Posts by Cassius

Elli I do have a couple of questions to be sure I understand your meaning:

(1) So what do you see as the proper understanding of "gods" in Epicurean philosophy? I see you referencing living as gods among men, and you are saying that Epicurus did not mean that literally. Can you say more about the implications of what he DID mean?

(2) And maybe as an example, how do you take the opening of Book 1 of Lucretius and how that fits into your view?

I know there's a lot more to this topic but I am sure the people in this thread would be interested in more details of your view given that you are so much more familiar with Greek traditions, current Greek Epicurean views, etc, than most of us are.

I'm still thinking about the details of how to respond to the substance, but more than that I want to say how good it is to see you posting again!

Google Translate says: "All this analysis is incredible, thanks to you for sharing it"

You are welcome Gilberto. Unfortunately most of us here speak only English...

Hello and welcome to the forum GilbertoMoncada

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!

"And the pleasure which we daily feel in all these things helps us to banish any sorrow." - Pericles the Athenian.

I consider this sentence by Pericles to be very important. He says that the pleasure which we 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 feel helps us to banish any sorrow. Yes, this is clear and obvious when many people in a society feel sorrow and melancholy are due to their fears of god, fear of death and are the same issues that lead to loneliness and depression the persons in a society. In this society people are not participating with gladness in common affairs political or religious. They are not creative. They are not grateful. They are not eudeamonic/blissful. They are fatalists, apathetics and suspicious to each other. And they blindly vote for leaders like themselves, who think that are like the axis of Earth spinning around the Universe. Because if the common affairs (philosophical, political, religious etc.) became boring, we may think and also this : Is there any virus in these peoples' life that provoke to them an illness as a great plague? Is there something that is going against to these peoples' nature?

IF the 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 things and common issues, in any society, bring to people the painful feelings of sorrow, stress, agony, depression and melancholy, this society is doomed to be dissolved because these feelings lead to suspicion and disastrous actions among same people. This society has no coherence anymore. And as the greek idiom says : "in any disaster, only the carnivorous wolves are feeling happy".

And here we read from Meneoceus : "I (Epicurus) have abolished the Necessity that is introduced by some thinkers as the mistress of all things, for it were better to subscribe to the myths concerning the gods than to be a slave to the Destiny of the physicists, because the former presumes a hope of mercy through worship but the latter assumes Necessity to be inexorable".

And that means for being united with the others in my society I will put all the probabilities on the table for doing the hedonic calculus according to the right study of Nature and my nature, and even to subscribe worshiping with others our common gods. Because for being bliss and happy I will use all the tools that lead myself and my society living our unique life in pleasure. Since we all 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 that there is no other life nowhere else.

But when these tools do not bring us pleasure anymore e.g. worshiping some gods, we are able to change and even the image of those gods because we are 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 to choose whatever brings to us pleasure. And when we say we are free, we are also 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀.

What means 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 ? It means also self-sufficient, and as Epicurus says, the great fruit of self-sufficiency is freedom. A𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 also is the swerve (pareglisi) which means we are responsible and capable to give all the laws by ourselves and for ourselves since, we do not accept that the laws are given by some leaders or by any god when they were proved harmful. We are able to change and the laws, and the leaders and the gods when they do not bring to us any 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 in our daily common affairs.
However, what the new greeks are doing now in Epicurus homeland? They insist to vote the same stupid leaders. They insist to follow stupid religious leaders who are spreading the same image of a foreign stupid god.

I want back again all the 30 thousand ancient greek gods that their image was given clearly by Epicurus as natural beings that were living in bliss and pleasure that is according to the natural and not the unnatural. I want back that Democracy of Pericles that is all described of how can be achieved in his epitaph. I want hundreds of epicurean Gardens to be established in the cities of Epicurus homeland. I want the epicurean philosophy to be taught properly inside the schools and academies. This choice and option is against the new greeks' sorrow and melancholy that became higher after the financial crisis.

No, thrice NO in Greece - and not only in Greece - the crisis 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥. The crisis is in all the values that have been turned upside down. The means i.e. the virtues became as abstract goals, and the real goal i.e. the pleasure and eudaemonia, and the proclaimer of these feelings Epicurus, is hidden and be slandered for centuries and centuries till our days.

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘄!

Quote from Martin

They are real optical phenomena which happen outside of our bodies, which our eyes report correctly to the brain and which are not tricks our eyes play on us.

Martin I probably expressed my point poorly, and the way you state this, I wonder if that makes mirages exactly a GOOD analogy to what Epicurus appears to be saying. He seems to be saying that the centaurs that are rarely but sometimes seen may be real optical phenomena too?

I suspect what we're talking about here is going to clarify as we proceed to talk about more details in the rest of the poem, so I'll just keep an open mind and we'll see where the discussion goes.

Quote from Elayne

He apparently didn't conceive of human imagination being a process which does not actually require something entering the brain from the outside,

I think this comment indicates what we can look at as we proceed to clarify things. But already I would say I would not approach it from the "didn't conceive" perspective because it seems more likely to me that he certainly would have entertained that possibility (for example is it not inherent in Plato's theory of "remembering"?) I would think it's more likely that what we're dealing with is something more along the lines of the statement to the effect that "The gods would have had no pattern either" as one of his arguments as to why the universe is not supernaturally created. He did seem to stress that we have to have experiences / stimuli in order to get our minds working in the first place.

Possibly he is making the very broad point that even imagination is ultimately the mind recombining past experiences in different ways so that in effect it is true that everything going on in our minds is our processing and recombining of past observations / stimulations that we've received since birth, mixed with anything that is innate.

I think here in this too about Cicero's comment to Cassius Longinus joking/ridiculing that maybe he was thinking about Cassius because his spectre floated into his mind.... Whatever is going on here Epicurus must have been understood to have emphasized the importance of outside stimuli in a way that we are finding counterintuitive -- or maybe this is another example of him looking at things in ways so different than we are conditioned to do that we don't fully recognize what he was saying.

No doubt we're going to conclude that significant aspects of what he was saying were "wrong" according to our current knowledge, but I'd also bet that if we consider broadly the point that he was making it's likely we're going to find that he had good reasons for his positions.

I have never been one to accept explanations of Epicurus' views simply because they are "convenient" to other parts of his theories, but I do think in this case we have a very convenient use for the discussions involved in the Centaur issue. It is probably helpful - and even probably true - that people can get very strongly convinced that they see or hear certain things that others can't validate - and in fact in most cases they can't themselves validate by future observations. So long as we insist firmly that ultimately things MUST be validated by ongoing observations that are "verifiable," then it's probably helpful in many ways to be open to the possibility that "the light plays tricks on us" or that phenomena such as the illusions we are about to discuss in the rest of book 4 can in fact appear to us to be something real when in fact it is not.

There are many aspects of religion and views of the gods that I think Epicurus would be loathe to accommodate or "humor," but there are also the kind of innocent and naive assertions that some people make that they "saw something" that might be explainable to them by explaining the effects and possibilities of "images" - and without stretching the truth as to what "can" happen. It would probably be easy to analogize the tricks our eyes play on us in things like the mirages of pools of water in the desert, and I doubt it would be far off to describe that as an interplay of images "flying through the air" in ways we don't expect. If I remember correctly we'll have a lot more occasion to entertain the possibility of using images to explain false views of the gods and the rise of religion in the material upcoming in book 5.

I think this will clarify as we proceed and I'm perfectly prepared to think that it may be my own views that change more than others' here. Although I've read and listened to these sections numbers of times in the past this is really the first time I've discussed it in the level of detail that we are doing now, so I am sure I'll have much to revise as we go forward.

Here is a quick note that my thoughts are beginning to clarify as to what I'd like to target for my own activity in 2021 in addition to the ongoing projects.

Most of my thoughts revolve around continuity and stability, and I continue to see two things that I really want to accomplish:

(1) I want to get back to developing a completely free and open set of core texts that will always be easily findable and downloadable. What I mean here is I want to take the work I've already done in compiling digital text versions of the core documents and get those better organized for further editing and organization. Being the computer geek that I am, I continue to play with the idea that Epicurean philosophy is closely akin to a computer's "operating system," and I know the way that people collaborate to refine operating systems and computer software is to use facilities like "github" to publish into the public domain core material that others can "fork" and use however they see fit. I think a good clean copy of the Diogenes Laertius biography, plus Lucretius and the collection we have through Bailey's "Extant Remains" would be a good core set of material that everyone who has any interest in Epicurus at all should have a copy of from the very beginning. It's going to be a decade or more (I forget) before DeWitt's book can be added to that, but setting up some sort of standard reference would be a big help to a lot of people and would make sure that the material never gets "lost" again. So my specific goal here is to set up some text at a location like this ( https://guides.github.com/features/wikis/ ) and set up a structure to refine it over time on the condition that everything in it is totally public domain and totally "open source" and re-pursose-able by anyone who wants to use it for any purpose, free or for-profit or whatever. I don't completely understand how the "professionals' do this, but here is a page of explanation of how people work together on something like this: https://guides.github.com/

(2) Item one is more my area of expertise, and this item is not at all, but just like we need a set of standard reference texts for the knowledge / abstraction side, people really need a standard method of thinking about how to organize their Epicurean friendships in real life. We've never been able to develop a workable structure for a real-life Society of Epicurus or even a pattern for a Meetup Group, but there's got to be a way to make progress on that. I suppose EpicureanFriends.com is itself a prototype for how people can get together online, but there's got to be a way to develop a structure for people to get together at least a small group in their local communities (at least if those communities are large enough). This probably means a short but clear "organizational plan" that would be something like what one would expect to be used by the Kiwanis Club or Lions Club or whatever - a pattern for getting together locally and live at least once a month, and a set agenda for what is to be done at that meeting. Getting much more detailed than that has proved unworkable so far, but I would at least like us to devote a thread to the topic so we can brainstorm to see what is possible. So my specific goal here is to at least make a start at an organizational document that can provide a structure for local teamwork, probably also basing it totally openly and public domain as with the github link above.

