Posts by Cassius

Perhaps we can find an answer to that question in Bernard Frischer's book "Sculpted Word"? Or maybe we can actually find Mr. Frischer online and email him a question about this. That actually strikes me as doable.

So where are we on this by timeline?

The fresco was painted in the early 1500's:

The busts from Herculaneum and Vatican were not discovered until the 1750's.

I guess we are really talking about two things:

(1) Do we have any evidence that Raphael himself asserted that the wreathed chubby figure was Epicurus?

(2) When did other people start asserting that wreathed chubby figure was Epicurus? Who was that person and when and why?

As to question (2) we now know from Joshua's post that the assertion that wreathed chubby figure is Epicurus dates at least to early 1800's. I can't read this inscription from the etching but it may or may not help with that question:

Given the dates of the bust discoveries, if Raphael knew the correct likeness of Epicurus, it would have to be based on something else, perhaps the Hadrian villa items, or perhaps well something totally unknown to us currently - and i would indeed presume that there are or were many historical artifacts in Italy and Greece that we're not aware of in this conversation.

Episode 69 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's episode, we continue into book five and discuss the eventual end of our world. As always let us know if you have any questions or comments

Great find, Joshua - so this would establish that as far back as 1810's someone was pegging that person as Epicurus --- so once again we ought to consider how the dates of the Herculaneum busts and busts at the Vatican play against this date. I will tag Elli to be sure she sees this.

Welcome to Episode Seventy of Lucretius Today.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

For anyone who is not familiar with our podcast, please check back to Episode One for a discussion of our goals and our ground rules. If you have any question about that, please be sure to contact us at EpicureanFriends.com for more information.

In this Episode 70 we will read approximately Latin line 324 of Book V, and we will talk more about the end of the world, destruction by fire and water, and take an interesting excursion into what this passage may mean about the immortality of the Epicurean gods. Now let's join Charles reading today's text.

Latin Lines 324--415

Munro Notes-

324-350 If the world had no beginning, why did history commence with the wars of Thebes and Troy? nay the world began but lately; and so arts and sciences are still in progress: if it be said all these existed before, but were destroyed by some great catastrophe, then you must the more admit that the world will come to an end: when it suffered so grievously, had the causes been more powerful, it must have perished altogether; thus we all know we shall die, because we have the same diseases as those who are already dead.

351-379 : again that which is everlasting must either be impenetrable like atoms, or intangible like void, or must have nothing without it into which it can pass or out of which destructive forces can conic; and this is the case with the universe: but we have shewn that not one of these conditions is true of our world; it is therefore doomed to destruction; and therefore it had a beginning too; for being mortal, it could not have lasted from eternity.

380-415: again since its chief members contend in such furious civil strife, the world may perish either when fire has overcome water, or water fire: thus, as poets fable, fire once was near conquering when Phaeton was run away with by the horses of the sun : this story may represent some real event; as may the flood of Deucalion some temporary victory of water.

Browne 1743

Further, if the heavens and the earth had no beginning, but were from eternity the same, how comes it that no poets have sung of any great events beyond the Theban War and the destruction of Troy? How came the exploits of so many heroes to be buried in oblivion that none of their great actions are recorded in the eternal monuments of fame, to live forever? For no other reason, I conceive, but that the world is of a late creation, that the substance of the world is new, and began not long ago. And therefore some arts are but lately known, others are polished and refined, many new discoveries are made in navigation, and the masters of music have but now brought sound and harmony to perfection; and, in the last place, this very nature of things which I now write of, and the reasons of them, are but lately found out, and I call myself one of the first who have attempted to convey them to posterity in Latin verse. But if you think that these things were long before the same they are now, but that mankind was destroyed by the rage of fire, or cities were overwhelmed by earthquakes (the great terrors of the world) or that the rapid rivers, by continual showers, overflowed the earth, and covered whole towns, you have still the more reason to be convinced, and to allow, that the earth and the heavens will at last be destroyed. For if things were liable to feel so great convulsions, and suffer so great dangers, it is plain if the cause of these ruins had been more violent, they must have perished and been utterly dissolved. Nor have we any other rule to judge that we ourselves are mortal, and must die, but that we sicken with the same diseases as those endured whom death has removed from this life.

