Quote from Kalosyni

I would like to propose that friendship is a pleasure which every Epicurean should cultivate.

Even at risk of forever disqualifying yourself from the world of Modern Stoicism????

(From ModernStoicism.com)

Or even worse (in terms of numbers of people) separating yourself from the Buddhist viewpoint (which implies not getting too attached to any one person)?

Gosh, somebody willing to do that better be ready to tread the path less trod !

But then Lucretius said (according to Humphries):

Exploring ways where none have gone before,

Across the Muses' realms I make my way,

Happy to come to virgin springs, to drink

Their freshness, to discover all the flowers

No man has ever seen, and of them twine

Myself a garland, which no poet yet

Has had from any Muse. This I deserve

Because I teach great things, because I strive

To free the spirit, give the mind release

From the constrictions of religious fear,

Because I write clear verse about dark things,

Enduing what I touch with grace and charm;

And this makes sense, for, just as doctors do,

When they give bitter wormwood to a child,

But first take pains to smear the rim of the cup

With the sweet golden honey, and to fool

The unsuspecting patient, anyway

As far as the lips, till he gulps down the dose

Of bitter wormwood, fooled, but not betrayed,

But rather given health and strength, so I,

Harsh as my system may appear to those

Who have not used it (and, in general,

People shrink back, set lips and minds against it)

Nevertheless, for your sake, Memmius,

Have wanted to explain the way things are

Turning the taste of honey into sound

As musical, as golden, so that I

May hold your mind with poetry, while you

Are learning all about that form, that pattern,

And see its usefulness.

One more contextual issue that I think is underappreciated but very important is the issue of time. All things being equal, if we had plenty of time, then it makes more sense to defer action when some amount of pain is required. In the big picture, however, life is very short, and for an eternity we are nothing after we die. In my mind that is a factor that compels us to be very serious about how we make this calculation, and to realize that some pain is required in virtually everything we do in life.

As Horace said, seize the day. Or, make hay while the Sun shines.

I have failed to reference the first text that should always come to mind whenever asceticism is discussed: Vatican Saying 63:

VS63. Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.

I always enjoy discussing this issue because I think it is so important.

I find that there are basically two camps:

Camp One - People who focus on the "absence of pain" passages and conclude that "avoid all pain to the extent possible" is the supreme guide of Epicurean philosophy, without regard to the pleasure that is thereby forgone.

Camp Two:. People who focus on "pleasure" as that term is ordinarily understood, embracing all forms of mental and physical enjoyment, and who conclude that the correct statement of the primary guide is that pleasure is the focus and is to be pursued so long as we ourselves deem the resulting feeling of pleasure to be worth the cost in pain needed to obtain it.

Everyone has different tolerances for pain, and different valuations of pleasure, so it's really impossible to make the generic statement of Camp Two more precise than that. There is no absolute set of pleasures always to pursue or pains always to avoid.

The error of camp one, in my view, arises from attempting to conclude that all pain is so intolerable that it must be avoided at all costs.

I wish camp one was a straw man and that no one seriously advocates for that, but we are talking philosophy here and we need to be as precise and clear as possible with our formulations.

Camp One is the short path to Stoicism and Buddhism IMHO and is therefore to be avoided at all cost. Camp One is sustainable in Epicurean terms only by ignoring large parts of the surviving texts. The Camp Two position can explain and apply ALL the texts appropriately, but the Camp One position cannot be reconciled with the many explicit endorsements of choosing pain at times for the sake of pleasure. Camp One attempts to rely on "ataraxia" as the "greatest pleasure," to support it's position, but that too (IMHO) cannot stand the test of scrutiny when compared against the full system. Ataraxia can easily be incorporated into Camp Two's big picture, but Camp Two cannot embrace Pleasure without stretching reasonable constructions of definitions beyond the breaking point.

Quote from beasain

Nobody is saying that you have to avoid by all means pain.

Beasain I am glad to see that *you* are not saying that, but in my reading of many people over a good number of years of studying Epicurus, I observe that there are many people who in fact DO say that. And to take the example you gave as literally written, "no pain" means "no pain." I don't mean to sound overly technical here as to the meaning of words, but it is exactly this issue which is in dispute. There are those, and this is entailed in the word "ascetic" who do in fact hold out "absence of pain" as a complete and full description of the highest good.

You'll recall that is exactly what Hieronymus of Rhodes advocated, and I see it in the wording of many commentators even today.

