Posts by TauPhi

This is the second installment of the Co-founders of the Garden project. Unfortunately, it is also the last one since there's not enough transmitted material about Polyaenus of Lampsacus to create a similar compilation about him.

Here are some details about Hermarchus project (the methodology was very similar to the Metrodorus project):

The attached PDF contains 31 fragments related to Hermarchus' life and works. The document includes both ancient testimonia and extant fragments. It's divided into two sections: Life and Works. The first one focuses on Hermarchus' biography; the second on his philosophy.

Margherita Isnardi Parente published a book in Italian called "Epicuro: Opere". This book has never been translated into English. To my knowledge, it contains the most comprehensive collection of fragments related to Herodotus. I made a list of these fragments and undertook a task of finding as many professional English translations as possible. Out of 31 fragments, I managed to track down 28 translations in 18 different publications. archive.org; twentiers.com; gutenberg.org and en.wikisource.org websites were the most helpful resources. The 3 fragments without professional translation are also included at the very end of the document, but they are grayed out to indicate machine translation, which can introduce errors and can be of lesser quality. Machine translation was performed on Parente's Italian source material.

I made sure that every fragment in the collection has a number in square brackets in its heading. The heading itself gives information about the source of the fragment, the number leads to sources section with detailed information about the translation and the publication from which the translation originates. The translator's name (if available) is also provided. Each of the heading is clickable and is linked with the corresponding publication.

Although Parente's arrangement of fragments makes logical sense, I've rearranged them to group the fragments into even more coherent whole. I've also added few missing fragments I was aware of. 'Life' section contains 10 fragments, 'Works' section contains 21 fragments.

Hermarchus_v1.0.0.pdf

Count me in for the Monday one, please.

Quote from Don

*My statement here assumes anyone would even notice if I was quiet or not. I apologize for the narcissism inherent in saying that.

You're probably one of my favourite narcissists, Don , and I definitely prefer when you're not quiet.

Thank you Godfrey for your posts about Healthy Hedonism. I have to admit these are worth more to me than all the recent innumerable threads and posts about all kinds of pleasure and the attempts to fragmentise, categorise and prioritize the broken pieces of something that should not be split in the first place.

Here's how I see pleasure. It took me a while to understand that there's nothing to lose and nothing to gain in life. It took me a while longer to comprehend this. It took me yet another while longer to embrace this. And finally I felt it. And this 'it' that I feel ever since is pleasure. It is not avoidance of pain, it is not unhinged indulgence. It is a sense of wonder about being alive for a brief moment, with all the consequences of that fact. I try to keep my body healthy and my mind sharp. I feel pleasure when I can barely walk home after an intense training. I struggle and I feel pleasure in finding solutions. I face my fears and I feel pleasure if I manage to overcome them. I feel pleasure when I read a good book and when I learn something new. I feel pleasure when I see people love me because I am a part of their lives. I fail sometimes. I succeed sometimes. I weep sometimes and I smile sometimes. It does not matter to me anymore when life is going to kill me. Anytime is equally good since I've realised that my life is a pleasure to live and I gladly let my life of pleasure eventually kill me.

Thank you for your kind words, Robert

Quote from Robert

The extracts refer to Leontia as his "concubine," but later say that he married her, which is interesting. I don't know much about the societal dynamics of the time...whether it would have been considered unusual, given her status. Plutarch records that Metrodorus's mother and sister rejoiced at his nuptials, so they must have been ok with his choice. I assume Leontia was the mother of his children.

Curiously, a later fragment refers to someone named "Leonteus" and asserts that this person and Metrodorus looked after each other, as well as after Epicurus--but Leonteus looks to me like a masculine name.

Leontion and Leonteus were two different people associated with the Garden. Leontion was a partner/wife of Metrodorus, whereas Leonteus was a male acquaintance of Epicurus. Leonteus was married to Themista (another female philosopher in Epicurean school).

Regarding the status - whether Leontion and Themista were courtesans is unclear. It's possible they were described as such by the enemies of Epicurean school just to defame the school itself.

