for a much longer time.

Oh, there's alternative history fiction I'd read

Before we go too far down the rabbit hole of questioning the authorship of the letter to Pythocles, that translation of mine is a translation from the French of Les Epicuriens which "fills in" a lot of conjecture.

Here's the relevant section of PHerc 1005.
[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩ ἐρχόμενον ἀκριβεί-]
αι πρὸ̣[ς τὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν],
[πε]ρὶ πολλῶν ἡγ̣[εῖσ]θαι [τἀ-]
κε̣[ί]νοις ἀρέ̣[σ]κοντ' , [ἐκ] τ̣ῆς̣ ἀ̣[ρ-]
5χῆς ὑποψί[α]ν τινὰ̣ [λ]α̣μβά-
ν[ει]ν ὡς περί τινων ἐπι-
στολῶ̣ν̣ καὶ τῆς [Πρὸς Πυ-]
θ̣οκλέα περὶ̣ μ̣[ε]τεώρων
ἐπιτομῆς καὶ τοῦ Περὶ ἀ-
10ρ̣[ετ]ῶ̣[ν], καὶ τῶν εἰς Μητρό-
δωρον ἀναφερομένων
Ὑποθηκῶν καὶ τῶν Μαρ-
τυριῶν καὶ μᾶλλον [δ]ὲ̣
τοῦ Πρὸς τὸν Πλάτωνο̣ς
15Γοργίαν δευτέρου, καὶ τῶν
εἰς Πολύαινον τοῦ Πρὸς
τοὺς ῥήτορας καὶ τοῦ̣ Περὶ
σελήνης καὶ τῶν εἰς Ἕρ̣-
μαρχον· ἐξέλεξεν δὲ καὶ
20[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] γεγραμμένω̣[ν]

Sketched 1803-1806 by Giuseppe Casanova

Engraved 1844-1861 by Vincenzo Corazza

The idea that Zeno questioned the authorship of the letter to Pythocles is speculative at best, unnecessarily provocative to be provocative to be less charitable. I will say that, of I remember, On Piety (the famous Obbink translation one) is only ascribed to Philodemus on the basis of one initial Φ... in that papyrus and is conjectured to be written possibly by Phaedrus, the scholarch of the Garden.

Things get messy with old texts, but I see no good reason to question Epicurus as the author of the three letters in Diogenes Laertius at this time.

Quote from Bryan

he took his own life by drinking neat wine."

-- Pausanias, Description of Greece 10.23.12 (2nd century AD)

ἑκουσίως ἀφεῖναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκράτου πίνοντα τοῦ οἴνου.

DL10.15 Hermippus relates that [Epicurus] entered a bronze bath of lukewarm water and asked for unmixed wine,

Ἕρμιππος ἐμβάντα αὐτὸν εἰς πύελον χαλκῆν κεκραμένην ὕδατι θερμῷ καὶ αἰτήσαντα ἄκρατον ῥοφῆσαι:...

Just had to check it was the same word. Sure enough. ἄκρατον

This is the word used in Epicurus' letter:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, τελευτ-αῖος

"Τὴν μακαρίαν ἄγοντες καὶ ἅμα τελευταίαν ἡμέραν τοῦ βίου ἐγράφομεν ὑμῖν ταυτί.

Why does he use ἐγράφομεν "we write"? 1st person plural?

I had to check the Greek:

ἑκουσίως ἀφεῖναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκράτου πίνοντα τοῦ οἴνου.

Sure enough, it seems to be just wine unmixed with water. That's not fatal, last time I experimented myself... Just sayin'

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἄκρα_τος

Exactly, Bryan I'll just point back to what was said a year ago...

Thread

General Notes On Fundamentals of Nature

This thread is for discussion of the list of twelve fundamentals such as suggested by DeWitt or Clay here:

http://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/twelve-fundamentals-of-nature/

Cassius

June 13, 2024 at 10:23 PM

Quote from Patrikios

“Of the Twelve Principles the most important was the third: "The universe consists of atoms and void."

