We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
We spent a lot of time in the first twenty minutes talking about "independent existence" but I think the whole issue probably resolves into the question of "What is real?" that we began to address around twenty minutes into the episode.
Then we proceed to talk about whether "independent existence" implies "eternal existence." If so how, if not, why not?
Don I know I read that one in the past so maybe that is what I remembered.
I checked your link and the section about that is a pretty clear indictment of Platonic forms!
Lucian is a tremendous source of information.
Working on editing this now. I am tempted to say it is a mess, but at least the part I have edited so far is an intelligent discussion of the issue. I will try to edit out anything that's a clear misstatement or unnecessarily confusing.
Listening causes me to ask:
Does Joshua "exist?" Let's presume the answer is yes.
Is Joshua's existence a "property" of Joshua's atoms?
I think the answer is that it depends on what we mean by property, but if we drill down into what Epicurus was talking about and try to find a bright line between "properties" and "qualities / accidents / events," I think that probably the best wording is that Joshua is a "quality" of his atoms coming together into a body of particular configuration.
I don't read this as saying that individual atoms have qualities --- only after they come together into bodies do "qualities" exist.
Is it correct to say that a "body" has "properties"? It would seem so, because I think in Lucretius there are examples of using the term property to describe attributes that can't be removed from a thing without destroying its essential nature.
I think what I am getting at here is that it would probably help to try to agree on a terminology so as to explain all this:
1 - Something to the effect that only atoms have eternal "unchanging properties;"
2 - But that when atoms come together to form bodies they have "qualities"
3 - That bodies can also have "properties" that are not changeable without destroying the nature of the body.
4- And that bodies also have "qualities" that do change according to context, but with the qualities limited in number of possibilities by the properties of the bodies, which themselves are tied to the properties of the atoms that gave rise to them.
No doubt this is convoluted and needs substantial revision, but I think these issues are what the episode and this section of the text are really about.
These considerations seem to be the determinants of whether we should regard something as "existing" or "possibly existing" versus the bright line that separates them from that which is "impossible to exist."
The overall picture still seems to me to be a discussion of how we use the theory of atoms and void to make sense of the world around us and to separate "what does or can exist." from "that which is impossible to exist." Which may sound simple but would have significant implications on everything else from theory of knowledge to religion to life after death etc.
Yes Don's cite is what I was remembering so probably I was embellishing to say favorite food, unless we come up with a cite somewhere else. Not so much a favorite food reference as something associated with Epicurus.
That one would be from the vatican sayings, not quite shout but close!
VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.
So do we think that the heads were affixed to full bodies either seated or standing?
Having the heads mounted on a column-like structure in th middle of a room is one thing but two full figures either sitting or standing would seem possibly a different matter
What about the hole in the sides?
I don't think I will add this to the chart yet, but I've always thought that the famous "monkey skull" mosaic had obvious Epicurean allusions. At this moment I can't find prior threads on it so I will post a new thread here:
I put this graphic together a LONG time ago and while it probably still has some usefulness I would like to go back and totally revise the commentary. Til then here is the original version. I know we've discussed this before so there may be an earlier thread, but what I am remembering may have taken place on Facebook rather than here. If anyone finds a prior discussion on the website please paste the link here and I'll update things.
Let's discuss here to what extent this mosaic has Epicurean elements:
Excellent site - thanks!
I see also:
And I see there are many downloadable 3d printable scans of this sculpture.
I wish I understood how this was displayed. Anyone have thoughts on that? In the middle of a room so you could walk around all sides? Is the hope simply for transporting it somehow, or was this a mounting to something underneath?
Joshua - Kalosyni has drafted a possible header for the 20th gathering.
Do you think we know for sure that this double-head has Metrodorus on the reverse rather than Hermarchus? I think you've talked about that one before - would you know of a reliable museum page site?
