Posts by Don

First thoughts...

Cicero is earlier than Diogenes, so he would take precedence?

Hermarchus was Epicurus' successor, so addressing it to him makes sense?

Two letters?? Least likely in my mind

Good catch! For ease of reference...

Cicero

30 96 "But I must not digress too far. Let me repeat the dying words of Epicurus, to prove to you the discrepancy between his practice and his principles: 'Epicurus to Hermarchus, greeting. I write p189 these words,' he says, 'on the happiest, and the last, day of my life. I am suffering from diseases of the bladder and intestines, which are of the utmost possible severity.' Unhappy creature! If pain is the Chief Evil, that is the only thing to be said. But let us hear his own words. 'Yet all my sufferings,' he continues, 'are counterbalanced by the joy which I derive from remembering my theories and discoveries. I charge you, by the devotion which from your youth up you have displayed towards myself and towards philosophy, to protect the children of Metrodorus.'

Diogenes L

10.22 And when near his end he wrote the following letter to Idomeneus :

"On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could augment them ; but over against them all I set gladness of mind at the remembrance of our past conversations. But I would have you, as becomes your life-long attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus."

Here's the official transliteration:

χων πορευόμενοι καθάπερ ἡμεῖς
[δ]ι' ἀέρος. πρὸς δὲ τὸ τρίτον, ὅτι πο-
τὲ μὲν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπαραλλά-
κτων μεταβησόμεθ', ὅταν ἦι τι
5δισταζόμενον τῶν περὶ [αὐ]τὰ
συμβαιν[όν]των, τῶι δὲ τὸ [μὲν ἐ-]
ξ ἐναργεία̣ς καταλαμβάν[ε]σθαι
τὸ δὲ μὴ πρόδηλον εἶναι, [χρ]ησόμε-
θα σημείωι τῶι βλεπομέ[ν]ωι πρὸς
10τὴν παραδοχὴν τοῦ φα[ινο]μέ-
νου· ποτὲ δὲ [ἀπὸ τ]ῶν οὐκ [ἀπ]αραλ-
λάκτων, ἐ[φὸ] καὶ καθὸ μ[ετ]έχει
τῆς αὐτ[ῆς γε] κοινότη[το]ς τῶν
ὁμοίων α̣[ὑτοῖ]ς̣ συμπτωμάτων,
οἷον ὅταν̣ [τινὰ] μὲν ἀνθρώποις
μ̣[όνο]ι̣ς̣ ἐ̣[οίκ]η<ι>, τινὰ δ' ἐο̣[ικότα τ]ῶ̣[ι θ]ε̣-
ῶ̣ι̣ [ζ]ῶιά ἐστ̣ιν. εὐστόχως ἄ[ρα τ]ῆ̣ι ἐ[κ]
ζώ[ι]ω̣ν μετα̣βάσει χ[ρησόμεθα],
νο[μίζοντες] οὐδὲν [κωλύειν]
[μὴ τῶι φρονεῖν μ]ὲν ἀνθρ̣[ώποις]
ὡ[μοιωμένον] τὸν θεὸν ὑπ[ά]ρχ[ειν]
δ[ιὰ τὸ τὸν] ἄνθρωπον φρο̣ν[ή-]
σε[ως μόνον τῶν] παρ' ἡμῖν ζώιων
δεκτικ̣[όν, φρ]ονήσεως δὲ χωρὶς
μ̣[ὴ νοεῖσθ', ἀλλ]ὰ̣ μὴ γεννᾶσθαι
συνεσ[τηκένα]ι̣ δ' ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ
σώμα[τος· καὶ ἔσ]τ̣α̣ι ζῶιον σὺν
τούτωι [καὶ ἀθ]ά[νατον]. πρὸς...

The "body...........'living being'" line is highlighted below...

Quote from Eikadistes

Ghost Castle in Cleveland

I'll bet I pass it on my way to work everyday

What a great find, Bryan !

