Posts by Eikadistes

I've finally got all of the Hegemon's works updated on the site.

We have a fresh translation of all of Epíkouros' completed works and some of his fragments.

I wonder if she believes that the Universe, itself, is responsible for creating her videos.

Most definitely! There are a ton of similarities, coherences, and explicit inspirations. As The Dude writes, "Dudeism is inspired by a lot of ancient philosophy. Probably the two most influential have been Epicureanism and Taoism. We’ve gone into great depths discussing Dudeism’s relationship to Taoism, but not so much in regards to Epicureanism." I collaborated with The Dude to compose a "Dudeist" version of the Letter to Menoeceus: https://dudeism.com/the-dudes-letter-to-menoeceus/

Quote from Kalosyni

But I like this concept that Eikadistes made some time ago... I've made it as a plain symbol without words:

In the even that anyone else wants to play with the gibbous moon design, I'm happy to share with you high resolution versions of the wordless transparencies I created for the Hedonicon and elsewhere.

And, actually, just to piggy-back off of that, it has become a lot more clear to me why Lucretius chose the words he did (or coined them). He took the Hegemon's concepts and transposed them:

CORPORA — “first bodies” (Munro)
CORPORA MATERIAI — “elements of matter” (Munro)
CORPORA PRIMA — “first bodies” (Munro)
CORPORIBUS PRIMIS — “first bodies” (Munro)
CORPORIS — “first body” (Munro)
CORPVSCVLA MATERIAI — “the minute bodies of matter” (Munro)
ELEMENTA — “elements” (Munro)
ELEMENTAQUE PRIMA — “prime elements” (Munro)
ELEMENTIS — “elements” (Munro)
EXORDIA — “beginnings” (Munro)
EXORDIA PRIMA — “first-beginnings” (Munro)
EXORDIA RERVM — “beginnings of things” (Munro)

FIGVRAS — “elements” (Munro)

GENITALIA CORPORA — “begetting bodies” (Munro)
GENITALIA CORPORA REBVS — “begetting bodies of things” (Munro)

MATERIAI CORPORA — “bodies of matter” (Munro)
MATERIAI CORPORIBVS — “bodies of matter” (Munro)
MATERIEM RERVM — “matter of things” (Munro)
MATERIES AETERNA — “matter everlasting” (Munro)

MINVTIS PERQVAM CORPORIBVS — “exceedingly minute bodies” (Munro)

PRIMAS PARTIS — “primal parts” (Munro)
PRIMASQVE FIGVRAS — “primary elements” (Munro)

PRIMORDIA — “first-beginnings” (Munro)
PRIMORDIA CORPORE — “first elements” (Munro)
PRIMORDIA PRINCIPIORVM — “basic elements” (Humphries)
PRIMORDIA RERVM — “first beginnings of things” (Munro)
PRIMORDIAQVE — “firstlings” (Humphries)
PRIMORVM — “first things” (Munro)

PRINCIPIIS — “primary particles” (Smith)
PRINCIPIIS RERVM — “primary elements of things” (Smith)

PRINCIPIORVM — “primary elements” (Smith)
PRINCIPIORVM CORPORIBVS — “primary particles” (Melville)
PRINCIPIORVM CORPORIS ATQVE ANIMI — “the elements of the body and spirit” (Smith)

SEMINA — “seeds” (Munro)
SEMINA REBVS — “seeds of things” (Munro)
SEMINA RERVM — “seeds of things” (Munro)
SEMINAQVE — “seeds” (Smith)
SEMINE — “seed” (Munro)
SEMINIBVS — “seeds” (Munro)
SEMINIS — “seeds” (Munro)

For sure, I just shared the nominative, plural for the sake of consistency.