Quote from Cassius

Tau Phi I have a question here - is this "dehorting" a typo?

It's not. Please compare:

Plutarch's Morals. Tr. from the Greek by several hands. Cor. and rev. by William W. Goodwin ... With an introduction by Ralph Waldo Emerson : Plutarch : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

26

archive.org

Quote from Cassius

So this is from Metrodorus and not Epicurus himself? Seems to me I hear this attributed to Epicurus so if it is not that is a misunderstanding that needs correcting.

I can't answer this conclusively. Here's what Parente has to say about this fragment:

It's the Sent. Vat. LI, clarified as a letter by the papyrus discovery; see VOGLIANO, «Studi Ital. Filol. Class.», 1936, p. 267 ff. Discussion on the figure of Pythocles in VOGLIANO, ibid., p. 272; DIANO («Studi Ital. Filol. Class.», 1948, p. 67 ff.); LIEBICH, Philod. Pragm., p. 41. The text that the translation follows is the one established by Vogliano.

For this saying, which Metrodorus probably took with a slight variation from the work of Epicurus, cf. above, p. 478, and VOGLIANO, «Studi Ital. Filol. Class.», 1936, p. 272

The translation I provided comes from Cyril Bailey. I didn't find any differences between Bailey and Parente but there is a possibility that Vatican Saying 51 is not exactly the same as Pap. Berol. 16369. I have no way of verifying this information, unfortunately.

This is going to be a longer post, so here's a brief summary of what this is about:

The attached PDF contains 100 fragments related to Metrodorus' life and works. The document includes both ancient testimonia and extant fragments. It's divided into two sections: Life and Works. The first one focuses on Metrodorus' biography; the second on his philosophy.

Now, here's a detailed description of the project for anyone interested.

Margherita Isnardi Parente published a book in Italian called "Epicuro: Opere". This book has never been translated into English. To my knowledge, it contains the most comprehensive collection of fragments related to Metrodorus. I made a list of these fragments and undertook a task of finding as many professional English translations as possible. Out of 100 fragments, I managed to track down 86 translations in 25 different publications. archive.org; twentiers.com; gutenberg.org and en.wikisource.org websites were the most helpful resources. The 16 fragments without professional translation are also included but they are grayed out to indicate machine translation, which can introduce errors and can be of lesser quality. Machine translation was performed on Parente's Italian source material.

I made sure that every fragment in the collection has a number in square brackets in its heading. The heading itself gives information about the source of the fragment, the number leads to sources section with detailed information about the translation and the publication from which the translation originates. The translator's name (if available) is also provided. Each of the heading is clickable and is linked with the corresponding publication.

Although Parente's arrangement of fragments makes logical sense, I've rearranged them slightly to group the fragments into even more coherent whole. I've also added few missing fragments I was aware of.

'Life' section contains 33 fragments related to Metrodorus' life. They are arranged more or less chronologically and cover his entire life from birth to death. This section shows Metrodorus' character, his family relations, position in the Garden and relation to fellow philosophers.

'Works' section contains 67 fragments related to Metrodorus' philosophy. 52 of these contain highlighted sections with Metrodorus' direct quotes and paraphrases of his words.

Cassius : If you find this PDF worthwhile, please add it to the 'Files' section.
Everyone else: If you find missing translations, missing fragments or any errors, please let me know and I'll make sure this document is updated.

I apologise for the length of this post and thank you if you kept reading. Now, please enjoy 'The Life and Works of Metrodorus of Lampsacus'. It will give you a glimpse of a life of Epicurus' most beloved friend and a co-founder of Epicurean Garden.

Metrodorus_v1.0.0.pdf

Pacatus . Your post #12 is something quite peculiar. It almost never happens that someone writes so many sentences and every single one of them makes me say: 'Yes, exactly.'. I read the whole thing and started to laugh out loud at the end because I had said: 'Yes, exactly.' dozen of times. Well done, my telepathic twin brother from a different mother.

Quote from Don

You took the words out of my mouth. I was going to post this exact same question. I *really* dislike it when "flourishing" is used as a translation of eudaimonia.

