Posts by Cassius

I've now read through most of the material and I don't see any of it that brands Aetius as a raving anti-Epicurean, so I wouldn't think he would be tempted to misrepresent Epicurus generally (or at least, not more than seems commonly the case).

My first impression is that the whole thing is a fairly small-"a" "academic" recitation of the various positions, not an argumentative piece at all. Early on I noticed some references to some theories about the gods (I think by Plato?) as nonsensical, but not much else in terms of forceful commentary. I don't see that wikipedia brands Aetius as belonging to a particular school, so it will remain interesting to me to try to determine where his preferences are found.

Also do we know anything about the meaning of his name? I doubt it means anything but I see the better known but significantly later ancient by this name was a Roman general:

Flavius Aetius^[a] (also spelled Aëtius;^[b] Latin: [aːˈɛtiʊs]; c. 390 – 454) was a Roman general and statesman of the closing period of the Western Roman Empire. He was a military commander and the most influential man in the Empire for two decades (433–454). He managed policy in regard to the attacks of barbarian federates settled throughout the West. Notably, he mustered a large Roman and allied (foederati) army in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, ending a devastating invasion of Gaul by Attila in 451, though the Hun and his subjugated allies still managed to invade Italy the following year, an incursion best remembered for the ruthless Sack of Aquileia and the intercession of Pope Leo I.

Aetius has often been called the "Last of the Romans". Edward Gibbon refers to him as "the man universally celebrated as the terror of Barbarians and the support of the Republic" for his victory at the Catalaunian Plains.^[4] J.B. Bury notes, "That he was the one prop and stay of the Western Empire during his life time was the unanimous verdict of his contemporaries."^[5

I'm going to have to break away from this thread for a while, but if anyone gets an impression of Aetius' own personal views, knowledge, and credibility, please post.

It would be good to get a fix as soon as possible on whether Aetius is a crusading anti-Epicurean in the mold of Cicero and Plutarch, or someone who is more "neutral" (if that's possible) in his reporting and analysis. I gather than he's probably a Stoic or similar, but what I've read so far seems to be sort of like Diogenes Laertius in at least appearing to report differing views "fairly."

Not sure what to make of this "teacher of Epicurus" remark but perhaps the commentary will explain whether it's an error or means something like "teacher of Epicurean philosophy."

Quote

§4 Metrodorus, the teacher of Epicurus, says that it is (equally) absurd that a single stalk should have sprung up on a large plain and that a single cosmos should have done the same in the Infinite. That the kosmoi are infinite in their multiplicity is clear from the fact that the causes are infinite in number. For if the cosmos is limited, while all the causes from which the cosmos originated are infinitely many, then necessarily (the kosmoi) are infinitely many. After all, where the causes are without limit, there the products [or: effects] are (infinite in number or without limit) also. (These) causes are either the atoms or the elements. (P4,S3)

Starting a new thread on this 1st or 2nd century AD philosopher Aetius and his "Placata." Thanks to Bryan for this info and link to a reasonably priced edition of Aetius from Loeb. As Bryan says "It is a primary source in Greek, from around 50 AD, and mentions Epicurus over forty times."

https://www.amazon.com/Placita-Loeb-Classical-Library-Aetius/dp/067499759X

I am ordering a copy, and in the meantime I was able to find this example from its translation section:

Quote

§16 Epicurus, the son of Neocles, the Athenian, who philosophised in the line of Democritus, said that the principles of the things that exist are bodies that are observable by reason, not containing any void, ungenerated, indestructible, unable to be crushed or have its parts modified or be qualitatively altered. These bodies are observable by reason; and they move with the void and throughout the void. The void itself is unlimited (in size), and the bodies are unlimited (in number). The bodies possess these three (characteristics), shape, size, weight. Democritus stated that there were two, size and shape, but Epicurus added to these a third, weight. ‘For it is necessary’, he says, ‘that the bodies are moved by the blow caused by weight, since they will not be moved (sc. otherwise)’. The shapes of the atoms are incomprehensibly many, but not unlimited in number. They cannot have the form of a hook or a trident or a bracelet, for these shapes are easily crushed, whereas atoms are impassible and unable to be crushed. They have their individual shapes, which are observable by reason. The term ‘atom’ is used, not because it is a smallest particle, but because it cannot be cut, being as it is impassible and not containing any void. As a result, when he speaks of an atom, he means what is uncrushable and impassible, not containing any void. That there is such as thing as an atom is clear. For there are elements that always exist, that is to say figures ⟨without void⟩, and the unit. (P9,S19, cf. Tvi)