I agree to this extent - that I don't like the term "self-generated" or even "self-arising" and I am not suggesting that they are self-generated even under the suggestions I am making. What this text seems to clearly indicate to me is that due to natural movements of particles just like all others the images become enmeshed in ways that were not generated by an actual object in the first place, just like any kind of wave is going to be altered by contact with another wave. It's in our minds that we assemble them and believe them to be actual centaurs. I am not sure I even see the issue here or what would need to be left unexplained? Certainly our greater knowledge gives us greater insight as to what particles and waves are ever-present in the "atmosphere" around us, but the basic insight that our senses are interacting with material things that are "flying through space" seems to me to be pretty reasonable(?)

I tend to think that clouds may provide a useful example to discuss but that we should not link this topic to closely to clouds so as to imply that clouds are the only or even a primary example. For the same reason I am concerned that focus on calling them "self-generated images" may be too limiting.

My suspicion is that this subject of particle flows is like eternity and infinity - the implications of this are huge and Epicurus is following the implications much more deeply than we would think of doing today. Those implications will derive from the presumption that all objects are constantly giving off streams of particles in all directions, and that these particles are constantly producing all sorts of results as their streams impact each other and interfere with each other. I think we should indeed be comparing these thoughts with modern optics/physics ideas like interference waves we discuss today. As with the example of clouds, the example of eyes and vision may be a primary example but not at all the only example. Is our understanding of magnetism today as deriving from particle flows really that much different than Epicurus is discussing? Is there really any reason to draw a bright line between our terminology of "energy" and what Epicurus was suggesting (that whatever exists has a real material basis to it)?

We haven't gotten yet to the discussion of magnetism as particle flows but that is going to be directly relevant: https://archive.org/details/lucret…e/n643/mode/2up

1743 Commentary on magnetism:

Excerpt from the text:

This is just a short clip - the whole section is important - we are not just talking about the process of sight.

As we continue through book four and the rest of the book we're going to confront many examples of illusions and phenomena that appear to derive from particle flows, and I think we need to keep a very open mind that his suggestions are not so ridiculous as they might seem. "Action at a distance", of which magnetism is maybe one of the easiest to grasp examples (since we can hold it in our hands so easily) must have an explanation other than magic or divinity, and as I understand the issues even as discussed today, particle flows remain a viable explanation. And if those particle flows we see in magnetism are really just one example of an essentially numberless quantity of particles flowing in all directions at all times, then Epicurus was right in considering this to be a very important subject and not just something for idle speculation.

In this episode we get into a discussion of how images of things which never existed can be formed by images becoming distorted as they move through the air. Probably the most specific reference on point to this is in regard to centaurs, and here is a clip with that reference. This is around Latin line 736:

(Actually I need to check to see whether this is discussion is Episode 52 (not posted as of this writing) or 51)

Today I see that Jordan has rejoined the Epicurean philosophy Facebook group, and posted a long piece about his background. That material needs to be here on this website somewhere for those who interact with Jordan, so I'm pasting it here. Jordan if you prefer it to be somewhere else or want to expand or elaborate, please do:

Hello all. My story goes thus: I come from an atheist family from Britain. We moved to rural South Africa when I was ten, and I was placed in schools where the curriculum was explicitly guided by Protestant Fundamentalism. I'll never forget a cartoon in my biology textbook where a kid from this perfect white nuclear family runs up to a chimpanzee enclosure at the local zoo and exclaims, "Gee, Dad! He looks like a man!" And then, sanctimoniously, the Dad delivers all the usual Young Earth Creationist drivel. Throughout my teens, I rebelled against religion. I had a penchant for National Geographic, and I knew all the YEC doctrines were crap -- and I lost no opportunity to tell the students and teachers their beliefs were nonsense.

When I returned to the UK when I was 19, I got very interested in the New Atheist movement -- led by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. However, in 2017 I underwent a powerful religious experience which I interpreted as an Evangelical experience of Christ. I became an Anglican -- never a YEC -- but I always felt uncomfortable with the traditional doctrines. They struck me as either metaphysically implausible, or ethically questionable. But I'd discovered the benefits of religiosity, of having an ideology to guide me and base my identity on; of having a community of like-minded friends with whom to discuss philosophy. So I tried to stick it out, hoping my doubts would eventually peter out. But they didn't, and about nine months later I grudgingly and sadly renounced my faith.

Then I discovered liberal theology, popularised by the likes of Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. But the initial excitement of finding a more intellectually fulfilling theology was replaced by a feeling of disappointment, both at how unrecognisable it made the Christian faith and at how unpopular and alienating a theology it is. And so, I renounced my faith again. It was around this time I discovered a book called 'The Pleasure Principle' by Catherine Wilson, and I felt an immediate affinity with the philosophy of Epicurus. It seemed to offer purpose, meaning, and value in an ontologically purposeless, meaningless, and valueless physical universe, while at the same time avoiding the pallid nihilism of the existentialists.

