Posts by Don

For reference, and thanks for calling these to my attention:

[ U184 ]

Philodemus, Treatises, Vol. Herc. 2, I.127: "The only contribution I require is that which … ordered the disciples to send me, even if they are among the Hyperboreans. I wish to receive from each of you two hundred and twenty drachmae a year and no more." And in another letter: "Ctesippus brought me the annual tribute, which was sent on behalf of your father and you yourself."

[ U185 ]

Philodemus, Treatises, Vol. Herc. 2, I.118: After having given a sheep to a young boy from an enclosed pen: "Take care of the toy that I have gifted to you."

Quote from Joshua

Bailey doesn't have much to add;

Cyril Bailey, Epicurus; The Extant Remains endnote on page 405

I do think y'all are on to something. Timocrates (*shakes fist in the air*) may have been using the "fact" that Epicurus spent a mina "a day" on food... leaving out the "fact" that that is what sustained the whole resident teachers and staff and students (resident and "commuter") of The Garden, and even then I would suspect a good deal of that was home-grown, at least the fruits and vegetables. I highly doubt the Garden had enough land to grow sufficient barley or wheat. That was likely purchased. Intriguing to consider.

Found this at random on Internet:

"Dustsceawung"

Veronica Esposito

World Literature Today

University of Oklahoma

Volume 98, Number 6, November-December 2024

pp. 40-41 (excerpt below)

The beguiling Old English word dustsceawung is typically translated as “the contemplation of dust,” although its full potential is certainly far richer and more complex than what those few words convey. To take a glance at some of this word’s depths, at Guernica magazine, the poet Maya C. Popa wrote that it means “the acknowledgment of dust as once having been other things, living beings or civilizations past,” adding that “dust requires us to confront our own transience and eventual anonymity, and doing so demands a flexible, inventive use of language.” The nonfiction writer Adam Nicolson poetically defined it as “the daydream of a mind strung between past and present.”

To our modern ears, a word that is all about staring at dust might sound hopelessly strange and archaic. Perhaps this is why, for poet Jane Zwart, who wrote a poem entitled “Dust-sceawung,” the word is evidence of just how much language has managed to name—if a word like this exists, then can anything not have a name? As she told Franchesca Viaud, who interviewed her for the Massachusetts Review:

Quote

That is the kind of amazing lexical gem that makes me think, for a second, that there’s a word for every single thing. I know that’s not really true . . . [b]ut it is true that there are names for a staggering number of things: for tailors’ scraps (carbage!), for the thin ring of light that an eclipse leaks (halation!), for the seed pods that helicopter down from maples (samaras!). I spend a lot of time, in fact, looking for the names of such things when I’m writing. . . . I want my students to get into that habit, too. I want them to understand that so much of language springs just from someone paying exquisite attention to something and wanting to do that something.

It is strange to think that people living in the medieval era had already grown so comfortable with the way that dust forms the common factor of all things that they had a word for it, and stranger still to think that at some point English lost that word and we no longer have it—that we must look back through the centuries to rekindle our fascination with dust. Dustsceawung offers an opportunity to consider all the notions our language has chosen to keep, and which ones it has let fall by the wayside. It is an entry point to questions about what our culture values enough to preserve and what we see the value in paying attention to.

Let’s pay a little more attention to dust for a moment. As the South Korean scholar and translator Sung-Il Lee puts it in an essay, the core of the concept of dustsceawung is “the thought that all existing things, including men and women, will eventually turn into dust.” Stop and think about that (it may be an uncomfortable thought). This cosmic word tells us that, on a long enough timescale, everything will turn into dust, anddust will turn into everything. It’s downright terrifying to imagine it, in that way the Borgesian can sometimes have of bending toward horror.

