Posts by Don

Quote from Joshua

When we say that some pleasures should be chosen and some avoided, what we are really saying is that the actions we take to pursue the intrinsic good of pleasure are sometimes more likely to produce the intrinsic bad of pain. And the reverse is true is well; choosing to endure for a time the intrinsic bad of pain can often lead to greater pleasure.

Well said, Joshua !! Expanding on your post, I'd say it's our learning to choose or reject "the actions we take to pursue" the desire for certain pleasurable feelings that lead to more pain than pleasure that is important.

Quote from Godfrey

Alycia LaGuardia-LoBianco and Paul Bloomfeld appear to be the authors, not Pigliucci.

Pigliucci is the author of the article pointing to the paper:

Why Epicureans and Utilitarians are wrong: on the axiology of pain and pleasure

Moral philosophers are beginning to incorporate insights from evolutionary biology

open.substack.com

I'll also add in reference to the pain/bad - pleasure/good notion that the article and paper discuss. It appears to me that Epicurus made the pain/bad - pleasure/good argument precisely on the grounds that those parameters are really the only parameters on which you can claim why something is "good" or "bad." I don't think he was necessarily making moral or ethical arguments. He was literally using the parameters of whether something led to more pain or more pleasure in the end. Living justly, nobly, and prudently is "good" because it allows is to live pleasurably, and vice versa. Living that way isn't "good" because it's decreed from On High or because it's "virtuous" from some external definition. The authors of the paper seemed to tie themselves in knots only to conclude where Epicurus starts from.

I need to read Wilson's Epicureanism: A Very Short Introduction separate from her How to be an Epicurean. Not necessarily endorsing; placing here for future reference and comment.

Human Verification

Thank you for posting this! I read up to the point where a free subscription was needed, and I looked at the PDF of the academic paper.

Pigliucci is, of course, the Stoic's Stoic (in the modernsense). In light of that, I wouldn't expect him to be any more charitable to Epicurus than Epictetus was.

My take on the general direction of the article and the paper is that Epicurus addresses many if not all) of their concerns. For example, the conclusion of the paper begins:

Quote

Consider how broad the scope of moral choice is which involves choosing between two good options, or choosing the lesser of two evils, or any consequentialist trade-offs between what is intrinsically good and bad. Now, consider how many of these choices are made while thinking that pleasures automatically count as good and pains automatically count as bad. If we started denying the goodness of pleasure per se and the badness of pain per se, if we started thinking of these merely as (un)pleasant but without intrinsic value, the effects on our choices would be enormous. If we taught ourselves the proper functions of pain, if we cease to be fooled by the supposed “intrinsic disvalue” of it, so that we do not automatically think that experiencing pain is experiencing something bad, then we would not be fooled into avoiding pains which we know are not harmful by telling ourselves that the pain itself justifies us in avoiding it.

I'm intentionally highlighting that last section because I feel that is precisely Epicurus's position.

Pigliucci makes the error in his article about Epicurus's "freedom from pain" into an all or nothing proposition:

Quote

Epicureanism still counts as a hedonistic school, though, in part because Epicurus identified lack of pain as the highest possible pleasure.

And, yes, Epicurus did... But not for the reasons you appear to be making, Massimo. We've had extensive and on-going discussions on this forum about what that "highest pleasure = absence of pain" means, and I think we're going in the right direction. It's easy to caricature; more difficult to understand.

So, in the end , my reaction is that both the article and the paper rehash old arguments in "new wineskins" so to speak. I'll be interested to read others' takes.

Quote from Bryan

Thank you Don for finding the Stobaeus quote!

It was literally my pleasure

Quote from TauPhi

DeWitt wrote his book not as a scholar but more as a fanboy of Epicurus

Quote from Cassius

i strongly disagree with this characterization of the DeWitt book...