I became very active in one of the Epicurean online communities for the next year, but then my undeniable desire for religiosity pulled me away from Epicureanism and back towards Christianity. However, my return to Christianity was nothing more than a shorter version of my first stint: I felt attracted to Faith, but soon I found I couldn't accept the traditional doctrines; I explored liberal theology, but I again found it underwhelming, and I returned to atheism. But atheism alone is not enough -- at least for me -- and I have returned to what I consider the most attractive atheist worldview -- the philosophy of Epicurus.

However, there is a difference between atheism and secularism. The first is the denial of a transcendent God, the second is the rejection of religion. Epicureanism is a form of atheism, but it needn't necessarily be a form of secularism. It can be an atheist religion, and I am deeply interested in what I call Epicurean Neopaganism. Neopaganism is an atheistic religious movement which interprets the gods of classical religions as concepts, ideals, symbols, or archetypes to be worshipped. It is a way of seeing the world as divine, rather than claiming the world is divine. We see a version of this in Lucretius:

"If anyone decided to call the sea Neptune, and corn Ceres, and to misapply the name of Bacchus rather than to give liquor its right name, so be it; and let him dub the round world "Mother of the Gods" so long as he is careful not really to infest his mind with base superstitions."

My favourite part of On the Nature of Things is the glorious opening hymn to Venus, the chief "deity" of Epicurean Neopaganism. Here is a quote from the Introduction of the Penguin version of On the Nature of Things:

"Lucretius’ Venus may seem to have too many functions: she is the mother of the Romans, the Epicurean pleasure principle, the season of spring, the sexual drive, the goddess of peace and a kind of muse invoked to impart beauty to the poet’s language. How, it may be asked, can a single figure symbolize so many disparate things? But that is precisely Lucretius’ point: everything that happens, the experience of pleasure, the winds blowing, the flowers blooming in the spring, the beasts rutting, the poet composing – has the same essential cause. Every action, all creation and all destruction are alike the product of the push and pull of atoms, of these elementary particles colliding, cohering or flying apart."

Venus, in Epicurean Neopaganism, is a way of poetically worshipping Nature within the confines of metaphysical naturalism. It is a middle way between the superstition of Abrahamic faith and New Atheist anti-spirituality, and it's a project I'm keen to develop. Would this be of interest to other members? Even if it isn't, I hope to get to know many of the other members through participating in the interests of this group.

Peace and safety to all!

Quote from Don

I also think that Epicurus via Lucretius is adamant about receiving particles *from* bodies to contrast with other philosophers that said vision was possible by something coming from the viewer (like a flashlight).

On this point i read a little from DeWitt on the workings of vision in the podcast today, and you're definitely right in your flashlight comment. DeWitt says Plato and/or Democritus held to that view.

Quote from Don

However, I am more than happy to share any progress on personal projects (On Piety, Letter to Menoikeus, Epicurean practices experiments, etc.).

You seem to have ample going on with your personal projects and it would be a shame to interrupt them, so please don't! Your posts with your personal research have been great additions to the forum. My comments are mainly directed at those of us (like me) who could make more efficient use of their time and have inclinations in other areas that they aren't currently pursuing.

Episode Fifty-One of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's episode, we begin book four, and start the discussion of "images." As always we invite your comments and suggestions.

As we wind down from the Christmas/New Year break and stare at a new work week facing us come Monday, it occurs to me that once again this time, as for the last several years, I approach the holidays with lots of goals and enthusiasm which generally don't come to fruition I've enjoyed this end-of-year break as much as most any in memory, and yet I didn't get done nearly the number of things that I wanted to get done.

I make this point because I think at least in my case this points to the value of a "routine" in which we methodically live most of the days of our lives and get things done in an orderly way. And I think that's what we need in our Epicurean work too -- a routine of activity which keeps us going during the normal ups and downs of life.

Tonight I am editing the Lucretius podcast for the week and that has given me lots of stability in pressing forward with that despite whatever is going on elsewhere. I hope we can expand the number of projects and people participating in them so we can have more regular contact with each other, and draw more inspiration and fuel from the best we can do with our friendships - "online" as they may be at this point.

Welcome to Episode Fifty-Two 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. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a self-taught Epicurean. 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 today's episode, we read Latin Text 230-323

Munro Notes

230-268: we feel a thing in the dark, and know it to be the same as we saw in the light: if what we feel is square, what square object can come in the light to our sight except its image, since a like effect must have a like cause? images proceed from things in all directions; but as we only see with the eyes, we only see images where we turn our sight to them. Again an image pushes before it the air between it and the eye; this air all sweeps through the pupil, and lets us judge of the distance of the object seen; and all this takes place almost instantaneously: we do not see the images singly, but we see the object by a continuous succession of these; just as we do not feel each particle of wind, but the effect of the whole : and so too we thump the surface of a stone, but feel its inner hardness.