There is no extant text by Epicurus called the Twelve Principles. DeWitt came up with those on his own and gave his list the name of a lost text. I'm not saying "the universe consists of atoms and void" isn't a fundamental principle, but there is no way Dewitt should be saying it's "the third." Sorry. This aggravates me every time it comes up.

FWIW .. Here's my take on that...

And please remember, it's not "happy happy joy joy" on the rack, the wise one is experiencing εὐδαίμονα (eudaimonia), well-being. See numerous other threads on this forum where we've discussed, dissected, and dived down that eudaimonic rabbit hole.

It sounds like a great experience! Sorry I couldn't make it.

Quote from Don

No promises, but maybe I'll try to drop by for a little.

Egads. Just finished sweaty yard work. I won't be able to attend. All the best to everyone!!

Quote from Cassius

I was thinking Don might weigh in from another direction as well. Don is very strong on PD10 being a reference to reprobate acts being bad because they do in fact lead to pain in most cases.

Okay, now having re-read the proem, I will weigh in from my customary ( Cassius may say predictable ) direction. To me, it seems Lucretius is setting the imaginary hazards against the real hazards of living a pleasurable life. In practical terms, those activities - not abstract vices but real-life activities involving those behaviors - likely lead to more pain than pleasure in the long run. That's my take on PD10 + 11 + 12 (I take those as a unit) and that's my take here. Indulge in these of you wish. There's no divine commandments. But you'll have to reap the consequences.

Wasn't Hercules a favorite of the Stoics? By setting up Epicurus' deeds as greater than those of Hercules, Lucretius would in a way be thumbing his nose at the Stoics.

Great episode everyone. 🎉

One nit to pick: While I realize it's a common English idiom, my contention remains that we have to be careful using phrases like "when we're dead" or "being dead" and so on.

We can't "be" dead. When we are, death is not. When death is, we are not. Perpetuating that idiom undercuts "death is no thing." "After we die" is fine. "When we have died" would work. "When we're dead" could be taken as admitting there's a "we" that could "be" dead, could sense "being dead." Don't give the eternalists an opening.

No promises, but maybe I'll try to drop by for a little.

That's a good one.

I literally have this VS hanging on my door frame at work (Greek large font, English caption)

οὐ δεῖ λυμαίνεσθαι τὰ παρόντα τῶν ἀπόντων ἐπιθυμίᾳ, ἀλλʼ ἐπιλογίζεσθαι ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα τῶν εὐκταίων ἦν.

VS35. Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for.

Quote from Rolf

Epicurus using the word "blame" in the second quote makes sense to me, as I read it as him saying that we can only hold ourselves accountable for what is in our control

I'd say you're firmly on base.

Here's that section from my Menoikeus translation, and I just realized I need to correct the text. Here is the correct version:

133j. ᾧ καὶ τὸ μεμπτὸν καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον παρακολουθεῖν πέφυκεν.

καὶ τὸ μεμπτὸν καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον

μεμπτὸν "to be blamed; blameworthy"

ἐναντίον "opposite, contrary"

This phrase is normally translated as some permutation of “both blame and praise.” However, the word "praise/praiseworthy" is not in the Greek but implied by the juxtaposition of καὶ τὸ μεμπτὸν καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον which literally means "that which is blameworthy and that which is its opposite."

παρακολουθεῖν "following beside, following closely, c. dat., Dem.: of a physician, π. νοσήματι Plat.; so, π. τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς Dem.: of an audience, to follow with the mind, Aeschin."

πέφυκεν "brought forth, produced"

Which brings us to the end of verse 133 and our consolidated literal translation:

Seeing that, whom do you consider is better or more powerful than one who holds pious beliefs concerning the gods; one who has absolutely no fears concerning death; one who has rationally determined the τέλος of one's natural state; and the one who grasps that, on the one hand, good things (namely pleasures) are both easily attained and easily secured, and, on the other hand, evil things (or pains) are either short in time or brief in suffering; someone who laughs at Fate which is introduced onto the stage of life by many as the mistress of all things? For that person, even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, for although necessity is beyond our control, they see that chance is unstable and there is no other master beyond themselves, so that blame and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves.