New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Okay, so this is about as close as I could find of κόσμος = modern cosmology. There's even some "fiery ramparts"...
See also: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-…-view-universe/
(As we know, Epicurus uses "atomos" and translating that as "atom" means we use the word that is not the same as modern science. But, I think you would agree, not using "atom" when translating him certainly gives up too much ground. We can use "atom" in our school, and use in its proper and true meaning. )
Oh, I fully agree with using "atom" to translate atomos is fine. Even though they aren't completely analogous from ancient to modern ideas, they are closer, in my opinion, than world and kosmos. Both atomos and atom get at minute particles of matter that make up compound bodies and, for us, molecules. Yeah, I'm not getting on a soapbox over those. (Is that a collective sigh of relief I hear?)
I know I've brought this up ad nauseum at this point and in this thread already, but Lucretius' talk about Epicurus going beyond the "fiery ramparts" of the "mundus" ("world") tells me their concept of the structure of their "world-system" included a fiery "shell or dome" through which Epicurus was able to think beyond and to imagine other such world-systems throughout The All, the entirety of the whole universe. There really is no applicable analogy in modern cosmology unless, in my opinion, one wants to go down the "bubble universe" track. We can assert that "other worlds" is like Star Trek's "strange new worlds" in other solar systems, but I don't believe that was Epicurus's or Lucretius's image of a κοσμος/mundus. Now, could the ancient Epicureans be made to understand the modern concept of solar system, galaxy, etc.? Sure. Given enough evidence, they could probably accept or at least entertain the ideas that modern cosmology provides. But trying to map κοσμος/mundus onto modern concepts is going to be fraught with complications and requiring an ancient culture to adhere to our modern ideas. I think that does a disservice to them and us.
IF we want to think of "other kosmoi" as other planets in other solar systems, that's fine IF we're honest and acknowledge that's most likely not how Epicurus nor Lucretius nor Diogenes of Oenoanda nor the other ancient Epicureans conceived of it.
" is correct, but I do wish for a more elegant solution.
LOL Completely agree, although to quote the philosopher Mick Jagger "You can't always get what you want..."
I agree we should not "update" or add ideas when translating -- but do we have any good arguments or objections to using "galaxies" for "kosmoi"? (We all know the difficulty with the English "world," which now means only one planet).
I agree "world" is problematic, but using "galaxy" obscures the ancient Greek understanding of what a kosmos was. I prefer "world-system" or something like that. Kosmos is not directly translated into a modern idiom.
10. Epicurus includes something that looks a lot like the “Dichotomy of Control” clearly showing they didn’t come up with it but gave it a catchy title.
It seems, "Stoics" or "Stoicism" should be included in this item from Session 4, e.g.
"10. Epicurus includes something that looks a lot like the “Dichotomy of Control” of the Stoics clearly showing they didn’t come up with it but gave it a catchy title."
Agreed! And added. Thanks!
It does have a new intro. I thought it was a good opportunity for anyone who missed the first time around (like new forum members).
Below is my VERY ROUGH first draft of an outline for a week-long (ie, 7 sessions) study session of the letter. Aspirational at this point! I envision a PowerPoint presentation with audio narration. Again, aspirational but I'm putting it online to keep my feet to the fire so to speak. This is also to be read in conjunction with my translation and commentary.
Thoughts welcomed.
Menoikeus Study Outline
Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. [Saint-Andre translation; Also VS22, by the way]
Unlimited time and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason. [Hicks]
See also:
I don't necessarily like "joy" instead of pleasure. The word is ἡδονὴν and I feel it's important to show it is one of the feelings: pleasure and pain, which led Joshua (I believe) to ask the insightful question that he did.
I also think it's important to disregard the PD numbers. They weren't in the original. And I believe we need to read the full text on this topic in context:
As soon as the pain produced by the lack of something is removed, pleasure in the flesh is not increased but only embellished. Yet the limit of enjoyment in the mind is produced by thinking through these very things and similar things, which once provoked the greatest fears in the mind. Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy (pleasure), if its limits are measured out through reasoning. The flesh assumes that the limits of joy (pleasure) are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time; yet the mind does not flee from joy, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the best life. One who perceives the limits of life knows how easy it is to expel the pain produced by a lack of something and to make one's entire life complete; so that there is no need for the things that are achieved through struggle.
