Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Great link!

Total self-promotion I need to go back and update some commentary on that page but still stand by the majority of it all.

The sage will be fond of the countryside, enjoying being outside the towns and cities. (DL X.120, my translation)

Hicks: He will be fond of the country.

Yonge: He will like being in the country,

I think it's wonderful that this characteristic is a single word in the original: φιλαγρήσειν "They will love the ἀγρός "fields, land, country as opposed to the town.""

Quote from JJElbert

Don, I see you're getting well-acquainted with the particular difficulties of short lines!

You bet!!

I still think the topic of the poem has merit, but I'm wondering if I need another structure... although I liked the abcedarian approach for the language aspect.

Quote from Cassius

The prodigal surveyor has returned just as we were talking a lot about boundary-stones. We will halt the eviction proceedings!

Remember, prodigal means "spending money or resources freely and recklessly; wastefully extravagant." That doesn't sound like our friend, JJElbert ... And what are doing, using Biblical allusions anyway, Cassius

Quote from Don

LOL. Well, just look a little further down those definitions for finis (of which finibus is indeed the root):

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/h…9.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfinis

"An end, purpose, aim, object (but an end subjectively regarded, as an intention, or design, is propositum, consilium, mens, etc.)"

So, it appears the connotation of finis, according to that parenthetical statement, is as an **objective** end or purpose. If Cicero wanted a *subjective* end, he would have used propositum, consilium, or mens.

I think the limit "boundary-stone" idea and the limit "end/purpose" idea are not as far apart as might seem. Both are a goal of sorts, something to which one can aim or travel to. Once you get there, to the boundary-stone or the end/purpose/aim, there's no need to go further or it's not possible to go further. You've arrived.

LOL. Well, just look a little further down those definitions for finis (of which finibus is indeed the root):

Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, fīnis

"An end, purpose, aim, object (but an end subjectively regarded, as an intention, or design, is propositum, consilium, mens, etc.)"

Hey! Check this out. If you follow the link for the Latin Word Study tool for finis, look what you find:

a boundary, limit, border, = terminus, ὅρος.

The VERY Greek word in PD3 !

In PD3 the "limit" word is ὅρος: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/h…1999.04.0057:entry=o(/ros when the "boundary stone" connotation.

Quote from Cassius

the limits of possession,

This line is translated at the Perseus Project as "What the true end of getting is" so your hunch Cassius may be right.

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, BOOK V, line 1416

The Latin seems to be:

ni mirum quia non cognovit quae sit habendi finis et omnino quoad crescat vera voluptas;

which the clunky Google translate gives as:

had not the marvel that he did not know what it is to be held may increase at all in respect to the end and the true pleasure;

The pertinent word appears to be finis

Latin Word Study Tool

Quote from Godfrey

from scanning the first page it looks like there's lots to criticize!

LOL! THAT seems to be an understatement! Wow!

Quote from Cassius

If so that surely does not apply to Epicurus and one begins to wonder just how much reading into Epicurus she has done - is it possible that the answer is "not much"?

That would be my guess. I get the impression (albeit cursory and superficial) that a lot of physicists and "hard scientists" don't "bother" with philosophy, current or Ancient, and see it as superfluous at best or simply unnecessary and a distraction from important things.

Example (emphasis added):

Quote

Now, look, I know that physicists have a reputation of being narrow-minded. But the reason we have this reputation is that we tried the crazy shit long ago and just found it doesn’t work. You call it “narrow-minded,” we call it “science.” We have moved on.

I realize she's talking specifically about panpsychism here, but I get the impression that this is applicable to a lot of topics.

Electrons Don’t Think - Facts So Romantic - Nautilus

If a philosopher starts speaking about elementary particles, run.PinterestI recently discovered panpsychism. That’s the idea that…

nautil.us

I'm posting this not so much for Hossenfelder's essay against panpsychism (although I believe I can understand her negative impression of that), but for one of the comments (do a "Find in page" for swerve) bringing up Lucretius and the swerve as an example of ancient panpsychism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Epicurus/Lucretius never said the atom "decided" to swerve, did they? I was always under the impression that it was a random, undetermined event. That randomness was what injected variety into a deterministic universe.

Although I understand where she's coming from I believe, this quote from her gave me pause vis a vis us:

Quote

Summary: If a philosopher starts speaking about elementary particles, run.

Oh, no worries! I'll just be interested in a review if he gets a chance. He was very helpful on the hymn!

Yes.

PS: Sorry. I didn't mean to be dismissive with that "Yes." The word seems to be related to the home, domestic/private affairs, etc. So, Bailey's "faculties" appears to me at least to be a misleading translation.

The phrase at question is καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς οἰκειώμασι χρῆσθαι

χρῆσθαι is simply the "make us of" part, and τοῖς λοιποῖς is "the rest, the remainder/ing". So, the crux is οἰκειώμασι.

Here's the LSJ definition

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Ο ο, , οἴη , οἰκεί-ωμα

The word seems to appear primarily or only in Epicurean works since VS41 and a Metrodorus quote are in LSJ. The word seems to refer to your private affairs or what advantages you have over and above your physical household goods. So, to me, a better translation is "the remaining resources" or something like that. It does not refer to "faculties" if you read that as "senses."

I need to read more Daniel Dennett but here's his interesting take on the "illusion" of free will:

There's also this conversation https://aeon.co/amp/essays/on-…gg-caruso-go-head-to-head

Sorry. What is the full quote?

Not finding any link between Epicurus and Hossenfelder, but saw this:

and thought this was a great quote, too:

Quote

Hossenfelder: Religious explanation is an oxymoron.

Quote

"Not wrong but superfluous"

That's a great quote.

Quote

Nihilist und Christ: das reimt sich, das reimt sich nicht bloss. The Antichrist (1888)

They don't rhyme in the original. Perhaps, he was talking metaphorically. That would be my guess.

Although, I guess they do end in -ist so they sort of rhyme.