Best Translaton Of PDO2 To Feature At EpicureanFriends?

    The following post is one of a series so that we can get our collection of the main list of Principal Doctrines under the "Texts" section in better shape. Although this thread will include a "poll" in the next post, what we are really looking for is the "best" combination of faithfulness to the original combined with clarity in modern English. I will get with a collection of the Level 3 participants here to work on editing the final list, but the full discussion should be open to everyone to consider, so that's what we will do here. The results of the poll won't control what is featured on the text page but will definitely influence in and probably at least result in a footnote to this thread.


    The English translation of PD02 currently featured here in our Texts section is that of Cyril Bailey from his Extant Remains:


    PD02. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.


    We have access (thanks to Nate's full collection) to many different variations including:


    Ο ΘAΝATΟΣ ΟΥΔEΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΗΜAΣ· TΟ ΓAΡ ΔΙAΛΥΘEΝ AΝAΙΣΘΗTEΙ TΟ Δ' AΝAΙΣΘΗTΟΥΝ ΟΥΔEΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΗΜAΣ.


    “Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved is devoid of sensation, and that which is devoid of sensation is nothing to us.” Yonge (1853)


    “Death is nothing to us. That into which dissolution brings us has no feeling or consciousness, and what has no consciousness is nothing to us.” Wallace, Epicureanism 110 (1880)


    “Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us.” Hicks (1910)


    “Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.” Bailey (1926)


    “Death is nothing to us, because dissolution means unconsciousness and unconsciousness is nothing to us.” De Witt, St. Paul and Epicurus 187 (1954)


    “Death is nothing to us; for what has been dissolved has no sensation, and what has no sensation is nothing to us.” Geer (1964)


    “Death is nothing to us. For what has been dispersed has no sensation. And what has no sensation is nothing to us.” O'Connor (1993)


    “Death is nothing to us. For what has been dissolved has no sense-experience, and what has no sense-experience is nothing to us.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)


    “Death is nothing to us, because a body that has been dispersed into elements experiences no sensations, and the absence of sensation is nothing to us.” Anderson (2004)


    “Death is nothing to us. Because, what has been dissolved has no sense perception; and, according to us, what has no sense perception is nothing to worry about.” Makridis (2005)


    “Death is nothing to us; for what has disintegrated lacks awareness, and what lacks awareness is nothing to us.” Saint-Andre (2008)


    “Death means nothing to us, because that which has been broken down into atoms has no sensation and that which has no sensation is no concern of ours.” Strodach (2012)


    “Death is nothing to us. For what has been dissolved has no feeling; and what has no feeling is nothing to us.” Mensch (2018)


    “Death is nothing to us; for what has been dissolved has no perception, and what has no perception is nothing to us.” White (2021)


    2 Ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· τὸ γὰρ διαλυθὲν ἀναισθητεῖ· τὸ δ’ ἀναισθητοῦν οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς.


    Which of the above, or which with changes you would suggest, should be featured here in the main list? In the interest of space the poll will not include every option, so please add a comment in the thread if you would suggest a variation not listed.

    Which is the best variation for use at EpicureanFriends.com? 1

    1. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us. (0) 0%
    2. “Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved is devoid of sensation, and that which is devoid of sensation is nothing to us.” Yonge (1853) (0) 0%
    3. “Death is nothing to us. That into which dissolution brings us has no feeling or consciousness, and what has no consciousness is nothing to us.” Wallace, Epicureanism 110 (1880) (0) 0%
    4. “Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us.” Hicks (1910) (0) 0%
    5. “Death is nothing to us, because dissolution means unconsciousness and unconsciousness is nothing to us.” De Witt, St. Paul and Epicurus 187 (1954) (1) 100%

    Poll Post (to be edited)

    I really think that "Death" to modern English-speakers needs to be replaced with "Afterlife".


    This is how I read it:


    "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.”

    Quote from Nate

    I really think that "Death" to modern English-speakers needs to be replaced with "Afterlife".

    Or "the state of being dead" or something that somehow makes clear that was is being referred to is the status of the soul after the body dies.


    And again there is the issue with the definite article implying that "afterlife" does exist.


    However it does seem that he wanted to be confrontational and use "death" so this maybe is another area where there is just no substitute for explanation, just like gods and virtue.....