And check out all the usages of that verb:

Greek

@Eikadistes : I like your characterization of that, too:

Quote from Eikadistes

This sort of suggests to me that the "space between worlds" would have been perceived as a creative continuum in which re-arrangements of particles occurs.

all around!!

Yes, β as v instead of b may have started for some dialects of Greek in the Koine period. Classical Greek and Homeric definitely had "b". Βάρβαρος was definitely barbaros, for example.

I typically used Υ/υ for U, V, and Y in my "code." Unless it came at the beginning, then ι: ιελλο συβμαριν or ΙΕΛΛΟ ΣΥΒΜΑΡΙΝ.

See also

Ranieri's Greek Pronunciation Chronology

All Greek w/ Alternative Coaeval Pronunciations All Greek with Alternative Coaeval Phonemes,Luke Amadeus Ranieri's GREEK PRONUNCIATION CHRONOLOGY Spreadsheet…

docs.google.com

I have found there's no better way to get to know the alphabet - speaking as middle schooler me - than to try and write English in Greek letters. I literally took notes in junior high in Greek letters.. and that's what eventually put me on the path to try and learn Greek ("Well, if I'm writing in these letters, I should really know some of the language.") It's slow going at first. Write your name, write family members names, write pet names, write short sentences. Try to get "fluent" enough to write your shopping list in Greek letters. Write notes to yourself. Do you "to do" list. The next time you go to the grocery store, try something like:

• μιλκ
• εγγς
• βανανας
• βρεακφαστ σερεαλ
• στραυβερρι πρεσερυες
• κλεενεξ

See if you can "decipher" those.

You need to be a little creative. Ancient Greek didn't have c, f (use φ), h, j, q, v, or w, and we don't typically use ps, kh, and other such letters, unless you want to try a sentence like "ἑρ λιψ υερε κρακκεδ φρομ θε κολδ." Try deciphering that, too.

It becomes a kind of code for awhile, fun to play around with.

If you try this, the letters will become second nature, THEN you can start transliterating actual Greek words much easier... and then on to translation!

NOTE: The video uses "Erasmian" pronunciation. I would recommend looking at Luke Ranieri's stuff on Polymathy, etc. including https://lukeranieri.com/wp-content/upl…-2021-11-21.pdf

Chiming in...

While the "then's" could be taken as hierarchical, they could also just be identifying three co-equal kinds of desires: for eudaimonia, for freedom of disturbance for the body, and for life.

The life one is interesting, because I could also take the "natural" desires as a desire for things like food, shelter, etc.

For those who don't want to go to the trouble of downloading my paper, here is the pertinent section. And all of this is open to further discussion:

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.

Is that a fragment of a letter from Epicurus?

Lindus - Wikipedia

Lindos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Have not read but skimmed: talks about Epicureans and Euclid regarding mathematics:

Some Thoughts on the Epicurean Critique of Mathematics.pdf

Quote from Cassius

DeWitt is not the only commentator to take the position that there were twelve fundamentals and attempt to enumerate them - so does Diskin Clay, someone who is well recognized among mainstreatm commentators. His list is much the same, though not identical, to DeWitt's. See Clay's "Epicurus Last Will and Testament."

I feel I would me slacking if I didn't play the gadfly here and point to this thread from June of this year when it comes to the "Twelve Fundamentals." I have nothing else to add to what I said in that thread, but it feels pertinent to this current conversation:

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

130, right?

. [130] τῇ μέντοι συμμετρήσει καὶ συμφερόντων καὶ ἀσυμφόρων βλέψει ταῦτα πάντα κρίνειν καθήκει. χρώμεθα γὰρ τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῷ κατά τινας χρόνους ὡς κακῷ, τῷ δὲ κακῷ τοὔμπαλιν ὡς ἀγαθῷ.

Where was I getting my take then?! Oh, I left it out of my full translation but not the commentary. That's what I get for looking at a translation (even mine!) and not returning to the books.

Here's the line in question ..

130b. χρώμεθα γὰρ τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῷ κατά τινας χρόνους ὡς κακῷ, τῷ δὲ κακῷ τοὔμπαλιν ὡς ἀγαθῷ.

