Posts by Cassius

Thanks to Nate's recent meme I see this entry from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica which describes the Academy's descent into skepticism, from Socrates' former position "I know that I know nothing" to Arcesilaus taking the position that he did not even know that he knows nothing.

The article references the Stoics taking the position that certainty can come through "the Stoical theory of perception, the φαντασία καταληπτική, by which they expressed a conviction of certainty arising from impressions so strong as to amount to science," and then references Carneades (who Nikolsky says was probably the source for why Laertius erroneously thought the kinetic/katastematic distinction was significant to Epicurus)

take the Academy into "the doctrine of acatalepsia, which denied any necessary correspondence between perceptions and the objects perceived. He saved himself, however, from absolute scepticism by the doctrine of probability or verisimilitude, which may serve as a practical guide in life. Thus his criterion of imagination (φαντασία) is that it must be credible, irrefutable and attested by comparison with other impressions; it may be wrong, but for the person concerned it is valid. In ethics he was an avowed sceptic. During his official visit to Rome, he gave public lectures, in which he successively proved and disproved with equal ease the existence of justice."

This is a very useful quick but authoritative statement on these issues for which we frequently need reference - thanks Nate!

I have a love/hate relationship with Amazon too - 99.99% of which is hate!

I think the ideal answer is going to be something that is crossplatform and allows for storing of the ebooks/pdf on a dropbox or nextcloud or similar cloud service, and they syncs the notes and last position by storing something into that cloud folder.

It could be either an app/program or a web-based reader that works inside a browser, but I think an installable app/program would probably be preferable

Or at least that's my current thought.

There is an overwhelming amount of material to read and keep track of. Is anyone using an on-line or cross-platform PDF/Ebook reader that syncs? In other words, in order to move between devices and spend as much time as humanly possible reading ( ) it would be ideal to have a service where you could either upload your pdf/ebooks and read them on-line (meaning you always know where you are in reading) or else a local program for phones/tablets/desktops which syncs reading locations and documents between instances.

Anyone already using anything like that? This must be a basic function and need of all college and post-graduate students and teachers today. I am sure there are going to be some paid services which may or may not be worth it, but the ideal answer is the closest thing possible to open source and free.

I googled and see some threads that I haven't started reading yet:

https://www.slant.co/topics/10075/~…eading-position

https://kitaboo.com/9-best-cross-platform-ebook-readers/

https://pdf.online-reader.com/

https://www.guidingtech.com/32838/sync-ebook-read-positions/

https://ebooks.stackexchange.com/questions/3637…cross-pcwindows

On this topic Godfrey called to my mind an article (chapter of a book) by David Sedley that is probably relevant here - "Epicurus' Theological Innatism," of which an early paragraph is:

A link for this is here

One source of analysis of this list is David Sedley's "Epicurus and His Professional Rivals" in which Sedley argues that these statements are in the most part not disaparaging at all, but indeed can be seen in some cases as praise!

This appears to be in contradiction of the position of Bignone, who unfortunately I don't think we have in English.

My view is that Diogenes Laertius can hardly fail to have realized that the way he was recounting the story implied that he expected the reader to take his statements at face value and correct, and that the "but these are all mad" distinguished Epicurus' treatment to his living acquaintances and not necessarily his "professional rivals."

One again we have a dispute with not much to go on to decide who is right, so the best and only way to proceed is to look into all sides and judge for ourselves. Whichever side you come down on I think the exercise is useful for highlighting at least the potential areas of dispute.

[ADMIN EDIT: I have censored Cassius and removed several posts which were simply clipped Sedley sections. I reminded Cassius that the major point of this thread should not be to show how good we are at quoting commentators, but to be sure we understand what possible differences Epicurus had with these people philosophically. Sedley's article contains much good material but the overall impression it leaves is probably "don't worry too much about this because these comments either aren't to be trusted or probably weren't as mean as they sound to us today." That may be true to some extent, but our purpose out to be first to understand what philosophical issues Epicurus took with these people, so let's focus on that aspect.]

More seriously, I really would like to see what we can develop as to the details on each of these, as I think it's a really helpful way to triangulate on exactly where Epicurus was coming from and what flaws he saw in opposing philosophies. I know for example that by now we're pretty used to seeing Epicurus worked up to oppose Plato, but I think a lot of us are surprised to see the same kind of opposition (or even worse?) to Aristotle. Same goes with Pyrrho, because many people consider Epicurus to be similar to Pyrrho in many respects (and in some respects he probably was). So I think this topic has lots to be gained from pursuing it in addition to helping us make our language more colorful!

Quote from Don

You know I'm going to post the original Greek for all these at some point, right?

I would expect nothing less, and I am looking forward to it! When we are insulting people we want to do it as precisely as possible!