I'm going to wade into the fray to add that I think you're both correct. To TauPhi 's assertions, I agree that Dewitt was a "fanboy" of Epicurus, but I don't see that as necessarily a negative. His "Epicurus and his Philosophy" and his "St. Paul and Epicurus" appear (from the publication dates) to be projects he put off completing until after his retirement from academia. He obviously gave them lots of thought, but it seems he didn't feel her could write them as part of his academic career. And we're all familiar with personal projects here at the forum and finding time to do them! Do I think some of Dewitt's ideas fall under "fan fiction"? Yes. Do I think it detracts from the *overall* value of his work. Only the slightest bit.

With Cassius , I'll concur that Dewitt charted his own path, and even within his career, he was fearless in advocating for the importance of studying Epicurus. It's always gratifying to see him footnted in papers! I also like his academic papers and highly recommend those to the curious student of Epicurus, but they're not for the casual reader and definitely not a starting point! And we have Dewitt to thank for this forum, per Cassius 's history.

For myself, I admit that I have never read all of "Epicurus and his Philosophy" cover to cover. That said, the podcast episodes that methodically went through the book were very helpful in reminding me of the value of Dewitt's book. It is valuable as an overview of the history, development, and tenets of the philosophy and for providing context. It will never be my go-to recommendation (looking at you, Emily Austin ), but I will always include it in any important books to read bibliography.

Quote from Cassius

a disciple of Pythagorus who asserted that the number 10 was of special significance to the geometric forms.

Decimus Sorry, bad joke.

I was under the impression that it comes directly from Pythagoras himself:

Tetractys - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well said, Julia.

So, I found the Stobaeus citation:

On Hathi Trust: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101…97768772423-302

But κύριος is not in the same spot as the other transcription. Curious. So if it's not in the manuscript, and Usener and Stobaeus (5th c CE) put it in different spots... What is the original source?? It *probably* should be in there, but it then continues to call into question the reliability of the Vatican manuscript itself! Having corroboration from that manuscript and other sources is best... But those instances are few and far between.

It doesn't appear to be a rumor. Unfortunately, it sounds like preservation of the scrolls* would be the least of the worries if the volcano erupted! The last time it happened, it created a new shape to the bay! Yikes.

Naples sits on volcanic monsters - and one of them threatens to consume the city

Beneath one of Italy's most densely populated cities, there is danger brewing.

www.bbc.com

Seismic storm hits Italy’s Campi Flegrei super volcano with strongest earthquake in 40 years

Seismic storm hits Italy’s Campi Flegrei super volcano with strongest earthquake in 40 years | CNN

www.cnn.com

For those who want too much information on the Campi Flegrei caldera...

Potential for rupture before eruption at Campi Flegrei caldera, Southern Italy - Communications Earth & Environment

Unrest at the Campi Flegrei caldera, Italy, is consistent with the start of rupturing below the surface and a possible return to volcanic activity, according…

www.nature.com

*Don't get me wrong. Losing the scrolls, now on the verge of being readable, would be a tragedy!! But the scale of the potential eruption could be devastating for the entire region and possibly the world it sounds like. Yikes!!

Quote from Bryan

"We have been born once – twice it is not possible to be born: it is necessary to no longer exist for eternity. But you, not being master of tomorrow, you delay joy! Life is lost by this delay – and each of us, while occupied, dies."

Γεγόναμεν ἅπαξ – δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι: δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι. σὺ δὲ, οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος, ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον! ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται – καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν, ἀσχολούμενος, ἀποθνῄσκει.

Hey, Bryan . I was looking over this thread and realized I had previously posted this:

Post

RE: VS14 - Thoughts on VS14 and source in Vatican manuscript

The Vat.gr.1950 manuscript text reads:

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3901/

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1950.pt.2/0255

402r

The typical transcription reads:

γεγόναμεν ἅπαξ, δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι· δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι· σὺ δὲ οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον· ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἀσχολούμενος ἀποθνῄσκει.

However, look at the VERY beginning of the saying. There is a large red capital epsilon: Ε' γεγοναμεν αμαξ... that…

Don

July 7, 2023 at 10:46 PM

It appears that Vat.gr1950 actually has the first word in the pluperfect:

'Εγεγοναμεν 'απαξ...

which makes sense, as I understand, since the pluperfect is "more complete" than complete. It seems to me that it also hammers home that unique occurence when we are born. "We had been born once." It's clumsy in English, but I can understand why it might be there.