Now, if we would switch pleasure and pain, how does that affect the meaning of this section? Can we even do it? From the first line:
As soon as the pain produced by the lack of something is removed...
There is no "pleasure produced by the lack of something" unless it is the pleasure of the lack of pain. So, it seems to me that the "the same amount of joy (pleasure)" can't be substituted for "the same amount of pain" because pain seems, by definition, to be produced by a lack of something? So while the question can be asked semantically, it can't really be asked due to the parameters being set out. The question is a sensible question on its face, but it can't really be asked or answered in reality. I think??
I guess we'd have to ask what is the limit of pain? The complete lack of pleasure, I suppose? If we do try that experiment:
As soon as the pleasure produced by the lack of something is removed, pain in the flesh is not increased but only embellished. Yet the limit of pain in the mind is produced by thinking through these very things and similar things, which once provoked the greatest joy in the mind. Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of pain, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. The flesh assumes that the limits of pain are infinite, and that infinite pain can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time; yet the mind does not flee from pain, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the worst life. One who perceives the limits of life knows how easy it is to expel the pleasure produced by a lack of something and to make one's entire life complete; so that there is no need for the things that are achieved through struggle.
LOL It's getting late... so I'll leave this as a writing prompt if nothing else. Look forward to others' thoughts!
In commemoration of tonight's anniversary:
(and to answer Cassius question during tonight's conversation: The photographs from the Moon were in color, the video feed was B&W)
Glad I could join the conversation this evening. Blessed Twentieth. Η ΜΑΚΑΡΙΑΣ ΕΙΚΑΣ !
ἄξομεν ἐκ λιτῆς εἰκάδα πιοτέρην.
"From simple fare, we will richly celebrate the Twentieth."
That's my take on the paraphrase of the last line of Philodemus' epigram. I don't particularly like the usual "instead of simply." I think the "out of.." gets at enjoying friends and food without needing a banquet.
Happy Twentieth y'all!
Mentions of ἄπειρόν (infinity) in Principal Doctrines: These are a little more hidden by translations that the Herodotus references. The etymology of the word is important to point out: From ἀ- (a-, “not”) + πεῖραρ (peîrar), πέρας (péras, “end, limit”).
[χιιι.] Οὐθὲν ὄφελος ἦν τὴν κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους ἀσφάλειαν κατασκευάζεσθαι τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑπόπτων καθεστώτων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ γῆς καὶ ἁπλῶς τῶν *ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ.*
13. It is useless to be safe from other people while retaining suspicions about what is above and below the earth and in general *about the infinite unknown*. (Saint-Andre)
13. There would be no advantage in providing security against our fellow-men, so long as we were alarmed by occurrences over our heads or beneath the earth or in general by whatever happens *in the boundless universe* (ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ). (Hicks)
[χϝ.] Ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ὥρισται καὶ εὐπόριστός ἐστιν: ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν *εἰς ἄπειρον* ἐκπίπτει.
15. Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire, but the riches incited by groundless opinion *have no end.* (Saint-Andre)
15. Nature's wealth at once has its bounds and is easy to procure ; but the wealth of vain fancies recedes *to an infinite distance*. (Hicks)
[χιχ.] Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος ἴσην ἔχει τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ ὁ πεπερασμένος, ἐάν τις αὐτῆς τὰ πέρατα καταμετρήσῃ τῷ λογισμῷ.
