Tau Phi when I click on the pdf I get a window that shows this:
Have you tried getting the PDF generator to produce a table of contents with the names of the letters and name for major sections like the Principal Doctrines, Will of Epicurus, etc? That would probably be more useful than the page thumbnails, if that's possible. And yes I agree with Bryan's suggestion and I will rework a section of the front page to make it easier to see where to find versions of the texts like this.
Great - thanks very much Tau Phi!
My late reading into the Matthew Stewart book. combined with the fact that Joshua and I are about to pick up on the topic of "motion" in the podcast (via Tusculun Disputations) reminded me of this article - "On The Existence of God by Thomas Paine. It's an example of the disappointment I feel in the deists not going all the way back to Epicurus, and I have to think that their failure to do so was a major part of what doomed their entire "deist" enterprise.
https://www.thomaspaine.org/works/essays/religion/the-existence-of-god.htm
I am hopeful that we can address Paine's "motion" argument in the upcoming podcast(s) so if anyone has a comment, please post. Here's the thrust of Paine's argument:
Let us examine this subject; it is worth examining; for if we examine it through all its cases, the result will be that the existence of a SUPERIOR CAUSE, or that which man calls GOD, will be discoverable by philosophical principles.
In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is equally as impossible of proof as to assert it.
It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say-if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable, as is before said, by natural philosophy.
I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is.
The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself.1
It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited.
The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion.
Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion.
But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies.
But the motion that upholds the solar system is of an entire different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entire different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system.
Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it.
When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD.
As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature’s God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the Power that ordained them.
God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon.
But infidelity, by ascribing every phenomenon to properties of matter, conceives a system for which it cannot account, and yet it pretends to demonstration. It reasons from what it sees on the surface of the earth, but it does not carry itself on the solar system existing by motion.
It sees upon the surface a perpetual decomposition and recomposition of matter. It sees that an oak produces an acorn, an acorn an oak, a bird an egg, an egg a bird, and so on. In things of this kind it sees something which it calls a natural cause, but none of the causes it sees is the cause of that motion which preserves the solar system.
Let us contemplate this wonderful and stupendous system consisting of matter, and existing by motion. It is not matter in a state of rest, nor in a state of decomposition or recomposition. It is matter systematized in perpetual orbicular or circular motion. As a system that motion is the life of it: as animation is life to an animal body, deprive the system of motion and, as a system, it must expire.
Who then breathed into the system the life of motion? What power impelled the planets to move, since motion is not a property of the matter of which they are composed? If we contemplate the immense velocity of this motion, our wonder becomes increased, and our adoration enlarges itself in the same proportion.
The full article is not very long and well worth reading:
https://www.thomaspaine.org/works/essays/religion/the-existence-of-god.htm
living in stormy political times and refusing to take sides
That phrasing emphasizes to me that "refusing to take sides" is not at all the same thing as "refusing to take risks" or even "refusing to endure pain." It seems that Atticus was very well ready to take personal risks that might include up to death for offending the wrong people - when he thought that the reward was worth the risk.
It's a point worth emphasizing that refusing to engage in political feuds is not the same thing at all as refusing to take risks under the right circumstances.
Not significant but in reading up on Thomas Young I was interested to see if there was a portait of them.
I'm not finding anything other than this link below, which due to the dates does not appear to be our target.
If anyone in the future finds that there is a portrait, please add it to this thread. Thanks.
I've seen this book praised many times here in the past by Eikadistes and Joshua so it's well past time we have thread dedicated to it.
Just in the last week or so have I had time to pick it up, and I have to say I am very impressed so far. This is a subject (usually filed under "Deism") that I started reading into shortly after college, and it had a major impact on my thinking long before I picked up Epicurus. I'm less than a quarter of the way through it but I'm already very impressed by its level of detail, including material on Ethan Allen, whose "Reason The Only Oracle of Man" I read many years ago. But it had not sunk into my consciousness that there was a relationship between him and Thomas Young, a figure that I posted about years ago, but never pursued (that I can recall).
While strictly speaking "Deism" is considered to be closer to the watchmaker model, where the universe was originally created by a supernatural god, and therefore not compatible with Epicurean physics, it seems that there was a lot of variation among the thoughts of those who were labeled as deists, and some of them may indeed have had almost a full Epicurean viewpoint.
I post this because over time and new people discover this book, I'd like it to have a thread that people can find to add their thoughts. No doubt there are many details about people like Young who are mentioned in the book about whom it would be good to research to look for clues to the development of their thought and Epicurean connections.