Let's start at the beginning:

χρώμεθα

This one takes some explaining, and it seems to be often passed over in translation. This verb is in the middle voice which means the subject of the verb is both the agent and experiencer. So, χρώμεθα generally means something like "we consult a god or oracle for ourselves" or "the declaration of an oracle or god." I think this is significant, because, in the context of Epicurean philosophy, there are no gods who are going to provide advice through a supernatural means via an oracle. So, what is going on here? The Epicurean consults their own faculty of weighing the consequences of their own choices.

The word is also used in several more places within this verse.

This is especially important because the next word γὰρ "because" sets up the answer to the question "Why do we 'consult the oracle' of the consequences of our actions?"

Next, we have our old friends μὲν...δὲ…. Let's look at the similarities in those two phrases:

[μὲν] τῷ ἀγαθῷ κατά τινας χρόνους ὡς κακῷ,

[δὲ] τῷ κακῷ τἄμπαλιν ὡς ἀγαθῷ.

So, Epicurus is contrasting τῷ ἀγαθῷ "the good (pleasure) with τῷ κακῷ "the bad" (pain). Let's look at the embedded phrases that modify the meaning here.

κατά τινας χρόνους "over time"

τἄμπαλιν "on the other hand, on the contrary"

So, "we consult the consequences of our actions because, on the one hand, good/pleasure over time can lead to bad/pain; on the other hand, bad/pain can lead to good/pleasure."

PS .. with κακῷ and ἀγαθῷ being in the dative, that's where I'm getting "leads to." In the sense of the means with which something is done or the cause of something. So, I don't think there's a simple A is B and B is A construction here. That said, I am more than happy for someone with more experience with ancient Greek to comment on that.

Quote

[130] Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.

We have to be very careful with phrases like "pain as good". I don't know which translation you're using there, but that's not what the letter says. My own more literal translation is:

So, all pleasure, through its nature, belongs to us as a good; however, not all are elected; and just as all pains are entirely evil by their nature, so not all are always to be shunned.

Pain is entirely evil, but we have to endure it sometimes for the pleasure that results. But pain is not "good." Pain can be instrumental to gain pleasure, but it is not "good."

Quote from Eikadistes

Quote from Cassius

I note you're calling it criticism but you're also including the positive parts?

For sure, I'm including everything I can find. Most of it is complimentary.

I just took that in the sense of "literary criticism". That site is an impressive anthology of resources!

See also

Related to Chapter 10?

British School at Athens : Voula Tsouna, “Issues in Epicurean philosophy of mind and science 2: The method of multiple explanations in Epicureanism”

Voula Tsouna, “Issues in Epicurean philosophy of mind and science 2: The method of multiple explanations in Epicureanism” Professor Voula Tsouna (University of…

www.bsa.ac.uk

Welcome aboard, jason !

Quote from jason

The more I learned, the more I realized that many Epicurean ideas resonate with beliefs I’ve developed over the years through my own intellectual explorations.

You'll find that sentiment echoed by a number of forum members

FYI...

DCLP/Trismegistos 62661 = LDAB 3847

Fwiw, here's a review of a critical edition of Polystratus' work (again, Google translate from the French)

Polistrato, Sul disprezzo irrazionale delle opinioni popolari. Edizione, traduzione e commento a cura di Giovanni Indelli - Persée

This work by Giovanni Indelli, which appears in a new collection of texts from the School of Epicurus contained in the Herculaneum papyri, is worthy of attention and interest for several reasons.

First of all, it gives us a global and nuanced overview of the identity, work and role of Polystratus within the School of Epicurus, most of whose texts have been lost, at least as far as the earliest period is concerned.

Then we have here a very careful critical edition, carried out using the most reliable techniques, and accompanied by a clear and faithful Italian translation, a documented introduction and a commentary written in an authentically philological and philosophical spirit.