As to Plato being "the Golden man" we have this from EAHP chapter five:

"The Platonists, however, could not boast of innocence themselves, because their own Arcesilaus was on record as hailing the founders of the school as "almost gods or relics of the race of gold." ⁴⁶ Thus Epicurus, when dubbing Plato "the Golden," was possibly mocking his followers and not merely deriding his division of mankind on the basis of iron, silver, and gold."

As to the followers of Plato being 'Flatterers of Dionysus,’ we have this from DeWitt's EAHP chapter fourteen:

Outside of the popular assembly parresia signified the expression of the speaker's opinion without regard for the feelings of others, and it might mean defiance. Epicurus was exemplifying it when he publicly assailed the Platonists, who in his youth were enjoying a monopoly of favor. He called them "flatterers of Dionysus," and the "deep-voiced." ²⁰ The latter was a term of derision similar to "would-be Hamlets"; it was applied to second-rate actors who pitched their voices absurdly low in the performance of kingly roles. Insofar as they hung around hoping for such parts, they were "flatterers of Dionysus," the god of the theater, comparable to the flatterers of Alexander and his successors. The reference is rendered specific by the derisive language of Metrodorus, who dubbed the young Platonists would-be Lycurguses and Solons.²¹ There was a temporary revival of law-giving because of Plato's dream of
a philosopher-king, which opened court posts for graduates of the Academy.

As to Nausiphanes ‘The mollusk,’ ‘The illiterate,’ ‘The cheat,’ ‘The harlot,' we have the following from DeWitt's EAHP chapter three:

How long Epicurus sojourned with Nausiphanes it is impossible to say, but the duration of the discipleship was certainly long enough to engender exceptional bitterness of feeling. Cicero records in a malicious moment that being "on the spot," as it were, and unable to deny obligation, Epicurus assailed his teacher with all sorts of insulting epithets. This statement can be documented, thanks to the researches of later Platonistic adversaries, who rummaged the records for damaging items of evidence. From a single list we learn that among the opprobrious epithets were "lung-fish," "dumb animal," "imposter," and "prostitute." These insults call for comment. Of the four words the first two and the second two constitute pairs.

The word here rendered "lung-fish" has been erroneously translated "mollusc" and "jelly-fish." The Greek is pleumon, "lung," and Pliny describes the creature as having no more sensation than a block of wood, while Sextus Empiricus explains the word as equivalent to "insensate." ³⁰ The word rendered "dumb animal" above is usually translated "illiterate." To so describe Nausiphanes would be absurd. The Greek is agrammatos and when used of animals it signifies "dumb," just as the psalmist speaks of the horse and the mule "which have no understanding." Just what justification Epicurus may have had for so characterizing his teacher can only be surmised. In their opposition to skepticism and acceptance of dogmatism they were agreed. It is conceivable therefore that the bitterness of Epicurus arose from his inability to bring his teacher around to his own views on the topics of free will and determinism and the function of philosophy, which were the chief grounds of his rupture with the teachings of Democritus. At this stage of his career he was litigious and shunned no controversy.

This is not the whole story, however. The imperturbability of Pyrrho was indifference and a sort of resignation to belief in the impossibility of knowledge. With this sort of resignation it is clear that neither Nausiphanes nor Epicurus had any patience. The distinction of becoming the first dogmatists may perhaps be claimed for them. Nausiphanes admired only the disposition of Pyrrho and rejected his skepticism. He erected a canon of knowledge, which means that he asserted the possibility of knowledge. He called his canon the Tripod, though information is lacking us concerning the three legs of this triad. The astute Epicurus did not take over this name, but he did set up three criteria of knowledge, the Sensations, Anticipations, and Feelings. These he chose to call his Canon. That it was in reality filched from Nausiphanes is expressly stated by a reliable writer.³¹ If there be truth in this report — and such charges were often made with little justification — the achievement of Epicurus was to bring the idea to universal knowledge; his gifts as a publicist were of a high order.

There remain the epithets "imposter" and "prostitute." For these it is the most plausible explanation that Epicurus discovered his teacher to be living a double life, preaching virtue, as all philosophers did, and at the same time practicing vice. Cicero informs us that most philosophers condoned the practice of homosexuality, and for once he agreed emphatically with Epicurus in condemning it as against Plato.³² The latter, as is well known, had essayed in his Symposium to sublimate this passion into a passion for knowledge. Epicurus also wrote a Symposium, in which he retorted: "Intercourse never was the cause of any good and it is fortunate if it does no harm." ⁸³ In the case of Nausiphanes there is another item of evidence from the pen of Epicurus: "As for my own opinion, I presume that the high-steppers (Platonists) will think me really a pupil of the 'lung-fish' and that I listened to his lectures in the company of certain lads who were stupid from the night's carousing. For he was both an immoral man and addicted to such practices as made it impossible for him to arrive at wisdom." ³⁴ The practices here referred to have been interpreted as the study of mathematics,³⁵ but the mention of adolescent lads, of drinking, and of immorality make the true reference unmistakable to any reader conversant with the shadier side of student life among the Greeks.

