Posts by Don

Welcome aboard, Eric! I think you'll find this a welcoming community. I, too, tend not to "proclaim" my Epicureanism much outside this forum, other than to occasionally mention topics to my wife in general conversation on walks or while enjoying time at a local brewery. This is a great outlet for discussion, research, questions, etc.

Yeah, I'm probably not going to read the book. However, "not taste of death" only seems to occur in the three canonical synoptic gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke (in that chronological order):

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

"Not" AND "taste" AND "death" primary search results are listed below along with dictionary aides, FAQs, and Lexiconc.

www.blueletterbible.org

It's Jesus failed prophecy that the end of the world was coming before some in his audience died. That didn't happen. Bart Ehrman had a great podcast episode on this failed apocalyptic prophecy recently:

The Gospel of Thomas uses the phrase, but it's so cryptic that anyone can say it means almost anything. The only full manuscript we have of Thomas is much younger than the canonical and in Coptic. There are earlier Greek fragments, but only fragments.

The "death taste" occurs in Logion 1, 18, 19, and 85, and is again so cryptic that it's like a Rohrschach inkblot: "What do you see?"

So, from the description, I'd agree with Titus that Hannah was...creative, maybe bordering on speculative fiction.

Additional resources:

The true words of Thomas (Interactive Coptic-English gospel of Thomas)

This groundbreaking translation of the "gospel of Thomas" follows the Coptic to the letter and reveals dozens of new words and meanings,…

www.academia.edu

The Gospel of Thomas Collection - Translations and Resources

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What are your thoughts on this revision?

Quote

The Epicurean will be moral as well as prudent. Morality and prudence directs us to try to minimise harm to others. It is imprudent to engineer sex by force, or by offering a quid pro quo to someone who finds you unattractive, as the subsequent experience is bound to be exceedingly unpleasant for them and detrimental to the perpetrator in the long run. It is imprudent to raise false expectations of permanence in another to obtain sex for a short run. It is imprudent to try to control another person’s behaviour while enjoying a secret freedom oneself. It is imprudent to turn a spouse into a wage slave or a domestic servant.

From my perspective, substituting "wrong" with "imprudent" puts a different spin on each of those behaviors. Those things are imprudent in that there may very well be negative consequences for the perpetrator. The perpetrator's reputation will most likely be negative, so social consequences. The wife (and let's be honest, the majority of perpetrators in these scenarios is male!) will likely become angry (and, imho, rightfully so) and lash out in unexpected and harmful ways. It is simply prudent to treat people honestly, justly, and honorably. As the old saying goes: What goes around, comes around.

btw, I'm using the definition of "imprudent" as "unwise, by failing to consider the likely results of your actions."

Note that I'm not saying that I personally find any of those behaviors any less repugnant by substituting "imprudent", but calling them "wrong" doesn't seem the best way to convey, Epicureanly-speaking, why they aren't generally optimal behaviors.

Nice find, Bryan ! Thanks for sharing.

And I agree, Cassius , those two share some common themes.

I tried to compare the Latin of the two, but Petronius doesn't seem (to my untrained eye) to have cribbed from Lucretius (Lucretius Born c. 99 BC - Died c. 55 BC (aged c. 44); Petronius Born c. 27 AD - Died c. 66 AD (aged c. 38–39)), although I'm sure Petronius knew Lucretius's poem. Maybe it was a Zeitgeist thing with the images that Petronius uses? Or maybe he was riffing on De Rerum Natura to show off his erudition? Here is the beginning of each poem/section:

Lucretius
Et quo quisque fere studio devinctus adhaeret
aut quibus in rebus multum sumus ante morati
atque in ea ratione fuit contenta magis mens,
in somnis eadem plerumque videmur obire:
causidici causas agere et componere leges,
induperatores pugnare ac proelia obire,
nautae contractum cum ventis degere bellum,
nos agere hoc autem et naturam quaerere rerum
semper et inventam patriis exponere chartis.

Petronius
Somnia quae mentes ludunt volitantibus umbris,
non delubra deum nec ab aethere numina mittunt,
sed sibi quisque facit. Nam cum prostrata sopore
urget membra quies et mens sine pondere ludit,
quidquid luce fuit tenebris agit.

Quote from Cassius

Don any comment on the "evil-doer"?

"Evil-doer" in the Greek is how Bailey is translating ἀδικοῦντα "one who is committing an injustice." Epicurus Wiki uses "wrongdoer." Saint-Andre simply uses " to commit an injustice." The word is from ἄδικος (ádikos, “wrong, unjust”) = ἄ "not" + δικος "just"

So, Bailey has "It is hard for an evil-doer to escape detection, but to be confident that he will continue to escape detection indefinitely is impossible."

Saint-Andre has "It is easy to commit an injustice undetected, but impossible to be sure that you have escaped detection."

Epicurus Wiki (EW) has "For a wrongdoer to be undetected is difficult; and for him to have confidence that his concealment will continue is impossible."

I do not know where Saint-Andre is getting it is easy! The word is δύσκολον which means difficult, troublesome, etc. Bailey and EW have it correct.

Quote from Matteng

Would someone who follows Epicurus' teachings commit injustices if they were never seen?

