Posts by TauPhi

This is an obscure book but it can be valuable for anyone interested in the studies of Epicureanism. On top of that, the book is historically interesting as it was published at the very end of the 17th century when Epicurus' philosophy was being introduced into the English-speaking world.

Until now, there were two ways of reading the book:
1) 200MB pdf scan of a 300-year-old book printed with a typeface containing an archaic, long s via archive.org - not much fun there
2) digitized but unformatted and incomplete transcription containing random OCR conversion artifacts - even less fun there

I decided to remedy the situation so I cleaned the transcription, filled in the missing bits, corrected any errors I could find and typeset the whole thing creating a new edition of the book.

During the process of typesetting I tried to be as faithful to the original as possible. Every chapter, paragraph and even inline text highlighting is exactly as in the 1699 edition of the book. I just got rid of an archaic, long s. so the text is easier to read by modern audience. That said, I'm just one guy and this is a 400 pages long book, so it's highly probable that I missed some errors or even created some of my own during typesetting. If anyone notices anything off, please let me know and I'll make sure to fix the problem.

I also added a new title page and an interactive Table of Contents which can take the readers directly to every section of the book.

Cassius Every resource used in the creation of the document is in Public Domain. I listed the sources at the very end of the book. My work is also in Public Domain as indicated at the end so if you find this worthwhile, feel free to add the pdf to the 'Files' section of the forum so the book is easily accessible to anyone interested.

Without further ado, after a short period of 325 years or so, here's the unofficial, second edition of Bernier's "Three Discourses".*

[*) The third edition is scheduled for release in year 2350 - stay tuned.]

Quote from Cassius

So this little exercise indicates well of the paraphrase but also indicates the hazards of following Gassendi too closely.

Pierre Gassendi lived and worked in the 17th century. This is historically very important period for the revival of Epicureanism as the philosophy started to get some traction again but at that time everything got filtered through Christianity. Gassendi, Le Grand and Charleton are Epicurean heroes in disguise. They tried to put Epicurus back on the map but the map was still firmly stomped by a Christian boot. Their works are really interesting and they should be investigated closely even if they can't be treated as authoritative sources for the study of Epicureanism. I'll make separate post about Le Grand in few days as I'm currently restoring one of his works.

Proper English translation from 1699 containing 'Happiness':

Three discourses of happiness, virtue and liberty. 1699 : Gassendi, Pierre. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Three discourses of happiness, virtue and liberty. 1699..Digitized from IA40313015-80.Previous issue:...

archive.org

Transcription of the book (not perfect but workable - click 'View entire text' to see the whole book):

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A42442.0001.001/?view=toc

Quote from Eikadistes

It's an exceptional resource.

I second that. It was one of the first books on Epicurean philosophy I've read and to this day I don't regret it. The amount of information there is extraordinary.

Quote from TauPhi

Actively constructed subjective imagination cannot be confirmed nor contradicted. 'I imagined it therefore it is', is not compatible with Epicurean system.

Quote from Eikadistes

I think it can. Dreams are real. We don't choose our dreams, they just happen.

Dreams are real in the sense that they happen to us but what we dream about does not automatically become true in Epicurean system. 'I imagined it therefore it is' is not compatible because it's a simplification that can easily produce errors. For Epicureans, the claim that we create our own gods to represent our ideals therefore such gods are real would fail under the scrutiny of their theory of knowledge. Epicurus explicitly talks about this here: (Letter to Herodotus, section 51, Yonge's translation)

Quote

In fact the representations which intelligence reflects like a mirror, whether one perceives them in a dream or by any other conceptions of the intellect, or of any other of the criteria, can never resemble the objects that one calls real and true, unless there were objects of this kind perceived directly. And, on the other side, error could not be possible, if we did not receive some other motion also, a sort of initiative of intelligence connected, it is true, with direct representation, but going beyond that representative. These conceptions being connected with direct perception which produces the representation, but going beyond it, in consequence of a motion peculiar to the individual thought, produces error when it is not confirmed by evidence, or when it is contradicted by evidence; but when it is confirmed, or when it is not contradicted by evidence, then it produces truth.

My current understanding of the issue is as follows. Feel free to point out any problems you see with my line of thinking.

Non-evident things must be proved by means of apparent things. To do this, confirmatory testimony and lack of contrary testimony is required to claim that something is true. The lack of confirmatory testimony and contradictory testimony indicate that something is false. That's, in a nutshell, an Epicurean theory of knowledge for non-evident phenomena.

Epicureans, as far as I'm aware, claimed that gods existed because:
1) images of gods could be detected directly by human mind
2) principle of isonomia
3) pre-conceptions of gods were incorporated into human nature

To Ancient Epicureans these were confirmatory testimonies of non-evident gods and these testimonies were not contradicted in ancient times (at least not contradicted according to Epicureans).