Quote from Patrikios

Second, we are fortunate to have benefits of science that enables us to organize our lives, track the storm better and make prudent decisions to deal with the necessity of shelter, food & water; while accepting nature’s vagaries of chance, especially with such a powerful storm (wind speeds & direction, rainfall amounts).

Great to hear you are ok and exactly right, Patrikios! Studying these things helps us see that "the gods" aren't going to come to our assistance, that we have to look out for ourselves, that we have to rely on the senses and reason and not wishful thinking and pure abstractions, etc etc etc!

By they way do you have the "quote" function working now?

Quote from Cleveland Okie

This is an interesting discussion, but I still wonder what can be done to bring Epicureanism to the attention of more people, so that they at least have the opportunity to find out about it. Should I try to create and post Epicurean memes on social media? Should I launch an Epicurean blog somewhere? (I ran a search for "Epicurean" to see if there are any such blogs on Substack, and all of the ones I could find with the word "Epicurean" in the title were food blogs!)

I think that one of the best things that anyone can do, and for themselves as much as for other people, is to create new content. Blogs if you are more writer than graphics designer, memes/graphics/artwork if you have artistic talent, music if you have musical talent, etc. It helps not only crystalize things in your own mind, but it's surely the best way to work to introduce others to Epicurus. Once they get introduced through an initial article or artwork or meme, we can introduce them to the rest of the "network" and they can pursue the parts that interest them most.

But most of all we need that initial introduction to new people, and everyone can help with that.

If I have a friend whose interested in politics I try to introduce them to Jefferson's views on Epicurus, or Nietzsche's, or someone else that they can connect with.

If they are into history there is Greenblatt's book on the swerve, or if they might be interested in Frances Wright for historical or female-connection or other reason, there's "A Few Days In Athens," which I think is highly underrated.

If they're into poetry there's of course Lucretius from a poetry angle, but I suspect that going to deep on first approach is not a good idea. It seems to me what is most likely to work most often is to provide the individual target person or target audience with a "connection" so that they will see that someone else they admire holds Epicurus in high esteem.

Cleveland your post has me thinking about what I would recommend to someone who "wanted to read a primer on philosophy, thinking that such a background might aid my Epicurean studies."

I haven't read many such primer's myself, and I suppose it would depend on the person and the primer what makes the most sense. If anyone has recommendations of primers that are written from non-Platonist or non-Skeptical or non-Stoic points of view, please comment in this thread.

For some reason something that comes to mind as attempting a basic comparison between Epicurus and others is the Appendix to the DeLacey translation of Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference"

Philodemus: On methods of inference: a study in ancient empiricism : Philodemus : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

http://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/uf.jsp?st=UF001032148&ix=nu&I=0&V=D

archive.org

The three chapter headings in the Appendix have been valuable to my understanding of some very basic issues:

• Sources of Epicurean Empiricism
• Development of Epicurean Logic and Methodology
• The Logical Controversies of the Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics

These appendices are relatively detailed, and they for me they were almost more valuable than the translation (of which large parts are missing) for understanding some very basic issues. I seem to recall that David Sedley has some different viewpoints from DeLacy on certain issues (can't remember what right now), but I think these appendices are worthy of reading on their own for the background information they provide.

