Yes looks like DeWitt started off looking for twelve and relied on Lucretius to come up with that number. I think he's making reasonable presumptions, and in fact most of what he comes up with lines up with Diskin Clay, but certainly not everything.
As usual we're largely on our own as to what is reasonable to presume and what is not. Almost like we're similar to Theon in "A Few Days In Athens" -- piecing things together over time.
link to DeWitts list:. https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?…tals-of-nature/
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
Wow thank you for that Nate! I have read the "Last Will and Testament " version but never compared his versions in other works. This is extremely helpful!
Link to the Last Will and Testament article:. "Epicurus' Last Will and Testament" - by Diskin Clay
This coming Sunday we are going to swerve away briefly from the Letter to Pythocles for one week only, and we thought a good one week topic would be a general overview of the "Twelve Fundamentals," a now lost text of Epicurus focused on summarizing the most key aspects of Epicurean physics.
Our text will be two main sources - DeWitts reconstruction in our "Texts" section, and the differing list compiled by Diskin Clay in his article "Epicurus' Last Will and Testament."
If you have any comments or suggestions of points to include, please add them in this thread.
Yes I think Don's answer applies in most cases in the last comment. But I am not sure it is a good idea for us to take the "everyone pursues pleasure whether they admit it or not" too far. Some people do seem to choose pain for the sake of pain, under the influence of warped thinking. EG - "I am a worm and I deserved to be squashed by God.".
I suppose you can reduce that to "It gives him pleasure to think that" but in some cases it seems to me we would be straining too hard to argue that point.
In the end humans have some degree of intelligence and the free will to use it, so I think it's best at some point in some extreme cases to just let them wallow in their stupidity and agree with them:. "Yes sir I accept that you are serious about your framework. You are a bug in the sight of your lord and you deserve to be squashed. Go to it sir but please leave me out of it!"
I agree again with you post Matteng, especially as to the practical effect of Stoicism. The ancient Stoics were more consistent in detaching themselves to the point of a death-like state, and although the modern Stoics try to separate themselves from that, they can't successfully do it, and thus among the modern Stoics there is this uneasily feeling - whether acknowledged or not - that there is something wrong at the root of their philosophy.
Stoic: Hero who embraces every problem / challenge.
Epicurean: avoiding pain like a weak coward.
And indeed as you would expect I think the descriptions are very accurate, but the labels are reversed! It is Epicurus who was the great conqueror of fear and the biggest challenges of them all, "and by his victory we reach the stars."
Space exploration, in fact, is for Epicureans, who seek pleasure from knowledge and new frontiers. Consistent Stoics would rather sit home and contemplate why the universe does not conform to their own preconceived notions of "virtue."
I agree with Don, and I think you are completely on the right track, and it is maddening that the major philosophies have made this question the slightest bit difficult.
In ethics I wonder if Pleasure involves personal values besides the "pure bodily" pleasures
Absolutely yes. Do those actions you describe being you pleasure in performing them or even thinking about them? Then absolutely yes, to you they are pleasures. Epicurus says (per Torquatus) that the pleasures of the mind can be and are often more significant than those purely of the body (but remember Don's caveat, without the body you are nothing,so all pleasures are in that sense "of the body")
(maybe thats the answer, a wide interpratation of pleasure ? )
Yes! And the interpretation is as wide as can be imagined. If something brings you a feeling OF ANY KIND then the feeling is ultimately pleasurable or painful. All human mental and physical activities fall in one of these two categories, no matter how much the abstractionists want to protest that their virtues are higher than pleasure.
Are that "pleasures of the soul" ?
I would definitely say yes. The point to keep in mind is that there is no supernatural soul, so everything "mental" is of the soul, or spiritual, or intellectual, or whatever you choose to label that mental functioning of the body.
And glad to have you posting! These are common questions lots of people have and always good to talk about them!
