Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

it can incorporate an idea like the multiverse or evolution or the possibility of alien life or other science with barely a shrug

As to the alien life, of course we know that Epicurus specifically predicted that to occur, which I think is an example of how he did take the position that we could use logic based on observation to produce rules in which we can have confidence ("nature never makes only a single thing of a kind") to extrapolate what we see here to other places which we have not seen. (Pretty much the same goes with a theory of evolution, at least of a kind, and also "other worlds" if you consider "worlds" to be analogous to a universe.)

I do think it is important to consider what seem to be the rules of extrapolating. Seems to me that epicurus is saying that those rules include preference (or at least, accepting it as more substantial evidence) that if we see a thing here, then we know it CAN exist. That gives the thing a head up over pure speculation of something that has never been observed, such as the kind of speculating that says that something MAY exist somewhere else just because we haven't been there to eliminate it.

That's probably not well stated on my part, but I think that's what's going on in our current example of where we are in Book 2. Where we are now, Lucretius has been saying that there must be a limit to size of an atom because to not have a limit would be inconceivable. (Presumably because or else we would see them? Or else if there were not a limit, then a single atom would take up the full universe?)

In other words, it seems to be a premise that Epicurus held that it is legitimate to hold that conditions that we observe here (never seeing an atom; no one thing of a single kind) are at least to some extent extrapolatable throughout the infinite universe. ("At least to some extent" meaning that if we observe them here there is a good reason to expect we will observe them elsewhere where conditions are similar.)

Now what I have just said may not be a good summary at all, but these are the issues I think they were getting at, and they deserve a lot of thought:

Are we not justified in having confidence in certain conclusions about the entire universe (that there is no supernatural god) based on extrapolation of what is observed here? And we have confidence of that even in face of the argument that "But you've never been there!" The answer to that question would have to be "yes i can be confident in some things (no supernatural god there either)" or else we'd never have confidence in much of anything. If we admit any possibility just because we've never been there, no confidence would ever be possible, it would be possible for the supernatural god from the next universe over to pop in at any moment. It seems clear to me that Epicurus did (and was justified in) ruling out that sort of argument.

We're dealing in complex logical issues but the only way to get confident in our conclusion is to think about what we're saying and consider the alternatives, just as he said in suggesting we think about infinity. Because infinity can either be our worst enemy ("the anything is possible argument") or our best friend (Godfrey's it eliminates supernatural gods, for one thing) in getting confident about our decisions on how to live.

I'm going to drop this here without elaboration but we also need to keep in mind in thinking about infinity the related issue we've discussed elsewhere about PD3 and the "limit of pleasure" in how Plato , Seneca, and others argued that a thing cannot be "the best" unless it has a limit, and they alleged pleasure to be something that is unlimited and therefore rejected from competition for the role of "best life." I would expect there to be a clear connection between getting comfortable with discussing limit vs infinity in the field of pleasure (ethics) and limit vs infinity in the field of physics.

Is it possible that one of the issues Epicurus saw was that we need to get comfortable with the idea of the unlimited universe being the highest there is so that we can get comfortable with allegedly unlimited pleasure as the highest goal of life?

Stated another way, maybe one way to get comfortable that there is no single goal of life that is the same for everyone is to compare that question to the size of the universe, for which there is also no single set "end" that everyone would reach if they traveled infinitely in the same direction? No single "best life" might be comparable to no single "end" of the universe in any direction. In both cases we are tempted to think that a supernatural god is the answer for both, but in fact there is no supernatural god and the entire question is logically illegitimate (because we have never observed evidence for a supernatural god, but we have observed lots of evidence that things work naturally, and we reject the "it's possible because we haven't been there to eliminate it" argument).

Having confidence in our answer to one of these questions helps (I think) with our confidence in answering the other one.

I've never really had any major issue with the idea of "multiverses" so long as the presumption is still there that everything is natural and there's no supernatural creeping in. In fact it's pretty clear in the letter the Herodotus that Epicurus was describing "worlds" as something like "star systems" and not just "planets,'" and that seems to me to be very compatible with what i understand to be the basic thrust of any "multiverse" theory (though I have certainly not studied them like Don has).

But at the same time I've also sensed that there was never any reason to transmute the word "universe" from meaning "everything" as it traditionally did to something less than everything. I've always sensed that there was an "agenda" of some kind in doing that, and that part of that agenda was to suspend all rules of extrapolating that what we observe here can be of any use in predicting what would be expected to exist elsewhere in the universe. Obviously there are great hazards in extrapolating like that, but there are also great hazards in taking an "anything goes" approach (such as opening the door to the supernatural).

There's not much to do with that concern other than to note it and move on, but I think the implications of accepting in the distant past that "maybe God lives on Mars and it's possible because we've ever been there" are pretty much the same as "maybe god lives in another part of the multiverse." There are always going to be people who use science in support of their agendas, and its probably safer to say that every scientific theory should be presumed to have an agenda and examined for it at the beginning rather than to accept the alleged sincerity of every theory that comes down the road.

Even saying that, however, I am firmly convinced that most if not all people who really get into Epicurean philosophy are going to be keenly interested in "science" and never put aside that interest as long as they live - too much depends upon it to ever do that. I see the issue as kind of like the question of "logic" - we're always going to be "threatened" by people who use science and logic for their own agendas, and therefore a certain amount of training in it is essential for everyone for self-protection.

Right -- so long as the infinite has no boundary, then there's no "other side" for god to live on, and any gods that do exist must live in our own universe. Good point.

Quote from Don

Scientists have "seen" (with extensions of their senses) space expanding and the broad consensus is that it will keep expanding until the last bit of energy is spent.

THIS is the point where I have my issue. I think by definition they need to realize and admit and most of all BE CLEAR that what they have seen, as far as they can see, no matter how good the technology gets, is not "the end" of the universe, It's only "the limit of our ability to observe." It still seems to me very clear that we would expect (based on the reasoning that matter and void must both be infinite) that there is indeed no limit to how much matter is out there. So that in fact what probably should be the presumption is that even though "our" universe appears to expanding as far as we can see, we ought to presume (based on the logical arguments) that there is in fact no end, and outside/past our ability to see is additional infinite space with additional cosmos that may or may not be expanding or contracting or whatever in the same way that ours is.

That is why I see a major distinction between the innumerable grains of sand and the infinity of space. If in fact you had the time and inclination and perseverance to could the "grains of sand" on the beach, or on the whole earth, that would seem to be theoretically possible to count and one day come to an end.

With the number of objects in space, however, it would be theoretically impossible to even come to an end in counting, because the best argument is that the universe is infinite in size, and therefore there will always be more to be counted no matter how long one tried.

And at least for me, still shaking off the hold of my religious background, I see a difference in kind between the two situations, and not just a difference in degree. It's coming to terms with the idea that there is no counting EVER the number of elements in the universe that is hard, not coming to terms with the idea of counting the grains of sand on the beach. And it's therefore the problem of infinite space which I would see as the worse enemy in polluting mens' minds with religion, rather than the problem of counting the sand on the beach. The challenge of counting the grains of sand I think could eventually be explained to most "normal" rational people, but the problem of counting something that in fact has no end is where the mind gets tempted toward the supernatural, and that's the temptation that needs to be addressed.

As you say this is an excellent discussion and I am glad we have an open forum where it can be extended in depth.

Quote from Don

And I also agree that most people don't need to concern themselves.....

Yes setting the context is a continuing issue. Not only are we constantly dealing with background political issues that are distracting (kind of like Lucretrius), it's always going to be necessary to tune the discussion to the listener so that they can understand it and appreciate it.

Most of us here I would expect are pretty far advanced into the technical and philosophical issues, but I know at least in my own case that I want to be sure to try to reach out to people who might be open to the core issues, but who aren't on the same page in terms of attitude or knowledge toward science, etc.

Ultimately I guess that entails the need to have respect for both approaches and means that any team working together on Epicurean philosophy is going to have a division of labor and a division of approach tailored to the target audience. In the end i don't think that the key issues involve major gray areas that would be a bar to that.

Yes I agree, but just as we have to remain flexible toward ultimate particles we ha e to be at least as flexible and skeptical, or more so, about any particular theoretical model, especially if it is used to imply or advocate interpretations that would undermine the conclusion that the senses (thecanonical faculties) are what human life is all about.

"They're made up of sub-atomic particles according to the Standard Model"

That explanation seems to me a good example of how different people are going to be comfortable with different levels of speculation. I presume that if the theory is that there is a "superstructure" and that "popping" doesn't really mean "from nothing" but rather means that it is somehow generated by the superstructure and "incorporated back into the superstructure," then there's really no violation of the "nothing from nothing" rule which is sort of a logical barrier where the issue is really being fought.