Quote from beasain

From there to "ascetic" is not that far away, I think.

I think if we are being precise in or wording, "ascetic" is as far away from "Epicurean" as North is from South, or East from West.

I realize that playing with definitions is largely a word game, and the the subtleties of meaning vary widely and can be interpreted differently very easily by many people.

But I also think that it is possible to "generalize" about about what a word means to "most people," and that in common discussion words carry meaning that is not strictly technical in philosophical discourse.

And EpicureanFriends is not targeted at professional academic philosophers, but "regular people." And I think it is fair to say that the "regular people" who we generally come into contact with interpret the word 'ascetic' to mean something that is incompatible with pursuit of any kind of mental or physical pleasure.

If we redefine "ascetic" to mean some kind of generic "rigorousness" in applying the calculation of "always pursuing the greatest pleasure as the ultimate goal" then that word would be fine. But virtually no one interprets it that way.

Cambridge Dictionary:

ascetic
adjective us
/əˈset̬.ɪk/ uk
/əˈset.ɪk/

avoiding physical pleasures and living a simple life, often for religious reasons: They live a very ascetic life.

Definition of ascetic

1 : practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline an ascetic monk an ascetic diet 2 : austere in appearance, manner, or attitude

ascetic

[ uh-set-ik ]

See synonyms for: ascetic / ascetics on Thesaurus.com

noun
a person who dedicates his or her life to a pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self-denial or self-mortification for religious reasons.
a person who leads an austerely simple life, especially one who abstains from the normal pleasures of life or denies himself or herself material satisfaction.
(in the early Christian church) a monk; hermit.
adjective Also as·cet·i·cal. relating to asceticism, the doctrine that one can reach a high spiritual state through the practice of extreme self-denial or self-mortification.
rigorously abstinent; austere: an ascetic existence.
exceedingly strict or severe in religious exercises or self-mortification.

So again Beasain let me repeat that I am not aiming this dispute at you personally. I think your interpretation you are stating is very compatible with what I read Epicurus as saying.

But for purposes of keeping the overall situation always in view, I think we need to recognize that considering Epicurean views to be related to ascetic views or practices in any way is a very dangerous thing to do, maybe not for the person (like yourself) who keeps the distinction firmly in view, but because in dealing with others we can never be sure that they will understand that subtlety.

That's why I take every opportunity like this to hit home the point. You yourself probably don't need it, but I wager that the majority of casual browsers who come across this discussion and read it need to be reminded of it (or, sadly, have it pointed out to them for the first time!)

Quote from beasain

Peter Adamson use the term ascetic hedonism for Epicurism. What do you think of that?

I think that label and also the example are clearly *not* what Epicurus taught.

The example makes clear (at least as you have stated it) that he would accept the business class ticket only if there is " no pain in exchange" with the emphasis there on the "no" for our purposes of discussion.

While there are definitely statements which can be taken out of context would result in that 'ascetic' viewpoint, in my view if you take all the texts as a whole that a very different conclusion is compelled. To the contrary of asceticism, the goal is pleasure as that term is ordinarily understood, in which joy and delight and "active" pleasures are among the most enjoyable (what is most pleasant to a person is personal and contextual), and as a result we willingly embrace pain on a regular basis in exchange for pleasures that we deem to be much greater than the pains we incur as the cost of those pleasures.

Letter to Menoeceus:

"And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.

...

And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided. Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.

Although the same statement is not made in the PD's explicitly, we have PD08, which states the first part, and by implication the converse is also true and could be stated - "no pain is an evil thing in itself, but some pains bring with them pleasures many times greater than the pains."

PD08. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself; but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.

And very clearly in Torquatus (On Ends):

Nor again is there any one who loves or pursues or wishes to win pain on its own account, merely because it is pain, but rather because circumstances sometimes occur which compel him to seek some great pleasure at the cost of exertion and pain.

So based on these and many other statements that can be retrieved from the texts there is no reason whatsoever to take the position that "ALL PAINS ARE TO BE AVOIDED ALL THE TIME" which is the logical implication of any form of "Ascetic" approach to Epicurus.

Avoidance of all pain as the goal of life is simply not what Epicurus taught. He taught the pursuit of pleasure as the goal of human life, which entails the expected and even at times desirable acceptance of pain for purposes of achieving pleasure.

One last cite:

Usener 423: “That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about {a jibe at the Peripatetics}, prating meaninglessly about the good.”