Started May 19, 2022:
If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into "what is the means of happiness?" and they wanted to say "the virtues" (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not "what is the means of happiness?" but "what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?", I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point. (Diogenes of Oinoanda)
Fr. 32
... [the latter] being as malicious as the former.
I shall discuss folly shortly, the virtues and pleasure now.
If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end.
Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.
Suppose, then, someone were to ask someone, though it is a naive question, «who is it whom these virtues benefit?», obviously the answer will be «man.» The virtues certainly do not make provision for these birds flying past, enabling them to fly well, or for each of the other animals: they do not desert the nature with which they live and by which they have been engendered; rather it is for the sake of this nature that the virtues do everything and exist.
Each (virtue?) therefore ............... means of (?) ... just as if a mother for whatever reasons sees that the possessing nature has been summoned there, it then being necessary to allow the court to asked what each (virtue?) is doing and for whom .................................... [We must show] both which of the desires are natural and which are not; and in general all things that [are included] in the [former category are easily attained] .....
Martin Ferguson Smith's translation of the Inscription: http://www.english.enoanda.cat/the_inscription.html
Ended May 19, 2022:
Moreover, unless the constitution of the world is thoroughly understood, we shall by no means be able to justify the verdicts of our senses. Further, our mental perceptions all arise from our sensations; and if these are all to be true, as the system of Epicurus proves to us, then only will cognition and perception become possible. ... [W]hen cognition and knowledge have been invalidated, every principle concerning the conduct of life and the performance of its business becomes invalidated. So from natural science we borrow courage to withstand the fear of death, and firmness to face superstitious dread, and tranquillity of mind, through the removal of ignorance concerning the mysteries of the world, and self-control, arising from the elucidation of the nature of the passions and their different classes....
Many of the things we could list as "images, nicknames, or things" associated with Epicurus deserve a thread of their own, but we can start with a list or table and then branch off as needed. Here's an effort for a start. Please suggest others and I will add them to the list. One purpose of this list will be to help in development of graphics and other "creative" presentations.
| Reference | Source | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Image on the Boscoreale Cup | Boscoreale | Epicurus with three-legged tripod and piglet at his feet, with Zeno the Stoic pointing at him accusingly |
| Figs / Fig Tree | Lucian of Samosata "Alexander the Oracle Monger" | Lucian says that Alexander ordered Epicurus' writings to be burned on a fire made of fig trees, (see post from Don below) |
| Pigs / Piglets / Hogs | Herculaneum | Pigs / Piglets are associated with Epicurus as shown on the Boscoreale cup and references by Horace |
| The Garden | Cicero | |
| The Gargettian | Cicero | Reference to the area of Athens from which Epicurus' family came. |
Thank you Joshua! I would really like to nail this down once and for all. I guess I am half blind but the sketches don't seem to matxh the originals in their cases nearly as well as that od Epicurus does. No possible confusion there...
I thought we had another very good session tonight - thanks to everyone who participated and especially Kalosyni for her presentation.
I admit even after years of study I still get confused when comparing the busts of Metrodorus and Hermarchus.
For example I thought this is Metrodorus:
But I am not 100% sure of that, and I don't have good side by side and authoritatively labeled PHOTOS of the existing busts from Herculaneum.
Can anyone help with that?
In this compilation of the ETCHINGS, the faces look pretty distinguishable:
But when I compare these to that photo (above) it's not at all easy for me to say which is which. Is the photo the same as the bust on the left or the right of that photo? And what's the right name labeling?
From Wikipedia, but that to me doesn't really look like EITHER of the etchings.
This Wednesday the 25th of May will be the fourth Wednesday of the month, and in accord with our planning this would be the week that we talk about art and music and poetry. The way we described it at Eventbrite was:
-Fourth Wednesday of the Month - Sharing Epicurean Ideas In The Modern World - Discuss ideas for engagement with people who don't know Epicurean Philosophy but who might be open to discussing it.
Let's use this thread to make suggestions as to topics to include - which means if you have a suggestion and would like to talk about it, please post it here.
