Posts by 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.

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 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?

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.....

Poll Post (to be edited)

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.

Don is correct this will never "wrap up" other than for current purposes.

At present I am thinking that a good page would be a new one every couple of days just to space things out. Talk can and will continue on each one indefinitely, but we need some kind of a pace to get us through the list in a reasonable time frame.

I'll go ahead and set up a thread for PD02 but of course by all means continue on this one.

Yes i agree to your statements, but that is the kind of "like" that we want to scrutinize.

Probably the way I should have stated it would be to ask "Since the definite article "the" in English implies certain things that an "A" would not, are we sure that the first word should be a definite article?

Welcome mflavia!

Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, all new registrants must respond in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their account is subject to deletion. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourself -- tell us a little about yourself and what prompted your interest in Epicureanism -- and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

Click HERE for a full list of our community standards. If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread.

Welcome to the forum!

One more thing:

What about the opening prepostion "The" -- which I think also causes questions that are pretty obvious as implying that the thing being discussed definitely exists, when that is probably not the question in PD01 -- Presuming the real point being made is that "any such beings which do happen to exist" -- Would it be equally or more accurate to substitute "A," ---

A blissful and incorruptible nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak. ^[1]

How about also as to the "blessed" as opposed to "blissful"? The consideration in my mind is that "blessed" sounds like someone external has "blessed" them (such as the irritating "have a blessed day" that many people say nowadays") while "blissful" does not have that connotation of one thing taking action to benefit another.

However my observation is a good example of how a "preference" needs to be guided by "most accurate."

On the other hand, I see DeWitt uses "blissful"

I am thinking for the time being of going with:

The blissful and incorruptible nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak. ^[1]

With footnote:

Note PD01: This version is primarily Bailey, but with "blissful" substituted for "blessed" and "incorruptible" substituted for "immortal." Bailey's Extant Remains version is: "The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak." See Discussion of this version here.

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

Always remembering the famous line that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good

Although this is by no means final for PD01, this is the way I am thinking the finished product should look as we update each one on the main "Texts" page:

And that "Note" could be expanded to include more explanation including a preferred "Alternate Version" in addition to the link to the discussion of all the options.

Quote from Don

Can we vote more than once? I think my "first" choice changes daily!

Yes, votes can definitely be changed.

And the same will go for the final result posted here -- Principal Doctrines

All of this will be changing over time as we try to improve the final product.

Quote from Godfrey

I would vote for Wallace. It's not perfect, but I think it's the only one with "incorruptible" and with "favor" instead of "gratitude".

I added Wallace to the poll options.

Also, just to keep the point in mind, I think that a good balance of accuracy but with consideration for "reputation for trustworthiness" probably calls for using Bailey or some other "authority" as the base, but with specific "tweaks" to address specific issues like the "immortality" issue here which jumps out as needing tweaking. Then in the footnote / reference we can give other options including fully rewritten versions that seem best based on the discussion here, regardless of whether they are based primarily on one author or another.

OK this is a good example of what I am thinking we should do with this project. Bailey seems good, but his "immortal" seems less accurate, and should be "incorruptible." I am entirely ok with a hybrid so long as we document the result.

Don do you agree that "incorruptible" or something like is is more appropriate than "immortal"?

Thank you for all the background info but where do you end up yourself? I see you are questioning the relationship of gratitude but everyone seems to throw that in there so is Bailey basically correct?

Gonna take a long time to go through these and then the Vatican Sayings too but maybe it is a good project to try to focus people on one or two before moving forward.

Here is the poll for PDO1

The following post is first of a series that I intend to make so that we can get our collection of the Princpal Doctrines into better shape. One service we can provide here at EpicureanFriends is to present a curated list that has been vetted and commented on by our regulars here who have either good sense of the philosophy, or an ability to read the original Greek and Latin - and preferably both the good sense and the language ability. I plan to post one of these on each doctrine over time and then transfer the result over to

the main list under the "Texts" section.

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 PD01 currently featured here in our Texts section is that of Cyril Bailey from his Extant Remains:

The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak.