269-323 : the image is seen not at the surface of the mirror, but beyond and within it in the same way that real objects are seen through and beyond an open door, namely by two airs: it was explained above, how the distance of an object from the eye was perceived by means of the air between it and the eye; thus you see first the distance of the open doorway by one air, then comes another air between the doorway and the object outside, which lets you see how far it is beyond the door: thus too the mirror and its distance from us is seen by means of its image which propels before it the air between the mirror and the eye, which first sees this air, then the mirror; then when we have perceived the latter, the image which goes from us to it, comes back to us, but drives onward an air which is seen before the image, and makes it appear so far distant beyond the mirror. Again our image in the mirror has the right answering to our left, the left to our right, because on coming against the mirror it is dashed straight out in the reverse direction, like a wet plaster-mask thrown against a post. Again a series of mirrors disposed in a certain way can bring into view all the recesses and turnings of a building. Again concave mirrors shew our image with right answering to right, left to left. Again the images step and move as we do, because when you withdraw from any part of the mirror, images cannot come from that part of the mirror.

1743 Browne

Besides, since any figure we feel with our hands in the dark, we know to be the same we before saw by day, and in the clearest light, the touch and sight must needs be moved by the same cause; and therefore, if we feel a quadrangular figure and distinguish its shape in the dark, what can present that shape to us in the light but its quadrangular image? The cause therefore of our sight must arise from the images, nor indeed can we distinguish any thing without them.

Now these images I am speaking of are carried about every way, and are thrown off and scattered on all sides; and therefore it is, since with our eyes alone we are able to see, that which way soever we turn our eyes, the objects strike upon them in their proper form and color. The image likewise is the cause that we discover, and takes care to satisfy us at what distance bodies are removed from us, for as soon as it is emitted, it instantly thrusts forward, and drives on the air that is placed between itself and the sight; this stream of air then glides to the eye, and as it were grates gently upon the ball, and so passes through. Hence it is that we perceive how far things are distant from our sight; for the more air there is that is driven before the image, and the longer the stream of it that rubs upon the ball, the longer the interval of space between the object and the eye must be allowed to be. All this is done with the utmost celerity, for we see what the object is and know its distance in the same instance. Nor are we to think it at all strange in this case that the objects may be perfectly seen, and yet the images that singly strike the eye cannot themselves be discovered, for when the wind blows gently upon us, and its sharp cold pierces our bodies, we cannot distinguish the several particles of wind or cold that so affect us, but we are sensible of their whole strength together; we perceive their blows laid upon our bodies as if something were beating us, and made us feel the effects of its outward force upon us. And so when we strike a stone with our fingers we touch the surface and out most color of the stone, but then we feel nothing of the color or surface by our touch, we perceive no more than the hardness of the stone that lies within.

And now learn why the image is always seen beyond the glass, for it certainly appears at a remote distance from us. For instance: when you are placed in an inner room, and things are seen at a distance from you, when the door is open, and gives you a clear prospect, and allows you plainly to discover any object without, your sight in this case is formed, as I may say, by a double air; the air that lies within the door is the first, then the door is placed in the middle between, and then the light without that rubs gently upon the eye, this is the other air; and at length the object is discovered. So when the image of the glass first flies off, as it makes a passage to our sight, it strikes forward, and drives on the air that lies between itself and the eye, so that we feel all this interjacent air before we see anything of the glass; but when we discover the glass, the image that is emitted from us instantly flies to it, and being reflected and sent back, returns again to our sight, and forces the air that is before it, which is the reason that we perceive this interjacent air before the image is seen by us. Now when two airs are driven (the image of the glass forcing on one, and the image reflected another) the interval must of necessity be more extended, and even doubled. Hence it is that the images appears not in the surface of the glass, but beyond it, and therefore we are not to wonder at all that the images of things reflected to our sight, from the surface of a smooth glass, by means of a double air, because it appears plainly that they are so.

But more: That the part of the body that is the right side appears in the glass to be the left, because the image, when it strikes upon the surface of the glass, is not reflected again unchanged, but is turned a different way about. For instance: Take a mask made of clay, before it is dry, and dash it against a pillar or beam; if it preserves its figure entire, and appears inverted only so that the face fills up the hollow, the event will be that the right eye will now be the left, and the left the right. And then it may be contrived that the image shall pass from one glass into another, so that five or six images shall be reflected at once; and objects that are placed backwards in the inward part of the house, let them be ever so much out of sight, and the turnings ever so crooked, they may be drawn out through the winding passages, and by the placing of so many glasses be perfectly discovered. The image may be so transferred from one glass into another that it will change its left into its right, but when it is again reflected from the second glass into the third it will resume its left part again, and will continue to change in the same manner as it passes into all the glasses that follow. But in glasses joined together in the convex figure of a pillar, the side of the image reflected is returned so that the right part of the image answers to the right of the object or thing seen; either because the image, being transferred from one glass into another, is reflected twice, or that the image, when it comes to us, is turned about; for that the face is turned about as it passes backwards we learn from the figure of the glass. Besides, you would believe that the image moves with us, and attends all our steps, and imitates our gestures, because, when you retire from any part of the glass, the image cannot be reflected from that part; for Nature ordains that all images that are emitted from bodies should be returned and reflected by equal angles.