My discomfort with this kind of discussion is that in fact to most common people it does in fact sound "spooky and supernatural" even if it is not intended to be so by the specialists who are theorizing it.

I don't think it is ever appropriate to suggest that there are different "truths" for different types of people on something like this, but I would say that we do need to be aware of the different levels of analysis that people are capable of doing, or maybe said another way, the different perspectives that are in play in which people interpret words at different levels of subtlety.

I'm thinking that Epicurus was perfectly happy to discuss any level of scientific detail himself, but that he also thought it appropriate to reduce things down into broader outlines that most anyone is capable of understanding. "Nothing comes or goes to nothing" is probably such a formulation, useful for most people to keep them away from being manipulated by religion or other types of manipulators, and so it's generally useful to talk in those terms, even if at times it is also appropriate, among experts, to adopt highly-technical definitions of each of the words in the formulation for purposes of scientific theorizing.

So again I think part of this discussion is the issue of context and the purpose of the entire discussion. If we are conducting a seminar of astrophysicists then one way of speaking is appropriate, while if we are talking to the remaining 99% of the people in the world another manner is appropriate. And of course in lumping everyone else into the 99% group, there are huge numbers of subdivisions of categories by language, age, etc, which would be relevant to how to explain things to them.

So maybe this is an issue that involves proper communication as much or more than it does precise scientific theory.

Quote from Don

For me, this idea makes sense in that the universe would have the same life as everything else.

I think what an everyday ancient Epicurean might say in response to that is that Yes, the rule of having a set lifetime applies to BODIES (of which the Universe as a whole is a big "body" arguably) but the rule does not apply to the elemental particles themselves, which are eternal, never having been created and never being destroyed (or changing at all).

Definitely all component parts of the universe are presumed to always be moving and combining and dissipating and recombining, so that every bodily accumulation of particles has a "date" when it comes together and when it dissipates, so the universe is and always will be a moving and changing "collection" of particles, of which that collection never came from nothing nor will return to nothing.

I gather that's rule number one of Epicurean physics, and the only major "exception" (which really isn't an exception) is that if you master the art of keeping your particles together you might be able to stay that way indefinitely (the Epicurean gods).

Ha, Don and I crossposted and took opposite positions on the heat death issue Well to each his own there, and I think we get a lot out of discussing the issue, because in doing so we get exercise in deciding how much consistency and confidence is appropriate. Does "nothing come from nothing or go to nothing" really mean that, or should be be open to exceptions even there? My perspective is that Epicurus is saying that the evidence before us gives us good reason to be confidence that the principle we are deriving from these observations has no exceptions whatsoever. We then have to deal with the issue that we won't be around long enough to be sure what the "correct" answer is, and so the issue becomes how to apply these rules of thought in the meantime.

Quote from Don

My take recently was that something doesn't need to be literally infinite for us humans to consider it so. An example is the task of counting of all the grains of sand on every beach and in every desert on Earth. Sure, that's a finite number but for all intents and purposes it might as well be infinite in relation to a human lifespan.

My personal take is that Epicurus is stressing the need to think about and get comfortable with the idea that there are certain things that are very difficult to get our minds around. He's saying that instead of defaulting to some mystical attitude that "it must be god/divine/magical," we should come to terms with the limits of our capabilities and get comfortable with making decisions within that scope, with is itself a very desirable thing to be good at.

I also think personally there is an important distinction between "uncountable because we don't have the time or ability" (the grains of sand on the beach) vs. "uncountable because it in fact has no limit on the number of instances" (the number of stars or planets or whatever in the universe).

That's why personally for me when we discuss (in the podcasts for example) that it doesn't matter whether the heat death of the universe theory is correct or not, because the time span is too great to be of relevance to us, I personally don't find that a satisfactory place to stop. I don't think Epicurus would have accepted (or suggest that we should entertain) any theory as possible which would postulate that anything could go to nothing, or come from nothing, much less the universe as a whole.