I would comment with VS7...

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.

PS. I'm crossing out easy because that isn't what the Greek says. It's *difficult* to commit an introduce undetected, but impossible to be sure that you've escaped detection.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK I, Prologue

In the Italian school the order of succession is as follows: first Pherecydes, next Pythagoras, next his son Telauges, then Xenophanes, Parmenides,11 Zeno of Elea, Leucippus, Democritus, who had many pupils, in particular Nausiphanes [and Naucydes], who were teachers of Epicurus.

...

ethics, as we have said, started with Socrates; while dialectic goes as far back as Zeno of Elea. In ethics there have been ten schools: the Academic, the Cyrenaic, the Elian, the Megarian, the Cynic, the Eretrian, the Dialectic, the Peripatetic, the Stoic, and the Epicurean.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK IX, Chapter 5. ZENO OF ELEA

Aristotle says that Zeno was the inventor of dialectic, as Empedocles was of rhetoric

Quote from Cassius

So the proper characterization of Zeno is despoiler.or some similar synonym....

It appears πολυφθόρος can mean either "utterly destroyed or ruined" (taken in the passive sense) or "destroying many, fraught with death or ruin"

Quote from Cassius

I wonder if we should not consider the Eleatics to be under the umbrella of the "Logicians" in this passage.

DL10.8: the Dialecticians despoilers... καὶ τοὺς διαλεκτικοὺς πολυφθόρους, ...

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dialektikou%5Cs&la=greek&can=dialektikou%5Cs0&prior=tou%5Cs&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0257:book=10:chapter=1&i=1#lexicon

"ἡ διαλεκτική (sc. τέχνη) dialectic, discussion by question and answer, invented by Zeno of Elea"

Orchestral:

Guitar:

Quote from Robert

So...maybe time to get started on the Epicurean songbook!

I'll offer my attempt at an Epicurean hymn from 3(!) years ago, sung to the tune of "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" which I originally heard while attending a Unitarian Universalist church:

Thanks, Joshua . I'd also include p.73 in that.

I continue to stand by my insistence that "bread and water" referred not to ascetism but to ordinary, everyday experience. Take pleasure in the quotidian. When luxury is available, take pleasure in that, too. Emily Austin gets it right, in my opinion.

Luke Ranieri included this in his latest newsletter:

Quote

As for Latin and Greek, here is a new Ancient Greek idiomatic expression I found while perusing LSJ:

ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἥκεις τὸν βατῆρα τῆς θύρᾱς "you arrived right on the threshold of the door" (attributed to Attic comic playwright Amipsias)

It's Latin equivalent is tetigistī acū "you have touched it with a needle" (first attested by comic playwright Plautus), and these both mean "you hit the nail on the head."

Polyenphysiszodeism^TM

Well played, Joshua .

Quote from Robert

Thank you for the recommendation! I did have Living for Pleasure on my list; I'm now moving it up in the queue. Excited to start reading it.

I describe it as erudite but conversational. It's very approachable but comes with a deep understanding of Epicurus's philosophy. Hope you enjoy.

Her article "Are the Modern Stoics Really Epicureans?" is worth a read, too!

Quote

As a more controversial point, I suspect that many Modern Stoics are already Epicureans, at least by the standards of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Let me explain...

If you haven't read Emily Austin's book, Living for Pleasure, highly recommend that one for you to add in your "self-conducted crash course" Great phrase, by the way. Her book is by far my personal favorite for an introduction to the philosophy.

Maybe he died the year he would have turned 72 but it was before his birthday that year?

FYI

Fish oil supplements may cause harm, study finds. ‘Is it time to dump them?’ expert asks | CNN

www.cnn.com

One thing to keep in mind, from my perspective, in all this is that αἵρεσις (hairesis) and φεύγω (pheugo) are not necessarily meant to be opposites or antonyms of each other. They describe two different actions that can be taken in relation to desires and courses of action.

αἵρεσις gets at the conscious decision to "choose" a course of action oneself as opposed to flipping a coin or letting chance take its course. I think this is why it came to be used for "heresy" - the heretic had a chance to make the "right" choice and didn't

φεύγω gets at the urgency of jettisoning or getting away from or leaving behind, or "setting one free" if you will, from beliefs or ideas or desires that will, in the long run, be detrimental to one's eudaimonia and the living of a good life. The opposite semantic field in relation to φεύγω is to chase or pursue.

Quote from Julia

My commentary:
The connotation of "setting oneself free" is exactly what I miss in words like "to reject / rejection" and also "to avoid / avoidance" (which I had initially chosen myself). It is, in my mind, somewhat present in "evade" (which I chose after). It is strongly present, but also strongly obscured in the modern English "to flee / flight". To translate the Epicurean sense of φεύγω (pheugo), "setting oneself free" might actually be the best I've seen so far. It goes along well with the associations of fears and addictions, it has commitment, agency, and a certain urgency without the necessary connotation of immediate danger to life and limb. If I set myself free of something, I also reject it. If I set myself free of what haunts me, I evade it.

This translation seems to have it all!

I think I like that direction... Although it's not the single word you were looking for initially.