If "we actively construct our own conception of a 'god' rather than discovering pre-existing beings." and "we naturally tend to imagine beings that represent our own ideals of happiness and tranquility", Epicureans wouldn't be able to epistemologically claim that gods existed. Actively constructed subjective imagination cannot be confirmed nor contradicted. 'I imagined it therefore it is', is not compatible with Epicurean system.

Quote from Bryan

P.Herc. 4 has been around just as a place holder, I have never seen any text from it (except for the clips in this article). Hopefully they fully release what they have.

Wanna see it? Starts at page 13. Happy reading

https://www.iris.unina.it/retrieve/f31997bd-f357-4043-b7ec-f70fae920d3b/2024_CErc_Nicolardi%20et%20alii.pdf

Robert You may find this interesting:

https://www.hcsjournal.org/ojs/index.php/hcs/article/download/123/112/216

This paper will give you a general idea why so little is available in English (mostly because very little is available in general).

Right now, it appears there are only few unpublished columns for PHerc. 26 (which is 'On Gods - Book 1') and fragments of PHerc 152/157 (Book 3) which you've already found on Twentiers' site (an excellent place to look for Epicurean texts).

'Freedom' by John Norris in not an Epicurean poem. In fact, the author could be the very antithesis of an Epicurean philosopher. Nevertheless, I hope you enjoy the poem as much as I do. It's a pretty neat depiction of 'Lathe Biosas' lifestyle.

Please find the transcription and the link to a book published in 1699 where this poem comes from (page 113).

I.
I do not ask thee Fate, to give
This little span a long Reprieve.
Thy pleasures here are all so poor and vain,
I care not hence how soon I'm gone.
Date as thou wilt my Time, I shan't complain;
May I but still live free, and call it all my own.

II.
Let my Sand slide away apace;
I care not, so I hold the Glass.
Let me my Time, my Books, my Self enjoy;
Give me from Cares a sure retreat;
Let no impertinence my Hours imploy,
That's in one word, kind Heaven, let me ne're be great.

III.
In vain from Chains and Fetters free
The great Man boasts of Liberty.
He's pinnion'd up by formal Rules of State;
Can ne're from Noise and Dust retire;
He's haunted still by Crouds that round him wait,
His lot's to be in Pain, as that of Fools t' admire.

IV.
Mean while the Swain has calm repose,
Freely he comes and freely goes.
Thus the bright Stars whose station is more high,
Are fix'd, and by strict measures move,
While lower Planets wanton in the Sky,
Are bound to no set Laws, but humoursomly rove.

A collection of miscellanies, ... 1699 : Norris, John. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

A collection of miscellanies, ... 1699..Digitized from IA40313713-55.Next issue: bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_a-discourse-concerning-t_norris-john_1685.

archive.org

David Sedley's article closely related to the topic of this thread:

EPICUREAN THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE FROM HERMARCHUS TO LUCRETIUS AND PHILODEMUS

ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to trace the development of Epicurean epistemology from the death of Epicurus in 270 BCE to the latter part of the first century BCE. The story gains interest from the fact that these Epicureans were, as would be expected, scrupulously loyal to the doctrines of their founder as they interpreted these, but at the same time found themselves obliged to elaborate and strengthen the inferential methodology he had bequeathed, initially in order to resist the sceptical critiques of the New Academy, and later in order to justify their school’s empiricism in opposition to the rationalistic Stoic theory of inferential validity. The protagonists are Colotes, Polystratus, Timasagoras, Zeno of Sidon, Philodemus and Lucretius, with Cicero an important witness.

Full article can be found here:

View of Epicurean theories of knowledge from Hermarchus to Lucretius and Philodemus

You can learn about few studies in favour of abiogenesis, conveniently overlooked by the author of the article, here:

Nothing definite yet but definitely interesting.

Quote from Cassius

TauPhi is this ok?

It is. Thank you.

Cassius Please also remove 'any consideration'. I rejected that the pleasure of the one might be evaluated as "greater" than the pleasure of the other but I did not and do not reject the act of thinking about it. I'm all in for considering anything and everything anyone is capable of thinking about.

A good place to start would be 'Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker' (The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics) by Hermann Diels (1903). This book would probably answer all your questions. Unfortunately, it's never been translated into English. The good news is we have the next best thing - 2 books by Kathleen Freeman:

1) 'The Pre-Socratic Philosophers; A Companion to Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker' (1946)
2) 'Ancilla to the pre-Socratic philosophers: a complete translation of the fragments in Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker' (1948)

1) is available on archive.org. If you have an hour or so to spare, read through pages 285-326. The amount of information, heavily supported by testimonia and actual fragments, is all you can wish for and then some more. The arrangement by subject-matter is also helpful to quickly see similarities and differences between Democritus and Epicurus.

