Posts by Cassius

I add this here as a note for anyone interested in the origin of A Few Days In Athens. This footnote appears on page 189 of the 1850 edition. It seems to me that it is significant that the book singles out "the late amiable and enlightened teacher, Thomas Browne of Edinborough," as "chargeable with the weakness" of censuring the Epicurean school "whose doctrines he has borrowed and taught." I haven't had time to look up Thomas Browne to see what can still be learned about him, but whoever was the driving force behind AFDIA seems to have felt a personal connection to him.

Here is a drawing of him:

And Wikipedia entry.

Brown set an answer to the objections raised against the appointment of Sir John Leslie to the mathematical professorship (1805). Leslie, a follower of David Hume, was attacked by the clerical party as a sceptic and an infidel, and Brown took the opportunity to defend Hume's doctrine of causality as in no way inimical to religion.^[1] His defence, at first only a pamphlet, became in its third edition a lengthy treatise entitled Inquiry into the Relation of Cause and Effect, and is a fine specimen of Brown's analytical faculty.^[2]

In 1806, Brown became a medical practitioner in partnership with James Gregory (1753–1821), but, though successful, preferred literature and philosophy. After twice failing to gain a professorship in the university, he was invited, during an illness of Dugald Stewart in the session of 1808–1809, to act as his substitute, and during the following session he undertook much of Stewart's work. The students received him with enthusiasm, due partly to his splendid rhetoric and partly to the novelty and ingenuity of his views. In 1810 he was appointed as colleague to Stewart, a position which he held for the rest of his life. Brown was elected a member of the American Antiquarian Society in 1815.^[3] He wrote his lectures at high pressure, and devoted much time to the editing and publication of the numerous poems which he had written at various times during his life. He was also preparing an abstract of his lectures as a handbook for his class. His health, never strong, gave way under the strain of his work.

He was advised to take a trip to London, where he died in 1820 aged 42. His body was returned to Kirkmabreck for burial.^[4]

Interesting criticism of Erasmus Darwin:

Dr. Darwin seems to consider the animals of former times, as possessing powers, much superior to those of their posterity. They reasoned on their wants: they wished: and it was done. The boar, which originally differed little from the other beasts of the forest, first obtained tusks, because he conceived them to be useful weapons, and then, by another process of reasoning, a thick shield-like shoulder, to defend himself from the tusks of his fellows. The stag, in like manner, formed to himself horns, at once sharp, and branched, for the different purposes of offence, and defence. Some animals obtained wings, others fins, and others swiftness of foot; while the vegetables exerted themselves, in inventing various modes of concealing, and defending their feeds, and honey. These are a few of many instances, adduced by Dr. Darwin, which are all objectionable, on his own principles; as they require us to believe the various propensities, to have been the cause, rather than the effect, of the difference of configuration...
If we admit the supposed capacity of producing organs, by the mere feeling of a want, man must have been greatly degenerated, or been originally inferior, in power. He may wish for wings, as the other bipeds are supposed to have done with success; but a century of wishes will not render him abler to take flight. It is not, however, to man that the observation must be confined. No improvements of form have been observed, in the other animals, since the first dawnings of zoology; and we must, therefore, believe them, to have lost the power of production, rather than to have attained all the objects of their desire.

Noteworthy, Brown's criticism of the Darwinian thesis, like that of Rudolf Virchow, did not come from any religious feeling.

Well I can certainly see how longest duration can be different from "long term" pleasure using the illustration, but I am thinking that in both examples the issue being discussed is "time," while I think that "time" is probably not the only factor in judging what is the "most pleasurable" -- in that "purity" would also be a consideration, while what I am really thinking is the major issue is "intensity" -- in that one person can judge getting to the top of Mount Rushmore for a moment such an exhilarating experience that it is worth ten years of looking up at it from the foot of the mountain.

Maybe someone else can jump in and give us a different perspective?

And it's particularly easy since virtually EVERY other person in every other tradition takes the position that "wisdom" is the goal, and virtue is its own reward. And I probably am being overly cautious by saying "virtually."

It is the proverbial slippery slope / walking on edge of the canyon for sure!