I have a strong suspicion that Don and Cassius might not be the greatest fans of spiritual wellness influencers. I sense some tension in their inner energy currents restraining their flourishing potential. Cleanse your chakras, Gentlemen.

Here's more detailed publication:

An entire Herculaneum scroll has been read for the first time

PHerc. 1667, sealed since the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, has been virtually unwrapped and read from beginning to end — without ever being opened.

scrollprize.org

Exciting times for Epicurean philosophy are coming and they're coming fast.

Part of Lucretius' Book 3 Proem sang in classical Latin pronunciation to some medieval-like music. Lovely stuff.

Quote from Cassius

If this keeps up we're going to have to appoint Tau Phi as Moderator-Pro-Tem of the SUAVITY forum!

Spledid idea! Almost as good as appointing Lucifer as a gatekeeper at St. Peter's gates of heaven. It should be fine.

Quote from Cassius

In general I often find it surprising how much I agree with Tau Phi's perspective on Epicurean philosophy despite the fact that he is very clear that he differs with Epicurus on certain key issues (such as issues of skepticism and as we see in this thread, physics).

I do differ in some areas but I also love Epicurean philosophy. It has benefited my life enormously and it still does. Even if I don't accept the philosophy in its entirety, I agree with most of it. It may look sometimes that I'm picking a fight but I really, really don't. I don't argue because I want to become the Internet troll of the month. I hope exchanging ideas is beneficial to all parties involved. And the truth is, I agree a lot with you Cassius as well. It's just we usually don't discuss things we agree upon.

Quote from Cassius

To me it's pretty clear that seeing things "on a spectrum," and seeing that there are clear differences between the higher end of the spectrum and the lower end, does not constitute "idealism."

Seeing things "on a spectrum" is usually the healthiest way to see things. It gets dangerous when people aim at the end of it looking for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or something like that. That's why I object when someone tries to talk in "ultimate" terms or seeks "ultimate" creatures hoping for some sort of reward in doing so.

Quote from Cassius

As I am reading Tau Phi's view he is arguing outside of BOTH the "idealist" and "realist" perspectives, even though most readers of Epicurus find themselves gravitating towards one or the other.

That is correct. When I do that, I'm not trying to hijack Epicurean philosophy to fit my own agenda. I try to be as clear as possible when I'm not expressing Epicurean ideas. I do that because many of us (me included) come from religious upbringing and it is tempting to gravitate towards safe, known waters. People brake free from religions, find Epicurean philosophy but still think in religious categories. They reject Jesus but they try to make Epicurus yet another saviour. They think they are free from a burden of eternal life but flirt with the idea of prolonging their life indefinitely. They reject the perfection of god almighty and try to find a replacement in ultimate blessedness and incorruptibility. I do understand that people have different needs and I don't want to steer anyone from their "idealist" or "realist" perspectives if such perspectives work for them. I only try to show the dangers of such perspectives.

Here are my personal opinions on all three points. Please mind they are just that - personal opinions. Nothing else but food for thought, if someone is interested in reading them.

Quote from Titus

1.) As Patrikios said, the Gods symbolise ultimate excellence. They are something to orientate to as personifications of the highest state a being can possibly achieve. They give an idea what the happy life is.

Ultimate excellence does not exist. It's nothing more but a turn into idealism. Epicurean philosophy is a turn away from idealism so the claim that this imagined ideal can be a guide towards happy life is a contradiction to the goal of the philosophy. Even to ancient Epicureans their gods were material beings, not some kind of symbols. On top of that, Epicurean gods are completely removed from human existence. Their existence couldn't be more alien to us even if we tried. Treating them as symbols of human potential excellence is like taking someone whose only language is English and asking them to translate from Chinese.

Quote from Titus

2.a) The correct prolepsis of the Gods works as armour to save from wrong assumptions. Usually, these are the human ideas of ultimate power and this ulimate power being obsessed with moral behaviour. All of that is grounded in human projections rather than what ultimate excellence really is.