19. Finite time and infinite time (Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος) contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. (Saint-Andre)
19. Unlimited time (Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος) and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason. (Hicks)
[χχ.] Ἡ μὲν σὰρξ ἀπέλαβε τὰ πέρατα τῆς ἡδονῆς ἄπειρα, καὶ ἄπειρος αὐτὴν χρόνος παρεσκεύασεν. ἡ δὲ διάνοια τοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς τέλους καὶ πέρατος λαβοῦσα τὸν ἐπιλογισμὸν καὶ τοὺς ὑπὲρ τοῦ αἰῶνος φόβους ἐκλύσασα τὸν παντελῆ βίον παρεσκεύασεν, καὶ οὐθὲν ἔτι τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνου προσεδεήθη: <οὐ> μὴν ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ἔφυγε τὴν ἡδονήν, οὐθ᾽ ἡνίκα τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν ἐκ τοῦ ζῆν τὰ πράγματα παρεσκεύαζεν, ὡς ἐλλείπουσά τι τοῦ ἀρίστου βίου κατέστρεφεν.
20. The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite (τῆς ἡδονῆς ἄπειρα), and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite (ἄπειρος) time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time (τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνου); yet the mind does not flee from joy, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the best life. (Saint-Andre)
20. The flesh receives as unlimited (ἄπειρα) the limits of pleasure ; and to provide it requires unlimited (ἄπειρος) time. But the mind, grasping in thought what the end and limit of the flesh is, and banishing the terrors of futurity, procures a complete and perfect life, and has no longer any need of unlimited time (τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνου). Nevertheless it does not shun pleasure, and even in the hour of death, when ushered out of existence by circumstances, the mind does not lack enjoyment of the best life. (Hicks)
Okay, as promised, here's a start to Epicurus's mention of "infinity, infinite" specifically using the term απειρον / απειρος. Below are only the mentions in the Letter to Herodotus with both Greek and English for comparison. One idiosyncrasy I noticed is that the translator likes to use "ad infinitum" where Epicurus uses εἰς ἄπειρον "to infinity". Granted, the Latin means the same as the Greek but it obscures Epicurus's use of the word he says we need to study:
Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus
37
Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα τοῖς φθόγγοις, ὦ Ἡρόδοτε, δεῖ εἰληφέναι, ὅπως ἂν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἢ ζητούμενα ἢ ἀπορούμενα ἔχωμεν εἰς ταῦτα ἀνάγοντες ἐπικρίνειν, καὶ μὴ ἄκριτα πάντα ἡμῖν <ἴῃ>42 εἰς ἄπειρον ἀποδεικνύουσιν ἢ κενοὺς φθόγγους ἔχωμεν.
"In the first place, Herodotus, you must understand what it is that words denote, in order that by reference to this we may be in a position to test opinions, inquiries, or problems, so that our proofs may not run on untested ad infinitum, nor the terms we use be empty of meaning.
41-43
"Ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρόν ἐστι. τὸ γὰρ πεπερασμένον ἄκρον ἔχει: τὸ δὲ ἄκρον παρ᾽ ἕτερόν τι θεωρεῖται: <τὸ δὲ πᾶν οὐ παρ᾽ ἕτερόν τι θεωρεῖται:>51 ὥστε οὐκ ἔχον ἄκρον πέρας οὐκ ἔχει: πέρας δὲ οὐκ ἔχον ἄπειρον ἂν εἴη καὶ οὐ πεπερασμένον.
"Καὶ μὴν καὶ τῷ πλήθει τῶν σωμάτων ἄπειρόν ἐστι τὸ πᾶν καὶ τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ κενοῦ. [42] εἴ τε γὰρ ἦν τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον, τὰ δὲ σώματα ὡρισμένα, οὐθαμοῦ ἂν ἔμενε τὰ σώματα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφέρετο κατὰ τὸ ἄπειρον κενὸν διεσπαρμένα, οὐκ ἔχοντα τὰ ὑπερείδοντα καὶ στέλλοντα κατὰ τὰς ἀνακοπάς: εἴ τε τὸ κενὸν ἦν ὡρισμένον, οὐκ ἂν εἶχε τὰ ἄπειρα σώματα ὅπου ἐνέστη.
