I am conscious that many people probably read my exchanges with Don on this and think we are arguing with each other for no reason other than stubbornness.
On the contrary, I think it is not really an "argument" but an exploration of the details, and the discussion is highly useful because it is going to lead to a lot of beneficial results. If we weren't having this back and forth it would be highly tempting just to drop the subject before the implications are fully brought out.
42. At the very same time, the greatest good is created and the greatest evil is removed.
I think we need to throw out any translations that add "the greatest evil." That's not in the manuscript and adding things just to make a convenient translation seems disingenuous to me. The manuscript has:
ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολύσεως
with that last word being open to discussion.
Something like:
(At) the same time the greatest good (is) both created and ἀπολύσεως/ἀπολαύσεως.
If we go with ἀπολύσεως, we have to go with a meaning like to do away with, to remove, to set free, to release from.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀπολύω
If we accept ἀπολαύσεως, we get to take pleasure in, enjoyment, delight. It's literally one letter difference!
The HUGE issue here is that the saying is completely divorced from its original textual context. Was Epicurus arguing against a specific point? Was he speaking generally? Here's an out of the box: if we take ἀπολαύσεως, was he using it as an argument against a virtue argument that you can't say you're only doing the act of virtue for itself; you do the virtuous act (create) and immediately enjoy it, you get satisfaction and joy the moment it is created. You can't separate the two.
Bailey: “The greatest blessing is created and enjoyed at the same moment.”
I agree with DeWitt that this statement is counterintuitive, not true, and therefore in DeWitt's word nonsensical.
I don't agree, other than to say Bailey's unfortunate choice of "blessing" for ἀγαθοῦ agathou "good" is unfortunate. And I think you know my position on Dewitt calling something nonsensical I think the meaning of Bailey's translation is almost too obvious. We enjoy pleasure "the greatest good" at the moment we feel it. There is no intermediate step. There is no intervening rational intrusion. Pleasure feels good at the moment it is created.
The HUGE issue here is that the saying is completely divorced from its original textual context. Was Epicurus arguing against a specific point? Was he speaking generally?
To me this question shows the way to the answer. The items in a collection of quotes would more than likely be selected according to the generality and importance of its application. To say that we enjoy pleasure when we feel it without intervening step (thinking about it) is possible, but to me that is so obvious as to not likely be the meaning. To my knowledge no one contends that you have to think about pleasure before you feel it.
To say that we feel pleasure as soon as it happens is also true, but again adds little if anything that would qualify this as a great insight worthy of inclusion in the list.
I think we are in agreement that the focus is on time more than anything about evil.
I would see two options: (1) It could be having to do with something about the argument with the Cyreniacs which seems to be about whether we experience pleasure at the time we do something (philosophy as stated example) or later on. (2) It could have to do with pleasure being inseparable from life and being available only while you are alive.
I think both points would be correct Epicurean philosophy, and I think we agree that it's hard to know without more context.
I don't know that 42's sequence in the list tells us much, but it seems to be in a section of very practical advice.
I don't know that 42's sequence in the list tells us much, but it seems to be in a section of very practical advice.
I would be skeptical of an interpretation using the Vatican Sayings sequence. This list is never mentioned in the ancient sources. On the other hand, Principle Doctrines is mentioned by name.
To say that we enjoy pleasure when we feel it without intervening step (thinking about it) is possible, but to me that is so obvious as to not likely be the meaning. To my knowledge no one contends that you have to think about pleasure before you feel it.
However, it would assert the primacy of feeling over reason. Reason is subordinate to the immediate feelings of pleasure.
I have found this excerpt of a debate between Matt Dillahunty and Jordan Peterson interesting where Peterson tries to defend the premise that death is preferable to life. Cards on the table: I'm in agreement with Dillahunty here:
Skip ahead to 49:30 for the discussion of life vs death.
Dillahunty but he sure seems to be on the right side.
I've been a fan of his for awhile now.
If this is the way Peterson generally talks then he's insufferable
Yep (in my opinion)
‘I feel: therefore I exist.’
I think a better formulation would be "I exist, therefore, I feel." Existence comes before feeling.
btw Cassius I am thoroughly enjoying this deep dive. I find it hard to believe this entire thread, all 28 posts is a product of 24 hours (here and in a private conversation)!! These are the kinds of discussions not available anywhere else on the Web! Thank you! And keep it coming unless you think we've exhausted the topic!
The items in a collection of quotes would more than likely be selected according to the generality and importance of its application.
I would concur.
On a side note: we need to start calling The Vatican Sayings Επικουρου προσφωνησισ (Epikourou prosphonesis) "Epicurus's Declaration" or "The Declaration of Epicurus." That is the section title in the manuscript. It seems appropriate since not all of the quotes come from Epicurus but also Metrodorus and the other Founders I think. It's like they speak with one voice to the voice of Epicurus. I've shared before that I've seen the title translated as "The Voice of Epicurus." That's pretty good, too. Takes the emphasis off the barrier Vatican and back onto Epicurus. We don't call Marcus Aurelius's book The Vatican Diary (I seem to remember it's in the same manuscript)
I think a better formulation would be "I exist, therefore, I feel." Existence comes before feeling.
I tend to agree with Jefferson, but I am not ready to disagree with your statement either. Given my understanding that Epicurus is taking the information provided by the senses (and prolepsis and feelings) as the ultimate way we determine what is true, I could see an argument that Jefferson's sequence is correct, and that we start with the senses/anticipations/feelings as given - because we have to - and go from there. I could also see some kind of combination that requires both simultaneously, and I tend to think that the decision of the Epicureans to combine canonics and physics may be related to that.
I hope we can find some material at some point from people like Sedley or others who have spent more time with what Sextus Empiricus has to say about Epicurus (which i have not studied). And surely there are many critical commentaries on that "I think therefore I am" formulation. Until we look at it further I better reserve taking a firm position on that one.