* (I'll be bringing that up every time a PD discussion comes up
)
We've been referencing it every Wednesday and will continue to do so!
I know PD10 has always been one of Don's favorites! 
Great thank you!
I have owned print copies of the Loeb edition, but I have been looking for free downloadable PDF version of this edition for a very long time. Not sure why it took so long to find it, but I find today that Google has digitized it and has it available for free download. I suggest downloading a copy as this is the best and maybe only free side-by-side Latin English version available. Current editions are co-edited by Martin Ferguson Smith, who has extensively revised, added his own material, and even published a separate edition at Hackett Publishing. This download appears to be from the first edition, revised in 1924, and it contains an introduction which I have not seen which may be a good find in itself.
Here is the Wikisource page referencing the entire Loeb Series. Our target is Loeb 0181!
Pressing the "external scan" link takes you to Google.
And clicking the "Download PDF" button starts the download!
At first glance those definitions would seem to be "positive" in the sense of "reveal" rather than hinting at illusions or error.
Great examples Nate! And chapter 4 is full of examples of "illusions" but I don't know the Greek or Latin word for that.
Presumably the issue is that we need to find ways to distinguish our modern concept of "illusions" from what Epicurus was talking about as "perceptions."
I think we suffer a lot because our wordings tend to imply that Epicurus put stock in mirages or other illusions when that inference is not warranted at all. He goes to great lengths to point out how single perceptions can be "false to the facts" and saying that he accepted all "appearances" without explaining what he meant gives a totally false impression.
That kind of thing may not bother the "experts" because it gives them insider "power" over the subject, but it is a big turnoff to ordinary people to whom Epicurus appealed (and we should too).
Recent discussions have highlighted the importance of texts in which a variation of the term "appear" or "appearances" (as translated in English) are to Epicurean Canonics. For example, in the size of the sun issue, the Epicurean position seems to distill down into something like: "The size of the sun is as it appears to be."
For we must not conduct scientific investigation by means of empty assumptions and arbitrary principles, but follow the lead of phenomena: for our life has not now any place for irrational belief and groundless imaginings, but we must live free from trouble. Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth. Now we can obtain indications of what happens above from some of the phenomena on earth: for we can observe how they come to pass, though we cannot observe the phenomena in the sky: for they may be produced in several ways. Yet we must never desert the appearance of each of these phenomena, and further, as regards what is associated with it, we must distinguish those things whose production in several ways is not contradicted by phenomena on earth." - Letter to Pythocles [87]
As to the Sun itself in the letter to Pythocles:
[91] The size of sun (and moon) and the other stars is for us what it appears to be; and in reality it is either (slightly) greater than what we see or slightly less or the same size: for so too fires on earth when looked at from a distance seem to the senses. And every objection at this point will easily be dissipated, if we pay attention to the clear vision, as I show in my books about nature.
The issue is discussed by Lucretius this way in his Book Five (Bailey):
[564] Nor can the sun’s blazing wheel be much greater or less, than it is seen to be by our senses. For from whatsoever distances fires can throw us their light and breathe their warm heat upon our limbs, they lose nothing of the body of their flames because of the interspaces, their fire is no whit shrunken to the sight. Even so, since the heat of the sun and the light he sheds, arrive at our senses and cheer the spots on which they fall, the form and bulk of the sun as well must needs be seen truly from earth, so that you could alter it almost nothing to greater or less. [575] The moon, too, whether she illumines places with a borrowed light as she moves along, or throws out her own rays from her own body, however that may be, moves on with a shape no whit greater than seems that shape, with which we perceive her with our eyes. For all things which we behold far sundered from us through much air, are seen to grow confused in shape, ere their outline is lessened. Wherefore it must needs be that the moon, inasmuch as she shows a clear-marked shape and an outline well defined, is seen by us from earth in the heights, just as she is, clear-cut all along her outer edges, and just the size she is. [585] Lastly, all the fires of heaven that you see from earth; inasmuch as all fires that we see on earth, so long as their twinkling light is clear, so long as their blaze is perceived, are seen to change their size only in some very small degree from time to time to greater or less, the further they are away: so we may know that the heavenly fires can only be a very minute degree smaller or larger by a little tiny piece.