"Πρός τε τούτοις τὰ ἄτομα τῶν σωμάτων καὶ μεστά, ἐξ ὧν καὶ αἱ συγκρίσεις γίνονται καὶ εἰς ἃ διαλύονται, ἀπερίληπτά ἐστι ταῖς διαφοραῖς τῶν σχημάτων: οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν γενέσθαι τὰς τοσαύτας διαφορὰς ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν σχημάτων περιειλημμένων. καὶ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην δὲ σχημάτισιν ἁπλῶς ἄπειροί εἰσιν αἱ ὅμοιαι, ταῖς δὲ διαφοραῖς οὐχ ἁπλῶς 53 [43] ἄπειροι ἀλλὰ μόνον ἀπερίληπτοι, [οὐδὲ γάρ φησιν ἐνδοτέρω εἰς ἄπειρον τὴν τομὴν τυγχάνειν. λέγει δέ, ἐπειδὴ αἱ ποιότητες μεταβάλλονται, εἰ μέλλει τις μὴ καὶ τοῖς μεγέθεσιν ἁπλῶς εἰς ἄπειρον αὐτὰς ἐκβάλλειν].
"Again, the sum of things (The All, τὸ πᾶν) is infinite (ἄπειρόν). For what is finite has an extremity, and the extremity of anything is discerned only by comparison with something else. (Now the sum of things is not discerned by comparison with anything else :64) hence, since it has no extremity, it has no limit ; and, since it has no limit, it must be unlimited or infinite (ἄπειρον).
"Moreover, the sum of things (The All, τὸ πᾶν) is unlimited (ἄπειρόν) both by reason of the multitude of the atoms and the extent of the void. [42] For if the void were infinite (ἄπειρον) and bodies finite, the bodies would not have stayed anywhere but would have been dispersed in their course through the infinite (ἄπειρον) void, not having any supports or counter- checks to send them back on their upward rebound. Again, if the void were finite, the infinity (ἄπειρα) of bodies would not have anywhere to be.
"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 so many varieties of things as we see could never have arisen out of a recurrence of a definite number of the same shapes. The like atoms of each shape are absolutely infinite (ἄπειροί); but the variety of shapes, though indefinitely large, is not absolutely infinite. [43] [For neither does the divisibility go on "ad infinitum," he says below; but he adds, since the qualities change, unless one is prepared to keep enlarging their magnitudes also simply "ad infinitum." (ἄπειρον)]
45
"Ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ κόσμοι ἄπειροί εἰσιν, οἵ θ᾽ ὅμοιοι τούτῳ καὶ ἀνόμοιοι. αἵ τε γὰρ ἄτομοι ἄπειροι οὖσαι, ὡς ἄρτι ἀπεδείχθη, φέρονται καὶ πορρωτάτω. οὐ γὰρ κατανήλωνται αἱ τοιαῦται ἄτομοι, ἐξ ὧν ἂν γένοιτο κόσμος ἢ ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἂν ποιηθείη, οὔτ᾽ εἰς ἕνα οὔτ᾽ εἰς πεπερασμένους, οὔθ᾽ ὅσοι τοιοῦτοι οὔθ᾽ ὅσοι διάφοροι τούτοις. ὥστε οὐδὲν τὸ ἐμποδοστατῆσόν ἐστι πρὸς τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων.
"Moreover, there is an infinite number of worlds (κόσμοι ἄπειροί kosmoi apeiroi), some like this world, others unlike it. For the atoms being infinite (ἄτομοι ἄπειροι) in number, as has just been proved, are borne ever further in their course. For the atoms out of which a world 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).
