Posts by Cassius

Yes it is not really focused on Laertius and contains other material as well.

It's good to have too, bit I think you want a translation if the entire set of books. They are actually fun to read

Yes and I was referring to to the tendency of Amazon to convert scans of old books to "print on demand" which may turn out to be of a quality inferior to what you can get at a used book store. I haven't ordered many like that but it's my understanding that the print on demand product might not be satisfactory in some cases. I always prefer the originals when possible.

The Epicurus reader is well respected. I would be careful about the Yonge and Hicks versions from Amazon as they may be cheap reprints. Have you searched Ebay or places like Abebooks?

Don may have recommendations....

That was less than two months ago and I had completely forgotten about it too!

Don is this part of this article incorrect as to the text where it asserts that the texts asserts positively.....?

Quote from Don

Well, the original does say:

Original text: Καὶ μηδὲ καὶ γαμήσειν καὶ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν....

Here marriage is specifically mentioned: γαμήσειν "to be married" and τεκνοποιήσειν "to bear children" and μηδὲ is negation so..

And neither marry nor bear children..

But the following phrases seem to say that "under certain circumstances" the wise one will turn aside (from this course) and marry.

Yep - some say one way, some say the other way, as below. Seems to me the best course is to be sure to mark the passage as controversial and apparently corrupted

I forget how many volumes the Loeb is in..... But to be clear, Bailey is only Book 10.

Here's another issue with Mensch, and since I am all in favor of Epicureans marrying and having lots of children so there will be more Epicureans, I consider this a serious problem with this version There's a lot of controversy about that line and apparently the text is unclear, but I resolve that dispute consistently with Epicurus providing in his will for Metrodorus' daughter eventually to be married to a member of the school. It doesn't look like in Mensch that she even annotates it, but just chooses what I perceive to be the negative option.

In my case Mensch has not proved to be a new favorite, and here is one reason, comparing PD3:

Epicurus Wiki:

Mensch:

For me, I usually see the translators include what the Epicurus wiki renders as "magnitude" (I think Bailey uses "quantity.") I happen to think that is a very important word, and I am sorry to see Mensch leave it out. My general impression is that she is being a little too free with the translation and less literal than would be desired given that the material can be pretty complex.

Quote from Don

The question also depends on whether one just wants Book X - in which case Bailey would need fine - or of you want the entire Lives to see all of Epicurus's mentions plus all the other philosophers.

Right - there is a tremendous amount of good information in the other books

One way of considering Mensch would be to look at her translations of the PD's:

I think if I were buying one I might go with Loeb too, for the benefit of the side-by-side Greek text.

As for the Bailey edition, that would be Bailey's "Extant Remains" which would be good to have if you can find a used copy, and would have a lot more material on it about Epicurus.

That might be better but I doubt it will suit us as a final position. This is something that is going to take some long thought and discussion probably.

Question from reader : I found many topics in the forums talking about the different versions of this book. I'm not good at reading electronic versions, so I want to buy it. Which version would you recommend? From a post of yours of some months ago, I gather it would be Bailey's? Thanks

Quote from Don

I'm not sure I have a better one than "feeling" but I'm searching.

As important as this "of the ____________ there are two" is, it's probably worth putting some real effort into finding a way to convey this more clearly, or at least a way to explain why whatever term is used should not carry all the connotations that we place on it in modern English.

What do you see as the preferred translation of "pathe"?

Passion? Or what?

Don I think our issue here, and the main difficulty in articulating this, is that there is an ambiguity / mismatch between English "Feeling" and Greek "pathe" --- It sounds like Epicurus said there are only two pathe / passions, but in English we have many "feelings" which are neither pleasurable nor painful.

I touch a piece of wood and it's "hard" but the feeling is neither necessarily painful nor pleasurable. Now we can attempt to deal with that by referring perhaps to other experiences at the same time (we're taking pleasure in simply being alive) but we have a communication mismatch to deal with between English "feeling" of which there are many, and Greek "Pathe" of which there are only two.

So if we could triangulate on a better word for "pathe" that is not the same as "feeling" we'd probably be better off. Apparently the translators prefer "passions" but the bad guys have loaded that word so negatively that it may not be usable for this purpose.

Quote from Don

If you're alive you're either feeling pleasure or pain

I agree that that's an important point.

Quote from Don

Especially katastematic as "static", I'm needing to delve deeper into the original texts where that and its derivations are used.

I think if you eventually find the time you will find what you're looking for in Gosling & Taylor's "Greeks on Pleasure." It's stated there (somewhere) that the whole issue doesn't seem to derive from motion, because everything is always in motion, and If i recall correctly you'll find documentation there that the Greeks considered even thinking to be a form of motion. So the whole issue is clear as mud (which is why I find it so unhelpful).

Quote from Don

I should also do a search for what papers cite Nikolsky to see if we can expand on his ideas with other (of any) authors.***

Good idea, but like I said, I think Nikolsky himself cites Gosling and Taylor as HIS inspiration (or else he told Elli and me that in a skype call we had several years ago). So the key analysis started with G&T and what Nikolsky added (if I recall) was basically to track it down to the "division of Carneades" as the likely reason that Laertius picked it up (since Laertius was telling his readers how several philosophers/issues fit under Carneades' categories).

Episode Eighty-Five of Lucretius Today is now available. In this episode we will continue into Book Six and discuss more about thunder and lightning, including the question of why the gods send thunderbolts to destroy their own temples.

Quote from Don

So Epicurus was "right" in a sense that there is no neutral state. You're either feeling pleasure or pain.

Anytime someone says "So Epicurus was 'right'..... you can expect me to agree, however:

I'm not able to take the time to read Feldman and comment on the analysis other than what you guys are saying.

The reason I am posting this comment is that as to the position that there is no "neutral state," I want to go on record as not being sure whether that position was intended to be something that he was taking on based on observation (such as on observation of babies and kittens and puppies) or whether that is a position he took on some kind of "logical" ground, as he did in the case of the swerve, and of the existence of the void. If it's the latter, that would be another reason to be cautious in drawing parallels with neurological or medical research.

Personally, I doubt that the denial of a neutral state is of as much practical significance as it is of "logical" significance in debating with Plato on the nature of pleasure as the greatest good.