Finally, the very content of Polystrate's text has an undeniable historical interest, and shows well, as Mr. Indelli emphasizes, the state of the discussions between the different post-Aristotelian schools. The Περί ἀλόγου καταφρονήσεως "is addressed to those who, while they despise popular opinions, nevertheless defend opinions even less acceptable, because they are not based on λόγος" (p. 28). The disciple of Epicurus, for his part, has no weakness for the ideas of the masses, but his criticism of their errors and superstitions is based on a knowledge of nature finalized by practical life. Indeed, to free oneself from the unhappiness that ignorance and prejudice cause and to lead a happy life, one must refer to the φρόνησις and the ὀρθὴ φυσιολογία which are taught to us by the doctrine of Epicurus and which allow us to attain perfect pleasure.

In this context Polystratus develops an articulate critique of a skeptical objection to the fundamental principles of the Garden: his opponents are suspicious of the effective existence of ethical concepts, whose validity is clearly changeable among individuals and peoples. Polystratus' solution to this problem, which Epicurus had not dealt with explicitly, is based on the difference between "relative" and "absolute" concepts. Even "relative" concepts, such as those of δυνάμεις and πράξεις, nevertheless have an effective validity and existence. On the other hand, a critique of popular opinions based on obscure principles and obvious falsehoods, such as that developed by his opponents, has no value, becomes dangerous and dishonest and, ultimately, is irrational.

Fabio CIARAMELLI.

Quote from Cassius

We all end at the same point - I think - that whatever is the truth, the universe is "natural" and doesn't have a supernatural overlay above it. So frequently the details are not necessarily important to reconcile, UNLESS they point to a major conclusion about the supernatural or life after death or something that would call into question whether the truth is natural or supernatural, or would call into question key issues about the "knowability" of any truth at all. Definitely when anything like that arises it does need to be made to synchronize at least at the conclusion level.

We basically agree. I would reword your initial sentence as: The truth is that the universe is "natural" and doesn't have a supernatural overlay above it.

Anything that contradicts that, much like seeing Alexander the Oracle Monger's snake, we should be one "whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by scepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility."

Quote from Cassius

I'll likely never accept that in philosophical discussion there is a necessity of mapping into modern paradigms that are regularly changing and within which the experts don't even agree among themselves. I'll let those who want to try do to that pursue that, and I do understand that some want to do that.

Quote from Bryan

Cosmos connects well with a galaxy, To Pan with the universe. If we want other cosmoi, I'd think we only have to accept multiple galaxies. As we know, Epíkouros uses Cosmos in the plural, but not To Pan.

Quote from Don

To be clear about my perspective: when Epicurus says κόσμος cosmos "world" I think the evidence is that he means a planet (Earth) and all its accompanying sky and stars. Another "world" or κόσμος is this same system elsewhere. The universe, Το Παν (To Pan) "The All" is the entirety of existence that contains ALL these cosmoi.

Honestly, I think that trying to map ΚΟΣΜΟΣ "kosmos", ΚΟΣΜΟΙ "kosmoi", and ΤΟ ΠΑΝ "The All" onto modern concepts, especially concepts and theories that are evolving, is a fool's errand. Epicurus' conceptions of kosmoi and The All were fundamentally different than our own. My understanding is that kosmoi were islands of order in The All. Kosmos literally means "order" (actually related to English cosmetic, bringing order to one's face or appearance). Our word "planet" to the Greeks was simply a wandering star, πλανήτης, against the fixed stars in the sky. Epicurus didn't speak of beings on another πλανήτης but beings in/on/inhabiting other κόσμοι. Earth, to him as best I can ascertain, was where we lived in our κόσμος.

That's why discussions like this about theology or cosmology are often talking past each other. When the ancients were talking about an intermundia "between worlds" or ΜΕΤΑΚΟΣΜΟΣ they didn't imagine planets or worlds or galaxies or multiverses. They had their ideas, . We have our ideas, informed by science and observation. I need to accept that Epicurus and the ancient Greek cosmological concepts have no necessity to equate with my modern ideas. They may overlap slightly, but they cannot be made to synchronize.