Also, while we always need to steer clear of contemporary partisan politics, I think one of the most important implications of studying these figures is the connection between their "activism" and their Epicurean-adjacent worldviews. It seems like almost a whole generation of people, even those who were not as educated as others, understood that this non-supernatural worldview logically leads to greater, not not lesser, interest in and engagement with the world around them. And rather than living in "fear" or being unwilling to experience any pain at all, they went to a lot of effort and personal risk to pursue living as they thought it should be conducted.
It's frustrating to read in Stewart's book about how so many of them from Washington and Franklin and even Jefferson kept their views to themselves, no doubt out of concern for what would happen to them if they were too vocal. Even so it is motivating to read about these figures and consider the extent to which we can add to their work given that our environment -- at least for now -- allows many of us to speak a little more openly than was available to them.
Thanks for posting that Cleveland -- lots of good info in there!
Eikadistes I am not sure whether you saw today's version or not, but I think I now have it fairly stable and I don't intend drastic revisions that would jeopoardize the current functionality.
I have all six books of the Latin, Bailey, Dunster, and Munro all selectable so you can view any combination of them or them all.
When you click in the left column to go to a section, the URL updates so that if you then share the URL, then paste it into another browser, then the page will open to the right section.
I'd like to implement true synchronized scrolling like the other software had, but that's proving to be a problem, and as it is, it's set up so that if you click on the left bar then all of the columns do move the selected line number to the top of the page, where they are even. If you then use the left and right arrows in the center of the header, you can move forward and backward with the section you're looking for moved to the top of the screen where they are aligned.
So this is the version I expect to use for a while, and now most of my effort will probably be devoted to cleaning up final artifacts in the text.
I debated whether I should remove the line breaks from the Latin version, but I gather that knowing where the lines end does carry with it some degree of information, so rather than delete those I'm leaving the lines in poem form -- at least for now.
Today I have made some significant improvements to the operation of the side-by-side Lucretius.
I know there are many rough edges, but if anyone has suggestions or comments please be sure to let me know and I will see what I can do!
In terms of the creativity of translators, you can pick any passage from Lucretius and compare the various translations, and the variation in details is shocking -- even where the texts are very reliable and there's no questions about lost words or whole phrases.
So as I see it this is a problem where it's important to keep all these issues in mind, but there's no "solution" other than build from the ground up with a basic understanding of the fundamentals, and then consider any translations in the context of what we are confident is true. That way we can separate out what is likely a good translation from one that's got so much discretionary flourish as to mean totally different things.
And to think how many people over the years have gotten wrapped up in controversies over every detail of the King James and other translations of the Bible .
Well I've run into a situation that the code from github is choking whenever I exceed a certain size limit, so there's no way I can get more than two translations side by side at a time.
I might play further with the github code, but I think in the meantime I'm going to go with pure html (courtesy of Chatgpt) and be satisfied for the moment with this version:
It's not as polished as the other version and has lots of quirks to work out.
Welcome to Episode 274 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most 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 we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
This week we continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:
As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools.
These week we continue with "Is Death An Evil," and we will pick up where we left off in Section XIIWelcome to Episode 273 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most 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 we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
This week we continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:
As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools.
These week we turn our attention further to "Is Death An Evil," and we will read beginning in Section XVII where the discussion continues with more about the Pythagorean / Platonic view of the human soul.
Our general discussion guide for Tusculun Disputations is here: https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/notes/epicurea…html#org0c11d2e
And a side-by-side version with comments is here: https://epicureanfriends.github.io/tusculundisput…glish/section:5
I made a lot of progress today and completed the "coding" I needed for all six books, but when I loaded them into github the site now seems to choke with a 'loading' message.
May have to split them up by book to make it workable but if someone checks the site for the time being that's the reason it's not working.
Until I set up a separate thread I'll continue to post here updates on getting a side-by-side version of Lucretius.
At present I now have all of book one available in Latin, Dunster, Munro, and Bailey here:
There will be lots of typos during the process of getting a workable version up and I'll correct them in waves as I make progress on each book.
I have been debating whether to separate these into six separate files, out of concern that the file size would slow down the rendering, but at present things are still pretty snappy so I'll go for getting them all in one file, and that will make word searching a lot easier.
Another place I am sure there will be errors is cross-matching the beginning of each english section with the correct section in Latin.
the problem is that the sections (by approximate line number) are pretty arbitrary, and in order to get this done I'm going pretty fast and that makes it harder to be certain that I'm finding the right latin section (since my Latin isn't superb in the first place).
If anyone sees any obvious mismatches please let me know and I'll correct them.
I think Eikadistes' views here are correct, but I also think that Kalosyni's concerns should alert us that there's a regularly-occurring problem that we have to work on ways to address.
Many of the words we're talking about, including "religion," have many shades of meaning, some of which are reconcilable with core Epicurean views and some of which are not.
