Posts by Cassius

This reminds me also of the discussion we had due to the Gellar-Goad article on the "Size of the Sun" perhaps being an Epicurean "shibboleth" or "litmus test" for the school (a test of whether you really understand how the senses work and how to use them):

Post

RE: "Lucretius on the Size of the Sun", by T.H.M. Gellar-Goad

I'll try to summarize what I recall to be the main points of the essay;

‐-------------‐

-Epicurus' primary interest in the size of the sun is to rule out the supernatural.

-A superficial reading of the passage will always be plagued with error.

-The author stresses the importance of considering the question in light of the whole philosophy.

-And that includes offering a few explanations, not just asserting one.

-Epicurus draws a distinction between how we interpret things that appear to our senses,…

Joshua

June 11, 2022 at 1:56 PM

And it relates to the use of terms like "gods" and even "virtue" where Epicurus was discussing common words in a non-common way. Doing so presents complex issues.

And most recently I would relate this to the commentary about the Tetrapharmakon in the Julie Giovacchini article to the effect that outlining always risks oversimplification, but remains very useful for certain purposes and circumstances:

Thread

Julie Giovacchini - "The Tetrapharmakos, Authentic Formula Or Simplistic Summary Of Epicurean Ethics?"

[CASSIUS ADMIN NOTE: Thanks to Don for finding these two articles by Julie Giovacchini. At present I only have the second in google translate form (see post below) but they look to contain a lot of interesting information and deserve a thread of their own - especially the one linked in post 2 below.]

Gal. (Galen) and the tetrapharmakos

https://journals.openedition.org/aitia/1899

(Suggest using Google Translate for French website)

Don

August 3, 2023 at 1:35 PM

If you're standing on a streetcorner or for some reason speaking to people who are essentially strangers, terms like "happiness" and "pleasant life" can make sense to use, or you can cite basic principles in tetrapharmakon-like simplification. But if you are talking to people who can or should have a deeper understanding of Epicurus, then you can and should be much more plain-speaking. You should speak frankly and the full truth - truths that are much more clear in the full first four principal doctrines: "pleasure" is the key, and gods of the Yahweh type are anything but truly godlike, and personal consciousness terminates forever at death, etc -- all in uncompromising and clear terms.

Oops i missed that Joshua - sorry!

Don's post as to the Julie G. article have been split out to a separate thread here:

Thread

Julie Giovacchini - "The Tetrapharmakos, Authentic Formula Or Simplistic Summary Of Epicurean Ethics?"

[CASSIUS ADMIN NOTE: Thanks to Don for finding these two articles by Julie Giovacchini. At present I only have the second in google translate form (see post below) but they look to contain a lot of interesting information and deserve a thread of their own - especially the one linked in post 2 below.]

Gal. (Galen) and the tetrapharmakos

https://journals.openedition.org/aitia/1899

(Suggest using Google Translate for French website)

Don

August 3, 2023 at 1:35 PM

This one is useful too, in analogizing the question under discussion to what Lucretius alludes to with bees flitting from flower to flower:

Quote

The image of the bee foraging in the flowers would, according to Barns, be a transparent allusion to the composition of anthologies49. If we compare this verse to the famous Lucretian comparison of poetry with honey, used as an adjuvant to make the bitterness and brutality of the epicurean remedy assimilable50, we have here an interesting analogy which, in the whole of the Rerum Natura,would work at different levels:

– a first level, therapeutic: the pharmacy epicurean, which is already a complex substance coming from different elements, must be mixed with something other than itself (the honey of poetry which dilutes it) to be properly assimilated and treat immediately;

– a second level, which could be called pharmaceutical: the honey itself is the product of foraging or picking from a

collection of philosophical elements, the sentences, maxims and aphorisms attributed to Epicurus , whose intrinsic virtue makes as many pharmacy, available and usable independently of their initial discursive context from the moment they are inserted into a new discourse that presents them effectively, integrating them into a more complete whole.

There is also an interesting comparison of this issue to a passage that Seneca wrote to Lucilius:

Quote

You wish me to accompany these letters also, like the preceding ones, with a few sentences from our masters. But they were not preoccupied with flowerets: the whole assemblage <of their thought> is virile. Inequality, you know, is found where remarkable realities dominate. There is nothing admirable in a single tree, if the whole forest rises to the same height. These kinds of sayings, you will find them in poems, in stories. That is why I do not want you to judge that these belong to Epicurus; they come back to everyone, much more, they come back to us. But we notice them more with him, because they arise at rare moments, because we do not expect them, because it is surprising that such strong things should be pronounced by a man who teaches softness. This is indeed how many consider him. To me, Epicurus is a brave fellow, but he wears a lady's shirt. […]

However, if you insist, I won't be stingy, but I'll have my hands full: immense is the mass of these sentences which lies pell-mell, and which must be amassed and not picked. They do not fall one by one, they flow. They are eternal and mixed together. I have no doubt, they would bring a lot to a still clumsy and ignorant listener. Because it is easier to retain concise and poetically ordered elements. That is why we give children to learn maxims, and what the Greeks call chries, because their childish mind can understand them, and is not able to embrace more. But it is shameful for an accomplished man to gather flowers, to rely on very well-known words and in very few numbers, and to stick to their memory: now that he is resting on himself! Let him speak in his name, instead of quotings.

OK I finished reading the google translate of the French article posted above, and it contains a lot of useful information and discussion. If I had to summarize the conclusion, the writer seems to be taking the position that it was an ongoing issue in the ancient world (especially among Epicureans) to debate the relationship and usefulness of summaries vs longer texts. I gather the point is parallel to the question of whether the benefits of philosophy can be gained from what might disparagingly be called the repetition of oversimplified "magic words," or whether the benefits must come through an ongoing enterprise of study over time.

The writer also makes the point that there is a major perspective difference between the kind of material that dedicated thinkers can pursue vs what ordinary people who have no time for philosophy can benefit from. The latter don't have time for long study, but they also deserve to get as much benefit as possible from short presentations of the approximate truth.

I will see if I can quote some important sections but the bottom line view of the article seems to be that the best perspective is to appreciate BOTH approaches, just as Epicurus said that you don't always need the details but that you do need the big picture most of the time. The trouble that is inherent in using only a few words to describe the big picture is something that we have to deal with by keeping in mind that as a practical matter it is the result that matters. Those who have the time and inclination and ability to dig into the details need to do so, and thereby they will get a deeper understanding of the issues. But those who don't have the time and inclination or ability to do so will still benefit from the summary, even if they end up missing the subtleties. Probably another appropriate time to remember the "perfect is not the enemy of the good" maxim.

Here's good quote which I think summarizes the point of the writer about the tension that is involved, but which is sustainable because we can explain the different perspectives and make use of both:

Quote

It must therefore be admitted that, at least in their intention, the successors of Epicurus held a difficult line. Claiming, in line with the introduction of theLetter to Herodotusand the continuity it establishes between the complete doctrine and its summary44, a perfect coherence and a complementarity between discursive ethics and the dogmatic and simplified ethics of summaries, they underlined in the same movement the risks linked to the abbreviated form; in this context the tetrapharmacos, taken out of its context, loses its rationality despite its completeness and is emptied of its meaning, since it is in reality not a magic formula but an invitation to reflection

and calculation

I am going to attach here a Google Translate French to english conversion of theJulie Giovacchini document Don linked above. I am just starting to read it so not sure how useful it will be, but on first glance appears reasonable.

TETRAFRENCH.fr.en2.pdf

For some reason I am just seeing these posts. Thanks for finding this material Don!

I really want to try to get the sense of that French article so I will see what I can do.

Also although I really admire Diskin Clay I think I have to side with the Germans and take the position that the PD as we have them was probably not organized and published by Epicurus himself.

Welcome to Episode 186 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics. We are now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy."

This week we begin our discussion of Chapter 15, entitled "Extension, Submergence, and Revival."

Chapter XV - Extension, Submergence, And Revival

• General Evidence of Popularity
• Fortunes of the Parent School
• The Beginning of Stoic Hostility
• The School In Antioch
• Epicureans In the New Testament
• The School In Alexandria
• Epicureanism In Italy
• Epicureanism In Rome
• The Reaction Against Epicureanism
• Epicureanism In The Early Empire
• Plutarch, Anti-Epicurean
• Epicureanism In The Graeco-Roman World
• Third And Fourth Centuries
• Epicureanism In the Middle Ages
• The Epicurean Revival

What you're talking about as the immediate flash connotation of the word is definitely a problem. How to solve the problem is a very difficult question, and yes "life' helps, in my view, but it also then needs to be tempered by the observation that the 'longest' is not necessarily the 'best'

Episode 185 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!

Ok thanks again. This is really interesting, in addition to being a good use of "sidenotes" we've discussed recently:

So this reference to the Galen and the Stoics does not refer explicitly or implicitly to our Philodemus reference (?) but to an independent Stoic concern for what happens to individual elements when they are mixed. So this reference appears to be a true discussion of physical medicine and is not related to our medicine for the "soul."