I personally think that the bigger picture argument (will "everything" at some point cease to exist") requires addressing directly. Personally for myself, I am confident that the right answer is "no, the universe will never cease to exist" even though I am not and never will be an expert physicist. At some point the "logical" argument becomes so overwhelming, despite our absolute inability to "be there and experience if for ourselves," that it deserves to be treated as if we are "certain" of it (whatever meaning we assign to "certainty").

So in the end I trace all these issues back together to thinking that Epicurus is asking us to confront the overall general question "How do we take a position when the evidence is less complete than we would like?"

In some cases it is going to be appropriate to "wait" for more evidence, and in some cases it is appropriate to consider ourselves to be "certain" even as we are. One of the major factors in deciding when it's appropriate to wait or not is whether "waiting" would conflict with prior premises that we have accepted with certain. Of course in that case if we are rigorous we would never wait at all or hesitate to pronounce the theory as invalid.

Another factor would be whether the issue is particularly damage-causing, such as opening the possibility of the supernatural, and we also have to consider that we aren't having these discussions in a vacuum among dedicated scientists, but among normal people who will never be specialists, so we need to be concerned about the "practical" effect of theoretical speculation on them. In the end the ultimate goal is NOT "wisdom" or "truth" in the abstract sense (probably a cue there for the nearby "Abstract Ideas" thread).

To me, the issue of studying infinity and similar questions is closely related to the issue of how to think about day to day issues and so its of immediate importance for that reason.

In several of our podcasts and discussions we have touched on issues that arise from "abstractions" and "abstract ideas," with the point being that there is a peril involved in abstractions when/if they are not verified against the information provided by the rest of the Epicurean canon. It seems to me this is a very deep subject which requires a lot more elaboration than we've given it so far. It's the purpose of this thread to prompt us to begin to focus on this issue, but it's the purpose of this post to start the discussion off on more of a fun footing.

This afternoon I happened to see this cheesy 1958 movie and as you'll see from the closing part of this brief segment, I immediately thought of Elayne because she could have written this dialog Here's a very short clip and you'll have no problem seeing its relevance

I wish we had this movie character with us to explain what he meant, because he's clearly thinking along the same lines as some of us, but unfortunately he doesn't make it in the movie past this clip.

At any rate, let's start thinking about the role of "abstractions" and "abstract ideas" and the Epicurean attitude toward them.

One more note - I kind we could consider the dark haired "captain" here as Plato himself, telling the rest of mankind that they are too childish to survive unless they work to become superhuman like him.

Interesting pictures! All I know for sure is that in discussing this we're doing what Epicurus suggested at the end of the letter to Pythocles:

All these things, Pythocles, you must bear in mind; for thus you will escape in most things from superstition and will be enabled to understand what is akin to them. And most of all give yourself up to the study of the beginnings and of infinity and of the things akin to them, and also of the criteria of truth and of the feelings, and of the purpose for which we reason out these things. For these points when they are thoroughly studied will most easily enable you to understand the causes of the details. But those who have not thoroughly taken these things to heart could not rightly study them in themselves, nor have they made their own the reason for observing them.

1 - Wow that cartoon software works pretty well!

2 - I use Audacity for all the editing of the Lucretius Today Podcast and it works well

3 - I know people swear by OBS Studio and have played with it but not found reason to use it - we record the podcast in Skype and I just edit that file in Audacity.

4 - The visual annotation feature looks like it is perfect for the type of video you're talking about.

Sounds great Joshua - keep us posted!

What can we name the thread to make it more descriptive? Have you thought of a podcast name? Something that labels it as focusing on the secondary literature or on specific points, rather than on the larger major works?

I think we may have included this excerpt already, but I don't think in this format, so here is Bailey's translation of a key section of the Letter to Herodotus:

Welcome to Episode Twenty-Nine 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.

Before we start, here are three ground rules.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, which may or may not agree with what you here about Epicurus at other places today.

Second: We aren't talking about Lucretius with the goal of promoting any modern political perspective. Epicurus must be understood on his own, and not in terms of competitive schools which may seem similar to Epicurus, but are fundamentally different and incompatible, such as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, and Marxism.

Third: The essential base of Epicurean philosophy is a fundamental view of the nature of the universe. When you read the words of Lucretius you will find that Epicurus did not teach the pursuit of virtue or of luxury or of simple living. or science, as ends in themselves, but rather the pursuit of pleasure. From this perspective it is feeling which is the guide to life, and not supernatural gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. And as important as anything else, Epicurus taught that there is no life after death, and that any happiness we will ever have must come in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Now let's join the discussion with today's text:

Latin text location: Approximately lines 581 - 660

Munro Summary: Notes on the text

(For an Outline of where we have been so far in past discussions, click here.)