It’s impossible to know just what thoughts and connotations dustsceawung would have brought to mind to a speaker of Old English, but Lee instructs us that it was associated with themes of mutability, transience, decay, and ruins. In our own time, the invocation of dust conjures up very different images—those of the cosmos: the massive, beautiful nebulae that stars are born in, the disc of dust that our solar system accreted from, the dust clouds that turn into the spectacular vision of Saturn’s rings, and the stardust that emerged from stellar explosions, forming the higher elements without which development of complex life forms would be impossible. Dust connects some of the tiniest objects in our universe to some of the largest.

dustsceawung = pronounced "dust-shay-a-wung")

Quote from TauPhi

The whole article is a perfect illustration why some people should have limited access to a thesaurus, or in the style of the author, the employment of a thesaurus should be categorically and unqualifiedly abstemious.

Well said!

Quote from Cassius

(1) reinforce even a basic introduction with some clear citations that support your position, (2) deal quickly with the citations that appear to undercut your position.

Good reminder for my own work!

I personally only found the original article to use this phrase " pale Epicureans." But I did find this:

The story of the pale Stoic in the storm

Stoicism and fear, from the lost Fifth Book of Epictetus

thephilosophygarden.substack.com

'Are Stoics Ascetics?' by Piotr Stankiewicz

Are Stoics Ascetics? by Piotr Stankiewicz A few days ago I befriended an intelligent young woman on Facebook. We first met following the recent publication of…

modernstoicism.com

Well, this is an annoying little article. I didn't read the whole thing but stopped when I got here:

Quote

But it is not so. Stoicism is not asceticism and a Stoic is not a monk. In fact, it is the school of the pale Epicureans that is closer to the ideal of abstemiousness.

Where does he get "pale"? Did I miss a text? Maybe from Epictetus? I'll have to dig around unless someone knows and shares.

Maybe we can both agree that Diogenes the Cynic was really the ascetic. Throwing away your drinking bowl because you realize you can use your cupped hand... That's ascetic.

For those on the forum based in the US, have a happy Thanksgiving holiday.

For those that live elsewhere, take a moment today to feel gratitude for what you have and the pleasures in your life, no matter if large or small.

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.

VS55. Misfortune must be cured through gratitude for what has been lost and the knowledge that it is impossible to change what has happened.

https://positivepsychology.com/neuroscience-of-gratitude/

See also

What Science Reveals About Gratitude's Impact on the Brain

New research sheds light on the physiology of gratitude, bringing us closer to being able to understand and harness the health benefits of this powerful…

www.mindful.org

Quote from Pacatus

genesis ex nihilo (which I also think is incoherent).

And not even biblical

Quote from Cassius

That would be interesting to pursue -- I wonder what crimes beyond the likely murder etc carried the death penalty in ancient Greece.

Well, we know impiety was: Socrates.

Quote from Root304

That is one dread that I still have to shake myself of.

No way I want to be "uploaded"! My question, immediately upon someone mentioning that kind of thing, is "Who owns the computer? Who built the software?" Once I would be a series of bits on someone else's quantum computer, they could rearrange me or upload any apps to my psyche that they wanted. No thank you!

I wasn't going to weigh in but curiosity got the best of me. He's only looking at 3 potential applications of Epicurean philosophy, so he's not going to be comprehensive in any way. Plus he says several times that the ancient philosophies (and his lecture) are meant to be provocative and engender discussion.

~7:35: "pursuing pleasure and thinking about the value and nature of pleasure and avoiding pain and distress"

I have no problem with this formulation in a broad sense. The word αταραξια (ataraxia) literally means an absence of distress, turbulence, trouble, confusion. From my perspective, the lecturer provides a feasible distillation of one aspect of what Epicureanism is about.

Contentment or satisfaction - Primarily "the lived experience of a person whose body and mind are in a good condition." That makes one feel good. I have no problem with this, and, from my perspective, this even gets at the "whatever does not cause pain is pleasure" that has been discussed on this forum. I do think the lecturer muddies the water around the 19 min mark when he talks about events vs contentment.

I would agree with Cassius that the lecturer doesn't talk about pursuing pain in order to enjoy a greater pleasure, but I think that might be nitpicking in the wider scope of what the lecture is trying to do. He does talk about variety of pleasures (when he talks about the decision of whether or not to have a Coke)

Overall, any halfways decent exposition of Epicurean philosophy out there (that isn't just Stoicism/Buddhism-lite variety of Epicureanism) is a bonus from my perspective.