Welcome Phillipe1!

You are indeed doing it right! We have the standard post which is now pasted above to welcome new users, but I have moved your post into this thread to keep things together.

There are many ways to interpret certain aspects of Epicurus' teachings, and there are many obstacles to being confident about some of them (especially so many texts were lost!) but that is the purpose of this forum - to allow people to compare notes and discuss and learn as they proceed.

You have stated your first post in a way that is more focused on minimalism and escaping pain than I think most of us here would say it (most here would say that the focus is always on "the feeling of pleasure" rather than on any particular pleasure or means of achieving it) but most all of us start out having come from different places (from Stoicism, from Buddhism, from standard Christianity) and it takes time to consider and think through what Epicurus was saying.

So again welcome and we look forward to hearing more from you.

Welcome Philliped1! 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 accounts will be deleted. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourselves further and join one or more of our conversations.

This 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.

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.

Welcome to the forum!

This festival is coming up soon and I am delinquent in not getting something posted more publicly about it.

michelepinto can you help us with links to pages about the event?

Thank you!!!

I don't know about anyone else but I don't pretend to have any confidence in any particular reconstruction we've seen so far. Why should the number of horses or elephants be related to each other?

Now for things which are in some sense natural opposites, like "hot" and "cold" - I can more readily see that.

But I think we ought to be able to do a better job of reconstructing Epicurus' thought than what I have seen so far.

The principle of "Nature never makes a single thing of a kind" seems to me to be pretty firmly graspable and a firm starting point for expecting there to be an infinite number of worlds (or for the sake of our discussion, and infinite number of planets like Earth).

And I can see there being some kind of observable "progression" in those things that Nature has created. Nature has created pleasure as a reality (a very deep question there) but regardless of anything else we know that living things have the feeling of pleasure and pain and it's a small leap to conclude that this faculty of feeling allows living things to "progress" over time to get stronger and more self-fulfilling.

But as for there being an "equal number" of beings through some kind of princple of opposition or linkeage, I think we would need to be able to articulate something better than "Velleius says so." "Maybe" the equality issue arises from the infinite number series observation that is cited above, but if Epicurus' point was there there is an infinite number of everything and therefore there's the same number of everything -- that does not seem to me like the kind of point Epicurus would have made -- it sounds too purely abstractly mathematical to me.

So therefore I suspect something more than has been articulated so far, and I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that this was an interpolation of later Epicureans.

I guess my focus would be on a more likely translation of "all like things match all like things."

Yes it's not the "calculus" part that causes the problem, it's the association of the term in full as Don said.

Quote from camotero

Incidentally, this hedonistic calculus, in my interpertation, is the swerve in action.

Yes IMHO you are doing a good job of describing it. The only real problem with the term "hedonistic" calculus is that it's not a label the Epicureans accepted or used, so far as I can tell, and the term is today more associated with a Cyreniac "pleasure of the moment" attitude. When you're debating a term like "hedonistic calculus" that isn't originated or trademarked by Epicurus it's easy to get confused. Epicurus taught a full "worldview" philosophy and the real secret of Epicurean philosophy is not so much stacking up pleasures against pain, which most anyone can do to some degree, but gaining an understanding of the universe that allows you to "intelligently" stack up those pleasures against those pains, and more accurately and succesfully obtain a better result in the process.

Quote from camotero

A.When in doubt, focus on eliminating pains, this IS OK, and it's the first type of pleasure

I suspect that it is literally true that in most cases when you don't know what to do next, jumping out of the frying pan without worrying too much about the direction you're jumping is a good idea.

But along with the comment above, the real heart of Epicurean philosophy comes from understanding the full situation you as a human are in through applied physics and epistemology and ethics. Maybe as reflected in the first part of your sentence, when you have grasped such a worldview you have significantly decreased the range of "doubts" that you should be experiencing, and you should have a much better idea of how to proceed toward pleasure. If you DON'T do that, then you will be as Epicurus describes - you will have studed and observed phenomena but not understood anything, and in fact you might even be in a worse position than before, because now you have 100s more questions but no scheme of understanding through which to approach them.

And as Epirucus himself says, sometimes you WILL choose pains, as you indicated Camotero, so you must have an understanding of where you are in order to decide whether a particular pain SHOULD be eliminated immediately, and how. The Frying pan might be hot, but if that frying pan is suspending you over the grand canyon you might be well advised to stay in the frying pan til you've figured out a way to arrange a soft landing.

