Posts by Cassius

I will also say that "since overt disagreement with the Founder is not permissible within the context of the garden" does not seem like a sympathetic way to phrase the issue.

So far I cannot find access to this volume, except for the attached table of contents, which would probably have the best info on a gem inscribed as being Epicurus

I will try to pull together prior threads, or at least links to them, here.

OK, I am not sure we have a picture of an engraved gem inscribed EPICURUS do we? If so, what is the known history of that?

Quote from Don

I see LSJ gives intuition as a definition. I could see that. You just "feel" something about an event or topic.

Or also, someone who has such a command even of an action, like a virtuoso piano or other musical instrument player who can make something seem effortless. I suppose playing the piano is itself a very mental thing too, but I presume that someone could have a purely mental command of a subject that is so complete that this person has the equivalent grasp of a subject, in the same way that a Beethoven or whoever can manipulate a piano.

Quote from Don

That's why I'm still not convinced - although Tsouna may clarify - that this faculty doesn't in some way clarify the prolepses. It's not a fourth leg of the Canon but simply a refining of one of the three already there.

Yep that's where I am on the subject. "Clarify" or "refine" or "manipulate" or simply "use" -- all words that we would employ if we're trying to describe how the conscious mind processes data from all sources it receives. Obviously this is a hugely important process - it's basically the process of 'thinking.' I continue to think that the source of the issue is the tendency that people have to combine "the act of thinking" with "testing the accuracy of the result of the thinking." Seems to me Epicurus was saying, in response to skepticism, that the act of thinking can't include its own test of accuracy. A test or criteria or canon, in order to be useful, must be something external to the thought process, like a "ruler" which provides the external objective reference point that our mind itself has not produced. The eyes and ears and the rest can fulfill that role because they function automatically without injection of opinion. Most definitions of this alleged "fourth leg" seem to me to be full of things which are shot through with 'opinion.'

Can there be some mental process which is so automatic in its function (intuition?) that it deserves status as a criteria of "truth" for that individual? I don't rule that out entirely, and maybe I even agree with it to some degree in terms of personality or similar issues, but i would not put that in the same category of significance as the classic five senses which are so basic to most forms of higher life.

Unless you want to go down the road of saying that inbred genetic dispositions / intuitions / instincts (the dam-buiding beavers we discussed), or the different personality traits of cats, dogs, most animal species, etc. qualify to them as criteria of "truth."

I would say it's possible that Epicurus did indeed go there, but i think he would have seen that as outside the task of dealing with human skepticism, and something that he would have worked very hard to prevent creating the "feedback loop" that ought to be a huge concern. If you start thinking that the results of your deliberations are themselves 'standards of truth' equal to what you see and hear and touch, and you think that you can't go behind your thoughts and just need to accept them as primaries -- that seems to me to be a position Epicurus would not have taken.

I am sure we have already covered this, but I will have to look up where and perhaps move the post. So here is the portion of Takis' paper, which i gather is based on Frischer, which traces the identification of Epicurus to the discovery of the inscribed bust in 1742 at St Maria Maggiore. What do we know about this "discovery?" Presumably it was not buried by Vesuvius, so whereever it was "discovered" someone put it there at a particular time. What do we know about how this bust came to be where it was 'discovered' in 1742? Is there some circumstance that would foreclose it being on display publicly somewhere at the time of Raphael or any other particular time for centuries beforehand? Not to trivialize this, but how do we know that someone who didn't like Epicurus in 1600 or 1650 or 1700 or even 1740 didn't just hide this away only to have it recovered relatively shortly later? I presume Bernard Frischer addresses this so that would be the next link in the chain.

This is from Frischer's 1979 article "On Reconstructing the Portrait of Epicurus"

So when did it get put "under the porch"? Is there any reason to jump to the conclusion that it lay there since the early Christian era? Or maybe there's a cave or cellar under the porch used for storage and rotated regularly with their wine supply? Maybe there is additional detail available on that.

Is this where the trail stops and we have nothing beforehand but speculation, or is there more?

Hello and welcome to the forum Marco !

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. "A Few Days In Athens" by Frances Wright
3. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
4. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
5. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
6. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
7. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
8. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
9. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
10. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
11. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
12. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

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!

As of today, Don, what do you think is the best single word english equivalent?

I think if i had to choose right now it would probably be "grasp" as that's what we use in colloquial terms as "having a good grasp of the subject."

I was watching a video of a state supreme court proceeding yesterday and there were a couple of attorneys who argued first, who did reasonably good jobs, but with a lot of "tentativeness."

