Posts by Don

I'll grant you that you have to find English translations that speak to you for the Greek words Epicurus used (or the Latin ones Lucretius used). But I also maintain translation can obfuscate the original meaning, so we all need to be careful.

Quote from Cassius

"fleeing" is not a normally something an Epicurus would do) mainly in the context of coming up with words that are generally useful.

Well, the words he used are φυγή (noun) and φεύγω (verb). Here are the dictionary entries for each, so I encourage everyone to dig into the connotations of each and decide for themselves. Maybe "flee" isn't the best, but I need something with more agency than "avoid":

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, φυ^γή

Woodhouse, S. C. (1910) English–Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language‎[1], London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.
avoidance
banishment
disappearance
escape
exile
flight
outlawry
proscription
refusal
rejection
repudiation
stampede
transportation

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

Antonyms
(antonym(s) of “to flee, be accused”): διώκω (diṓkō, “to pursue, accuse”)

Related to Latin fugio:

fugio - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

PD25 If at all critical times you do not connect each of your actions to the natural goal of life, but instead turn too soon to some other kind of goal in thinking whether to avoid or pursue something, then your thoughts and your actions will not be in harmony.

εἰ μὴ παρὰ πάντα καιρὸν ἐπανοίσεις ἕκαστον τῶν πραττομένων ἐπὶ τὸ τέλος τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλὰ προκαταστρέψεις εἴτε φυγὴν εἴτε δίωξιν ποιούμενος εἰς ἄλλο τι, οὐκ ἔσονταί σοι τοῖς λόγοις αἱ πράξεις ἀκόλουθοι.

PD25 literally uses εἴτε φυγὴν εἴτε δίωξιν which are the antonyms of each other mentioned above: flee/escape from and pursue/chase. Saint-Andre chooses to use the traditional "avoid" but that doesn't translate the dichotomy of φυγὴν and δίωξιν.

Quote from Cassius

Just gotta say to close the night, I don't like the sound or connotations of "flee" at all!

I am curious to read why.

Take your pick:

1. (intransitive) to flee, run off, go a certain direction with haste (often with prepositions)
2. (transitive) to flee, escape, avoid, get away from (danger or trouble)
3. (transitive or intransitive) to leave the country, go into exile
   1. (intransitive) to be exiled, banished, driven out of the country [with ὑπό (hupó, + genitive) ‘by someone’]
   2. (intransitive, present and imperfect) to be in exile, live in banishment
4. (perfect) to have escaped, be safe from quotations ▼

I **much** prefer "flee" to "avoid". There's nothing wrong with fleeing a dangerous situation, which is what one should literally do when confronting empty desires, anxiety-producing ideas, harmful beliefs, and so on. Flee from them. Escape from them. Get away from them. There's nothing wrong with a strategic retreat. There's nothing wrong with fleeing from or escaping from a city under siege. Avoiding, to me, makes it sound like you're stepping around external threats. The threats are coming from inside the house - unsound beliefs, harmful ideas, empty desires, anxieties, and so on. Leave them behind and flee from them, get as much distance from them as possible.

Quote from Julia

In addition, it seems like pretty much each of these meanings can be employed figuratively, which causes a little tree of meanings to grow from both words

Quote from Godfrey

This is an excellent case study in the difficulties of translation

LOL! Welcome to the wonderful world of translation!

To get an idea of what this would look like in a text some might be familiar with, here is a page from Pride and Prejudice:

Quote from Godfrey

Am I correct in understanding that, based on the above, a proper English replacement for choose/avoid would be pursue/flee?

If so, it's much more action-packed

Technically, it's not "pursue" ... Which is weird. αίρεση is more take deliberately or choose deliberately, rather than let chance choose for you. But given the squishy nature of English, you could conceivably use "pursue" and "flee" if you wanna.

Col.36... oh my! The entire right half is gone!

Col.37 is *slightly* better...

Quote from Bryan

Great Discussion! Allow me to throw in these quotes as well:

Philódēmos, On Piety, 1.36.1023 – 1.37.1054: ^[Obbink] And for the production of benefits from the gods for good people and harms for bad people, they [the kathēgemónes] allow. And for the wise and just it must be conceived that benefits and harms which are no feebler or even greater than people in general suppose are made complete, not out of weakness or because we have need of anything from God, even in return [of] his benefit [here], and these things [the kathēgemónes] say most piously. And in On Gods what kind of source of retribution and preservation for humans through the deity must be accepted he outlines in some detail. And in book 13 he speaks concerning the affinity or alienation which God has for some people.