Happy Birthday to Cyrano! Learn more about Cyrano and say happy birthday on Cyrano's timeline: Cyrano

Quote from Matteng

Here is defense but I know this can be an endless debate:

A quick additional comment:

After about 15 minutes I wasn't able (for now) to continue. You are right a hundred times over that "this can be an endless debate." For those who find it helpful to go down the rabbit hole, this looks like it could possibly be a very good video. It's definitely well crafted.

But I can't help but throw up my hands and think that this is another example of a rabbit hole that has no happy ending for those who go choose to follow it down into its depths, no matter what side of the debate you are on. In the end, it makes sense to me that we have to accept at face value what the senses, anticipations, and feelings provide to us, and it seems to me that at the very least these faculties tell me that there are at least some times when "I could have acted differently." I may not be able to trace back down to the movement of particular atoms through particular locations of void what is happening to make me sense this, but that's just another example of how there can be truths at the micro level, and separate truths at the macro level, and that neither level has a monopoly on truth.

As a practical matter it seems to me that Epicurus was right that it would be impossible for us to live happily if we did not organize our lives as if we are confident that we have some amount of free agency. Yes it's possible to take the opposite position, just like it is possible to take varying positions on many philosophical issues, but we all have to make our choices about what we choose to believe, and get on with life. Having confidence that we have some amount of free will makes the most sense to me consistent with the evidence and reasoning that I can grasp. Snow is white, and honey is sweet, and it appears to me that I have free will. That has to be good enough and I judge it to be good enough - at least for me.

Just started watching that video Matting and may not be able to finish it for a while, but this looks like a very good video, so thank you!

Happy birthday Holly, and thanks for helping manage the Facebook page!

Happy Birthday to HollyGraves! Learn more about HollyGraves and say happy birthday on HollyGraves's timeline: HollyGraves

Just a note to comment that we had a good "First Monday" meeting tonight. Seven of our regulars had a good chance to speak with two of our most recent participants, Eric and Patrikios. We thank them for joining us and look forward to hearing more from them on the forum.

We very much appreciate that Eric made the effort to stay up until the middle of the northern-European night to join us, and we appreciate that Pgannon has made the effort to make contact with Christos in Athens, Greece.

One side note: After our discussion I realized that we have at least two (and probably more) regular participants who may end up being affected by Hurricane "Milton." I've recently myself seen the damage from hurricane Helene, so I know that others here share my concern and best wishes for Patrikios and Eikadistes and any others of our readers in the Florida area for safe conduct in the coming storm!

Pgannon I think you are right in your comments, but if I read them correctly you are probably leaving out the issue of the images being "received directly by the brain" and not going through the five senses. As I would understand it myself, you're right that all things give off "films" of atoms and that this explains vision, but it is also clear that they discussed receiving images while asleep - a time in which the eyes are closed and not the mechanism.

Lucretius is pretty clear that this is an important aspect in his discussion in Book 4. It even appears in the correspondence of Cicero and Cassius in their joking back and forth about "spectres."

I also recommend Dewitt discussion of images of you have not yet read his book.

Yes it is a fascinating subject!

Would "readily" work?

However there is definItaly a possibility of an "in-your-face" intention once, or especially when, the full picture of the Epcurean position is brought into focus.

I will add a cite....

In the easily or readily in the sense of straightforward I am reminded of this from the opening of Lucretius Book 6:

[09] For when he saw that mortals had by now attained well-nigh all things which their needs crave for subsistence, and that, as far as they could, their life was established in safety, that men abounded in power through wealth and honours and renown, and were haughty in the good name of their children, and yet not one of them for all that had at home a heart less anguished, but with torture of mind lived a fretful life without any respite, and was constrained to rage with savage complaining, he then did understand that it was the vessel itself which wrought the disease, and that by its disease all things were corrupted within, whatsoever came into it gathered from without, yea even blessings; in part because he saw that it was leaking and full of holes, so that by no means could it ever be filled; in part because he perceived that it tainted as with a foul savor all things within it, which it had taken in. And so with his discourse of truthful words he purged the heart and set a limit to its desire and fear, and set forth what is the highest good, towards which we all strive, and pointed out the path, whereby along a narrow track we may strain on towards it in a straight course;

Also, on the "dreadful" -

That's a word that to me tends to emphasis the excruciatingly painful, which - going along with Nate's earlier comment - might not be so much the intimation as is "good" vs "bad" or even "evil".

