The Closing Paragraph of the Letter to Menoeceus

135c. Ταῦτα οὖν καὶ τὰ τούτοις συγγενῆ μελέτα πρὸς σεαυτὸν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς πρός <τε> τὸν ὅμοιον σεαυτῷ,

Meditate (μελέτα) then on this and similar things with yourself day and night as well as together with those like yourself."

ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς literally "day and night" (i.e., all the time)

135d. καὶ οὐδέποτε οὔθ᾽ ὕπαρ οὔτ᾽ ὄναρ διαταραχθήσῃ, ζήσεις δὲ ὡς θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις.

"And never, neither awake nor in sleep, throw oneself into confusion, and you will live as a god among humans."

135e. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἔοικε θνητῷ ζῴῳ ζῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς.

οὐθὲν γὰρ "because no one …

ἔοικε "to be like; seems…"

θνητῷ ζῴῳ "for a mortal being (living thing)"

ζῴῳ is the dative form of ζώον which we met way back in 123 when talking about the gods.

ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς "in the midst of everlasting good things (pleasure)."

ἀθανάτοις (< αθάνατος (athanatos)) means literally a- "un-, not" + thanatos "dying" so immortal and eternal are one sense; however, it also conveys perpetual or everlasting which seems more appropriate in this context.

"Because no person who lives among eternal good things (pleasure) is like a mortal being."

A couple notes on some of the pivotal words in this paragraph.

διαταραχθήσῃ (diatarakhthese)

Note the the breakdown: dia-tarakhthese. That second component is directly related to tarakhe and it's opposite ataraxia (ataraksia)

From διαταράσσω, to throw into great confusion, confound utterly. I'm taking the dia- to convey confusion throughout oneself, from one end to the other (i.e., consider English "diameter" measure across)

So, by using this word, Epicurus is referring back to the ataraxia that comes from contemplating the points in this letter and, from that contemplation and study, having a firm, unshakable knowledge of how the world works; a firm foundation upon which to fully experience every pleasure you choose to partake of and to weather every pain that comes your way. That unshakable foundation once firmly in place in your mind will be a part of you, whether sleeping or awake, day or night.

ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς. (en athanatois agathois)

Kalosyni is right to ask about these "immortal goods." It is a tricky concept, and one I'm still wrestling with myself. Here's one take I've come up with.

athanatos (a + thanatos) does mean "un-dying" but it has a wider connotation. LSJ has some citations that are worth looking at, including Lysias, Funeral Oration. There the term used is ἀθάνατον μνήμην "have left behind an immortal memory arising from their valor. " So, what is left behind after someone dies is "undying," including the memories others have of you, the legacy you "leave behind" doesn't die with you. This idea seems relevant to me in that the friends and loved ones we leave behind allow us to "live on" to be "undying" (as long as our memory lives one... it's not technically immortal). The effect we have on people while alive is undying.

I still maintain that ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς is "among undying goods" means "among undying pleasures" as in good=pleasure. Thinking of other "undying pleasures" is a good exercise. What lives on after we die? What is it about our lives that, in the words of Maximus in Gladiator, "echo through eternity"?

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Don

I still maintain that ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς is "among undying goods" means "among undying pleasures" as in good=pleasure.

I am curious if it is the same word for "goods" that Aristotle uses when he talks about instrumental, intrinsic, and external "goods"?

Then Aristotle moves onto looking closer at good things in general. He says they are divided into three classes:

1. External goods τῶν ἐκτὸς (ektos)

2. Goods of the soul τῶν δὲ περὶ ψυχὴν (psykhe)

3. Goods of the body καὶ σῶμα (soma)

However, he says unequivocably that those of the “soul” are the κυριώτατα and μάλιστα ἀγαθά “the highest and best goods.” However, he also stresses that he’s talking about the soul’s “actions and activities” or energeia (Refer back to our discussion of that word back near the beginning of this text.)

