Best Translaton Of PDO1 To Feature At EpicureanFriends?

Quote from Nate

What is blessed and imperishable that is not a god?

Oh, it's not the reference to the gods, it's the use of the plural where the text has a singular.

Quote from Don

Quote from Nate

What is blessed and imperishable that is not a god?

"The blessed and imperishable [being a god] neither troubles itself nor others, as neither anger nor obligation afflict it; for, all of this is weak. <In other places, however, Epicurus said the gods are reached by reason, that, on one hand, [the gods] exist partially distinct; those [gods], however, made of the same consistency exist due to the continuous stream of similar images upon the self, personally, in the form of humans.>”

How's that?

Quote

What is blessed and imperishable that is not a god?

mellis dulci flavoque liquore..."the sweet yellow liquor of the honey"...

Well, it's imperishable anyway. Depends what we mean by blessed I suppose!

Nate brings up a good question.

I find myself thinking of one thing that could fall under the rubric of "blessed and imperishable" is possibly the memory of Epicurus himself, also linking it to "reverence is good for the one reverencing." Epicurus is dead, neither he nor his memory have anger or gratitude but the memory still has potency in the world.

Maybe barking up the wrong tree, but I'm trying to find wider application of PD1 within the literal meaning of the text.

Consider this musing out loud.

In English we can say, in plural "The complete and independent are free from troubles themselves and do not pass troubles onto others" but we cannot say, in the singular "The complete and independent is free from troubles (itself) and does not pass troubles on to others." This is an English problem.

Quote from Bryan

The complete and independent are

We have to say "The one who is x and y is..."

I actually like "the".

1) Epicurus maintained that gods do exist.

2) With an idealist interpretation of the gods, the implication of "the" is that such a condition is achievable. "A" somehow seems watered down to me.

I'm late to the game here but I'm crafting a response to some of this... Just haven't had a chance to get it finished.

Quote from Cassius

It's possible we should wrap this one up for now and move to discuss PD02. Comments?

LOL! "wrap this up" Oh, Cassius is so optimistic. Maybe with the addition of "... For now"

Quote from Cassius

the first word should be a definite article?

Yes.

Quote from Don

I'm late to the game here but I'm crafting a response to some of this... Just haven't had a chance to get it finished.

Quote from Cassius

It's possible we should wrap this one up for now and move to discuss PD02. Comments?

LOL! "wrap this up" Oh, Cassius is so optimistic. Maybe with the addition of "... For now"

Let's do it! I'm ready with a new line:

"The afterlife in no way exists for us; for, the sense faculties disintegrate; but the afterlife that is insensible in no way exists for us.”

As we know, between this and the next KΔ, Diogenes adds "In other places he says that the Gods are mentally discernible by reason and are conceived as numerically distinct but in a similar shape from the continuous influx of similar films to the same place where they are rendered as human-shaped (X139)"

This comment by Diogenes has connected KΔ1 very tightly to the Gods in the minds of the editors, but Ἐπίκουρος uses the vocative of μακάριον when addressing Πυθοκλῆς as «Mακάριε! (X 6) Mr. Contented!» and speaks of «τὴν μακαρίαν ἡμέραν (X 22) a perfect day»· When speaking about the study of nature, Ἐπίκουρος says «τὸ μακάριον ἐνταῦθα πεπτωκέναι (X 77) that the person who is content rests here»· Lucretius translates τὸ Mακάριον as «ipsa suīs pollens opibus (1.48) itself strong in its own resources»

This is one reason why I stretch it to "The complete [and independent]..." But blissful certainly works well too!

Another point that KΔ1 is not just a reference to the gods, is X 77, οὐ γὰρ συμφωνοῦσιν Πραγματεῖαι καὶ Φροντίδες καὶ Ὀργαὶ καὶ Xάριτες μακαριότητι ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ προσδεήσει τῶν πλησίον Tαῦτα γίγνεταἰ - for Troubles and Anxieties and Tempers and Favors are not consistent with contentment but All come from weakness and fear and dependence on those near by."

What is X 77?

Quote

What is X 77?

He's referring to the "paragraph" numbers in the (modern) text of Diogenes Laertius

First, may I say that I find Cassius initial efforts at a simple vote extremely endearing. Cassius: You are the eternal optimist. However, it has elicited an excellent discussion.

Now, instead of nitpicking others' valiant attempts at translation, I'll simply offer my own for consideration... and, yes, it's late and I got lazy at the end and just copied Hicks. He'll do as a start, and it's in the scholion anyway. And I don't expect this translation to be The Chosen One, of course. This is primarily to simply illustrate some points.