Besides, whatever is eternal must be so either because it consists of solid seeds, or it cannot be broken by blows; nor will it suffer anything to pierce it, to disunite the close contexture of its parts; of this sort are the seeds of matter, whose nature we have shown before; or things would remain forever, because they are out of the power of stroke, as a void is, which is not to be touched nor can be affected by force; or because there is no extent of space about them into which their parts may fall when they are dissolved. For this reason the universe, or all, is eternal – there is no place beyond, where its scattered seeds may retire, nor are there any bodies to beat upon it, and by violent blows break it into pieces. But as I said, the substance of the world is not formed altogether of solid seeds, because a void is mixed with its parts, nor is it wholly void, nor are there wanting bodies, rising to strike and overthrow with mighty force this world, or to bring it into danger of ruin some other way; nor is there any defect of place or space beyond, into which the walls of the world may tumble down, or they may fall to pieces by some other force, and be dissolved. The Gate of death therefore is not barred against the heavens, nor the sun, nor the earth, nor the deep waters of the sea; but stands open, with its wide and gaping jaws, to receive them all. For these reasons it must needs be allowed that these things had a beginning, for whatever is formed of mortal seeds, and must die, could not from eternity resist the strong attacks of infinite past time and the power of age.

Lastly, since the elements (the first principles of the world) are continually fighting, and carrying on an implacable war among themselves; can there be no end, think you, or their long contests? If the sun, suppose, or the fire, by sucking up all the moisture should get the better, which they strive to do, but have not yet effected their design; such a supply of water do the rivers pour in, and the sea from its mighty deeps rather threatens to drown the world. But in vain – the brushing winds are continually licking up and lessening the tide, and the hot sun, with its rays, drinks up a part, and things rather seem in danger of being dried up than of perishing by a flood of waters. With such equal success is the war carried on, and their powers are so disputed with equal force. Yet time was when the rage of fire once prevailed over the world; and the water (as they say) once got the dominion, and drowned the earth. The fire had the victory, and set everything in a flame, when the mad fury of the horses of the sun, flying out of their course, dragged the wretched Phaeton through the whole heavens, and over all the regions of the world; but great Jupiter, in his fierce rage, suddenly struck the daring youth with a thunderbolt, and tumbled him headlong from his horses to the Earth. And Phoebus, meeting him as he fell, gathered up the scattered rays of the sun, the great luminary of the world, brought back the distracted horses, and harnessed them trembling to the chariot again; and driving them in the right course, recovered things to their proper order. This tale the Grecian poets sung of old, which is absurd and against all belief, yet the fire may get the mastery, if the large supplies of fiery seeds are brought from the great mass of matter into the world. The rage of these seeds must by some force be weakened and suppressed, or things by so scorching heats must perish and be burnt up. The Water likewise prevailed once, as they say, when it overthrew many cities, but when the seeds that were supplied from the mass of matter were turned into some other channel, the rain ceased and the rivers flowed again within their banks.

Munro 1886

Again, if there was no birth-time of earth and heaven and they have been from everlasting, why before the Theban war and the destruction of Troy have not other poets as well sung other themes? Whither have so many deeds of men so often passed away, why live they nowhere embodied in lasting records of fame? The truth methinks is that the sum has but a recent date and the nature of the world is new and has but lately had its commencement. Wherefore even now some arts are receiving their last polish, some are even in course of growth: just now many improvements have been made in ships; only yesterday musicians have given birth to tuneful melodies; then too this nature or system of things has been discovered lately, and I the very first of all have only now been found able to transfer it into native words. But if haply you believe that before this all things have existed just the same, but that the generations of men have perished by burning heat, or that cities have fallen by some great concussion of the world, or that after constant rains devouring rivers have gone forth over the earth and have whelmed towns, so much the more you must yield and admit that there will be entire destruction too of earth and heaven; for when things were tried by so great distempers and so great dangers, at that time had a more disastrous cause pressed upon them, they would far and wide have gone to destruction and mighty ruin. And in no other way are we proved to be mortals, except because we all alike in turn fall sick of the same diseases which those had whom nature has withdrawn from life.