Not trying to be nit-picky here but I hope you see the general point is the big one you've done a good job of addressing in your post. The quantity of absence of pain may equal pleasure quantitatively, but qualitatively and contextually things are always unique and nothing is ever fully at rest, and PLEASURE is the word that Epicurus always comes back to as the guide. So when possible, even when confronting pains, it might often be a better course to "wait" and gain a better understanding of the full picture before blindly attacking the pains of the moment without an overall strategy.

It is my understanding that that Velleius material is indeed the only source for much of what is said there. Which doesn't mean it isn't accurate, given the way Cicero was using other material to prepare his philosophy works, but does mean we don't have much else to go by unless we can find it in Lucretius.

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Twenty Eight 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.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

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.

This week we are going to take a detour from the letter to Pythocles while both Joshua and Don are away. For this one week only (unless something unusual develops) we will discuss the Twelve Fundamentals of Nature. Part of the discussion has already begun here: The Twelve Fundamentals - Discussion on Lucretius Today Podcast

We'll refer to two lists, one by DeWitt and one by Diskin Clay:

The Elementary Principles of Nature below are as set forth by Epicurus and summarized in English by Norman Dewitt in his book “Epicurus And His Philosophy.” This list is provided for convenience. For discussion of each item, please see the forum devoted to each one.

PN 01 Matter is uncreatable.

PN 02 Matter is indestructible.

PN 03 The universe consists of solid bodies and void.

PN 04 Solid bodies are either compounds or simple.

PN 05 The multitude of atoms is infinite.

PN 06 The void is infinite in extent.

PN 07 The atoms are always in motion.

PN 08 The speed of atomic motion is uniform.

PN 09 Motion is linear in space, vibratory in compounds.

PN 10 Atoms are capable of swerving slightly at any point in space or time.

PN 11 Atoms are characterized by three qualities: weight, shape and size.

PN 12 The number of the different shapes is not infinite, merely innumerable.

Thanks to Nate for retrieving these different reconstruction of this list by Diskin Clay: "Epicurus' Last Will and Testament" - by Diskin Clay

In Paradosis and Survival (12), Clay writes:

1. “Nothing comes into being out of nothing.” (EH 38.8-39.1, DRN I 145-150, 159-160)

2. “Nothing is reduced to nothing.” (EH 39.1-2, DRN I 215-218, 237)

3. “The universe always was as it is and always will be.” (EH 39.1-2, DRN II 294-307; V 359-363) (Atomic Theory; Quantum Field Theory)

4. “The universe is made up of bodies and void.” (EH 39.6-40.2, DRN I 418-428)

5. “Bodies are atoms and their compounds.” (EH 40.7-9, DRN I 483-486)

6. “The universe is infinite.” (EH 41.6-10, DRN I 958-1001)

7. “Atoms are infinite in number and space extends without limit” (EH 41.11-42.4, DRN I 1008-1020)

8. “Atoms of similar shape are infinite in number, but the variety of their shapes is indefinite, not infinite.” (EH 42.10-43.4, DRN II 522-527)

9. “Atomic motion is contstant and of two kinds.” (EH 43.5-44.1, DRN II 95-102 [I 952])

10. “Atoms share only three of the characteristics of sensible things: shape, weight, mass.” (EH 54.3-6, DRN II 748-752)

In Lucretius' Translation of Greek Philosophy (35-39), Clay writes:

1. “Nothing is created out of nothing” (DRN I 145-150, 159-160)

2. “Nothing is reduced to nothing.” (DRN I 215-218, 237)

3. “The universe is made up of two components: body and void.” (DRN I 418-428)

4. “Body is understood as atoms and their compounds.” (DRN I 438-486)

5. “Atoms share only three of the characteristics of sensible things: shape, weight, mass.” (DRN II 748-752)

6. “Atomic motion is constant and of two kinds.” (DRN I 952)

7. “The universe is infinite.” (DRN I 958-864)

8. “The atoms are infinite in number, and space extends without limit.” (DRN 1008-1020)

9. “Atoms of similar shape are infinite in number, but the variety of their shapes is indefinite, not infinite” (DRN I 1008-1020)

Episode 127 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode, Joshua is away, and Don helps us out on the issue of "Formation of Worlds."

I see that the video (or audio I should say) is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/lectures/com…values_you_are/

I don't have time now to review the whole video but the question got me thinking about relevant potential analogies to slavery in Epicurean texts. While there are others, the one that jumped out at me was from Menoeceus:

Quote

[134] For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it.