And of course we all remember SV65 "it is pointless begging from the gods for what one is sufficiently able to obtain for himself."

I will say I'd be interested in seeing how much of that is extant and how much is Obbink's reconstruction.

I would offer this additional (imperfect) metaphor on φευγω:

Consider that a person is trying to *flee* a burning building. They're trying to carry their full garbage bags, old clothes, half-used toothpaste tubes, etc. They feel this necessary for whatever reason. If they got rid of those, they would have a much better chance of escaping the burning building and getting out into the fresh air and being able to continue living.

Those bags of garbage, etc., are the fears of the gods, anxieties about death, and other disturbances of the mind that hold us back from truly enjoying our existence.

Like I said, "imperfect" but posting for thoughts and improvements.

Quote from Cassius

So the general thrust is words like 'shared in festivals' and 'participated in worship' - and nothing specific about praying in terms of asking for things and expecting a reply (?)

That would be my general understanding. We know his asking for favors from the gods would have been completely against his understanding of the gods. However, the details of his participation in the rites, ceremonies, and worship are intriguing.

Quote from Cassius

Twentier could you clarify your thoughts about what you think the ancient Epicurean toward prayer was?

I'll jump in here. Philodemus's On Piety is probably the most detailed account we have left of Epicurus's attitude to worship writ large. For example:

Post

RE: Philodemus On Piety

The following are excerpts and notes from columns 27-36 of Obbink's Philodemus On Piety which outline the participation of Epicurus himself and the early Epicureans in religious festivals and other rites and practices. Obbink also shared more detailed notes in his book, so I may try and share some of those pages in later posts. For now, the material below has proved quite interesting...

Quoted in col. 27, On Piety: Epicurus, On Gods (Περί θεών): as being both the greatest thing and that…

Don

December 25, 2020 at 10:05 PM

Quote from Joshua

The planets are stars in this analysis--they are the "wandering stars" spoken of in the Letter to Pythocles;

Exactly. The ancient Greeks saw those as literally "wandering stars." They didn't think of them as "worlds" or "planets" like we conceive of a planet as another body circling a star. They're not a kosmos. They're simply ἄστρων πλανᾶσθαι, astron planasthai, stars who for some reason wander across the άστρα that are fixed in place in the night sky.

I said I was going to respond to some of @Twentier 's thoughts on prayer.

Let me say from the outset that I don't pray. I don't intend to pray, but I could see some use for it in the following ways... even without believing in god or God or gods.

It comes down to how one define's "prayer." If it is asking god/God for favors or bargaining with the deity ("Dear Lord, help me pass this test and I'll start going to Wednesday services.")... yeah, that's devoid of utility and basically empty.

However, to me, prayer can also be something like the meal-time "grace" that was used in the Buddhist Plum Village Center where the first line goes "‘We are thankful for this food, The work of many people and the sharing of other forms of life." It is a mind-shift to an attitude of gratitude. That kind of grateful-attitude form of prayer is in keeping with Epicurean tradition, from my perspective.

There's also contemplative prayer, concentrating or studying a specific text or phrase, sitting with it to really dig into it. POSSIBLY an Epicurean form of this is to contemplate what it means to be a "blessed and incorruptible being" and how that can be manifested in this mortal body and a materialistic world. This could also be an attitude-adjustment in that keeping in mind how a "blessed and incorruptible being" might move in the world and trying to emulate - to the best of one's mortal abilities - that behavior to be more "like a god."

These are off the top of my head. I also said above that "I don't intend to pray" but looking at what I've typed... who knows. Maybe I'll try one of those forms of "prayer" in the future after all.

Quote from Cassius

This isn't likely to be satisfactory, but I am tempted to suggest that we might sort of parallel the view that DeWitt suggested - that "life" rather than "pleasure" was Epicurus' greatest good. We might observe that from an Epicurean perspective the meaning of "pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain" comes down to a proper perspective on the verb "to live!"

Nope, nope, nope. (Another broken record of mine!)

Life *cannot* be the greatest good in the philosophical sense. Sure, life is good compared to the alternative, of course. But the "greatest good" is "that to which everything else points." The greatest good "in the opinion of all philosophers must needs be such that we are bound to test all things by it, but the standard itself by nothing." DeWitt's argument, as I remember, hinges on Latin not having a definite article

That said, I generally agree with your "pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain" comes down to a proper perspective on the verb "to live!" That "proper perspective" includes (but is not exclusive to) removing those fears, anxieties, empty beliefs, etc., that stand in the way of experience life as pleasurable.