Daniel Browne:

'Tis proper likewise that in this place you fix it as an established truth, and impress it deeply upon your mind, that there is no being to be found in nature that consists altogether of principles of one kind, nor is there any thing that is not made up of mingled seeds; and the more powers and faculties any being is endued with, the more it appears to be formed of various sorts of seeds that differ in figure among themselves.

And first, the Earth contains within herself first principles, from whence the fountains, flowing with their streams, do constantly supply the mighty Sea. She holds likewise within her womb the seeds of fire. We see in many places how she burns, how Aetna rages with distinguished flames. She likewise has the seeds from whence she forms sweet fruits, and pleasant trees for men; from whence she does afford the tender shrubs and verdant grass to savage beasts that wander on the hills.

Therefore this Earth alone is called great Mother of the Gods, parent of beasts, and of the human race. Of her the learned Grecian bards of old have feigned that in her chariot she rides aloft, she drives a pair of lions harnessed; to teach that in the spacious air hangs the vast mass of Earth, without a lower Earth to prop it up. These beasts they yoked, to show that youth, although by nature wild, yet, softened by the parents tender care, grows tame. Her head they compass with a mural crown, because, in places strongly fortified, she bears up cities, and in this pomp adored, the image of this sacred mother is born with dread solemnity throughout the world. Her, after the ancient use of holy rites, the different nations call Mother of Mount Ida, and give her for attendants a train of Phyrgian dames, because in Phrygia corn was first raised, and thence was scattered over all the Earth. They serve her by eunuch priests, to show that those who violate the sacred character of their mother, or are found undutiful to their parents from whence they sprung, should be thought unworthy to raise a living offspring to succeed them. With their hands they beat loudly upon drums well-braced; the hollow symbols all about, and horns with their hoarse noise threaten dreadfully around her; the pipe, with Phrygian airs, mads their very souls; and they carry arms, the signs of their distracted rage, to terrify the stubborn minds and impious hearts of the vulgar, with a fear and reverence of this great deity.

When therefore she is carried in procession, through the great towns, and, dumb as she is, silently bestows health upon her votaries, they scatter brass and silver in all the way she passes, enriching her with profuse oblations; they shower down the flowers of roses, and so cover the great mother, and the whole train of her attendants. Her an armed Troop (the Greeks call them the Phrygian Curates) leap about, with a chain through their hands, and wanton in the blood they have drawn, dance to exact time, and, full of the Goddess, shake their dreadful crests upon their heads. They represent the Dictean Curetes, who are said formerly to have drowned the infant cries of Jupiter in Crete; when the young priests, all armed, struck their Brazen Bucklers together, as they danced nimbly round the boy, lest Saturn should seize upon him, and devour him, and, by that means, wound his mother to the heart, with a grief never to be Forgotten. For this reason, an armed train accompany the great mother; or else the goddess signifies that they should preserve their native country by their arms and Valor, and be a protection and honor to their parents. Such fancies, though well and wittily contrived, yet are far removed from truth and right reason. For the whole nature of the Gods must spend an immortality in softest peace, removed from our affairs, and separated by distance infinite; from sorrow free, secure from danger, in its own happiness sufficient, and naught of ours can want; is neither pleased with good, nor vexed with ill.

The Earth is indeed at all times void of real sense, but it contains within itself the first seeds of many things, it produces them into being after various manners. So, if anyone here resolves to call the Sea by the name of Neptune, and corn by the title of Ceres, and chooses rather to abuse the name of Bacchus, than to speak the proper appellation of wine, such a one, we allow, may style this globe of Earth the mother of the gods, when really she is no such thing.

Munro:

And herein it is proper you should keep under seal, and guard, there consigned, in faithful memory this truth, that there is nothing whose nature is apparent to sense which consists of one kind of first-beginnings; nothing which is not formed by a mixing of seed. And whenever a thing possesses in itself in larger measure many powers and properties, in that measure it shows that there are in it the greatest number of different kinds and varied shapes of first-beginnings. First of all the earth has in her first bodies out of which springs rolling coolness along replenish without fail the boundless sea, she has bodies out of which fires rise up; for in many spots the earth’s crust is on fire and burns, though headstrong Aetna rages with fire of surpassing force. Then too she has bodies out of which she can raise for mankind goodly crops and joyous trees, out of which too she can supply to the mountain-ranging race of wild beasts rivers leaves and glad pastures.