47
[47] "Οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἅμα κατὰ τοὺς διὰ λόγου θεωρητοὺς χρόνους αὐτὸ τὸ φερόμενον σῶμα ἐπὶ τοὺς πλείους τόπους ἀφικνεῖται -- ἀδιανόητον γάρ,-- καὶ τοῦτο συναφικνούμενον ἐν αἰσθητῷ χρόνῳ ὅθεν δήποθεν τοῦ ἀπείρου οὐκ ἐξ οὗ ἂν περιλάβωμεν τὴν φορὰν τόπου ἔσται ἀφιστάμενον: ἀντικοπῇ γὰρ ὅμοιον ἔσται, κἂν μέχρι τοσούτου τὸ τάχος τῆς φορᾶς μὴ ἀντικόπτον καταλίπωμεν. χρήσιμον δὴ καὶ τοῦτο κατασχεῖν τὸ στοιχεῖον. εἶθ᾽ ὅτι τὰ εἴδωλα ταῖς λεπτότησιν ἀνυπερβλήτοις κέχρηται, οὐθὲν ἀντιμαρτυρεῖ τῶν φαινομένων: ὅθεν καὶ τάχη ἀνυπέρβλητα ἔχει, πάντα πόρον σύμμετρον ἔχοντα πρὸς τῷ <τῷ>61 ἀπείρῳ αὐτῶν μηθὲν ἀντικόπτειν ἢ ὀλίγα ἀντικόπτειν, πολλαῖς δὲ καὶ ἀπείροις εὐθὺς ἀντικόπτειν τι.
[47] "Not that, if we consider the minute times perceptible by reason alone,69 the moving body itself arrives at more than one place simultaneously (for this too is inconceivable), although in time perceptible to sense it does arrive simultaneously, however different the point of departure from that conceived by us (...from the infinite). For if it changed its direction, that would be equivalent to its meeting with resistance, even if up to that point we allow nothing to impede the rate of its flight. This is an elementary fact which in itself is well worth bearing in mind. In the next place the exceeding thinness of the images is contradicted by none of the facts under our observation. Hence also their velocities are enormous, since they always find a void passage to fit them. Besides, their incessant (ἀπείρῳ) effluence meets with no resistance, or very little, although many atoms, not to say an unlimited number (ἀπείροις) , do at once encounter resistance.
56-57
"Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οὐ δεῖ νομίζειν ἐν τῷ ὡρισμένῳ σώματι ἀπείρους ὄγκους εἶναι οὐδ᾽ ὁπηλίκους οὖν. ὥστε οὐ μόνον τὴν εἰς ἄπειρον τομὴν ἐπὶ τοὔλαττον ἀναιρετέον, ἵνα μὴ πάντα ἀσθενῆ ποιῶμεν κἀν ταῖς περιλήψεσι τῶν ἀθρόων εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν ἀναγκαζώμεθα τὰ ὄντα θλίβοντες καταναλίσκειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν μετάβασιν μὴ νομιστέον γίνεσθαι ἐν τοῖς ὡρισμένοις εἰς ἄπειρον μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοὔλαττον.
[57] "Οὔτε γὰρ ὅπως, ἐπειδὰν ἅπαξ τις εἴπῃ ὅτι ἄπειροι ὄγκοι ἔν τινι ὑπάρχουσιν ἢ ὁπηλίκοι οὖν, ἔστι νοῆσαι ὅπως78 ἂν ἔτι τοῦτο πεπερασμένον εἴη τὸ μέγεθος. πηλίκοι γάρ τινες δῆλον ὡς οἱ ἄπειροί εἰσιν ὄγκοι: καὶ οὗτοι ὁπηλίκοι ἄν ποτε ὦσιν, ἄπειρον ἂν ἦν καὶ τὸ μέγεθος. ἄκρον τε ἔχοντος τοῦ πεπερασμένου διαληπτόν, εἰ μὴ καὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ θεωρητόν, οὐκ ἔστι μὴ οὐ καὶ τὸ ἑξῆς τούτου τοιοῦτον νοεῖν καὶ οὕτω κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν βαδίζοντα εἰς τὸ ἄπειρον ὑπάρχειν καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀφικνεῖσθαι τῇ ἐννοίᾳ.
"Besides, you must not suppose that there are parts unlimited (ἀπείρους) in number, be they ever so small, in any finite body. Hence not only must we reject as impossible subdivision ad infinitum (εἰς ἄπειρον) into smaller and smaller parts, lest we make all things too weak and, in our conceptions of the aggregates, be driven to pulverize the things that exist, i.e. the atoms, and annihilate87 them ; but in dealing with finite things we must also reject as impossible the progression ad infinitum (εἰς ἄπειρον) by less and less increments.