Quote from Julia

Is there a single verb or noun synonymous with "pursuit of pleasure" either in English, Latin or (Ancient) Greek? Is there such a single verb or noun for "avoidance and prevention of pain"?

I'd go back to αἵρεσις (hairesis) and φεύγω (pheugo). αἵρεσις can mean the taking of a town in a battle; choice or election of magistrates. Liddell & Scott write that its opposite is some senses is κλῆρος (kleros) which is the casting of lots. So it's the difference between making an informed choice (αἵρεσις) or making a decision by flipping a coin (κλῆρος). φεύγω can be thought of as people fleeing that town that's being taken in a battle; they're escaping from their fate; they have agency in fleeing the situation. The opposite of that word is διώκω (dioko) which is defined as pursue, chase, in war or hunting; pursue an object, seek after; or even drive or chase away.

Both αἵρεσις (hairesis) and φεύγω (pheugo), to me, convey agency in whatever direction one heads. It is not a passive activity, but one taken with vigor and purpose.

Quote from Kalosyni

Another aspect is investigating modern psychology and neuroscience in specific situations. When you mention the word "play" that reminds me about something Don posted (an article or podcast) about including more play in one's life. (I'm not sure where that is located).

Was it The Fun Habit: How the Pursuit of Joy and Wonder Can Change Your Life by Michael Rucker?

Post

The Fun Habit by Mike Rucker

https://michaelrucker.com/

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Fun-…r/9781982159054

Just started listening to the audiobook and it strikes me as eminently Epicurean!!

Starting this thread to record thoughts of mine or others as my listening continues...

Don

February 15, 2023 at 9:37 AM

Quote from Cassius

We need more input from others....

Okay, I'll take the bait...

Quote from Julia

To move-from pleasure, move-to pain or stay-in pain are not things I should do; let's ignore them in this post.

I wouldn't ignore those as options. We can choose to undergo pain IF it will lead to future greater pleasure. So, move-to pain is an option, and even stay-in (for a defined amount of time) are options; which, by definition mean one is in a move-from pleasure motion by choice to gain greater pleasure.

Quote from Julia

To stay-in pleasure. This experience doesn't tend to last long, and it is an absence-of-direction. This means: I can desire it and pursue it, but I cannot do it, because not-doing cannot be done.

I'm not sure I agree with this formulation. From my perspective, a goal of Epicurean philosophy is to be able to experience pleasure for as long as possible. If one's life and attitude are structured to experience the joy of existence, "feeling no pain", that seems a desirable state. Various activities can be undertaken and experienced, but the through-line is being able to experience a pleasurable state in as many activities as possible if one feels no pain.

Quote from Julia

Moving-from pain. I have begun to call this action "to avoid", to call the process "avoidance" and the behaviour "avoiding".

For anyone whose been around here a while, I apologize for jumping on my habitual soapbox/broken record. Personally, I dislike the "avoid/avoidance/avoiding" translation used in the stock phrases "choice and avoidance." The Greek words Epicurus uses are αἵρεσις (hairesis) and φεύγω (pheugo) which literally mean "taking/choice" and "flee/take flight/escape" (avoid is also a definition, but down the list). αἵρεσις (hairesis) evolved later into the word heresy as in "someone making a choice... oops! wrong choice, we're going to have to punish you!" φεύγω (pheugo) as "flee/escape" always struck me as more immediate, more urgent, than "avoiding" which always reminds me of "avoiding a mud puddle." I realize that's a tangent, but one I can't "avoid" when it comes up.

Quote from Julia

using special words (to play/to avoid) to encapsulate the same meaning in a single, direct linguistic entity made it much easier to shift myself. It seems quite useful to me to categorise my behaviours into avoidance and play, to think of everything I do as either avoiding or playing.

Hmm... I *think* I can see where you're going, but moving toward pleasure isn't always "play" unless you're redefining "play." I'm all for play, btw, just to be clear! But moving toward pleasure sometimes means getting rid of fears, superstitions, anxieties, etc. Yes, that's moving away from pain, or jettisoning pain-producing fears, etc. You can certainly assign words to those movements you've described, but I'm not sure playing and avoiding are expansive enough to encompass what can be involved in those "motions."

Since this post is getting long, I'll stop here and start anew...