I recently made a discovery I wanted to share:

The Hegemon never really refers to particles as the noun “atoms” or “uncuttables“. He only ever uses a form of word átomos as an adjective. As many times as he refers to “uncuttable” parts, he equally refers to them as “countless”, “microscopic”, and “primordial”. Just as easily as we have adopted the term “atom”, we could just as easily say “mikron”, “ametabolon”, or “apeiron”. Still, two words from this Epicurean vocabulary survived history and contribute to contemporary jargon; those two words are “proton” and “lepton”. Otherwise, Epíkouros properly refers to these bits of matter as σπερμά (spermá, “seeds”), ᾰ̓ρχαί (ărkhaí, “beginnings”), σώματα (sṓmata, simple “bodies”), ὄγκοι (ónkoi, “hooks”), τομαί (tomaí, “splinters”), λεπτομερής (leptomerḗs, “fine parts”), λεπτοί (leptoí, “cents”), μόρια (mória, “motes”), and, most frequently, as μέρη (mérē) meaning “parts” or “particles”.

Those are my translations of them, anyway. Lepton is particularly cool, because is it used when referring to particles of the soul, and lepton is also a small unit of Greek currency, so it lends itself to the phrase "cents of consciousness." (... get it?)

Quote from Don

the widespread symbol in the ancient world that we know of was the image of Epicurus in stone, on cups, on rings, etc.

I do like the idea of a symbol reflecting the Hegemon, himself, in the spirit of consistency with the ancient tradition. This is what I came up with a while ago to place focus back on The Man:

This placement in 10.62 is interesting: he presents a scenario where the ἐπιβολὴν λαμβανόμενον τῇ διανοίᾳ (épibolēn lampanómenon têi dianoíai), the "apprehending being grasped [by] the intellect" ἐστι ἀληθές or "is true", verus it being false under dissimilar conditions.

More and more, it seems to me that there is no, true "Fourth Criterion" of the Kanon because Epíkouros, himself, writes that one such apprehension "is true" but another such "is false". However, that does not mean this, true apprehension is un-useful in having coherence with reality.

Also, based on the consistency with which this phrase is re-employed, combined with the naturalistic language he uses when making analogies, I think he supposes that thinking, itself, can reliably be said to be like a fisherman purposefully casting a net in meaningful directions to catch thoughts.

The caveat here is that anything that is capable of being generated, or destroyed can neither be an uncuttable particle, nor void nature. Otherwise, everything else is fair game.

Give that "Particles" + "Void = "The All", I might avoid using "all things", if we are to suppose the plethora of particles and the boundless void to be things among "all things".

Quote from Don

Why does he use ἐγράφομεν "we write"? 1st person plural?

I've been considering if this choice was a reflection of those texts being expressions of the collective thought held by the leaders of the Garden, or else, if it evident (as I think might be the case with the Last Will) that someone was transcribing on behalf of Epicurus, or else, copying material.

Just wanted to organize the update here, in addition to the Gallery, for further discussion.

All right, so, this is by no means authoritative, but I did my best to try to illustrate what I understand to be the semantic context of these phrases, primarily found in 10.49-52:

"Theories of Vision

49 It is necessary then also to know [that the] impinging [of images occurs] on account of a certain thing from the outside [that enables] us to observe and to consider, since the nature [of objects] cannot be impressed [while we are] removed from the [objects] themselves, as [in the case] of an [object’s] color and of an [object’s] morphology [as though this these qualities could be extrapolated] from the air that [rests] between both of us and of the [objects as Aristotélēs says], nor [could it] on account of the “rays” [or “beams“] or whatever [is believed] of those presenting streams [of Empedoklḗs and Pláton], as a result of us [directing our gaze] toward those [objects]; therefore, just as in the case of some impressions [that are] impinging [upon] us [as] a result of both the colorful realities and of like morphologies concerning a harmonious magnitude [entering]into [either] the face or the mind, they are being swiftly assailed [by] the [atomic] forces, ⁵⁰[and] then because of the latter[forcible] cause of that one [magnitude], both of [a] constant [stream of particles] yielding a [perceptual] phantasm¹⁵ and an[affective] sympathy as a result of the observing, [they] are [both] being established thereafter by symmetrical impact out of a [body] by breadth at the [immensely] fast [movement] of the pulsing of the uncuttable [particles]. And we could have immediately apprehended this applicative phantasm [within] the mind¹⁶ or [else could have apprehended] the sensations either [in the case] of [a body’s physical] morphology or of [a body’s qualitative] attributes.