[57] "For when once we have said that an infinite (ἄπειροι) number of particles, however small, are contained in anything, it is not possible to conceive how it could any longer be limited or finite in size. For clearly our infinite (οἱ ἄπειροί) number of particles must have some size ; and then, of whatever size they were, the aggregate they made would be infinite (ἄπειρον). And, in the next place, since what is finite has an extremity which is distinguishable, even if it is not by itself observable, it is not possible to avoid thinking of another such extremity next to this. Nor can we help thinking that in this way, by proceeding forward from one to the next in order, it is possible by such a progression to arrive in thought at infinity (εἰς τὸ ἄπειρον).
60
[60] "Καὶ84 μὴν καὶ τοῦ ἀπείρου ὡς μὲν ἀνωτάτω καὶ κατώτατω οὐ δεῖ κατηγορεῖν τὸ ἄνω ἢ κάτω. ἴσμεν μέντοι τὸ ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς, ὅθεν ἂν στῶμεν, εἰς ἄπειρον ἄγειν ὄν, μηδέποτε φανεῖσθαι τοῦτο ἡμῖν, ἢ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ νοηθέντος εἰς ἄπειρον, ἅμα ἄνω τε εἶναι καὶ κάτω πρὸς τὸ αὐτό: τοῦτο γὰρ ἀδύνατον διανοηθῆναι. ὥστε ἔστι μίαν λαβεῖν φορὰν τὴν ἄνω νοουμένην εἰς ἄπειρον καὶ μίαν τὴν κάτω, ἂν καὶ μυριάκις πρὸς τοὺς πόδας τῶν ἐπάνω τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν φερόμενον εἰς τοὺς ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς ἡμῶν τόπους ἀφικνῆται ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τῶν ὑποκάτω τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν κάτω φερόμενον: ἡ γὰρ ὅλη φορὰ οὐθὲν ἧττον ἑκατέρα ἑκατέρᾳ ἀντικειμένη ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον νοεῖται.
[60] "Further, we must not assert `up' or `down' of that which is unlimited (ἀπείρου), as if there were a zenith or nadir. As to the space overhead, however, if it be possible to draw a line to infinity (εἰς ἄπειρον) from the point where we stand, we know that never will this space --or, for that matter, the space below the supposed standpoint if produced to infinity (εἰς ἄπειρον) --appear to us to be at the same time `up' and `down' with reference to the same point ; for this is inconceivable. Hence it is possible to assume one direction of motion, which we conceive as extending upwards ad infinitum (εἰς ἄπειρον), and another downwards, even if it should happen ten thousand times that what moves from us to the spaces above our heads reaches the feet of those above us, or that which moves downwards from us the heads of those below us. None the less is it true that the whole of the motion in the respective cases is conceived as extending in opposite directions ad infinitum (εἰς ἄπειρον).
73
"Ἐπί τε τοῖς προειρημένοις τοὺς κόσμους δεῖ καὶ πᾶσαν σύγκρισιν πεπερασμένην τὸ ὁμοειδὲς τοῖς θεωρουμένοις πυκνῶς ἔχουσαν νομίζειν γεγονέναι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου,
"After the foregoing we have next to consider that the worlds and every finite aggregate which bears a strong resemblance to things we commonly see have arisen out of the infinite (ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου).
74 in a scholia
[ἀλλὰ καὶ διαφόρους αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ιβ᾽ Περὶ φύσεως αὐτός φησιν: οὓς μὲν γὰρ σφαιροειδεῖς, καὶ ᾠοειδεῖς ἄλλους, καὶ ἀλλοιοσχήμονας ἑτέρους: οὐ μέντοι πᾶν σχῆμα ἔχειν. οὐδὲ ζῷα εἶναι ἀποκριθέντα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου.]
[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 (ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου).]
I found the quote from the letter to Pythocles very interesting. "But above all give yourself up to the study of first principles (τὴν τῶν ἀρχῶν) and of infinity (ἀπειρίας)..."