Again whatever things last for ever, must either, because they are of solid body, repel strokes and not suffer aught to pass into them, sufficient to disunite the closely massed parts within: such are the bodies of matter whose nature we have shown before: or they must be able to endure through all time for this reason, because they are exempt from blows, as void is which remains untouched and suffers not a jot from any stroke; or else because there is no extent of room around, into which things so to say may depart and be broken up: in this way the sum of sums is eternal and there is no place outside into which things may spring asunder, nor are there anybodies which can fall upon them and dissolve them by a powerful blow. But the nature of the world, as I have shown, is neither of solid body, since void is mixed up in things, nor is it again like void, no nor is there lack of bodies that may haply rise up in mass out of the infinite and overthrow this sum of things with furious tornado or bring upon them some other perilous disaster; nor further is the nature of room or the space of deep void wanting, into which the walls of the world may be scattered abroad; or they may be assailed and perish by some other force. Therefore the gate of death is not closed against heaven or sun or earth or the deep waters of the sea, but stands open and looks towards them with huge wide-gaping maw. And therefore also you must admit that these things likewise had a birth; for things which are of mortal body could not for an infinite time back up to the present have been able to set at naught the puissant strength of immeasurable age.

Again since the chiefest members of the world fight so hotly together, fiercely stirred by no hallowed civil warfare, see you not that some limit may be set to their long struggle? Either when the sun and all heat shall have drunk up all the waters and gotten the mastery: this they are ever striving to do, but as yet are unable to accomplish their endeavors: such abundant supplies the rivers furnish, and threaten to turn aggressors and flood all things with a deluge from the deep gulfs of ocean; all in vain, since the winds sweeping over the seas and the ethereal sun decomposing them with his rays do lessen them, and trust to be able to dry all things up before water can attain the end of its endeavor. Such a war do they breathe out with undecided issue, and strive with each other to determine it for mighty ends; though once by the way fire got the upper hand and once, as the story goes, water reigned paramount in the fields. Fire gained the mastery and licked and burnt up many things, when the headstrong might of the horses of the sun dashed from the course and hurried Phaethon through the whole sky and over all lands. But the almighty father, stirred then to fierce wrath, with a sudden thunderstroke dashed Phaethon down from his horses to earth, and the sun meeting him as he fell caught from him the ever-burning lamp of the world and got in hand the scattered steeds and yoked them shaking all over; then guided them on their proper course and gave fresh life to all things. Thus to wit have the old poets of the Greeks sung; though it is all too widely at variance with true reason. Fire may gain the mastery when more bodies of matter than usual have gathered themselves up out of the infinite; and then its powers decay, vanquished in some way or other, or else things perish burnt up by the torrid air. Water too of yore gathered itself and began to get the mastery, as the story goes, when it whelmed many cities of men; and then when all that force that had gathered itself up out of the infinite, by some means or other was turned aside and withdrew, the rains were stayed and the rivers abated their fury.

Bailey 1921

Moreover, if there was no birth and beginning of the earth and sky, and they were always from everlasting, why beyond the Theban war and the doom of Troy have not other poets sung of other happenings as well? whither have so many deeds of men so often passed away? why are they nowhere enshrined in glory in the everlasting memorials of fame? But indeed, I trow, our whole world is in its youth, and quite new is the nature of the firmament, nor long ago did it receive its first-beginnings. Wherefore even now certain arts are being perfected, even now are growing; much now has been added to ships, but a while ago musicians gave birth to tuneful harmonies. Again, this nature of things, this philosophy, is but lately discovered, and I myself was found the very first of all who could turn it into the speech of my country. But if by chance you think that all these same things were aforetime, but that the generations of men perished in burning heat, or that cities have fallen in some great upheaval of the world, or that from ceaseless rains ravening rivers have issued over the lands and swallowed up cities, all the more must you be vanquished and confess that there will come to pass a perishing of earth and sky as well. For when things were assailed by such great maladies and dangers, then if a more fatal cause had pressed upon them, far and wide would they have spread their destruction and mighty ruin. Nor in any other way do we see one another to be mortal; except that we fall sick of the same diseases as those whom nature has sundered from life.