Fact, Fiction, and Fantasia

That morphology exists [as] a solid [structure since] an [appearance] is being generated sequentially by a concentration or residue of the eídṓlou; moreover, a pseudodoxy, as [compared with] a [true belief], has gone astray from the [observable reality that] is being experienced [and] perpetually [that reality] exists. <In the case of what remains> to be confirmed or to be contradicted, either it will be confirmed <or it will be contradicted> (in respect of some motion within us [that] is [in]ourselves being merged with the creative application [of the mind],¹⁷ then possessing [such a] judgment, the pseudodoxy is being generated by that [creative application that can be either true or false]). ⁵¹For also that likeness of the [perceptual] phantasms¹⁸ [that] are being grasped as by [an] image are being generated, either in respect of [dreaming like during] slumbers or in respect of some other applications of the mind,¹⁹ or it could not actually be of the remaining criteria [of truth]— at some point it can have been arising [from] The Real just as true [statements] are being addressed, if [indeed] it was not a certain something, and in such manner besides that which we were apprehending; but having gone astray [from the facts], the proposition could could not have been arising [from Nature’s kanṓn], whether [or not] we were not grasping [the truth] and [instead preferred to follow] some other [persuasive] motion in us ourselves [that] is indeed being combined [to produce] a creative application²⁰ [that] is being engaged; moreover, [this faculty] is [capable of] possessing [reliable] judgment, but again if [the faculty] was [either] not [capable of] confirming or [if] it was contradicting the [evidence], a pseudodoxy is being generated; but, if it was being confirmed, or [at least] was not being contradicted, [then] the [proposition is] true."

And here are the corresponding footnotes, describing each declension:

15. τὴν φαντασίαν (tḗn phantasían) meaning “a phantasm” or “the fantasy“.
— τὴν (tḗn) – (fem. acc. sing.) – “a“, “the“.
— φαντασίαν (phantasían) – (n. sing. acc.) meaning a “appearance“, “presentation“, “display“. ↩︎

16. λάβωμεν φαντασίαν ἐπιβλητικῶς τῇ διανοίᾳ (lámbōmen phantasían épiblētikõs têi dianoíai), the “applicative fantasy” in “the mind“.
— λάβωμεν (lámbōmen) – (v. 1st. pl. aor.) meaning “we received“, “we seized“, “we understood“, “we grasped“, “we apprehended“.
— φαντασίαν (phantasían) – (n. sing. acc.) meaning “appearance“, “presentation“, “display“, “phantasm“, “fantasy“, “creative [application]”.
— ἐπιβλητικῶς (épiblētikõs) – (adj. pl. acc.) meaning “apprehending immediately“, “apprehending directly, “quickly“, or “applicative“.
— τῇ (têi) – (art. fem. dat. sing.) meaning “a“, “the [mind]“.
— διανοίᾳ (dianoíai) – (n. dat. sing.) meaning “intention“, “purpose“, “thinking“, “mind“, “understanding“. ↩︎

17. τῇ φανταστικῇ ἐπιβολῇ (têi phantastikéi épiboléi) or “a creative” or “the creative application” of the mind.
— τῇ (têi) – (fem. dat. sing.) meaning “a“, “the [application]”.
— φανταστικῇ (phantastikéi) – (adj. dat. sing.) meaning “creative“, “productive“, “fantastic“.
— ἐπιβολῇ (épiboléi) – (n. sing. masc. dat.) meaning “throwing“, “apprehending“, “application“, “projection“. ↩︎