His examples of "extravagant" desires seem pretty on the nose.

I like his "The typology in itself won't help us answer these questions!" I realize he doesn't quite go where I'd like him to go, but the typology of desires DO NOT tell us what to do. It provides a framework within which to ask ourselves the questions of whether or not something will bring us pleasure or pain.

I wasn't aware of that Philodemus quote, but I like it: "though many fine things result from friendship, there's nothing so great as having one to whom you will say what's in your heart and to listen when the other speaks. For our nature strongly desires to reveal to someone what it thinks. (σφόδ[ρ]α γὰρ ἡ φύσις ὀρέγεται πρ[ό]ς τινας ἐκκαλύπτειν ἃ [ν]οεῖ.)" (On Frankness of Speech, Fragment 28)

[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩ κα-]
[λ]ῶς ὁ̣ Φιλ̣ο̣[ν]ε[ίδ]ου(*) θηρευτής· κἂν π[ε]ριδεικνύωμεν ἐπιλογιστικῶς, ὅτι πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν ἐκ φιλίας περιγινομένων οὐδέν ἐστι τηλικοῦτον ὡς τὸ̣ ἔχει<ν>, ὧι τἀ[γ]κάρδ[ι]ά̣ τ̣ις ἐρεῖ καὶ λ[έγ]οντος ἀκούσεται. σφόδ[ρ]α γὰρ ἡ φύσις ὀρέγεται πρ[ό]ς τινας ἐκκαλύπτειν ἃ [ν]οεῖ. λοιπὸ̣ν̣ δὲ ...

He gives 5 other things he *could* have talked about, so he is VERY aware that his is not a comprehensive exposition.

Personally, I'd give it a C+/B for usefulness to our needs here at the forum... not the least as a starting point for discussion.

I just came across a passage in The Deipnosophists (13.92 )

But Theotimus, who wrote the books against Epicurus, was accused by Zeno the Epicurean, and put to death; as is related by Demetrius the Magnesian, in his treatise in People and Things which go by the same Name.

Διότιμος δ᾽ ὁ γράψας τὰ κατ᾽ Ἐπικούρου βιβλία ὑπὸ Ζήνωνος τοῦ Ἐπικουρείου ἐξαιτηθεὶς ἀνῃρέθη, ὥς φησι Δημήτριος ὁ Μάγνης ἐν τοῖς Ὁμωνύμοις. ’”

I'm assuming Zeno is Zeno of Sidon, teacher of Philodemus and scholarch of The Garden.

ἐξαιτηθεὶς - demand the surrender of a person, esp. a criminal

ἀνῃρέθη - ttake up, ἀνελόντες ἀπὸ χθονός having raised the victim from the ground, so as to cut its throat; make away with, destroy, of men, kill

It would appear to me that, if this story is actually true, Zeno was angry enough to accuse Theotimus of something as written in the books against Epicurus, to have him brought up on charges and eventually executed! There's a story I'd like to hear!

From Aurelius to Epicurius: Dr. Emily Austin analyzes the role of happiness through an ancient lens – The Bowdoin Orient

I just saw this article from The Bowdoin Orient, "the nation’s oldest continuously published college weekly," about a talk Dr. Austin gave at Bowdoin College late last year. From all accounts, it appears she continues to be an effective "evangelist"* for the relevance of Epicurean philosophy to modern life.

I must admit I found the misspelling in the title somewhat endearing... Looks like The Orient needed one more proofreader. Maybe that's someone who is curious about the philosophy. Maybe they were playing off of Aurelius?

*The wise one will give public readings upon request.

Quote from Cassius

So "Luck" likely falls under this as well, right?

I added that to the outline and if you have recommendations as to the Latin, please do....

Yes. I would say there was no such thing as luck. The gods either smiled on you or not. Anywhere there's a "luck" or "chance" in English I would dig into the original for something that means fate or fortune.