Wherefore she has alone been named great mother of gods and mother of beasts and parent of our body. Of her the old and learned poets of the Greeks have sung, that [borne aloft on high-raised] seat in a chariot she drives a pair of lions, teaching that the great earth hangs in the expanse of air and that earth cannot rest on earth. To her chariot they have yoked wild beasts, because a brood however savage ought to be tamed and softened by the kind offices of parents. They have encircled the top of her head with a mural crown, because fortified in choice positions she sustains towns; adorned with which emblem the image of the divine mother is carried now-a-days through wide lands in awe-inspiring state. Her different nations after old-established ritual term Idaean mother, and give for escort Phrygian bands, because they tell that from those lands corn first began to be produced throughout the world. They assign her galli, because they would show by this type that they who have done violence to the divinity of the mother and have proved ungrateful to their parents are to be deemed unworthy to bring a living offspring into the borders of light. Tight-stretched tambourines and hollow cymbals resound all round to the stroke of their open hands, and horns menace with hoarse-sounding music, and the hollow pipe stirs their minds in Phrygian mood. They carry weapons before them, emblems of furious rage, meet to fill the thankless souls and godless breasts of the rabble with terror for the divinity of the goddess.

Therefore when first borne in procession through great cities she mutely enriches mortals with a blessing not expressed in words, they straw all her path with brass and silver presenting her with bounteous alms, and scatter over her a snow-shower of roses, overshadowing the mother and her troops of attendants. Here an armed band to which the Greeks give the name of Phrygian Curetes, in that it haply joins in the game of arms and springs up in measure all dripping with blood, shaking with its nodding the frightful crests upon the head, represents the Dictaean Curetes who, as the story is, erst drowned in Crete that infant cry of Jove, when the young band about the young babe in rapid dance arms in hand to measured tread beat brass on brass, that Saturn might not get him to consign to his devouring jaws and stab the mother to the heart with a never-healing wound. For these reasons they escort in arms the great mother, or else because they mean by this sign that the goddess preaches to men to be willing with arms and valor to defend their country and be ready to be a safeguard and an ornament to their parents.

All which, well and beautifully as it is set forth and told, is yet widely removed from true reason. For the nature of gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality together with supreme of repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns; since exempt from every pain, exempt from all dangers, strong in its own resources, not wanting aught of us, it is neither gained by favors nor moved by anger. And here if any one thinks proper to call the sea Neptune and corn Ceres and chooses rather to misuse the name of Bacchus than to utter the term that belongs to that liquor, let us allow him to declare that the earth is mother of the gods, if he only forbear in earnest to stain his mind with foul religion.

Bailey

Herein it is right to have this truth also surely sealed and to keep it stored in your remembering mind, that there is not one of all the things, whose nature is seen before our face, which is built of one kind of first-beginnings, nor anything which is not created of well-mingled seed; and whatever possesses within it more forces and powers, it thus shows that there are in it most kinds of first-beginnings and diverse shapes. First of all the earth holds within it the first-bodies, by which the springs welling out coldness ever and anon renew the measureless sea, it holds those whence fires are born. For in many places the surface of the earth is kindled and blazes, but the outburst of Aetna rages with fire from its lowest depths. Then further, it holds those whence it can raise for the races of men the smiling crops and glad trees, whence too it can furnish to the tribe of wild beasts, which ranges the mountains, streams, leaves and glad pastures.