Munro

Again since a particular figure felt by the hands in the dark is known to be the same which is seen in the bright light of day, touch and sight must be excited by a quite similar cause. Well then if we handle a square thing and it excites our attention in the dark, in the daylight what square thing will be able to fall on our sight, except the image of that thing? Therefore the cause of it is plain lies in images and no thing can be perceived without them.

Well, the idols of things I speak of are borne along all round and are discharged and transmitted in all directions; but because we can see with the eyes alone, the consequence is that, to whatever point we turn our sight, there all the several things meet and strike it with their shape and color. And the image gives the power to see and the means to distinguish how far each thing is distant from us; for as soon as ever it is discharged, it pushes before it and impels all the air which lies between it and the eyes; and thus that air all streams through our eyes and brushes so to say the pupils and so passes through. The consequence is that we see how far distant each thing is. And the greater the quantity of air which is driven on before it and the larger the current which brushes our eyes, the more distant each different thing is seen to be. You must know these processes go on with extreme rapidity, so that at one and the same moment we see what like a thing is and how far distant it is. And this must by no means be deemed strange herein that, while the idols which strike the eyes cannot be seen one at a time, the things themselves are seen. For thus when the wind too beats us with successive strokes and when piercing cold streams, we are not wont to feel each single particle of that wind and cold, but rather the whole result; and then we perceive blows take effect on our body just as if something or other were beating it and giving us a sensation of its body outside. Again when we thump a stone with a finger, we touch merely the outermost color on the surface of the stone, and yet we do not feel that color by our touch, but rather we feel the very hardness of the stone seated in its inmost depths.

Now mark, and learn why the image is seen beyond the mirror; for without doubt it is seen withdrawn far within. The case is just the same as with things which are viewed in their reality beyond a door, when it offers through it an unobstructed prospect and lets many things outside be seen from a house. That vision too is effected by two separate airs: first there is an air seen in such a case inside the doorway; next come the leaves of the door right and left; next a light outside brushes the eyes, then a second air, then those things outside which are viewed in their reality. Thus when the image of the mirror has first discharged itself, in coming to our sight it pushes forward and impels all the air which lies between it and the eyes, and enables us to see the whole of it before the mirror. But when we have perceived the mirror as well, at once the image which is conveyed from us reaches the mirror and then is reflected and comes back to our eyes, and drives on and rolls in front of it a second air and lets us see this before itself, and for this reason it looks so far withdrawn from the mirror.

Wherefore again and again I repeat there is no cause at all to wonder why the images give back the reflection from the surface of mirrors in the spot they do, since in both the given cases the result is produced by two airs. To proceed, the right side of our body is seen in mirrors to be on the left, because when the image comes and strikes on the plane of the mirror, it is not turned back unaltered, but is beaten out in a right line backwards, just as if you were to take a plaster mask before it is dry and dash it on a pillar or beam, and it forthwith were to preserve the lines of its features undistorted in front and were to strike out an exact copy of itself straight backwards. The result will be that the eye which was right will now be left; and conversely the left become the right. An image may also be so transmitted from one mirror to another that five or six idols are often produced. And thus all the things which lurk in the inmost corners of a house, however far they are withdrawn into tortuous recesses, may yet be all brought out through winding passages by the aid of a number of mirrors and be seen to be in the house. So unfailingly does the image reflect itself from mirror to mirror; and when the left side is presented, it becomes the right in the new image; then it is changed back again and turns round to what it was. Moreover all little sides of mirrors which possess a curvature resembling our side, send back to us idols with their right corresponding to our right either for this reason, because the image is transmitted from one mirror to another, and then after it has been twice struck out flies to us, or else because the image, when it has come to the mirror, wheels about, because the curved shape of the mirror teaches it to turn round and face us. Again you would think that idols step out and put down their foot at the same time with us and mimic our action, because from before whatever part of a mirror you move away, from that part forthwith no idols can be reflected; since nature constrains all things, when they are carried back and recoil from things, to be given back at angles equal to those at which they impinged.

Bailey

Moreover, since a shape felt by the hands in the darkness is known to be in some way the same as is seen in the light and the clear brightness, it must needs be that touch and sight are stirred by a like cause. If then we handle a square thing, and it stirs our touch in the darkness, what square thing can fall upon our sight in the light, except its image? Wherefore it is clear that the cause of seeing lies in the images, nor without them can anything be seen.