Moreover, if ever things abide for everlasting, it must needs be either that, because they are of solid body, they beat back assaults, nor suffer anything to come within them, which might unloose the close-locked parts within, such as are the bodies of matter, whose nature we have declared before; or that they are able to continue through all time, because they are exempt from blows, as is the void, which abides untouched nor suffers a whit from assault; or else because there is no supply of room all around, into which things might part asunder and be broken up—even as the sum of sums is eternal—nor is there any room without into which they may leap apart, nor are there bodies which might fall upon them and break them up with stout blow. But neither, as I have shown, is the nature of the world endowed with solid body, since there is void mingled in things; nor yet is it as the void, nor indeed are bodies lacking, which might by chance gather together out of infinite space and overwhelm this sum of things with headstrong hurricane, or bear down on it some other form of dangerous destruction; nor again is there nature of room or space in the deep wanting, into which the walls of the world might be scattered forth; or else they may be pounded and perish by any other force you will. The gate of death then is not shut on sky or sun or earth or the deep waters of the sea, but it stands open facing them with huge vast gaping maw. Wherefore, again, you must needs confess that these same things have a birth; for indeed, things that are of mortal body could not from limitless time up till now have been able to set at defiance the stern strength of immeasurable age.

Again, since the mighty members of the world so furiously fight one against the other, stirred up in most unhallowed warfare, do you not see that some end may be set to their long contest? Either when the sun and every kind of heat have drunk up all the moisture and won the day: which they are struggling to do, but as yet they have not accomplished their effort: so great a supply do the rivers bring and threaten to go beyond their bounds, and deluge all things from out the deep abyss of ocean; all in vain, since the winds as they sweep the seas, diminish them, and so does the sun in heaven, as he unravels their fabric with his rays, and they boast that they can dry up all things, ere moisture can reach the end of its task. So vast a war do they breathe out in equal contest, as they struggle and strive one with another for mighty issues; yet once in this fight fire gained the upper hand, and once, as the story goes, moisture reigned supreme on the plains. For fire won its way and burnt up many things, all-devouring, when the resistless might of the horses of the sun went astray and carried Phaethon again through the whole heavens and over all lands. But, thereupon, the almighty father, thrilled with keen anger, with sudden stroke of his thunder dashed high-souled Phaethon from his chariot to earth, and the sun, meeting him as he fell, caught the everlasting lamp of the world, and tamed the scattered steeds, and yoked them trembling, and so guiding them along their own path, replenished all things; so forsooth sang the old poets of the Greeks: but it is exceeding far removed from true reasoning. For fire can only prevail when more bodies of its substance have risen up out of infinite space; and then its strength fails, vanquished in some way, or else things perish, burnt up by its fiery breath. Moisture likewise, once gathered together and began to prevail, as the story goes, when it overwhelmed living men with its waves. Thereafter, when its force was by some means turned aside and went its way, even all that had gathered together from infinite space, the rains ceased, and the strength of the rivers was brought low.

Don / JJ do we think we'll be able to get a PDF of the original? Seems like I have seen one or more PDFs of medieval-looking manuscripts, but I don't think this is one of them. (seems to me I saw one at the Hathi Trust website)

Well your work is cut out for you! And in the meantime you would make a great guest for the podcast!

A likely guess is that they consider that when they include the Stoics they're implicitly including Epicurus, since "every knows" Epicurus was basically an ascetic like the Stoics (and the rest of the Greeks), but with a flair for using words in creative ways!

Thanks Joshua. I was not originally thinking of ebooks but that is definitely part of the picture. It is so much easier to read on those for long periods of time than a computer screen or smart phone.

I had a nook a while back and got some reasonable use out of it, but I tend to want to be able to make notes and save them in outlines, and for that the computer works best.

But definitely ebook readers have a place in this discussion and I need to update my research on those as well.

I am finding that Calibre has some features of which I was not aware. Apparently it keeps all your bookmarks / annotations in a single file, and then you can go that file to click and open an ebook at the desired point. I see that Calibre also has some form of sharing over the web to allow you to read your books remotely, but I haven't figured that out yet. This article hints at some of these features and also talks about Zotero, which also seems to be something that might be useful. I played with Zotero in the past but gave up trying to figure it out - might be time to look into it again.