Original Text: Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει, ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται: ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.

(ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς, οὓς μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ καθ᾽ ὁμοείδειαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιρρύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένωι ἀνθρωποειδῶς.)

Translation: The one who (That which) is blessed and indestructible (or imperishable) neither has troubles oneself nor causes troubles for others, that one is neither annoyed by anything nor troubles others; therefore such a one is constrained by neither anger nor gratitude; for (if that were the case) such a one is lacking in strength.

(Also, in other works he says by means of reason are the gods apprehended through contemplation, "some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form.")

We all agree PD1 is describing the blessed/blissful existence of a god. And I use singular "god" deliberately since the words are singular at the beginning. See below for more on that.

Greek regularly turned adjectives into nouns using a definite article: Τὸ μακάριον and (Τὸ) ἄφθαρτον. English typically has to add words; however, we know what we mean if we say something like "The Brave and the Bold." We can also say things like "The Funny One." Here, it's not as easy saying it in English but "The Blessed and the imperishable" gets close. My perspective is that we have to use a "the" or "that which" here, even if it's a circumlocution like "The one who is blissful and imperishable" or "That which is blissful and imperishable."

The juxtaposition of "neither anger nor gratitude" (οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι) is interesting, because Philodemus does the same pairing of words in his works when speaking of anger and its opposite, gratitude. He sees these as mirror images or counterparts to each other. Epicurus also pairs these in the letter to Herodotus (DL 10.76-77, gratitude to Bryan for pointing this out!): "...any being who at the same time enjoys perfect bliss (μακαριότητα) along with immortality (ἀφθαρσίας lit., "no-corruption (unable to experience deterioration)"). [77] For troubles and anxieties and feelings of anger (ὀργαὶ) and partiality (χάριτες) do not accord with bliss (μακαριότητι), but always imply weakness (ἀσθενείᾳ) and fear (φόβῳ) and dependence upon one's neighbours. (῾οὐ γὰρ συμφωνοῦσιν πραγματεῖαι καὶ φροντίδες καὶ ὀργαὶ καὶ χάριτες μακαριότητι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ προσδεήσει τῶν πλησίον ταῦτα γίγνεταἰ)."

Many of these words in the Greek text are the same or close to the same as in PD1. So, that pairing evidently goes back to Epicurus himself.

ἀσθενείᾳ: Definition: weakness, frailty; Usage: want of strength, weakness, illness, suffering, calamity, frailty. negating the root sthenos, "strength."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, σθένος

As some may know on this forum, I am in favor of the "idealist" position on the gods. The singular use in "That which is blissful and imperishable," to me, could describe an individual's conception of what the god is or should be. We each construct our image of the god in our mind by continually imagining the highest blissful state embodied in human form, imperishable because it has no existence other than our conception, formed of appropriate images. That conception in our mind is also not subject to fear or partiality nor does it trouble anyone.

Okay, that might be pushing it, I admit. That said, Epicurus's explanation within the Letter to Herodotus shows us exactly what the second half of PD1 means. I find it very interesting that troubles, anxieties, and feelings of anger and partiality are plural. The phrase is "feelings of anger and partiality." Keeping that "feelings" in mind is important. The god is not troubled by "feelings of anger and partiality." The primary - maybe only - feeling it has is the highest bliss, and it is unable to experience deterioration.

Lucretius also tells us that such a being does not exist in our world, in our cosmos. They can/could only exist "between worlds," between the pockets of order within the larger universe, within The All (the universe).

I also find the scholion interesting in its use of θεωρητούς which is related to the word used in the "characteristics of the sage": "ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις" which I have interpreted as "(They shall enjoy themselves more) in contemplation." Yonge is the only one to take this route: "he will find more pleasure than other men in speculations." But if one can contemplate a being that is completely blissful and imperishable, why wouldn't the Epicurean sage enjoy contemplation more than the average member of the hoi polloi. Here is my reasoning for this interpretation:

That's all for now. I may head over the new PD2 thread now!

A recent post regarding the Tetrapharmakos in the thread "Tsouna's On Choices and Avoidances", opened up a question for me regarding PD01...and which it seems we can have 3 positions:

1) it is speaking about the nature of gods

2) it is speaking about the conception of the idea of gods

3) it is speaking about the nature of a wise man

And since the translations do not use the word "god" or "gods"...I am wondering where everyone stands on this now?