The Pre-socratic Philosophers : Kathleen Freeman : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book Source: Digital Library of India Item 2015.276045dc.contributor.author: Kathleen Freemandc.date.accessioned: 2015-07-29T20:12:21Zdc.date.available:...

archive.org

2) is not available on archive.org but it's digitally available at 'sacred-texts' website (link below). The link will take you to the ancilla containing fragments of plethora of Pre-Socratics. It's the only place online I'm aware of where all Democritus' fragments are available in English.

Quote from Cassius

And that is why having a position on how to resolve the heap paradox is so important.

Have you proposed an answer to that?

I disagree. The resolution of this paradox is not important at all. It's just a word play based on vagueness of human language. How much do you need to love to love someone very much? How dense a fog needs to be to be called a dense fog? How many times do you need to jump to be very tired? An attempt at answering such questions is pointless.

Quote from Cassius

In regard to whether 10% is reasonable, and how many more % can be added and stay within reason, that is the question.

I'm sorry, Cassius but I don't consider this the question. It's just a reformulation of how many grains of sand make a heap.

Quote from Cassius

And the dividing line cannot reasonably be "whether I have seen it before."

"Whether I have seen it before." has very little to do with "understanding of nature based on our experiences and acquired knowledge". Please don't simplify my argument like that.

Quote from Cassius

I think that the real question is what is the dividing line between "TauPhies-like creatures" in the first paragraph and the examples in the second. What is it about the examples in the second paragraph that justifies labeling them as "dreams" versus simply "Tau-Phi-like creatures which are 10% stronger or 10% longer-lived" than the example we have here and now?

The dividing line is our understanding of nature based on our experiences and acquired knowledge. People who get confident about reality based on what they can imagine are prone to venture boldly into the realms which may or may not exist. Problems start when they conflate reality with their imagination.

10% longer-lived? Sure, we know that variation in human lifespan can be higher than 10%. Reasonable possibility.
1000 year old? We never observed living humans even close to that. We currently don't know a way to extend our life by that much. Can we imagine people living that long? Sure. We can imagine innumerable creatures having lifespans from 0 to infinity. Do they exist? We don't know but it's not reasonable to claim that they do only because we can imagine them, is it? This is what Velleius did in his description of isonomia.

Quote from Cassius

Is it predictable and expectable that given that there are humans on earth who live to be 100 years old, that there are beings on other worlds who live to be 1000 years old?

I exist. If I live in boundless and eternal universe, it's predictable and expectable that there are infinite number of TauPhies-like creatures inhabiting the universe. This is a possibility inspired by reason.

I exist. If I live in boundless and eternal universe, it's predictable and expectable that there are infinite number of SuperTauPhies that are stronger than Superman, older than Methuselah and wiser than Solomon. This is a possibility inspired by dreams.

Epicurean universe is boundless and eternal but it is also limited by what kind of matter can exist in it (atoms' types are innumerable but not infinite and natural laws govern matter's interactions). In Epicurean universe if A exists, infinite As exist. If B exists, infinite Bs exist. But it absolutely doesn't mean that if A exist, B exists as well. That kind if inference is not grounded in reason but in dreams.

Quote

[...] This property is termed by Epicurus isonomia, or the principle of uniform distribution. From this principle it follows that if the whole number of mortals be so many, there must exist no less a number of immortals [...]

Velleius' claim is an example of inference grounded in dreams. I highly doubt his description of isonomia is correct. Isonomia in this form could be used to justify the existence of pretty much anything and everything and it's not compatible with the universe bound by natural laws.

The way I see it - predictions and expectations influenced by what we think we know about the world around us are reasonable. If they are influenced by ungrounded imagination, they may or may not materialise but I definitely wouldn't base my life around them. Facts are useful. Dreams are entertaining at best.

Quote from Bryan

I added a bit of paint, but sticking to gold/bronze/silver turned him into a bit of a ghost, so I'll try again with more realistic colors.

I like it like that. He looks like a ginger vampire and that explains a lot about his philosophy. Firstly, everyone knows that gingers have no soul so it's clear that Epicurus got jealous and depreciated the importance of soul's existence. Secondly, gray skin is a sign of anemia. Let's face it - he asked for it. He thought bread and water could produce the highest pleasure. He obviously sucked at being a vampire since he didn't know about the benefits of drinking the blood of virgins.

I've compiled a book containing Plutarch's 3 essays dealing with Epicurus. It's an alternative translation to the Loeb volume. It's also much easier to read, search and copy as the book contains plain text instead of scans and ocr layer on top of them. Original Greek is also included starting from page 92. Everything in this document is in Public Domain so you can use it however you wish. Let me know if you spot any problems with it and I'll make sure to fix them.

Cassius , please consider adding this document to the 'Files' section if you find it worthwhile.

Plutarch_Essays_on_Epicureanism_v1.0.0.pdf (Show) Plutarch_Essays_on_Epicureanism_v1.0.0.pdf

[Note by Cassius: New readers should be aware that Plutarch was strongly opposed to Epicurean philosophy, so this material should be read and understood as being written from an adversarial viewpoint.]