Also, I'm not seeing any κυριος in "ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος". It looks to me like αυριον goes right into αναβαλλη...

So, I'm getting something closer to...

Εγεγόναμεν ἅπαξ - δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι - δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι - σὺ δὲ οὐκ ὢν - τῆς αὔριον ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον - ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται – καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἀσχολούμενος ἀποθνῄσκει.

The traditional transcription runs (including some different punctuation/breaks in the lines)...

Γεγόναμεν ἅπαξ – δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι: δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι. σὺ δὲ, οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος, ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον! ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται – καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν, ἀσχολούμενος, ἀποθνῄσκει.

Without kyrios, that middle line seems to me to be something more akin to σὺ δὲ οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον "Therefore, you are not the one who delays joy until tomorrow"???

"Closer to Fine" by the Indigo Girls

Quote from Godfrey

We do have interoception, an awareness of our internal sensations.

Agreed. Good point. Even there, there still has to be a sensation of something.

I should say I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole of some sensor apart from the sensation. The sensation of the stimuli is sensation. No Cartesian duality or anything.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

If there's only one infinite being, by definition there would be nothing exterior to itself with which to interact with it

I agree that sounds reasonable. Does that leave the question of whether it could be aware of itself? Does it leave additional questions anyone can think of about why an infinite being could not be aware of itself. Does "infinity" contradict the idea of being "a being"?

I don't think we can be aware of ourselves without something external to us. There has to be a me and a you, this and that, for there to be awareness. You might counter with dreams or being in a coma. I think the only way awareness is possible in those circumstances is precisely because we've experienced ourselves in relation to an external world previously. We have never ever had the experience of being a completely autonomous being and never can have that experience.*

*PS: Some might bring up sensory deprivation tanks. But people in those experience weird sensations and mental images because they're coming into the tank with those external experiences. Even cut off from sensory stimulation (while still alive!), our minds use prior experience to hallucinate or imagine or visualize.

Here's my take:

An infinite being would have nothing outside of itself *to* sense! If there's only one infinite being, by definition there would be nothing exterior to itself with which to interact with it. Same with motion. If there was only one infinite being encompassing everything, there would be no void into which it could move.

Quote from Little Rocker

Fret not, Don , my sad emoji was in jest. I'm just over here humming my favorite triumph-song, "Eye of the Tiger.'

I need to stop taking things so literally!

And on your choice of "triumph-song"!

Quote from Bryan

ἅπαξ

I like that this is the same word used in the phrase hapax legomenon - a word that only occurs once in an existing corpus of texts. That connotation of a unique and singular existence seems appropriate.

αὔριονκύριος "Master of Tomorrow" is a great word, too!

PS... And ΓΕΓΟΝΑΜΕΝ ΑΠΑΞ is the next Epicurean T-shirt we need

By Zeus, this thread along with the thread on VS47 makes me think a systematic review of Usener's "fragments" would turn up multiple problematic Epicurean attributions. It seems to me he and his colleagues may have been playing fast and loose. I have no doubts about Usener's scholarship and erudition (just as I respect DeWitt's qualities), but it seems to me he may have got a little full of himself that led to some hubris.

(PS: Some may say that I have hubris to even question Usener or Bailey or even DeWitt, and maybe that's true. I would defend myself by saying that I'm not questioning Usener, Bailey, etc al. on a whim. I find a troubling number of their citations lacking in relevance to their assertions. I find their "corrections" and "reconstrctions" to be more flights of fancy in some places than reasoned well-founded scholarship. All this might mean that we have less extant Epicurean texts than we're led to believe, but maybe we need to concentrate on what we clearly have than what we like to have. )

That's great, Bryan ! You da man!!

I just found that quote in that saying is from the Iliad, I.70:

Homer, Iliad, Book 1, line 68

Quote from Iliad, I.69/70

When he had thus spoken he sat down, and among them arose Calchas son of Thestor, far the best of bird-diviners, who knew the things that were, and that were to be, and that had been before,