Don you are actually or effectively a professional researcher. Do you have experience with Zotero?

Note: I see Zotero has a direct competitor - MENDELEY, a British site.

Comparison: https://med.mercer.edu/library/mendeley_vs_zotero.htm

I see Mendeley is owned by Elsevior and that probably means a negative corporate influence

My next question is whether these allow you to read online from more than one computer, and if so how their ability to do that compares with a Calibre server. (this is the stage of complexity in the past where I generally gave out of steam to figure out)

I don't have time for a long post but I wanted to start this topic with a couple of general thoughts which are prompted by our recent discussions of images in book four of Lucretius, plus the articles from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (thanks Nate) as to the development of skepticism within the Academy, as well as the Stoic/Academic interplay involving how the Stoics attempted to remain dogmatic. Let me particularly highlight this paragraph:

Quote

(3) The next stage in the Academic succession was the moderate scepticism of Carneades, which owed its existence to his opposition to Chrysippus, the Stoic. To 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, he opposed 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.

Now as to the Epicureans, here is the primary source for the idea that the canon has a "fourth leg":

Quote

Diogenes Laertius:

Thus in The Canon Epicurus says that the tests of truth are the sensations and concepts [preconceptions / anticipations] and the feelings; the Epicureans add to these the intuitive apprehensions of the mind. And this he says himself too in the summary addressed to Herodotus and in the Principal Doctrines. For, he says, all sensation is irrational and does not admit of memory; for it is not set in motion by itself, nor when it is set in motion by something else, can it add to it or take from it. Nor is there anything which can refute the sensations.

Note that this listing distinctly separates the preconceptions as one of the first three legs by saying that "the Epicureans add to these the intuitive apprehensions of the mind." Have I not seen this regularly translated as "present impressions of the mind"? (Need to check; perhaps that is the letter to Herodotus)

Regardless, both "intuitive apprehensions of the mind" and/or "present impressions of the mind" seem to me to be very good descriptions of the process described in book four of Lucretius where the mind receives images directly from outside itself, much as Cicero discusses also with Cassius in his "spectres" back-and-forth.

In addition to the separation of preconceptions from "intuitive apprehensions of the mind" in Laertius, we have the Velleius description of anticipations:

Quote

“Anyone pondering on the baseless and irrational character of these doctrines ought to regard Epicurus with reverence, and to rank him as one of the very gods about whom we are inquiring. For he alone perceived, first, that the gods exist, because nature herself has imprinted a conception of them on the minds of all mankind. For what nation or what tribe of men is there but possesses untaught some ‘preconception’ of the gods? Such notions Epicurus designates by the word prolepsis, that is, a sort of preconceived mental picture of a thing, without which nothing can be understood or investigated or discussed. The force and value of this argument we learn in that work of genius, Epicurus's Rule or Standard of Judgment."

The purpose of adding this post today is that it seems to me that a very significant case can be made for the argument that the intuitive apprehensions of the mind, which Epicurus denied the status of being a leg of the canon, is meant to refer to the mind as a suprasensory organism (as Dewitt refers to it) that is active all the time receiving images from outside. An obvious reason why Epicurus would deny to this function the status of canonical is that the mind is active in selecting the images that it pays attention to; it therefore does not function without opinion and without bias as do the canonical faculties, which do not inject opinion. Yet it is easy to see too why later Epicureans might start to make the mistake of considering it canonical, because it is a faculty in which the mind is making contact with some kind of reality outside itself.

DeWitt goes into this much further and I'll probably paste some of his commentary here, but I think the discussion of the "fourth leg" and why Epicurus only had three is a very important path to pursue to bring out the nuance of what makes a canonical faculty and what doesn't. I agree with Dewitt that it is a dramatic and even to the point of fatal error for the "later" or "other" Epicureans (whoever they were) to depart from Epicurus on this point.