And though reason is not able to assign a cause why an object that is really four-square when near, should appear round when seen at a distance; yet, if we cannot explain this difficulty, it is better to give any solution, even a false one, than to deliver up all Certainty out of our power, to break in upon our first principle of belief, and tear up all foundations upon which our life and security depend. For not only all reason must be overthrown, but life itself must be immediately extinguished, unless you give credit to your senses. These direct you to fly from a precipice and other evils of this sort which are to be avoided, and to pursue what tends to your security. All therefore is nothing more than an empty parade of words that can be offered against the certainty of sense.

But I do think that we still have a lot to do on the clear meaning of terms like "sage" and "fullness of pleasure." So that when Epicurus uses the term in the letter to menoeceus I would strongly presume that he is using it in a generic way and not as a term of art as in the comic book "Epicurus The Sage" for example.

Yes so in that sense "being a sage" is a parallel term to "living virtuously" and I have no problem with that, but I always get ready to "shout" with Diogenes of Oinoanda whenever I think someone is elevating the means to the end.

Now I know you are far too far along to be doing that yourself, but that's definitely the impression I get from a lot of people who talk about "Epicurus the Sage" and things like that, and I think it's a hazard that's easy to encounter. Since I am sure that you are doing it here maybe I should just say let's carry on forward

OK I tentatively have to register disagreement on where we are on that, as I do not see your distinction between longest period and long-term, and I think we are talking about the difference between things that may be poorly expressed as "quantity" vs "intensity." I see that you might be saying that we add it all up and judge it as the total at the end of one's life but I am not sure that helps us any to get past the point that "duration" is only one aspect of the measure.

I think where I am going on "fullness" (and I am not sure I recall where DeWitt went) is that "fullness of pleasure" implies "fullness of pleasure possible to you under your circumstances" and not a reference to an absolute measure in terms of quantity or intensity or any other factor.

I am thinking that this is an issue that is related to "purity" of pleasure, in which "pure pleasure" is a statement of experience in which all experience is pleasurable with no mixture of painful experience, but that even this term of "pure pleasure" does not create an absolute standard, but again a measurement of what is possible for the particular individual.

I think all this is very complicated and I am definitely open to modification but I do think firmly that comparisons of pleasure and pain are going to be relative, and that terms like quantity and purity and intensity and duration are going to be useful but always short of an "absolute" way in which we can compare various lives and say that one particular version is "best" as a rule.

(As usual I want to note that i see this is a very fun and very useful discussion!)

Another way of stating my concern is to observe that I think it is pretty clear that the goal and the guide in Epicurean terms is "pleasure." That means that the goal of life cannot be "to be a sage" and the guide of life cannot be "a sage" or "to follow a sage," and those terms strike me as particularly hazardous if we consider "sage" to be synonymous with "a wise man" and if we consider how important it is not to embrace "wisdom" as the goal or the guide of life.

Is it possible that all this discussion of "sage" is overlay by Diogenes Laertius using his non-Epicurean philosophical categories?

Quote from Don

From my perspective, experiencing the fullness of pleasure doesn't mean one is blissed out all the time

Not sure if you have got to this part of the DeWitt book where he discusses "Fullness of pleasure" but DEFINITELY this is a term that deserves a lot of discussion. I agree with your statement there that I quoted from you, but I don't think we have a clear definition of what "sage" means or "fullness of pleasure" means in this context.

And AH-- Here I think we have to modify: "That's what I meant about having mastery over your choices and rejections to maximize long-term pleasure." I think you will agree with me on careful thought that "long-term" is a term that has to be handled carefully, as it seems to imply that the long-term is always the most desirable outlook, when the letter to Menoeceus makes pretty clear that that is NOT a complete statement of the proper measure.

"And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant."

I know I have many times myself described the goal as "long-term pleasure" but I don't think that is tenable in light of the sentence quoted.

Quote from Don

who has achieved a level of mastery over their choices and rejections that allows them to continually experience the fullness of pleasure in their life.

That last part is the issue for me. If anyone deserved the title of "sage" it would be Epicurus, but at the end of his life he was himself in great pain, and I would not think he was any less a sage then than earlier. I therefore tend to think that there is always a difference between the concept and the reality in words like this, and I don't think I would say someone is not a sage simply because there are events that are impinging on their ability to experiencing nothing but pleasure at any particular time. And yet that is the reality for virtually anyone I am familiar with, so it would seem harmful to me to use a word as an indicia of a goal that cannot be fully reached all the time.

I can certainly see he usefulness of terms like "wise man" and so forth, but the closer those terms seem to get to idealized states, the less likely do I think that Epicurus would have agreed that the terms are helpful rather than harmful.