The prolepsis of the Gods and ultimate excellence are as much wrong assumptions as ultimate power is. They are based on wishful thinking, nothing more. You're trying to fight fire with fire here.

Quote from Titus

2.b) Human ideas on otherworldly powers are real. Religion is all around and structuring the lives of people. This is something we have to react to and interact with. Personally, I like the idea of imperishable and blessed beings around because this states a direct counterpart to human superstitions. Otherwise, we are in great danger of becoming overwhelmed by false opinions.

Imperishable and blessed beings are as much human superstitions as any other ultimately powerful friends used as pillars for religions. Again, it looks like you're trying to fight fire with fire. You're just switching one type of imaginary friends to another.

Quote from Cassius

He could believe in them in exactly the same way he believes in atoms, which he has also never perceived with his five senses.

Quote from Cassius

Again, he had the same level of evidence he had as to atoms - all inference, no direct evidence - yet fully "believed" in atoms.

Both statements are true for Epicurus but are not true from modern perspective. We no longer can equate atomic theory and the theory of eidolas. The atomic theory still stands nowadays, the theory of eidolas has been proven to be incorrect. Epicurus based the existence of gods on the theory of eidolas. Since the theory is wrong, the conclusion about the gods is also wrong.

Quote from Cassius

Because the gods must act to maintain their deathlessness. forces exist which tend toward dissolution and will cause that if not counteracted, but there is no "fate" which prevents counteracting forces from being sustainable without definite limit.

It's not about "fate" but the laws of nature - they forbid any material compounds to be indefinitely sustainable. Our current understanding of the universe makes such compounds bound to dissolution. Both is theory and in empirical observations - not a single thing composed of atoms have been found so far in our universe that would even remotely fit the description of Epicurean gods - everything seems to be corruptible over time.

Quote from Cassius

And as for the last part I am not saying this to be contentious but to say what I think and Epicurean from the ancient world would say even if they were alive today and have access to the same science we have:

You have every right to disagree with Epicurus and think that the error you think he committed proves his humanity. An ancient Epicurean would say that the error is yours for not agreeing with Epicurus' argument as to proof from circumstantial evidence. Although I am not an ancient Epicurus, I would say that I would agree with their position even given all the additional science we have today, which I don't think touches in any way the essence of Epicurus' logical argument.

If they had known what we know, they would have recognised that the theory of eidolas used to justify the existence of gods is wrong, therefore Epicurus' inference of gods is flawed. His argument as to proof from circumstantial evidence does not hold in this case.

Epicurus was a very consistent thinker. He, as we are today, had access to limited knowledge, however. He got some things wrong, we get some things wrong and the people in the future who will have us corrected will also be wrong about some things. The insistence that Epicurus should be left untouched because, in essence, he figured all out is not particularly compelling, in my opinion.

Cassius , please don't take my post as an attempt to pick a fight - I'm just presenting my opinions about the concept of Epicurean gods through my understanding of the world I live in. I reserve my right to be wrong about the things above, but I needed them to answer DaveT questions:

Did Epicurus then possibly or probably not believe in the Greek gods, but allowed that false opinions of the existence of gods do no harm since they only exist as opinions, and not fact?

If no one had ever actually seen the Greek Gods how could Epicurus have believed they actually existed?

Epicurus probably truly believed in existence of gods. They weren't the Greek gods, though. They were universal gods completely removed from human existence. He justified their existence based on the theory of eidolas. He most likely was convinced that human beings are capable of detecting godly eidolas so such beings were not just opinions but actually existed and their films reaching human minds were indirect proofs of such existence. From our modern perspective this argumentation simply doesn't hold (please refer to my above comments) but for ancient Epicureans this was very much a viable explanation.

Shortly after I joined the forum, during the first online meeting I attended, I was asked if given the opportunity, would I choose to become an Epicurean god. I said no because I wanted to retain my humanity since I was born human. I was in an overwhelming minority. Most people would choose to sacrifice their humanity for blessedness and incorruptibility. I never forgot this moment. Maybe because it was the first meeting, maybe because I was surprised by other people's decision. I think the usage of AI in the areas of human creativity boils down to a very similar choice.