    Oh, I wouldn't introduce "afterlife."

    Death is the way to translate that. If you want "the state of 'being' dead" but we have no "being" after we die .

    Death IS literally nothing for us.

    We do not exist.

    We are not.

    There is nothing for us.

    Don I agree with you fully but then I also question myself. Rendering ὁ θaνατοc as anything other than "death" does seem to be a stretch - but death does exit. The afterlife does not. It may be worth bending the English a bit?


    Same problem in Latin:

    nīl igitur Mors est ad nos neque pertinet hīlum

    in no way does Death exist to us and does not concern at all

    Lucretius · De Rerum Natura III 830


    But death does exit. So it cannot be correct to translate Lucretius in such a way. It is the afterlife, I would think, that is the topic. The afterlife does not exit.


    Mελετᾶν οὖν χρὴ τὰ ποιοῦντα τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν.

    It is necessary to study what produces wellbeing.

    Edited once, last by Bryan ().

    Like 2

    Dying exists as something we can experience.

    We cannot experience death... Or Death, if you will.

    We can't "be" dead. Only in the sense that "Epicurus *is* dead."

    No one who has died has experienced or is experiencing or will experience "death."

    Death is a convenient shorthand for something that we can talk about.

    Quote from Don

    Death IS literally nothing for us.

    We do not exist.

    We are not.

    There is nothing for us.


    And yet our bodies and our bones exist for a while, and our atoms never go away.


    We can see "dead bodies" in front of us for quite a while. The body that was a few minutes ago animated and alive is still mostly there, it's the consciousness that is gone.


    We can't modify the text to suit our liking, but explanations are helpful. Even if we end up just talking about explanations, is the issue under discussion "the state that our individual personalities are in after our bodies die"? Is it the definition of "us" that needs to be made clear?

    On a more prosaic note: is "dissolved" the most accurate English word? It's in most of the translations, but I keep associating it with dissolving something in water. Resolved into its elements, dispersed, dispersed into elements, broken down into atoms seem to work. Especially "dispersed into elements".

    Quote from Godfrey

    On a more prosaic note: is "dissolved" the most accurate English word? It's in most of the translations, but I keep associating it with dissolving something in water. Resolved into its elements, dispersed, dispersed into elements, broken down into atoms seem to work. Especially "dispersed into elements".

    I like "disintegrated" personally.

    Quote from Cassius

    And yet our bodies and our bones exist for a while, and our atoms never go away.

    I strongly disagree with this statement. It's not our bodies, our bones nor our atoms. 'Our' ceases to exist the moment we die. Our death is nothing to us because we can't experience it.


    When you say:

    Quote from Cassius

    We can see "dead bodies" in front of us for quite a while. The body that was a few minutes ago animated and alive is still mostly there, it's the consciousness that is gone.

    you're talking about death of somebody/something else. We can experience death this way because we're not dead ourselves. PD02 is clearly about OUR death not the concept of death in general. Maybe it would be a good idea to leave a footnote for PD02 making it clear that it's about OUR death.


    I'm 100% percent with Don on this one.

    While "death" is appropriate for translation, to modern English ears, it is painfully insensitive and inadequate.


    I signed a living will two months ago as my wife lay dying in a hospital. I have to go with the Existentialists on this one. Death is not only the most important thing in life, it is the only thing by which we derive meaning, because, regardless of the possibility of our own cessation, death is constantly happening around us, and it is constantly heart-wrenching. The notion that death is nothing only works if we omit the definition of Death that includes us experiencing tragedy.

    Bigger question:


    Does Epicurus distinguish in writing between "My Death (which does not exist)" versus "Your Death (which is suicidally heart-wrenching and so impactful it literally changes every value you have and your entire sense of identity)"?

    Quote from TauPhi

    I strongly disagree with this statement. It's not our bodies, our bones nor our atoms. 'Our' ceases to exist the moment we die. Our death is nothing to us because we can't experience it.

    Quote from Cassius

    We can't modify the text to suit our liking, but explanations are helpful. Even if we end up just talking about explanations, is the issue under discussion "the state that our individual personalities are in after our bodies die"? Is it the definition of "us" that needs to be made clear?


    I think we are in agreement that the definition of "us" or "our" is where the issue lies. But on the other hand that is not the angle from which this statement appears to be written, as if Epicurus had chosen to the sentence could easily have made that point itself.