As for Epicurus himself, even if strict in his views about chastity, there is no doubt that he was an irritating pupil. It will be recalled how he put his early instructor in a corner over the topic of chaos. The following extract reveals no more the irritable teacher than the irritating pupil; the reference is to Nausiphanes: "Well, good riddance to the braggart, for that rotter, when in a temper, would have a torrent of the sophistic bluster at the tip of his tongue, like many another of the servile creatures." ^3e It may be mentioned that Epicurus classified all men as slaves who, like the physicists, believed in Necessity, or, like the poets, in Fate, or, like Theophrastus, in Fortune, or, like the people, in divine interference, or like the Platonists, in astral deities, or those who, by pursuing the conventional education, surrendered their freedom for the pursuit of power, fame, or wealth.

The list of insults used by Epicurus against his opponents, as listed by Diogenes Laertius, is colorful, but there is also a lot to learn from taking them apart and dissecting them. That's a task that probably can't be handled in one thread, but this is a place to start. If you've seen commentators give explanations for these, please add them to the thread . In each case we ought to explore who the opponent is, why he was an opponent, and the basis in truth for why Epicurus' insult is biting.

Here's the list:

1. Nausiphanes: ‘The mollusk,’ ‘The illiterate,’ ‘The cheat,’ ‘The harlot.’
2. The followers of Plato: ‘Flatterers of Dionysus,’
3. Plato: ‘The golden man,’
4. Aristotle: ‘The debauchee,' saying that he devoured his inheritance and then enlisted and sold drugs.
5. Protagoras: ‘Porter’ or ‘Copier of Democritus,’ saying that he taught in the village schools.
6. Heraclitus: ‘The Muddler,’
7. Democritus: Lerocritus (‘judge of nonsense’),
8. Antidorus: Sannidorus (‘Maniac’),
9. the Cynics: ‘Enemies of Hellas,’
10. the Logicians: ‘The destroyers,’
11. Pyrrho: ‘The uneducated fool.’

Anyone who can help, please add a post below and we can compile the result either here in this first post of the thread, or in the lexicon, or some other logical place, over time.

I have heard back from the myminifactory folks and will keep you posted.

Good site!

1 - That is a really good bust of Epicurus - maybe one of the best from my point of view. But there were several from Herculaneum - cause I don't see an inscription on this one? Is the base original? Also, that date of discovery sure is close to that of the herme - almost too much to be a coincidence and almost points to "this is the period we started keeping track of things" rather than "prior to this date no one anywhere in the world had any idea."

2 - This one struck me as funny - that's quite a divergence of possibilities!

3. This is a really clear view of Hermarchus. Almost looks as if he is frowning or sad? And this one emphasizes my ongoing question about these bases -- are these bases original, or added?

4. Because THIS view of Epicurus has a base that looks original, and as if this could be the inscription that confirmed his identity:

5. Same comment again as to Hermarchus. Does he look sad? This base looks "original"?

6. For no reason whatsoever other than I like it I have to include the one of the leaping pig. I also wonder on this one? Presumably the base is original?

7. Also for completeness:

Hello and welcome to the forum @GBSolution ! (I am a little concerned the name indicates a possible spam-bot, but hopefully not! But for that reason it would be especially good to hear from you saying hello.)

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!

That's good to know (that it's a claim, anyway) because I was thinking that the date of confirmation was more traceable to the small busts at Herculaneum. I'm not sure of the date of that one but maybe not so far apart (?) At any rate I would think this would be a key part of Frischer's studies so if he thinks the date of confirmation is traceable to the herm, then that seems like a pretty reliable source.

So what are you thinking was in the mind of the sculptors as to the purpose of this herm in particular.

Are we thinking this dates back to Greece or is a later Roman sculpture?

Fascinating information Joshua - thank you! i wonder what type of setting this was originally intended for?

I sent an email to the myminifactory.com address and I will update the thread here if I hear anything.

Agreed that one is much better!

Which reminds me to comment - I've never understood how anyone came up with the idea of the double-head. I suppose i can see that it saves stone that would otherwise be pretty useless showing the back of the head, but it seems awkward at best as a display mechanism and I would have thought someone with the resources to undertake a project like this would have had two pieces of stone available.

That site looks like a great find - thank you:

1 - I wish there were a Herculaneum leaping pig there, but I can't find anything.

2 - That Epicurus bust looks like it SHOULD be useful, but it looks like the "original" from which it was scanned doesn't really look like Epicurus.