Some people are perfectly fine with sacrificing the struggle of their own creativity because AI can write/paint/sing/play faster and better. Those people don't seem to see the point in slow betterment of their limited human potential since they have been presented with the opportunity of godlike simulacrum. Why to struggle with inferior human quality when you can effortlessly obtain godlike results?

And some people decide to pick up their pens, brushes, microphones and guitars and create something, every time something a bit better than their previous something. Never as fast, never as perfectly sterile. Always imperfect, human something. That's where I find myself. I love my imperfections and limitations. I will never ask AI to do creative work for me and I still don't want to be an Epicurean god.

Your comments about the book sum it up pretty accurately, Cassius. This is not a resource that can be reliably used in a study of Epicurean philosophy by any stretch of imagination. The book is archaic not only in language but the contents as well. I do find it interesting for several reasons, though:

1) It is one of the earliest attempts of introducing Epicurus into English speaking world. It's a highly distorted view of Epicurus but at least it's a start of re-introducing his after a millennium of oblivion.

2) It unintentionally proves superiority of pleasure over virtues. Because the book deals mainly with virtues, and it was written 350 years ago, it makes it obvious to a modern reader that what was once considered virtuous not necessarily is considered virtuous now. The idea of a virtuous woman presented in the book, for example, might be rather shocking to contemporary readers. Virtues are clearly dependant on social contracts and these contracts evolve over time. So do the virtues. If someone chooses to build their lives on the foundation of virtues, builds their lives on a rather shaky grounds.

3) The subtitle 'The Empire of Pleasure Over the Vertues' and the following dedication where the translator is blowing smoke up the patron's backside by praising his virtuous behaviour without even mentioning pleasure, made my chuckle as it initially looked to me as simultaneous flattery and mockery. (It's not the case. It's just my initial impression.)

I'm sorry to resurrect this thread after 5 years of inactivity, but if anyone's interested in this 350 years old book, I've restored it and prepared a modern PDF version.

The original book contains around 50 marginalia, mostly in Latin. I've moved these into footnotes and I've provided rough English translations. The marginalia aren't essential to the text and they serve mostly as reinforcements of discussed topics. I've also added interactive table of contents. Other than that, I've tried to be as faithful to the original as possible. The original scan of the book is available at archive.org (link below).

Cassius : You can add this to the files section if you find it worthwhile. Everything is in public domain as indicated at the end of the PDF. The book is not particularly valuable as an educational resource, but I think it's historically interesting.

Archive.org link:

Info about the author:
Antoine Le Grand (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Antoine Le Grand - Wikipedia

The restored version:

The_Divine_Epicurus_v1.0.0.pdf

Quote from DaveT

Nevertheless, I'm wondering if he believed there could be very many wise men among the general population of his followers and they had a higher calling from him than all of the others. And among those who were deemed wise, was he simply advocating those few should devote themselves to teaching.

What do you know about this issue? Have you seen or read evidence of who and how many men would qualify as wise in the Garden?

This may partially answer your question, Dave:

Quote

Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 52.3: Epicurus remarks that certain men have worked their way to the truth without anyone’s assistance, carving out their own passage. And he gives special praise to these, for their impulse has come from within, and they have forged to the front by themselves. Again, he says, there are others who need outside help, who will not proceed unless someone leads the way, but who will follow faithfully. Of these, he says, Metrodorus was one; this type of man is also excellent, but belongs to the second grade. We ourselves are not of that first class, either; we shall be well-regarded if we are admitted into the second. Nor need you despise a man who can gain salvation only with the assistance of another; the will to be saved means a great deal, too. You will find still another class of man – and a class not to be despised – who can be forced and driven into righteousness, who do not need a guide as much as they require someone to encourage and, as it were, to force them along. This is the third variety. If you ask me for a man of this pattern also, Epicurus tells us that Hermarchus was such. And of the two last-named classes, he is more ready to congratulate the one, but he feels more respect for the other; for although both have reached the same goal, it is a greater credit to have brought about the same result with the more difficult material upon which to work.

Thank you, Don