    We don't know the context of how this list or document was assembled, and it seems very possible that the form we have it in is not a final draft from the pen of Epicurus himself.


    The considerations that Nate is mentioning are very true and Epicurus was certainly aware of them as we all are. We don't know the context or the target audience for this particular form, so we're left to guess about that.


    So as usual it is good for us both to flesh out these considerations, while at the same time do the best we can to make sure that the translation is primarily literal but also uses word choices (where more than one can be justified) that seems most likely to match the intent.


    All of these posts are very good points.

    Quote from Godfrey

    On a more prosaic note: is "dissolved" the most accurate English word? It's in most of the translations, but I keep associating it with dissolving something in water. Resolved into its elements, dispersed, dispersed into elements, broken down into atoms seem to work. Especially "dispersed into elements".

    I think I will second Godfrey's comment here. It might be best choice, but it does seem to introduce a detail (implication of water) that really is not a part of the thought being expressed. DeWitt's "dissolution" might even be a little better.

    Quote from Cassius
    Quote from Godfrey

    On a more prosaic note: is "dissolved" the most accurate English word? It's in most of the translations, but I keep associating it with dissolving something in water. Resolved into its elements, dispersed, dispersed into elements, broken down into atoms seem to work. Especially "dispersed into elements".

    I think I will second Godfrey's comment here. It might be best choice, but it does seem to introduce a detail (implication of water) that really is not a part of the thought being expressed. DeWitt's "dissolution" might even be a little better.

    "to loose one from another, to part asunder, undo, dissolve"

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

    Quote

    On a more prosaic note: is "dissolved" the most accurate English word? It's in most of the translations, but I keep associating it with dissolving something in water. Resolved into its elements, dispersed, dispersed into elements, broken down into atoms seem to work. Especially "dispersed into elements".


    "Who ever saw his old clothes--his old coat, actually worn out, resolved into its primitive elements, so that it was not a deed of charity to bestow it on some poor boy, by him perchance to be bestowed on some poorer still, or shall we say richer, who could do with less?" -Thoreau, Walden

    I agree dissolve doesn't have the same power as disintegrated or dispersed. Disperse conveys to me the dispersal of seeds... Which is a word Lucretius uses for atoms.

    Edit:

    Other options from LSJ

    Break up

    Destroy

    Part asunder

    Untwining (that's a word!)

    My concern is that "death" could mean (to English ears) either (1) the "state of not being alive", (2) the process of dying, or (3) the existential condition of dealing with someone having died. For sure, (1) is what Epicurus was talking about, because we will most definitely experience (2) the process of dying, and (3) managing grief. So, we run a risk in employing the word "death" of someone mistaking the subject of our proposition to be either (2) illness or (3) grief.


    But, at that, it seems redundant to express that "the state of not existing does not exist for us." Rather, it seems crucial to say (especially when this point about death follows a proposition regarding the nature of a divine being): "the descriptions of 'the experience of Death' imagined by our philosophical opponents is incoherent." In modern terms, I am imagining that "Hell is not a real place and it is an absolute waste of time trying to avoid getting an assigned seat in it."

    Ο ΘAΝATΟΣ ΟΥΔEΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΗΜAΣ·

    TΟ ΓAΡ ΔΙAΛΥΘEΝ AΝAΙΣΘΗTEΙ TΟ Δ' AΝAΙΣΘΗTΟΥΝ ΟΥΔEΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΗΜAΣ.

    A strictly very literal translation would be something like:

    Death (is) nothing to us,

    Because "that which is disintegrated, unwound, and scattered" lacks perception, and that which lacks perception is nothing to us.


    TΟ ΔΙAΛΥΘEΝ that which is disintegrated, unwound, and scattered (Note: the definite article)

    TΟ AΝAΙΣΘΗTΟΥΝ that which lacks perception


    Note that the preposition ΠΡΟΣ used with the accusative case broadly expresses motion or direction towards an object. Here is can be thought of answering what impact does Death have in relation to us: Nothing! Death cannot have any impact or we cannot have any regard for Death after we die. We do not exist. If something cannot perceive or sense the world, it is not alive... it does not exist. To speak of something that does not exist is the same as speaking of nothing.