I think this is an area where I sense the tension between conceptualization and reality, and I sense that Epicurus would have been at war with words that set false expectations. Kind of like the quote about walking around uselessly talking about he meaning of "good." That's the sense in which a word like "sage" would bother me unless strictly limited in meaning. Another analogy: Living as "gods among men" being a useful term while strictly defining "gods" as real rather than supernatural beings.

Quote from Don

I would also say that once you know something, you can't unknow it. Once you know the truth of the "true philosophy" you can't un-know it. It's part of your knowledge. So, while someone may behave as if they were ignorant or choose to act in ways contrary to their well-being or contrary to the truth, they can't do it (or say they're doing it) from a place of ignorance.

Yes that's a good way of looking at the issue, and doesn't conflict with the positions on agency and fate. And that's a good linkeage to to the text we know was said about how once an Epicurean always an Epicurean, so the "can't" might be hyperbole.

Welcome to Episode Twenty-One 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 with today's episode let me remind you of our three ground rules.

First: Our aim is to go back to the original text to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, not simply repeat for you what passes for conventional wisdom about Epicurus today.

Second: We won't be talking about Lucretius will the goal of promoting modern political perspectives. 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: We will be approaching Lucretius with the goal of understanding the fundamental nature of the universe as the essential base of Epicurean philosophy. From this perspective you will see that Epicurus taught neither the pursuit of luxury nor the pursuit of simple living, as ends in themselves, but the pursuit of pleasure, using feeling as the guide to life, and not supernatural gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. 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 for today in this Episode 21, we close Book One with a discussion of how the Earth does not reside at the center of the Universe.

Now let's join our discussion with Elayne reading today's text from Book One.

-------

Note: In previous episodes we have discussed:

• (1) Venus / Pleasure As Guide of Life: That Pleasure, using the allegory of Venus, is the driving force of all life; That the way to rid ourselves of pain is to replace pain with pleasure, using the allegory of Venus entertaining Mars, the god of war;

• (2) The Achievement of Epicurus: That Epicurus was the great philosophic leader who stood up to supernatural religion, opened the gates to a proper understanding of nature, and thereby showed us how we too can emulate the life of gods;
• (3-4) So Great Is The Power of Religion To Inspire Evil Deeds! That it is not Epicurean philosophy, but supernatural religion, which is truly unholy and prompts men to commit evil deeds;
• (5) On Resisting The Threats of Priests And Poets: That false priests and philosophers will try to scare you away from Epicurean philosophy with threats of punishment after death, which is why you must understand that those threats cannot be true; That the key to freeing yourself from false religion and false philosophy is found in the study of nature;
• (6-7) Step One: Nothing Comes From Nothing. The first major observation which underlies all the rest of Epicurean philosophy is that we observe that nothing is ever generated from nothing.
• (8) Step Two: Nothing Goes To Nothing. The second major observation is that nothing is ever destroyed completely to nothing.
• (9) The Evidence That Atoms Exist, Even Though They Are Unseen. The next observation is that we know elemental particles exist, even though we cannot see them just like we know that wind and other things exist by observing their effects.
• (10-11) The Void And Its Nature. We also know that the void exists, because things must have space in which to move, as we see they do move.
• (12) Everything We Experience Is Composed Of A Combination of Matter And Void. Everything around us that we experience is a natural combination of atoms and void.
• (13) The Things We Experience Are Properties and Qualities Of Atoms And Void And Cease To Exist When Their Atoms Disperse. All things we experience around us are either (1) the properties (essential conjuncts; essential and unchanging) or qualities (events; inessential and changing depending on context) of bodies. All these arise from the nature, movement, and combinations of the atoms, and cease to exist when the atoms which compose the bodies disperse. Therefore it is incorrect to think that ideas or stories such as that of the Trojan war have any permanent existence.
• (14-15) Atoms Are Solid And Indestructible, And Therefore Eternal. The argument that atoms are solid and indestructible and therefore eternal.
• (16) The Atoms Are Never Destroyed, they Provide Continuity To All Nature, and there is a strict limit on Divisibility of All Things.
• (17) All things are not made of a single element, such as fire, as some philosophers assert - such as Heraclitus, who asserted all things are made of fire.
• (18) All things are not simply formed from the four classical elements (earth, air, fire, and water) - here there reference is to Empedocles who was a great man, but greatly fallen.
• (19) All things are not made of tiny pieces of the same thing, or of tiny pieces of all things, as Anaxagoras suggested.
• (20) The universe is infinite in size and has no limits to its size.
• (21) The earth is not the center of the universe.