18. τῶν φαντασμῶν (tṓn phantasmṓn) or “of the phantasms“, “of the appearances“, “of the fantasies [of the mind]“.
— τῶν (tṓn) – (art. gen. pl) meaning “of the [phantasms]”.
— φαντασμῶν (phantasmṓn) – (n. gen. pl) meaning “of phantasms“, “mental images“, “vain imaginings“, “visions“. ↩︎

19. ἄλλας τινὰς ἐπιβολὰς τῆς διανοίας (állas tinàs épibolàs tḗs dianoías) meaning “some other application of the mind“.
— ἄλλας (állas) – (adj. fem. acc. pl.) meaning “other“, “another“, “different“, “else“, “yet“, “still“.
— τινὰς (tinàs) – (pron. masc. fem. acc. pl.) meaning “some“.
— ἐπιβολὰς (épibolàs) – (n. sing. acc. pl.) meaning “apprehending“, “application“, “throwing“, “reaching“.
— τῆς (tḗs) – (art. gen. sing. fem.) meaning “of a [thought]”, “of the [mind]”.
— διανοίας (dianoías) – (gen. sing.) meaning “mind“. ↩︎

20. τῇ φανταστικῇ ἐπιβολῇ (têi phantastikéi épiboléi) or “a creative” or “the creative application” of the mind.
— τῇ (têi) – (fem. dat. sing.) meaning “a“, “the [application]”.
— φανταστικῇ (phantastikéi) – (adj. dat. sing.) meaning “creative“, “productive“, “fantastic“.
— ἐπιβολῇ (épiboléi) – (n. sing. masc. dat.) meaning “throwing“, “apprehending“, “application“, “projection“. ↩︎

The other two examples are found in Key Doctrine 24 and Lives of Eminent Philosophers 10.31.

I'm going to re-visit this, but I need a placeholder.

As I'm translating into 10.50 of the Epistle to Hēródotos, I am finding a shit-ton of employments of phantastikai epibolai tês dianoias as τὴν φαντασίαν, φαντασίαν ἐπιβλητικῶς τῇ διανοίᾳ, τῇ φανταστικῇ ἐπιβολῇ, τῶν φαντασμῶν, τινὰς ἐπιβολὰς τῆς διανοίας , τῇ φανταστικῇ ἐπιβολῇ, and I am sure many others. He specifically starts throwing around this phrase when discussing the mechanics of sight.

He drops this phrase (as I recall) once in the KD, and once (I think) by Diogénēs Laértios in his own description. As it turns out Ep. Hēr. provides us with a real wealth of examples of this phrase.

... also, neither here nor there, but I detect a tone of admonishment from Epíkouros toward Hērodotos.

There are definitely options! Others are no doubt using them, so I just have a general thought.

There are a number of sites that can help organize images and delegate space for sharing. Users can share links from platforms like Flickr, Imgur, Photobucket, DeviantArt, and Pinterest (among others) on which users can store a library of our own collection. I used to use Reddit and Facebook (which aren't necessarily suited for that), but I’ve left, so I don’t have a personal preference at the moment.

I really, really, really want to recommend never using ChatGPT.

I'm going to be a broken record and annoy everyone until it stops.

There are thousands of artists out their who are HUNGRY for commissions, many of whom are friends, and can no longer work because of AI and other plagiarism programs.

Please be reminded: everyone in here is so much smarter and more creative than AI.

Don't defer to it for any reason, ever, under any circumstances.

And, not like anyone was asking (and forgive the shameless self-promotion) but I came across this idea about Nietzsche, in particular, while writing a kind of manifesto once upon a time. It started as a songbook for my music, but eventually developed into a 30,000 essay on language and culture.

It's sort of written from a kind of post-structuralist point of view. My thesis was that everything humans produce is "poetry", including our maths and sciences, and everything we've ever been exposed to, whether Noah's Ark or the Big Bang, each are their own kind of "myth".