So there is apparently a reference to it in Cicero that we don't yet have nailed down (per the Gordon reference in wikipedia).

Quote

The point that might seem somewhat confusing is that, despite the process of fusion, the initial ingredients nevertheless always keep in a pharmacopoeia a form of presence, even if only etiological; we cannot explain the action of the tetrapharmakos only by the virtues of the ingredients which compose it, just as one can explain nature only by the action of primordial principles which however no longer exist as such in the bodies of which they are causes. To really understand the scope of the argument, it is necessary to return to the distinction to be made between this type of fused mixture and the mixture of moods, which does not eliminate the identity of the elements which compose it. This distinction can allow us to underline the all-out very paradoxical relationship of Galien to Stoic physics. This provides him, with the total mixture, with an epistemological model almost perfect for thinking of the humoral mixture (crash), and this even though: 1) the physical background explicitly claimed by Galien is not Stoic but Aristotelian and 2) metaphysical reflection upstream of the properly physical content of From elementis uses, to think of the disciplinary division between physics, medicine and metaphysics, an example of mixture which is not total but fused30.

Thanks Don!

So I suppose we are looking for this so would need to figure out wha "Ph.1.433" references as well as Gal.1.242 - but I presume those are about the drug - unless Meno is as to the drug and Ph.1 is not.

I don't see what he is citing as a reference for the usage as to Epicurus two except the text from Philodemus, so is one of these words transcribed above translated as tetrapharmakos? That wikipedia entry doesn't look like it has a word for word transcription such as the epicurus wiki offers for other texts, which would be desirable.

A.compounded of four drugs:—as Subst., τετραφάρμακος, ἡ, a compound of wax, tallow, pitch, resin, Meno Iatr. 14.19, Ph.1.433 (= Stoic.2.154), Gal.1.242; also -κον, τό, Id.12.328.
II. -κος, ἡ, metaph., of the first four Κύριαι Δόξαι of Epicurus, Phld.Herc.1005.4.

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

Don given that you are adept at Perseus, does this reference at Wikipedia mean that someone thinks there is a "page" at Perseus where we can find references in the ancient texts where the term tetrapharmakos is used? When you have time could you link that entry here? My first effort turned up nothing. Thanks.

We definitely need to expand options for those whose schedules don't meet the "USA Weeknight" paradigm.

What times of day / days of week would work best? Especially if they coincide with a time that Europeans are awake I think we really want to consider adding that.

One of the things that came up in this session was discussion of the recent work by Don and Nate and others on how to number/organize/present the Principal Doctrines. Seems like we are closer but not actually there yet to pin down when the numbering was "first" added and by whom.

A related question came up of "who was the first" to apply the label "tetrapharmakos" to the four statements that are preserved apparently by Philosdemus in the Herculaneum papyrus.

This seems to be the record on which everything is based:

Principal Doctrines - Wikipedia

The "tetrapharmakos" was originally a compound of four drugs (wax, tallow, pitch and resin); the word has been used metaphorically by Roman-era Epicureans^[5] to refer to the four remedies for healing the soul.^[6]

Those notes are to Pamela Gordon who says this cannot be traced further back than Cicero (and doesn't in this source refer to anyone else who used the term):

And Liddel and Scott:

Those references would be interesting to track down to see how many "friendly" references to the term can be documented, or whether it was used disparagingly, especially in light of the ability to interpret it as disparaging or trivializing, as DeWitt hints here:

Quote from Randall Moose

Nature provides water, food, shelter, friends, and wisdom.

Consistent with some of the other thoughts you have been expressing about friendship, this sentence causes me to reflect about the general point. More generally, the point that seems to go with this is that nature generally "makes available relatively easily" these things, but that for each of them we do still have to act to go after them. Also important would seem to be that success in obtaining them is not guaranteed (at least not in the sense that death is guaranteed).

The passage that goes with this is apparently:

U469 Johannes Stobaeus, Anthology, XVII.23: “Thanks be to blessed Nature because she has made what is necessary easy to supply, and what is not easy unnecessary.”

We discussed this last night and it seems like most feel like recording would hinder the free flow of the conversation, so we better evaluate alternatives before implementing something like this. Probably the answer is alternative days and times that accommodate more people, or turning on the recorder during a "presentation" part of the session rather than the discussion part. We can continue to brainstorm alternatives.

Of course no one of a certain age is going to forget the top 40 music version....

That's an idea -- an unedited audio is a lot less intimidating than video, and probably would capture much of the benefit.