I suspect that if Kalosyni were to bore in and specifically question what it means to "pray" or "participate in the ceremonies" then we could reconcile most of the apparent contradictions in a way that would be consistent with core Epicurean views against the existence of supernatural forces.
It seems to me that the ground fule for the best way to deal with these ambiguities is a lot like Epicurus said about gods: Believe X, Y, and Z about gods, and never believe anything that it is inconsistent with X, Y, and Z.
It's probably not enough for us today to simply say "Epicurus taught that there are no supernatural forces" and therefore "never accept that Epicurus would teach anything that would imply the existence of supernatural forces." But that's the kind of hard logical chain reasoning approach that I think Epicurus was teaching when he was alive, and that we need to use to understand him now.
So anytime someone suggests an interpretation of any text that implies that the text contradicts Epicurus, the first step to address it should be to focus on looking for a way to interpret the words being used in a way that is consistent with core ideas. Only after that would I entertain the possibility that there might be some disagreement.
So far I personally don't see anything that can't be reconciled by cutting out any supernatural connotation from what's being discussed.
As far as what I gather is behind Kalosyni's attention her post, after we slice out the "supernatural" part of the discussion, which is admittedly a huge part, I do think that there are very important functions that Epicurean community could and should fill that parallel some of the functions assumed by the opposing religions. People live only a short number of years, and it's important to provide continuity. Older people have to preserve information and coordinate activities from which younger people can learn, and everyone at any age needs a support group for all sorts of reasons. Those functions are best filled by finding like-minded friends, and Epicurean philosophy provides a lot of the glue about what "like-minded" means in a social contest.
I haven't re-read the older parts of this thread either, but I seem to recall that that was the drift of the prior discussion. Kalosyni's bringing up the subject again, but not any conclusions from the past, shows how important the issue is and how things need to develop into the direction where some kind of social connection/unity is in place.
Right Don. It depends on how you use the word.
As in the cite quoted by Kalosyni, the word used there is "sacred" and that too is ambiguous.
Epicurean philosophy is flatly natural and anti-supernatural.
But that does not at all mean that it isn't a highly focused system of thought that holds some things as "good" even to the point of "sacred" and other things "bad" to the point of evil. It's just that there's nothing supernatural at either end.
Happy Birthday to sowhataustin! Learn more about sowhataustin and say happy birthday on sowhataustin's timeline: sowhataustin
Whenever there is a conflict between Cicero and other sources, don't trust Cicero.
In this case I agree Cicero is wrong, but there are a lot of subtleties here that we wouldn't have but for this section of "On The Nature of the Gods" and now also this section XIII of Tusculan Disputations.
If we add this section of "Tusculan Disputations," to "On The nature of the gods" and also add in some of Cicero's argument in "On Ends" that Joshua references in this episode (that Epicurus identified justice with what people think is justice) I think we can get to see that there's a pattern on this particular issue that Cicero either did not understand or intentionally misrepresented Epicurus.
I doubt Cicero could have made this up from nothing, and Cicero's giving us more to work with than we have solely through Diogenes Laertius, but he's either intentionally or negligently making it sound like Epicurus took the position that if enough people believe something then that is proof that it's true.
(This calls to mind DeWitt's statement that he believed Cicero was intentionally malicious because Cicero could not have misrepresented Epicurus so effectively had Cicero not understood Epicurus so well. If I were arguing against that, I might point out that Cicero had no problem stating that he disagreed with Epicurus in highly charged moral judgments, so did Cicero really need to mis-state the Epicurean position on prolepsis? It wouldn't have changed his mind if he decided at some point that he did misunderstand prolepsis, but I can see the possibility of confusion, since Cicero did like the "common consent of mankind" argument that others appear to have been making.)
If we think Epicurus was intelligent - which we do - then Epicurus' argument can't be as superficial as saying that something is true because some number of people believe it. But Cicero has spread this allegation and it seems to have become embedded into what is accepted that Epicurus thought. I saw a Greg Sadler video in which he seemed to be accepting that Epicurus took the position that "the common consent of mankind" was Epicurus' proof that gods exist, and it undermines the credibility of anyone to think that they argued that truth can be decided by majority vote.
So defenders of Epicurus have to be able to articulate how what Cicero wrote is wrong, and be able to articulate what Epicurus was really saying instead.
It does seem like Epicurus was basing his argument for existence of gods on prolepsis, but that's not at all the same thing as saying "gods exist because everyone thinks they do." What follows after that has to be a concise explanation of how prolepses are not opinions, but are somehow an input into formation of opinions.
Episode 273 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is entitled: "Is The Soul Immortal And Death Actually A Good? " as we proceed further into part one of Tusculan Disputations