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

“That which is happy and imperishable, neither has trouble itself, nor does it cause it to anything; so that it is not subject to feelings of either anger or gratitude; for these feelings only exist in what is weak.” Yonge (1853)

“The blessed and incorruptible has no toil or trouble of its own, and causes none to others. It is not subject either to anger or favour.” Wallace, Epicureanism 110 (1880)

“A blessed and eternal being has no trouble itself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence it is exempt from movements of anger and favour, for every such movement implies weakness.” Hicks (1910)

“A happy and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being ; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness.” Hicks (1925)

“The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favour. For all such things exist only in the weak.” Bailey (1926)

“The blissful and incorruptible being neither knows trouble itself nor occasions trouble to another, and is consequently immune to either anger or gratitude, for all such emotions reside in a weak creature.” De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 252 (1954)

“The blessed and incorruptible being neither knows tribulation itself nor occasions it to another; it is consequently immune to feelings of either anger or gratitude, for all such emotion signifies a weak creature." De Witt, St. Paul and Epicurus 187 (1954)

“That which is blessed and immortal is not troubled itself, nor does it cause trouble to another. As a result, it is not affected by anger or favor, for these belong to weakness.” Geer (1964)

“That which is blessed and imperishable neither suffers nor inflicts trouble, and therefore is affected neither by anger nor by favour. For all such things are marks of weakness.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 140 (1987)

“The blessed and immortal is itself free from trouble nor does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore, it is not constrained either by anger or by favor. For such sentiments exist only in the weak.” O'Connor (1993)

“ What is blessed and indestructible has no trouble itself nor does it give trouble to anyone else, so that it is not affected by feelings of anger or gratitude. For all such things are a sign of weakness.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“A blessed and imperishable being neither has trouble itself nor does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore, it does not experience feelings of anger or indebtedness, for such feelings signify weakness.” Anderson (2004)

“That which is blessed and indestructible has no affairs of its own to attend to; nor does it inflict any trouble on others. So, it is agitated neither by ire nor by partiality. For all such are to be found in that which lacks power.” Makridis (2005)

“That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others, so that it is not affected by anger or gratitude (for all such things come about through weakness).” Saint-Andre (2008)

“The blessed and indestructible being of the divine has no concerns of its own, nor does it make trouble for others. It is not affected by feelings of anger or benevolence,because these are found where there is a lack of strength.” Strodach (2012)

“The blessed and immortal has no troubles himself and causes none for anyone else; hence he has nothing to do with resentments and partisanship; for all such impulses are a sign of weakness.” Mensch (2018)

“What is in bliss and imperishable neither has troubles itself nor causes any for others, so it experiences no feelings of either anger or gratitude; for everything of that sort indicates weakness.” White (2021)

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.

Looks very interesting thank you!

Quote from warjuning

My thoughts and beliefs are still being formed, but I am glad to share them here

And thank you very much for doing so!

Wow great post! This is such a an important point, and you do a great job of linking it to the specifics of friendship, like it should be linked to everything else:

Quote from warjuning

just because something is relative, it does not mean it is not objective and real. They seem to think that if the person does not possess intrinsic value outside of its relations, then it cannot possess it in its relations either. But I think that an Epicurean response could address that presupposition by pointing out that relative properties can truly belong to an object, personal or not, due to their causal contribution (if I got this right. I have Polystratus' reasoning in mind).

Epicurus does not say that just because something is the abstract product of experience and reflection over time that it is not "real" and that we should not consider it capable of generating pleasure and pain that are also very real to us.

I see this as a subset of the phrase I am pilfering from David Sedley that Epicurus was not a radical atomic reductionist. Even though it is true that only atoms have an eternal unchanging existence, the "qualities" that emerge from combinations of atoms have just as much "truth" to them as do the atoms themselves, and it is wrong for us to act as if our level of existence is less "important" to us than the atomic level. The pleasure and pain that result from friendship relationships may not have the same permanence as the atoms themselves, but they are among the most important to us in life.