INSERT: Here is the key DeWitt section in which he observes why Epicurus would not have ranked present impressions of the mind as a criterion of truth (and therefore why that is separate from anticipations) So what I am suggesting here is that this analysis is also relevant to the mind's direct receipt of images and how they are separate from anticipations:

Now linking back to my first statement as to the inspiration for this post, it sounds to me like the later/other Epicureans were adversely influenced by the Stoic and Academic debates as to how truth is determined through the mind, and that more modern proponents of the "fourth leg" probably have fallen for the same mistake by accepting those viewpoints as amounting to something canonical, which Epicurus rejected.

Note: The 1911 Brittanica article on Epicurus is not NEARLY so useful, and is in fact insulting to Epicurus. Here are a few examples:

• The mode of life in his community was plain. The general drink was water and the food barley bread; half a pint of wine was held an ample allowance.
• The Epicurean philosophy is traditionally divided into the three branches of logic, physics and ethics. It is, however, only as a basis of facts and principles for his theory of life that logical and physical inquiries find a place at all. Epicurus himself had not apparently shared in any large or liberal culture, and his influence was certainly thrown on theside of those who depreciated purely scientific pursuits as one-sided and misleading.
• [Here is an allegation that Epicurus was an extreme empiricist and rejected all reasoning, and erroneously implies that Epicurus thought everyone would feel the same] It was necessary, therefore, for Epicurus to go back to nature to find a more enduring and a wider foundation for ethical doctrine, to go back from words to realities, to give up reasonings and get at feelings, to test conceptions and arguments by a final reference to the only touchstone of truth—to sensation. There, and there only, one seems to find a common and a satisfactory ground, supposing always that all men’s feelings give the same answer.
• [An allegation that Epicurus was an anarchist? Where does he get this?] Logic must go, but so also must the state, as a specially-privileged and eternal order of things, as anything more than a contrivance serving certain purposes of general utility.
• [The "all sensations are true" allegation without discussion of the "without opinion" element.] The only ultimate canon of reality is sensation; whatever we feel, whatever we perceive by any sense, that we know on the most certain evidence we can have to be real, and in proportion as our feeling is clear, distinct and vivid, in that proportion are we sure of the reality of its object. But in what that vividness (ἐνάργεια) consists is a question which Epicurus does not raise, and which he would no doubt have deemed superfluous quibbling over a matter sufficiently settled by common sense.
• [The Laertius version of anticipations.] Besides our sensations,we learn truth and reality by our preconceptions or ideas (προλήψεις). These are the fainter images produced by repeated sensations, the “ideas” resulting from previous “impressions”—sensations at second-hand as it were, which are stored up in memory, and which a general name serves to recall. These bear witness to reality, not because we feel anything now, but because we felt it once; they are sensations registered in language, and again, if need be, translatable into immediate sensations or groups of sensation.
• [He asserts the "fourth" leg of the canon, which Epicurus himself did not.] Lastly, reality is vouched for by the imaginative apprehensions of the mind (φανταστικαὶ ἐπιβολαί), immediate feelings of which the mind is conscious as produced by some action of its own. This last canon, however, was of dubious validity. Epicureanism generally was content to affirm that whatever we effectively feel in consciousness is real; in which sense they allow reality to the fancies of the insane, the dreams of a sleeper, and those feelings by which we imagine the existence of beings of perfect blessedness and endless life.
• [Says Epicurus was anti-science.]The attitude of Epicurus in this whole matter is antagonistic to science. The idea of a systematic enchainment of phenomena, in which each is conditioned by every other, and none can be taken in isolation and explained apart from the rest, was foreign to his mind. So little was the scientific conception of the solar system familiar to Epicurus that he could reproach the astronomers, because their account of an eclipse represented things otherwise than as they appear to the senses, and could declare that the sun and stars were just as large as they seemed to us.
• [As you would expect from someone who has a low opinion of Epicurus.] The test of true pleasure, according to Epicurus, is the removal and absorption of all that gives pain; it implies freedom from pain of body and from trouble of mind. The happiness of the Epicurean was, it might almost seem, a grave and solemn pleasure—a quiet unobtrusive ease of heart, but not exuberance and excitement. The sage of Epicureanism is a rational and reflective seeker for happiness, who balances the claims of each pleasure against the evils that may possibly ensue, and treads the path of enjoyment cautiously.

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.