Seems to me that Epicurus reacted negatively to the ultimate slavery of hard determinism (or maybe better word "necessity") with about as much energy - or more - than we today react to issues of personal slavery.

VS09. Necessity is an evil, but there is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.

Quote from Godfrey

I'm fully on board with the idea of an hierarchy, but in keeping with the mind-bogglingness of infinity, I can't conceive of a limit such as "best". I suppose there could be something that is "biggest", but, again, does infinity contain such a limit?

I agree with you that there would be no theoretical limit to "best" other than the practical limits analogous to "biggest.". He may have thought that there must be a limit to "biggest" because otherwise that very big thing would already, in an infinite time past, already have grown to consume the entire universe in size.

Let me look for rhe other references....

The "perplexing question" part is on page 221 under New Hedonism.

The "another pair of forces opposed to each other" is on page 273 under "New Piety"

The section in Lucretius that discusses "no single thing of a kind" is right at the end of book two:

[1048] First of all, we find that in every direction everywhere, and on either side, above and below, through all the universe, there is no limit, as I have shown, and indeed the truth cries out for itself and the nature of the deep shines clear. Now in no way must we think it likely, since towards every side is infinite empty space, and seeds in unnumbered numbers in the deep universe fly about in many ways driven on in everlasting motion, that this one world and sky was brought to birth, but that beyond it all those bodies of matter do naught; above all, since this world was so made by nature, as the seeds of things themselves of their own accord, jostling from time to time, were driven together in many ways, rashly, idly, and in vain, and at last those united, which, suddenly cast together, might become ever and anon the beginnings of great things, of earth and sea and sky, and the race of living things. Wherefore, again and again, you must needs confess that there are here and there other gatherings of matter, such as is this, which the ether holds in its greedy grip.

[1067] Moreover, when there is much matter ready to hand, when space is there, and no thing, no cause delays, things must, we may be sure, be carried on and completed. As it is, if there is so great a store of seeds as the whole life of living things could not number, and if the same force and nature abides which could throw together the seeds of things, each into their place in like manner as they are thrown together here, it must needs be that you confess that there are other worlds in other regions, and diverse races of men and tribes of wild beasts.

[1077] This there is too that in the universe there is nothing single, nothing born unique and growing unique and alone, but it is always of some tribe, and there are many things in the same race. First of all turn your mind to living creatures; you will find that in this wise is begotten the race of wild beasts that haunts the mountains, in this wise the stock of men, in this wise again the dumb herds of scaly fishes, and all the bodies of flying fowls. Wherefore you must confess in the same way that sky and earth and sun, moon, sea, and all else that exists, are not unique, but rather of number numberless; inasmuch as the deep-fixed boundary-stone of life awaits these as surely, and they are just as much of a body that has birth, as every race which is here on earth, abounding in things after its kind.

[1090] And if you learn this surely, and cling to it, nature is seen, free at once, and quit of her proud rulers, doing all things of her own accord alone, without control of gods. For by the holy hearts of the gods, which in their tranquil peace pass placid years, and a life of calm, who can avail to rule the whole sum of the boundless, who to hold in his guiding hand the mighty reins of the deep, who to turn round all firmaments at once, and warm all fruitful lands with heavenly fires, or to be at all times present in all places, so as to make darkness with clouds, and shake the calm tracts of heaven with thunder, and then shoot thunderbolts, and often make havoc of his own temples, or moving away into deserts rage furiously there, plying the bolt, which often passes by the guilty and does to death the innocent and undeserving?

[1105] And since the time of the world’s birth, and the first birthday of sea and earth, and the rising of the sun, many bodies have been added from without, and seeds added all around, which the great universe in its tossing has brought together; that from them sea and lands might be able to increase, and from them too the mansion of the sky might gain new room and lift its high vault far away from the lands, and the air might rise up. For from all places all bodies are separated by blows each to its own kind, and they pass on to their own tribes; moisture goes to moisture, with earthy substance earth grows, fires forge fires, and sky sky, until nature, parent of all, with perfecting hand has brought all things on to the last end of growing; as it comes to pass, when there is now no whit more which is sent within the veins of life, than what flows out and passes away. Here the growth of all things must stop,

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

Thanks for pointing out the broken link camotero - fixed now.

Cooper was a good writer and it's a same he's unknown today.