Quote from Cassius

My first thought is that "worlds" appears to refer to a "collection" of lots of objects like planets and stars (presumably) then I would take "world" to be the "collection" of things, and not indicative that it would be impossible for planets or even starts to exist "on their own" part from a "world-system."

Hmm... Can we first agree that a "world" - in the Epicurean sense - refers to the word κοσμος (kosmos)? That seems to be the usual referent of the English translation "world" in the texts. If so, yes, I would fully agree that it is a "collection" of objects; however, those objects are in an "ordered" arrangement with a planet, stars and wandering stars (what we call "planets"), etc., all enclosed in an ordered pocket of the universe (The All). They all work together in the world-system. I don't see anywhere in the texts that talk about a "planet" forming outside of a kosmos.

A scholion to the letter to Herodotus does talk about different shaped "worlds":

Quote

[74] "And further, we must not suppose that the worlds (κόσμους kosmous) have necessarily one and the same shape. [On the contrary, in the twelfth book "On Nature" he himself says that the shapes of the worlds differ, some being spherical, some oval, others again of shapes different from these. They do not, however, admit of every shape. Nor are they living beings which have been separated from the infinite (ἀπείρου apeirou).]

So the shapes of the kosmoi/worlds can differ; they're not all spherical.. but they are all kosmoi.

He also talks about the infinity of worlds in 45:

Quote

"Moreover, there is an infinite number of worlds (κόσμοι kosmoi), some like this world, others unlike it. For the atoms being infinite in number, as has just been proved, are borne ever further in their course. For the atoms out of which a world (κόσμος kosmos) might arise, or by which a world might be formed, have not all been expended on one world or a finite number of worlds, whether like or unlike this one. Hence there will be nothing to hinder an infinity of worlds (τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων ten apeirian ton kosmon).

There is no such thing as a star or planet outside of a kosmos/world-system. 88-91 are directly relevant to the current conversation:

Quote

"A world (Κόσμος kosmos) is a circumscribed portion of the universe, which contains stars and earth and all other visible things, cut off from the infinite, and terminating [and terminating in a boundary which may be either thick or thin, a boundary whose dissolution will bring about the wreck of all within it] in an exterior which may either revolve or be at rest, and be round or triangular or of any other shape whatever. All these alternatives are possible : they are contradicted by none of the facts in this world, in which an extremity can nowhere be discerned.

[89] "That there is an infinite number of such worlds (κόσμοι kosmoi) can be perceived, and that such a world (κόσμος kosmos) may arise in a world (κόσμῳ kosmoi) or in one of the intermundia (μετακοσμίῳ metakosmioi) (by which term we mean the spaces between worlds (κόσμων kosmon)) in a tolerably empty space and not, as some maintain, in a vast space perfectly clear and void. It arises when certain suitable seeds rush in from a single world or intermundium, or from several, and undergo gradual additions or articulations or changes of place, it may be, and waterings from appropriate sources, until they are matured and firmly settled in so far as the foundations laid can receive them. [90] For it is not enough that there should be an aggregation or a vortex in the empty space in which a world may arise, as the necessitarians hold, and may grow until it collide with another, as one of the so-called physicists says. For this is in conflict with facts.

[91] "The sun and moon and the stars generally were not of independent origin and later absorbed within our world, [such parts of it at least as serve at all for its defence] ; but they at once began to take form and grow [and so too did earth and sea] by the accretions and whirling motions of certain substances of finest texture, of the nature either of wind or fire, or of both ; for thus sense itself suggests.

So, the sun, moon, and stars (NOTE: No mention of "planet" other than the one on which the beings - human beings in this case - stand) arise as a whole system. The kosmos works as a whole, arises as a whole. It can form within another world or in the intermundia, but the kosmos coalesces and bodies form within the kosmos. There are no suns, moons, or stars independent of a kosmos in which to form.

Quote from Cassius

I don't think it's necessarily the only conclusion to draw

I am certainly open to hearing other conclusions. Talk me down.

On this topic, I keep coming back to the assertion in Cicero (Is it elsewhere?) that the gods live in the between-cosmos area of the universe. By definition, that means there is no world, no world-system, no ordered part of the universe on which a human-shaped god could reside. By definition, the intermundia/metakosmos has no "world." Are we to imagine them floating around like bubbles? They literally would not have a spot to stand or sit in this area of the universe. That's why I have a hard time accepting that Epicurus believed gods were existent beings somehow residing "between world-systems." Quick lunch time rant for now.

I'll hopefully have a chance to address some of @Twentier's very valid concerns from my perspective this evening.