looks very nice!
Copenhagen Amber Museum - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
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.
looks very nice!
Great catch Joshua!
Yep. Definite reasons to be cautious there.
In this episode I was trying to remember a Bible verse to the effect that the world was unchanged since the beginning of time. I think I was referring to 2 Peter 3-4
They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”
They will say, “What happened to the promise that Jesus is coming again? From before the times of our ancestors, everything has remained the same since the world was first created.”
They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”
“Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.”
Actually I do have something else to add here -- although I never got finished, I made a list of a number of significant translations that DeWit made which I found in a number of sources. I will add them here if I can format it correctly. I was going to set this up as a table and then sort it by the reference, which would have given a set of his translations not only of the PD's but also of the Vatican Sayings, but as usual I lost steam before the project was complete!
PD11. Undocumented in De Witt's works?
Gosh PD11 strikes me as too important not to be there, but it might be blended in with that point being made in Lucretius. That point (about scientific knowledge not being worthwhile in itself, which is related to the bad idea of arbitrary picking of one solution from many possible ones) would be a good one to find and further document.
Ah! That's the wrinkle when you start looking at the original text.
I agree with that comment, but I also think that Norman DeWitt had read more Greek in his lifetime up to writing that book than any ten of us, so it's probably always worth considering whether he didn't see some connotation in the Greek literature where that word occurs that isn't obvious to us just using the dictionaries.
I see here is the paragraph Nate is citing from (I don't see it on page 188 but might be in a footnote?) and it certainly looks like DeWitt thought it appropriate to hammer home the "patronage of princes" part. Gosh only knows at this point why, but I wouldn't bet my life that he didn't have a reason. Maybe just a word association in his own mind for that particular Greek.
Nate I am going to edit your original post to put "PD" in front of each entry, and that way the site can pop up the box that takes you to the main entry we have for each one. I hope that's ok - we can fix it back if not!
I always presumed he was referring to kings and kingdoms but never investigated the Greek for PD14.
Depending upon the context of each one, it seems to me that I remember that DeWitt stated on some of these that he was intentionally paraphrasing to get what he thought was the right meaning rather than strictly according to the text. Plus, on some of these the text is disputed, and again if I recall correctly Dewitt talks about his text choice in making the translation. However those caveats could be applied to any of the translators, and as long as we compare the different versions and keep in mind that no single translation has been blessed by Epicurus himself, we can hope to come to a reasonable approximation of what Epicurus intended.
And that's illustrated, now that I look back at the list, that Dewitt translated them sometimes two or three different ways himself!
Wow thank you Nate! I cannot tell you how many times I have told myself to do exactly such as list but never got the time to do it. Thank you very much!!!
On first thought Camotero I think the issue is that there are a couple(?) Of text references to Epicurus talking about "casting the mind" such as in his figurative journey through space, and so that tends to get picked up by commentators when they see something about "applying the mind.". Pretty clearly Epicurus stressed that thinking requires action of the mind applied to observations, and I don't think there is much more to it than that. The bottom line for me would be that we don't often need the full details but we do need the overall outline in order to apply our minds in an organized way to figuring out problems consistent with the overall view. You could reverse that and say you are applying the principles to the problem but I doubt that makes much difference.
Maybe you are asking something else?
Wow very interesting on amber - now I am confused myself where it comes from!
Episode Eighty-Seven of Lucretius Today is now available. In this episode we will continue into Book Six and discuss earthquakes, the water cycle, and the possible relationship of the "Chicken Little" fable to some of this text. Thanks to Martin for reading this week:
Martin has pointed out what appears to be an excellent opportunity to put together a special presentation on Epicurean views of "formal logic" and its relationship to reality. The opportunity comes from our mention in an earlier thread of the following statement by Torquatus in Cicero's On Ends:
Again, the thread reference was here, and below is a copy of Martin's post: RE: Issues In The Meaning And Definition of Logic
One way of stating the issue is that the laws of formal logic in fact do allow a syllogistic construction in which the conclusion is true while one or more premises or false. This is not the way non-experts think that logic works, so it is important that non-experts understand what the experts are asserting, so that they can see that the assertions of formal logic need not be connected with reality -- and for that reason normal people should not infer that formal logic can be used to "disprove reality."
We're going to see if we can put together some reference material that will make this issue easier to understand, and hopefully trace it all the way back to Aristotle if not earlier.
The issue of logic being a tool that can be consistent within itself, and yet not be connected with practical reality, is something that we see come up over and over. It seems to me that this is counterintuitive to the way most non-experts approach the issue of logic, so it will be great to see if we can develop a presentation that will make the issue easier for the average person to understand.
There's a lot of baggage with that English word.
Yes as with Godfrey's comment the main issue is probably "immortal" or maybe "divine."
There's presumably no issue with looking for some more precise definition of "life," just as when Lucretius talks about the mixture of elements necessary for life, so long as we always keep in mind that what we're talking about is mortal and absolutely natural.
Wow i've never heard that they were considered to have souls, or that Aristotle thought that plants have souls!
I was just singing the praises of Munro in another thread while going through Munro's Introduction to Lucretius (contained in volume two of his three volume set).
I think Munro is generally very sympathetic to Epicurus and Lucretius and therefore someone to be consulted in any translation issues, but here's a clip that I have to disagree with:
I am posting this mostly as a joke because I have been saying on the Lucretius podcast that I am looking forward to the part about magnets, but I do think there's an interesting point here. To me, the issue of magnets probably was indeed something Epicurus and Lucretius thought was important, because it is probably the closest-to-home instance of "action at a distance" that we have directly in front of us. The ability of one magnet to influence another could easily be described to be magical, and I suspect that the Epicureans wanted to take special care to come up with a non-supernatural explanation of the phenomena. So contrary to Munro I do think magnets warrant special attention
I was recently pestering Martin and Don about how I was aware that Goethe was esteemed as one of the smartest Germans ever, but that I was stumped about exactly why.
Here's a comment from Munro's introduction to Lucretius that may raise Goethe further in my esteem:
Maybe at some point we'll have a chance to track down more of Goethe's commentary on Lucretius and/or Epicurus.