"good" is a very generic word that both sounds philosophical and doesn't emphasize some kind of pointed state of ecstacy. Does the original greek bear a "bad" that corresponds to what is translated as "good" so that the entire passage sounds more philosophical than referring to "terrible" or "dreadful?"

Thank you Don! That is a great start toward what we ought to set up as a special page!

Considering it as you said a rough draft from which to work further, I hope we can combine our efforts and work on turning this into something that will be an important resource.

Is there any way beyond ellipsis that we can indicate how much of gap exists before and after the Tet?

You know Bryan (and Don et al), whether as part of the Epicurea or otherwise, I think it would be a major contribution if we could combine our efforts and come up with a complete version of whatever is left of the scroll on which the Tetrapharmakos is taken. We don't even seem to have an agreed upon title, and I gather all it is referred to is P. Herc. 1005

It would be a major contribution if we could put together a page on

"Translation Of The Surviving Text of P. Herc. 1005" and begin to put all that we know about this scroll in context.

Is any of it of substance translated in a Sedley or other text? Where would we begin?

This is definitely a subject I'd like to see expanded as part of our studies of Epicurean canonics. Might be worth a subforum at some point, but more likely I will create an entry in the Canonics section of the Wiki here and list the separate fallacies there.

Today I came across this reference to a logical fallacy that is addressed in Lucretius. I am sure there are many more, but this will get the thread started:

The Fallacy Of Division / Composition

Here's the thrust of the fallacious reasoning, in an entry for Fallacy of Division:

The fallacy of division^[1] is an informal fallacy that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.

An example:

1. The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream
2. Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary
3. Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream

The converse of this fallacy is called fallacy of composition, which arises when one fallaciously attributes a property of some part of a thing to the thing as a whole.

If a system as a whole has some property that none of its constituents has (or perhaps, it has it but not as a result of some constituent's having that property), this is sometimes called an emergent property of the system.

The term mereological fallacy refers to approximately the same incorrect inference that properties of a whole are also properties of its parts.^[2][3][4][5]

Dealt With in Epicurean Texts

The same wikipedia artlcie says:

Both the fallacy of division and the fallacy of composition were addressed by Aristotle in Sophistical Refutations.

In the philosophy of the ancient Greek Anaxagoras, as claimed by the Roman atomist Lucretius,^[6] it was assumed that the atoms constituting a substance must themselves have the salient observed properties of that substance: so atoms of water would be wet, atoms of iron would be hard, atoms of wool would be soft, etc. This doctrine is called homoeomeria, and it depends on the fallacy of division.

---

This would be found at Lucretius Book 1, at 830, which begins as follows:

[830] Now let us also search into the homoeomeria of Anaxagoras, as the Greeks term it, though the poverty of our country’s speech does not suffer us to name it in our own tongue; nevertheless the thing itself it is easy to set forth in words.

[834] First—what he calls the homoeomeria of things—you must know that he thinks that bones are made of very small and tiny bones, and flesh of small and tiny pieces of flesh, and blood is created of many drops of blood coming together in union, and that gold again can be built up of grains of gold, and the earth grow together out of little earths, that fire is made of fires, and water of water-drops, and all the rest he pictures and imagines in the same way. And yet he does not allow that there is void in things on any side, nor that there is a limit to the cutting up of bodies. Therefore in this point and that he seems to me to go astray just as they did, of whom I told above.

Bryan do you know if there is a translation of what exists most closely before and after this passage? I don't think I have been able to piece together anything coherent about that, much less any indication of how much is lost between anything that remains and this particular passage.