Maybe fortuna?

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&inContent=true&q=fortuna&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0130&expand=yes

fortūna , ae (archaic
I.gen. sing. fortunas, like familias, escas, vias, etc., f. lengthened from fors; chance, hap, luck, fate, fortune (good or ill; synonyms: casus, fors; fatum, providentia).

PD16: Chance steals only a bit into the life of a wise person: for throughout the complete span of his life the greatest and most important matters have been, are, and will be directed by the power of reason. βραχέα σοφῷ τύχη παρεμπίπτει, τὰ δὲ μέγιστα καὶ κυριώτατα ὁ λογισμὸς διῴκηκε καὶ κατὰ τὸν συνεχῆ χρόνον τοῦ βίου διοικεῖ καὶ διοικήσει.

VS17: https://wiki.epicurism.info/Vatican_Saying_17/

It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around by chance as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of. οὐ νέος μακαριστὸς ἀλλὰ γέρων βεβιωκὼς καλῶς· ὁ γὰρ νέος ἀκμῇ πολὺς ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης ἑτεροφρονῶν πλάζεται· ὁ δὲ γέρων καθάπερ ἐν λιμένι τῷ γήρᾳ καθώρμικεν, τὰ πρότερον δυσελπιστούμενα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀσφαλεῖ κατακλείσας χάριτι.

VS53

Vatican Saying 53 - Epicurus Wiki

Envy no one. For good people do not deserve envy, and the more that wicked people have good fortune, the more they ruin things for themselves. οὐδενὶ φθονητέον· ἀγαθοὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἄξιοι φθόνου, πονηροὶ δὲ ὅσῳ ἂν μᾶλλον εὐτυχῶσι, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον αὑτοῖς λυμαίνονται.

VS67. A free person is unable to acquire great wealth, because that is not easily achieved without enslavement to the masses or to the powers that be. Instead, he already has everything he needs, and in abundance. But if by chance he should have great wealth, he could easily share it with his fellows to win their goodwill. [note] ἐλεύθερος βίος οὐ δύναται κτήσασθαι χρήματα πολλὰ διὰ τὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα <μὴ> ῥᾴδιον εἶναι χωρὶς θητείας ὄχλων ἢ δυναστῶv, ἀλλὰ συνεχεῖ δαψιλείᾳ πάντα κέκτηται· ἄν δέ που καὶ τύχῃ χρημάτων πολλῶv, καὶ ταῦτα ῥᾳδίως ἃν εἰς τὴν τοῦ πλησίον εὔνοιαν διαμετρήσαι.

One thing to keep in mind, regardless of the English translation, you'll want to look for τύχη (and its variants in the Greek). That gets translated a number of ways, including fate, chance, etc.

τῠ́χη • (túkhē) f (genitive τῠ́χης); first declension

• the act of a god
• the act of a human being
• (regarded as an agent or cause beyond human control)
• fortune, providence, fate
• chance

(regarded as a result)

• good fortune, success
• ill fortune, misfortune

(in a neutral sense, in plural) fortunes

I'll do what I can to ferret out those "hidden" ones.

3.2 Menoeceus 133-135: [133] 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 praise and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves. 134] Because of this, it is better to follow the stories of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers, because necessity is not moved by prayer; and such a one accepts that Fortune is not a god, as the hoi polloi understand (for a god does nothing in a disorderly or haphazardly manner); And it is not the uncertain cause of everything, for one cannot think it can grant good or evil for a person’s blessed life; however, it does furnish for oneself the starting point of great goods and great evils, [135] believing that it is better to be unfortunate rationally than fortunate irrationally because it is better to have been deciding the noble way in accomplishing one's actions and to have been foiled than having decided the bad way and to succeed by means of chance.

(My translation but feel free to use the one you like for 133-135)

Quote from Joshua

I'm posting it here against the day I decide to learn French

Nice, TauPhi . Here's what I got from ol' Google Translate