Then a fourth attorney got up to address the court, and quickly it became clear that he had a fluency and command of the subject that raised his performance head and shoulders about the others, to the extent that the judges starting asking questions and getting engaged in a way that was palpably almost "electric" in that they sensed that this person knew what he was talking about and was worth listening to.

That's the kind of effect that i get the impression may be what was intended to be referenced here, a clear command and fluency in and about a subject in every aspect from start to finish.

it can't be anything superhuman (due to basic premises of the philosophy) but it also would seem to involve intelligence which would seem to be something much more than "automatic"

Thanks for mentioning the downloadable handout - you're right it's very interesting.

And this makes it doubly interesting to me to hear what she has to say, because I can see clearly - I have a good GRASP - FOCUS - UNDERSTANDING - that this is a word that demands to be translated into English, and should not be left untranslated, lest we give in once again to the idea that Epicurean philosophy is somehow beyond the grasp of mere mortals like us.

We'll have to compare notes when this is over as to what we think is the best english term. But I guarantee even before we hear the first word that we're going to hear a description of an active thought process that cannot and does not exclude "opinion" from its functioning, and thus we're going to get confirmation as to why Epicurus did not consider this to be one of the canonical faculties. As important as grasping things might be, grasping isn't something that the brain does "automatically" in the same way that ears, eyes, noses and the rest function.

Now we'll see how many of those words I have to eat later this week!

EDIT: Ha, I will already start with the caveats - since I am largely a follower of DeWitt's "intuition" line of thought, I am perfectly prepared to think that some people can grasp some things faster and more intuitively than others. So there is some room for automatic functioning. But you know what there's NO ROOM in Cassius' world for?

There's NO ROOM for untranslated Greek words! If something is worth discussing, it's worth discussing in one's native language - whatever that is.

Edit 2 - and just to be clear this is not a slam on Don's or Joshua's (or MY) interest in studying the Latin or Greek words. But the purpose of scrutinizing those words is to come up with the best possible translation with which WE, and our friends, can grasp the issue. The idea of doing all that study and then leaving them untranslated, as if they CAN'T be, is just in my mind the ultimate kind of academic power trip that I can't think anything good to say about!

I think I've mentioned before that I had the opportunity some years ago to hear her give a lecture live. She's definitely one of the leading scholars on Epicurus alive today and if I remember her presentation was very interesting, so should be worth it.

Sounds to me like Ms. Tsouna is promoting heresy -- the "fourth leg" of the canon! - but past experience indicates her research is going to be worth listening to regardless of the conclusion

Links:

https://zoom.us/meeting/regist…IaoMkHQ0m_AbJUe

https://www.forumhellenisticum.com/support

Good grief- where did I get THAT from? thanks for correcting me!

Do you mean this one? One point against that would be that he doesn't appear to be blind (?)

Thats a really good point - checking out Raphael's other works for clues.

Nate what about that pronounced downward pointed nose on the orange-balding figure. Of course we have to keep in mind Don's caveat, but the nose on the bust of Zeno doesn't seem to be so pronounced in pointing downward (?)

Good sleuthing to count the balding ones in the painting. We'd have to ask Elli about this, but I wonder if anything can be said about whether Greek men (ancient or modern) have a more or less tendency to go bald than Romans or other Europeans(?) I am by no means expert on the racial characteristics of Greeks but I wonder if anything can be said about their relative baldness. Maybe the number of balding men in this picture is an indication of using local figures as models rather than the busts - and maybe the sculptors tended to embellish the amount of hair?

Quote from Don

I'd suggest caution again as to who knew what when as to those busts.

Very true. I am exercising caution, even as I take the position in my own mind that these guys probably had access to virtually every bust/image that we have today, plus more that have probably been lost. the only reason I caveat with "virtually" is that i acknowledge that some may have been buried at Vesuvius, but for every one we've gained from Vesuvius i'd wager at least one and maybe two have been lost in the intervening 500 years.

Quote from Don

At what time did that figure become associated with Epicurus?

I agree that is an important question. While I know that science has improved over the centuries, I don't think we should presume that "knowledge in general" has always improved, and I would suspect that the further back in time we go the more deference ought to be given to statements from people of the older period, absent some reason not to credit it. I especially think that's true in terms of translations and interpretations - I would think that the further back in time the person is, the "closer" they would be to a more accurate understanding of subtle changes in meaning of words.

We have no reason to give much deference to monks of the 5th century on their general knowledge of science, but I would expect those monks to be able to run rings around later academics in their ability to understand the subtleties of ancient Greek and Latin texts. Someone like Bailey or Munro can study a lifetime and be the foremost expert of their age, and yet still not have the accuracy of understanding of Greek or Latin that would have been held by many off-the-street ancient Romans of ordinary education.

From - https://www.epicureanfriends.com/index.php?thread-add/672/