It would probably be helpful to look into the number of locations where that kind of formulation occurs in the text, and see what Greek (and Latin) words were used in the originals.
Since I am more familiar with the Latin, here is a section from Lucretius:
Nec nimio solis maior rota nec minor ardor
esse potest, nostris quam sensibus esse videtur.
nam quibus e spatiis cumque ignes lumina possunt
adiicere et calidum membris adflare vaporem,
nil magnis intervallis de corpore libant
flammarum, nihil ad speciem est contractior ignis.
proinde, calor quoniam solis lumenque profusum
perveniunt nostros ad sensus et loca fulgent,
forma quoque hinc solis debet filumque videri,
nil adeo ut possis plus aut minus addere vere.
The Loeb / Rouse / Smith edition translates that as:
The wheel of the sun and its heat cannot be much greater or less than is perceived by our senses.
The word "Appearance" can have many shades of meaning in English. Several of the major meanings carry negative connotations in English, as if we should presume that anyone who uses the word "appears" is actually "mistaken" or even "deceived." Merriam-Webster:
Definition of appearance
1a : external show : semblance Although hostile, he preserved an appearance of neutrality. b : outward aspect : look had a fierce appearance c appearances plural : outward indication trying to keep up appearances 2a : a sense impression or aspect of a thing The blue of distant hills is only an appearance. b : the world of sensible phenomena 3a : the act, action, or process of appearing the first appearance of that word in English b law : the presentation of oneself in court as a party to an action often through the representation of an attorney 4a : something that appears : phenomenon b : an instance of appearing : occurrence her first public appearance since winning the award
I doubt strongly that Epicurus intended to attach a "negative" implication to these constructions about the size of the sun. In other words, I don't think he meant to imply that his own formulations were mistaken or deceptive. That would be a subset of the entire question of how to regard the senses and their reliability. I think we need to find the best ways to state this issue in both far and firm terms, so that people can understand what Epicurean philosophy expects from the senses, and what is beyond the limit of their capability.
So I am starting this thread as a placeholder for this conversation, because I think if we look at the instances in the texts where references like this occur, we can get a better understanding of the degree of firmness which Epicurus is attaching to these statements.
When we see in English that the word "Appearance" is being used, should we substitute (at least in our minds) a form of the word "Perception"?
Such as "The size of the sun is that which we perceive it to be." (?)
The Poetic versions that seem to be best liked today are Humphries and Stallings,
Stallings renders it "crafty" -
The winds flee from you, Goddess, your arrival puts to flight
The clouds of heaven. For you, the crafty earth contrives sweet flowers,
For you, the oceans laugh, the skies grow peaceful after showers,
This is interesting - never heard of this either but seems easy to think that there's some relation to the latin. Sounds like maybe Munro got his "cunning artificer" this way?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to searchFor the ancient city, see Daedala (city).
In Ancient Greece, the Daedala (Greek: δαίδαλα) was a festival of reconciliation that was held every few years in honor of Hera, consort of the supreme god Zeus at Plataea, in Boeotia, being one of the major cults of the city.
According to Pausanias, there was a "lesser Daedala" (Δαίδαλα μικρά), celebrated every four years or so exclusively by the Plataeans, and a "greater Daedala" (Δαίδαλα μεγάλα), celebrated by all of Boeotians every fourteen cycles (approx. 60 years).