Next those things which I call the idols of things are borne everywhere, and are cast off and meted out to every side. But because we can see them only with our eyes, for that cause it comes to pass that, to whatever side we turn our sight, all things there strike against it with their shape and hue. And how far each thing is away from us, the image causes us to see and provides that we distinguish. For when it is given off, straightway it pushes and drives before it all the air that has its place between it and the eyes, and thus it all glides through our eyeballs, and, as it were, brushes through the pupils, and so passes on. Therefore it comes to pass that we see how far away each thing is. And the more air is driven on in front, and the longer the breeze which brushes through our eyes, the further each thing is seen to be removed. But you must know that these things are brought to pass by means exceeding quick, so that we see what it is and at the same time how far it is away. Herein by no means must we deem there is cause to wonder why the idols which strike the eyes cannot be seen one by one, but the whole things are descried. For when wind too lashes us little by little, and when piercing cold streams on us, we are not wont to feel each separate particle of that wind and cold, but rather all at once, and then we perceive blows coming to pass on our body, just as if something were lashing us and giving us the feeling of its body without. Moreover, when we strike a stone with our finger, we touch the very outside of the rock and its colour on the surface, yet we do not feel the colour with our touch, but rather we feel the very hardness of the rock deep down beneath.

Come now and learn why the image is seen beyond the mirror; for indeed it seems removed far within. It is even as those things which in very truth are seen outside a door, when the door affords an unhindered sight through it, and lets many things out of doors be seen from the house. For that vision too is brought to pass by two twin airs. For first the air on our side of the jambs is seen in such a case, then follow the folding doors themselves on right and left, afterwards the light outside brushes through the eyes, and a second air, and then those things which in very truth are seen without the doors. So when first the image of the mirror has cast itself adrift, while it is coming to our pupils, it pushes and drives before it all the air which has its place between it and our eyes, and so makes us able to perceive all this air before the mirror. But when we have perceived the mirror itself too, straightway the image which is borne from us passes to the mirror, and being cast back returns to our eyes and drives on and rolls in front of it another air, and makes us see this before itself, and therefore seems to be just so much distant from the mirror.

Wherefore, again and again, it is not right at all that we should wonder [that this appearance comes to be both for those things which are really seen out of doors, and also] for those things which send back a vision from the level surface of the mirrors; since in either case it is brought about by the two airs. Next it comes to pass that the part of our limbs which is on the right is seen in mirrors on the left, because when the image comes to the plane of the mirror and strikes against it, it is not turned round unchanged, but is dashed back straight; just as if one were to dash a plaster mask, before it is dry, against a pillar or a beam, and it at once were to preserve its shape turned straight to meet us, and were to mould again its own features dashed back towards us. Thus it will come to pass that what was before the right eye, now in turn is the left, and the left in exchange is now the right. It comes to pass too that the image is handed on from mirror to mirror, so that even five or six idols are wont to be made. For even when things are hidden far back in an inner part of the room, yet, however far distant from the sight along a twisting path, it may be that they will all be brought out thence by winding passages, and, thanks to the several mirrors, be seen to be in the house. So surely does the image reflect from mirror to mirror, and when a left hand is presented, it comes to pass that it is changed to the right, and then once again it is changed about and returns to where it was before. Moreover, all flank-curved mirrors, endowed with a curve like to our flanks, send back to us right-handed idols, either because the image is borne across from one part of the mirror to another, and then flies towards us, twice dashed back, or else because the image is twisted around, when it has arrived, because the curved shape of the mirror teaches it to turn round towards us. Moreover, you would believe that idols walk step by step and place their feet as we do, and imitate our gait, just because, from whatever part of the mirror you retire, straightway the idols cannot be turned back from it, inasmuch as nature constrains all things to be carried back, and leap back from things, sent back at equal angles.

This is the 1743 Browne translation (approximately 380 of the Latin text of Book 4)

Our shadows seem to move with us in the sun, to follow our steps, and imitate our gestures (if you can suppose that air, void of light, is able to walk, and to follow the motions and gestures of the body; for what we usually call shadow can be nothing but the air deprived of light). The reason is because as we walk we hinder the rays of the sun from striking upon a certain part of the earth, which by that means becomes dark; but that as we leave the place it is covered with light, and therefore it is that the shadow of the body over against it follows us in all our motions. For a train of new rays are continually flowing from the sun; and the first dies away like thread of wool drawn through a flame, and by this means that part of the earth is soon deprived of light, and again becomes bright, and discharges the black shade that hung upon it.

But in this case we are not in the least to allow that the eyes are deceived; it is their business to discover only where the light and shade are, but to determine nothing whether the light be the same, or the shadow be the same that moves from one place to another, or whether it be as we explained above. It is the office of the mind and judgment to distinguish this, for the eyes can know nothing of the nature of things, and therefore you are not to impute to them the failures of the mind.