From Aristotle I have seen clearer that „philia“ what is mostly tranlated as „friendship“ and often is understood as „having friends“ means also „friendly love“.
It is a form of love.

And that enhances for me the meaning, it is for me something that we do, an attitude, virtue like prudence, feeling.

It reminds me of buddhist teaching in mahayana as in the image of a bird with 2 wings -> wisdom and compassion.

Similiar to this I see prudence (phronesis) and friendly love / friendship (philia) as the main Epicurean values.

But what is an „undying/immortal good“ when death is nothing to someone ? That friends maybe live longer than me ? Hm maybe, but it is about the mortality of the good.

When is a good mortal ?
Maybe something similiar like Plato forms but in realistic and earthed ? A good that is maybe not fleeting but maybe has a long endurance at least until the own death or that its consequences last longer maybe over the own death.

But that last aspect maybe confuses the mortality of humans with the mortality of goods ? 🙂🙃

Unfortunately I am afraid that the general interpretation of "the contemplative life" you quoted above is very entrenched, so it's important to be careful in praising "contemplation" in contrast with words like "study" or "applying."

Quote from Kalosyni

For Epicurus, contemplate/meditate would have meant to think about, study, and apply philosophy.

And that sense is absolutely appropriate, so long as it is understood that thinking and studying are not the only activities that must be pursued, and which are also desirable to pursue, and which are also of vital importance in human life. Nor would it be appropriate to say that *thinking alone* can get you anywhere in life, absent the evidence of the senses as a starting point and on which to base that thinking and apply its results.

Excellent thread.

I just wanted to comment on another aspect of what I think is meant by the Nature of "contemplation" "meditation" and so forth.

Lucretius' Ode to Epicurus in Book 1, gives me a stark reminder of how the ancients thought about the Nature of mind and allowing ones mind to wander or imagine in ones 'mind's eye', at least in dramatic form.

Quote

"When human life to view lay foully prostrate upon earth crushed down under the weight of religion, who showed her head from the quarters of heaven with hideous aspect lowering upon mortals, a man of Greece ventured first to lift up his mortal eyes to her face and first to withstand her to her face.

Him neither story of gods nor thunderbolts nor heaven with threatening roar could quell: they only chafed the more the eager courage of his soul, filling him with desire to be the first to burst the fast bars of nature’s portals.

Therefore the living force of his soul gained the day: on he passed far beyond the flaming walls of the world and traversed throughout in mind and spirit the immeasurable universe; whence he returns a conqueror to tell us what can, what cannot come into being; in short on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deep-set boundary mark.

Therefore religion is put underfoot and trampled upon in turn; us his victory brings level with heaven." - Lucretius, De Rereum Natura, Book 1 62-78

So I think about Epicurus' physics and his view of infinite space and time, and infinite atoms and void, as something in which we can 'contemplate/meditate' on when fears about the Gods, primal terror at enormous thoughts or fears about humans overwhelm us. The physics may or may not be 'true' when we consider physics as we know them today, but the whole view of the universe to Epicurus is calming - at least I've found as an object of contemplation - and helps induce the loss of overwhelming fears associated with letting ones imagination run off billions of light years away or into fictive ideas about Gods or other unseeable things ready to strike at us.

I suppose in this way the physics are still immensely useful as, for the contemporary moment, we do not have a scientific view or a scientific cultural discourse that also does not incessantly hound us with thoughts of "other dimensions" or "simulations" that could leave us disconcerted and uneasy. Science isn't supposed to take into account the health of the soul when off discovering or theorizing in the same way Ancient Philosophical systems needed to more or less wrap everything up nice and tidy as to be a system of psychological health or attainment.

Quote from Adrastus

Science isn't supposed to take into account the health of the soul when off discovering or theorizing in the same way Ancient Philosophical systems needed to more or less wrap everything up nice and tidy as to be a system of psychological health or attainment.

I think you're right that this is the general modern position, but whether that is an advancement or a regression is also a matter for debate.