Άπειρος in its various forms appears around 40 times in Diogenes Laertius book 10, with many in Epicurus's writings.
Αρχή about two dozen times.
My little project will be to list those out when I get a chance to see how Άπειρος gets used and translated... Since Epicurus appears to call us to study these ideas.
I find it interesting that αρχή is a limit, the beginnings or foundations, and άπειρος is something without limits.
I am not sure you can square that with the "javelin" example in Lucretius, Don. Can you?
Sure. The javelin leaves our world and keeps going out into the infinite void, which is what Lucretius seems to be saying. I'd have to look closely at what words are being translated "world", "universe" etc.
For reference:
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, BOOK I, line 951
For my purposes, a more illustrative example is:
Therefore the living force of his soul gained the day: on he passed far beyond the flaming walls of the world and traversed throughout in mind and spirit the immeasurable universe; whence he returns a conqueror to tell us what can, what cannot come into being; in short on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deep-set boundary mark.
"flammantia moenia mundi" mundi (mundus) is just Latin for Greek cosmos. The flaming ramparts, the fiery sphere/dome of the stars and sun of our world-system, our cosmos.
"omne immensum" immeasurable All, ie, the totality of everything , the whole universe, The All, ΤΟ ΠΑΝ
I'm going to wade into this fray with a possibly tangential, possibly relevant topic. Y'all be the judge.
I am convinced that the "infinite worlds" that the ancient Epicureans - from the founder to the Romans to the Oenoandans - were envisioning were not of the same structure that we think of in modern cosmology. The cosmos the ancients were envisioning was (let's call it) a "bubble" of Order (literal meaning of "cosmos") surrounded by the primordial Chaos.
Now, the Epicureans did not accept Chaos as an idea or substance, but I do think they substituted (in a manner of speaking) the "infinity" of atoms falling in the void.
However, the cosmos they lived in was composed of the earth they stood on (plate or globe) surmounted by a vault/dome or, alternatively, surrounded by a sphere, that contained the fixed stars, wandering stars (planets), etc. That world-system was a coherent, ordered pocket floating (for lack of a better word) in the *infinite* void. Epicurus posited other pockets of order - other "gatherings of matter" - out there in the vast infinity that would have no contact with his world-system but would nonetheless exist with their own "diverse races of men and tribes of wild beasts." The All - To Pan ΤΟ ΠΑΝ - contained this infinity of cosmoi.
When we talk of "strange new worlds", we're talking about other planets orbiting distant stars in our galaxy or other galaxies. Maybe we're talking in other universes, but usually we're thinking in our observable universe. This structure , by and large, would have been incoherent to the ancients. Were there some who thought the stars were other Suns with their own Earths? Maybe. But I don't think that was a common view, and I don't think that was Epicurus's view from what I've read.
For me, the big takeaway from Epicurus's teachings on "infinity" and "gods" for my "modern Epicurean" perspective is:
The universe - however it's defined - is physical - either bounded or unbounded, jury is still out - and exists without the aid, support, or creation of any beings - natural or supernatural.
Whether the universe (observable) came into existence out of a larger infinite universe through quantum fluctuations or other physical processes is up for debate, but that doesn't shake my conclusion that all that did exist, exists, or will exist is governed by natural, eventually understandable processes.
Great find, TauPhi . There are some great lines in there. I especially like the last line:
dum vivam, dominus temporis ipse mei.
While I live, I am the master of my time.
(... The master of time is myself)
For your isonomia discussion:
Theories Concerning Epicurean Theology and Metaphysics
John Masson
The Classical Review 16 (9), 453-459, 1902
IN a-long chapter, entitled'The Epicurean Gods and the doctrine of Isonomia,'Giussani discusses the doctrine of'Isonomia,'that is to say of the'Balance of Forces in the universe'as bearing upon Epicurus's theology. A singular theory has been propounded on this subject by Scott which Giussani adopts and develops farther. Both scholars find a'very essential connection between the two doctrines. (Direct link to PDF below)