Don it looks like Takis from Greece calculated it differently last year -- as January 20th:

Fist my post, then Takis'  reply:

Here is the information from Gassendi's Life of Epicurus - Chap 2. The Time of His Birth:

Epicurus was born (as Laertius relates out of the Chronology of Apollodorus) in the 3rd year of the 109th Olympiad, the 7th day of the month Gamelion; at whose birth, [30] Pliny saith, the Moon was twenty daies old. Hecatombeon (the first month) this year falling in the Summer of the year 4372. of the Julian Period, (now used by Chronologers) it is manifest, that Gamelion the same year, being the 7th month from Hecatombeon, fell upon the beginning of the year 4373, which was before the ordinary computation from Christ 341 compleat years. Now forasmuch as in January, in which month the beginning of Gamelion is observ’d to have fallen, there happened a new Moon in the Attick Horizon, by the Tables of Celestiall Motions, the fourth day, in the morning, (or the third day, according to the Athenians, who as [31]Censorinus saith, reckon their day from Sun-set to Sun-set) and therefore the twentieth day of the Moon is co-incident with the three and twentieth of January; it will follow, that Epicurus was born on the 23rd of January, if we suppose the same form of the year extended from the time of Cefar, upwards. And this in the old style, according to which the cycle of the Sun, or of the Dominical letters for that year, (it being Biffextile) was BA, whence the 23rd day of January must have been Sunday. But if we suit it with the Gregorian account, which is ten daies earlier, (now in use with us we shall find, that Epicurus was born on the 2nd of February, which was Sunday, (for the Dominicall Letters must have been ED.) in the year before Christ, or the Christian computation, 341. and consequently in the 1974th year, compleat, before the beginning of February this year, which is from Christ 1634. Some things here must not be passed by.

First, that [32] Laertius observes Sosigenes to have been Archon the same year, wherein Epicurs was born, and that it was the 7th year from the death of Plato. Moreover, it was the 16th of Alexander, for it was, as the same [33] Laertius affirms, the year immediately following that, in which Aristotle was sent for to come to him, then 15 years old.

Secondly, that [34] Eusebius can hardly be excused from a mistake, making Epicurus to flourish in the 112th Olympiad; for at that time, Epicurus scarce had pass’d his childhood, and Aristotle began but to flourish in the Lyceum, being returned the foregoing Olympiad out of Macedonia, as appears from [35] Laertius.

Thirdly, that the error which is crept into [36] Suidas, and hath deceived his Interpreter, is not to be allowed, who reports Epicurus born in the 79th Olympiad. I need not take notice, how much this is inconsistent, not onely with other relations, but even with that which followeth in Suidas, where he extends his life to Antigonus Gonotas: I shall onely observe, that, for the number of Olympiads, Suidas having doubtlesse set down ςθ, which denote the 109th Olympiad, the end of the ς was easily defaced in the Manuscript, so as there remained onely ο, by which means of οθ, was made the 79th Olympiad.

Fourthly, that it matters not that the Chronicon Alexandrinum, Georgius Sincellus, and others, speak too largely of the time wherein Epicurus flourished, and that we heed not the errous of some person, otherwise very learned, who make Aristippus later then Epicurus, and something of the like kind. Let us onely observe what [37] St. Hierom cites out of Cicero pro Gallio; a Poet is there mentioned, making Epicurus and Socrates discoursing together, Whose times, saith Cicero, we know were disjoyned, not by years, but ages.

Fifthly, that the birth-day of Epicurus, taken from Laertius and Pliny, seems to argue, that amongst the Athenians of old, the Civill months and the Lunary had different beginnings. This indeed will seem strange, unlesse we should imagine it may be collected, that the month Gamelion began onely from the full Moon that went before it; for, if we account the 14th day of the Moon to be the first of the month, the first of the Moon will fall upon the 7th of the month. Not to mention, that Epicurus seems in his Will to appoint his birth to be celebrated on the first Decad of the dayes of the month Gamelion, because he was born in one of them; and then ordaineth something more particular concerning the 20th of the Moon, for that it was his birth-day, as we shall relate hereafter. Unlesse you think it fit to follow the [38] anonymous Writer, who affirms, Epicurus was born on the 20th day of Gamelion; but I know not whether his authority should out-weigh Laertius. Certainly, many errours, and those very great, have been observed in him, particularly by Meurfius. I shall not take notice, that the XXXX of Gamelion might perhaps be understood of the 20th of the Moon, happening within the month Gamelion, from Cicero, whose words we shall cite hereafter. But this by the way.

Takis Panagiotopoulos:

2020-01-02/03

You can see next years here https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…ZIOiotVTJ5Gb1EQ
The day of moon calendar begins from the afternoon so 7th gamelion is from 2 until 3 January on this year. For 2021 the 7th gamelion is from afternoon of 20 January until next afternoon 21 January.

Elli Pensa:
Γᾰμηλῐών • (Gamēliṓn) (genitive Γᾰμηλῐῶνος)
Τhe seventh month of the Attic calendar, corresponding to the lunar term around January and February during which many weddings were customary, because it was the anniversary of Zeus and Hera's weddings but also because wars usually stopped when the winter began. Thus, the couple were enjoying themselves as newly married but also seeking to acquire children - also this period had several celebrations and there were not many agricultural works.
Cassius:
Thank you Takis and Elli! I am going to go ahead and mark our calendars for January 2, 2020, and January 20, 2021! Thank you!

Thanks for reminding us of the upcoming birthday! Every year we go through this same issue. Let's make a new thread for this and talk about how to commemorate it.

I also posted this at facebook to see if the Greeks who check that page come up with a different calculation.