I also spend time reflecting on Elvish history in Lord of the Rings and Led Zeppelin, among other things. I take liberties. It deals a lot more with reflections on aesthetics than physics and epistemology, but, if you're interested in the Nietzsche thing, I'll stand behind what I wrote.

Ultimately, I maintain that the function of our "poetries" are to express ourselves as accurately as possible, and that accuracy should be a reflection of the reality of our experiences: "In writing with purpose, we commit to hydrate forgotten passions that have grown arid with age. We write to polish petrified fossils and wage an unending campaign to animate identity. We write to dismantle the many mistaken assumptions embedded within mere “empty sounds” (Epicurus, Letter To Herodotus) ."

The whole thing isn't exactly Epicurean, more of an art project, but, still, thought I'd share.

Quote from Don

Quote from Kalosyni

Don any thoughts on this? Maybe you have something to add about the use of negation in ancient Greek language, and the pattern of words that often occurs?

I'm sorry, Kalosyni. This flew under my radar. I don't have any thoughts off the top of my head, but I'm intrigued. I'll share any I might discover. Maybe Bryan or Eikadistes would have thoughts?

That said, great posts here on this thread. Y'all are providing some solid summaries of the "absence of pain" idea.

Rolf For recently joining our little online Garden, your contributions are insightful and greatly appreciated. Glad to have you aboard.

As I've observed with other philosophers, Epíkouros is no stranger to capitalizing on Hellenic word formation by coining his own phrases with affixes , so he does occasionally throw the prefix ἀ- to render "not [this]" when re-naming a positive idea and re-framing it as a negation. I don't necessarily think that is a defining quality of his literary voice, but it may reflect his philosophical approach.

The one thing I definitely see in terms of negation is his reasoning:

I. "A is the case."
II. "If B were the case, we would observe Y."
III. "In fact, we observe X, not Y."
IV. "Therefore A is the case."

For example:

I. "Particles have a maximum, tiny size."
II. "If they didn't, we would see particles with the naked eye."
III. "We cannot see particles."
IV. "Therefore, particles have a maximum, tiny size."

Now, all that said, who you really want for this discussion is Nietzsche. 100%. Epicurean theory of language is about frankness. All words are indicative, and each word reflects exactly one object or idea with a 1:1 evaluation. Preconceptions reinforce this, that there are universal notions that all humans shared based on similar experience, and those notions are positive indications of what is. Nietzsche, on the other hand thrived with linguistic negation. He has an extensive discussion of language and the development of speech wherein he proposes (this is key) that "truth is a mobile army of metaphors", meaning that every word is figurative, and can only be defined in relation to what is not. He might suggest that "blue" is less usefully defined as "the dark, cold color" or "cloudless sky", and is more usefully defined as "not red-orange-yellow-green-violet": (EDIT: Or, a better example, he explains that you cannot define a word without using other words that don't mean what that word means.)

Come to think of it, Joseph Campbell, the mythologist, has a great discussion about this idea. I forget where (I want to say a TV interview?) but he proposes that every word is a metaphor. This, however, contrasts with the Hegemon, who sees metaphors as potential slippery-slopes to myth. Of course, Joseph Campbell sees everything as the function of a myth ... so there's that:

“Truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphisms, in short, a sum of human relations which were poetically and rhetorically heightened, transferred, and adorned, and after long use seem solid, canonical, and binding to a nation. Truths are illusions about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions." (Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense)

In the Sayings of the Wise (10.120), Epíkouros employs the word ἁμάρτημα (amártēma) meaning "mistakes", "failures", "faults" "guilts", "flaws" "errors", or "sins". This corresponds with several employments of αμαρτία (amartía) and ἁμαρτάνω (amartánō, meaning "to miss", "to fail to correctly aim", "to lose", "to fail", "to sin") throughout Paul's Epistles in the New Testament.

I bet we'll find more examples.