Wherefore earth alone has been called the Great Mother of the gods, and the mother of the wild beasts, and the parent of our body. Of her in days of old the learned poets of the Greeks sang that [borne on from her sacred] shrine in her car she drove a yoke of lions, teaching thereby that the great earth hangs in the space of air nor can earth rest on earth. To the car they yoked wild beasts, because, however wild the brood, it ought to be conquered and softened by the loving care of parents. The top of her head they wreathed with a battlemented crown, because embattled on glorious heights she sustains towns; and dowered with this emblem even now the image of the divine mother is carried in awesome state through lands far and wide. On her the diverse nations in the ancient rite of worship call as the Mother of Ida, and they give her Phrygian bands to bear her company, because from those lands first they say corn began to be produced throughout the whole world. The mutilated priests they assign to her, because they wish to show forth that those who have offended the godhead of the Mother, and have been found ungrateful to their parents, must be thought to be unworthy to bring offspring alive into the coasts of light. Taut timbrels thunder in their hands, and hollow cymbals all around, and horns menace with harsh-sounding bray, and the hollow pipe goads their minds in the Phrygian mode, and they carry weapons before them, the symbols of their dangerous frenzy, that they may be able to fill with fear of the goddess’s power the thankless minds and unhallowed hearts of the multitude.

And so as soon as she rides on through great cities, and silently blesses mortals with unspoken salutation, with bronze and silver they strew all the path of her journey, enriching her with bounteous alms, and snow rose-blossoms over her, overshadowing the Mother and the troops of her escort. Then comes an armed band, whom the Greeks call by name the Curetes of Phrygia, and because now and again they join in mock conflict of arms and leap in rhythmic movement, gladdened at the sight of blood and shaking as they nod the awesome crests upon their heads, they recall the Curetes of Dicte, who are said once in Crete to have drowned the wailing of the infant Jove, while, a band of boys around the baby boy, in hurrying dance all armed, they beat in measured rhythm brass upon brass, that Saturn might not seize and commit him to his jaws, and plant an everlasting wound deep in the Mother’s heart. For this cause in arms they escort the Great Mother, or else because they show forth that the goddess preaches that they should resolve with arms and valour to defend their native land and prepare to be a guard and ornament to their parents.

Yet all this, albeit well and nobly set forth and told, is nevertheless far removed from true reasoning. For it must needs be that all the nature of the gods enjoys life everlasting in perfect peace, sundered and separated far away from our world. For free from all grief, free from danger, mighty in its own resources, never lacking aught of us, it is not won by virtuous service nor touched by wrath. Verily, the earth is without feeling throughout all time, and ’tis because it has possession of the first-beginnings of many things, that it brings forth many in many ways into the light of the sun. Herein, if any one is resolved to call the sea Neptune and corn Ceres, and likes rather to misuse the title of Bacchus than to utter the true name of the vine-juice, let us grant that he may proclaim that the world is the Mother of the gods, if only in very truth he forbear to stain his own mind with shameful religious awe.

Ha! Jokes of the days for the 20th would be a very appropriate ritual!

Put this together this afternoon to practice with the two new line drawings of Epicurus. As always, comments welcome. My graphical abilities are abysmal but I'm constantly thinking of better ways to present the key elements in as few words as possible. The "innovation" of this one is "all good and evil consists in sensation" which is a quote from the Bailey version of the letter to Menoeceus. I'm toying with the idea that it hits one of Epicurus' key points (role of sensation) at the same time that it hits virtue and potentially even the "dialectical logic" issue. It's harder to come up with a direct quote that is very short and very pithy that deals with the "logic" issue.

I like the idea of preparing variations of these (preferably by someone with a lot better art talent than me (that can be used on Twitter and FB and other places to circulate along with the URL of the forum to communicate the message of something like "if you think this way come join us at epicureanfriends.com

Bailey version:

Yonge version:

Hicks version (he uses "imply" and "sentience"):

Epicurus Wiki version (probably another overlay "are experienced"):

Norman DeWitt's version from "St Paul and Epicurus" (he chooses to use "consciousness"):

Also from the letter to Herodotus:

Quote

Now falsehood and error always lie in the addition of opinion with regard to what is waiting to be confirmed or not contradicted, and then is not confirmed or is contradicted.

For the similarity between the things which exist, which we call real and the images received as a likeness of things and produced either in sleep or through some other acts of apprehension on the part of the mind or the other instruments of judgment, could never be, unless there were some effluences of this nature actually brought into contact with our senses.

And error would not exist unless another kind of movement too were produced inside ourselves, closely linked to the apprehension of images, but differing from it; and it is owing to this, supposing it is not confirmed, or is contradicted, that falsehood arises; but if it is confirmed or not contradicted, it is true.

Therefore we must do our best to keep this doctrine in mind, in order that on the one hand the standards of judgment dependent on the clear visions may not be undermined, and on the other error may not be as firmly established as truth and so throw all into confusion.