In the lesser Daedala, the people of Plataea went to an ancient oak grove and exposed pieces of cooked meat to ravens, attentively watching upon which tree any of the birds, after taking a piece of meat, would settle. Out of this tree they carved an image, and having it dressed as a bride, they set it on a bullock cart with a bridesmaid beside it. The image seems then to have been drawn to the bank of the river Asopus and back to the town, attended by a cheering crowd.[1]
These adorned xoana were also called "daidala" (δάιδαλα or δαιδάλεια),[2] with the connotation that they were "crafted" or "fashioned" (compare Daedalus, "daidalos" (δαίδαλος) meaning "cunning worker").
Ah that word IS in the Latin! So I suppose maybe I can ratchet down some of my criticism ---
However ultimately if the point of a translation is to be understandble in the common language I am afraid I still have to rate this choice a failure. I just don't recognize any form of "daedala" as coming down to us in modern English well enough to make this a workable choice. Anyone using that word or a form of it in daily life other than Don?
The only thing it conveys to me the nonsense word "diddle" which is pretty far from the intended meaning, I gather.
I expect to be forever identified with "Daedal" from now on --- but that reminds me I wanted to check the Latin to see if there is possibly an excuse for that word there....
I AM GLAD YOU ASKED THAT Don !
I did mention Perseus at this page at the very top: https://epicuruscollege.com/coursematerial/Map-Lucretius-DRN/
But i have to say I am prejudiced against the Leonard edition because it's the first one I tried to read, for years, and always found it too "flowery" (maybe "poetic" is the word).
And I confess further you have hit a raw nerve. For some reason I cannot get out of my mind an unforgiveable choice of words that I always choke over, right at the beginning of Book One:
"For thee the daedal Earth bears scented flowers...."
That just does it for me for the whole translation. With ALL the intricacy of the Roman allusions, with ALL the difficulty of the text, with ALL the difficulty of the subject matter, do we have to dredge up an obscure word like DAEDAL which no one translator uses?
BROWN: Thee, Goddess, Thee the winds avoid; the clouds fly Thee and Thy approach. With various art the Earth, for Thee, affords her sweetest flowers;
MUNRO: Before thee, goddess, flee the winds, the clouds of heaven, before thee and thy advent; for thee earth, manifold in works, puts forth sweet-smelling flowers...
BAILEY: Thou, goddess, thou dost turn to flight the winds and the clouds of heaven, thou at thy coming; for thee earth, the quaint artificer, puts forth her sweet-scented flowers; for thee the levels of ocean smile, and the sky,
MARTIN FERGUSON SMITH: You, goddess, at your coming hush the winds and scatter the clouds; for you the creative earth thrusts up fragrant flowers; for you the smooth stretches of the ocean smile, and the sky, tranquil now, is flooded with effulgent light.
HUMPHRIES: All things conceived, all things that face the light
In their bright visit, the grain-bearing fields,
The marinered oceans, where the wind and cloud
Are quiet in your presence - all proclaim
Your gift, without which they are nothingness.
For you that sweet artificer, the earth,
Submits her flowers, and for you the deep
Of ocean smiles, and the calm heaven shines
With shoreless light.
I can handle "quaint artificer," I can handle "sweet artificer," I can handle "manifold in works" and all the rest.
But darn it do NOT ask me to go looking up the meaning of some obscure ENGLISH word just because you want to make your version of Lucretius sound poetic!
And if already in the first paragraph I can't trust Leonard to play fair with me, then I'm sorry, I can't ask anyone else to wade through that nonsense.
I will admit only that in recent years since I've found that he's at Perseus I sometimes am willing to use him now, but I can't do it with confidence because I never know when another of those darn DAEDALS is going to turn up!
I am trying to upgrade the website's connections to good copies of Lucretius, and also to provide a "table of contents" to the important topics.
I am working on that at the following link, which as of now has better material than the corresponding pages on the wiki site: Lucretius At the "Epicurus College" Course Materials page.
This site now contains the Brown, Munro, and Bailey public domain versions, with paragraph numbers set to correspond to the Loeb edition.
The "Table of Topics" needs refinement, and each point needs to begin with a paragraph section where the reference can be found.