-------------------

Here is the text that will be covered in Episode Twenty-One. The Latin version of Book One has this as beginning at approximately line 829 of the Daniel Brown Edition and of the Munro Latin Edition here.

Daniel Brown 1743 Edition:

[1037] For as the animal creation, deprived of food, must perish, and their bodies be quite destroyed, so things must be dissolved as soon as matter, turning from its course, fails to afford supply, and save the whole.

[1041] Nor, as some may object, can outward blows on all sides given, preserve this All of things we see compounded, from falling into pieces: They may indeed beat thick, and stay some part, till other atoms come, and so supply the universe. But often they are compelled to bound, and leap back, and so afford the seeds both time and place to fly away, and thus to get their former liberty again. Therefore, 'tis fit that many seeds should still arise, from time to time, for a supply; and that these blows might never cease to beat, the force of matter must be on all sides infinite.

[1051] In these inquiries see that you avoid, my Memmius, to believe with some that say, all bodies strive to reach the middle place of this great All, and so the nature of the world stands fixed, not struck at all by outward blows; nor can the upper or lower parts be scattered any way abroad, since all things by nature to the center tend (as if you could believe that any thing could stay and rest upon itself, that heavy bodies tend upwards, and fix their rest upon the surface of the earth opposite to us, just as we see the images of bodies show themselves in water.) By the same reason they contend that creatures walk underneath, as we above; nor can they fall into the regions of the air below, than can our bodies naturally fly upwards to Heaven; and when they see the sun, we view the stars of night, and so by turns they share with us the seasons of the heavens, and with us still divide night and days.

[1067] But vain mistake hath formed this scheme for fools, who judge perversely of the seeds of things. For there can be no Middle, where there is a void or space that's infinite; or if there was, can bodies, for this reason, rather stop their course in this medium, than take up their abode in any part of space that's further off. For place, or empty space, which we call void, must equally give way to heavy movements through a medium, or through none, which way soever their motions tend; nor is there any place where bodies, when they come, throw off their weight, and stand fixed in a void, and take their rest. Nor can a void support the weight of bodies, but must by its own nature still give way. It follows then that things are not preserved or held together by this means, as if they fondly strove to reach a middle space.

[1082] Besides, all bodies, they pretend, do not incline towards the center, but those of earth and water, the sea, the rivers rolling from the hills, and those that are composed of earthy parts. But the thin air, they say, and the hot fire are carried upwards from the middle; and hence it is the sky spangled every way with stars, and the sun's flame in his celestial course is fed, because the fire flying from the center there binds up all its heat; (so from the earth all mortal things are fed, nor can the trees adorn their lofty heads with leaves unless the earth to every kind affords its due support.) They say a sort of heavenly canopy above covers the whole, and holds it in; lest the world's walls, their parts being all dissolved, should instantly be scattered through the void, like swiftest flames, and all things be overwhelmed in this great ruin; lest the thundering vaults of heaven should tumble from above, and earth should fail our trembling feet, and the whole race of men, their bodies broken and dissolved, should wander through the boundless void, amidst these mingles ruins of the earth and heavens; and in a moment nothing would be left but desert empty space, and senseless seeds. For in whatever part you will suppose the seeds to separate, here will be the gate of death to bodies; for matter through the breach will rush abroad, and press with mighty force.

[1107] If this you thoroughly know, and little pains will serve (for one thing by another you'll explain) no more shall darkness interrupt your way, but you shall view the utmost depths of nature, for things will show themselves by mutual light.

Munro:

[1037] For as the nature of living things when robbed of food loses its substance and wastes away, thus all things must be broken up, as soon as matter has ceased to be supplied, diverted in any way from its proper course.

[1041] Nor can blows from without hold together all the sum which has been brought into union.They can it is true frequently strike upon and stay a part, until others come and the sum can be completed.At times however they are compelled to rebound and in so doing grant to the first beginnings of things room and time for flight, to enable them to get clear away from the mass in union. Wherefore again and again I repeat many bodies must rise up; nay for the blows themselves not to fail, there is need of an infinite supply of matter on all sides.

[1051] And herein, Memmius, be far from believing this, that all things as they say press to the center of the sum, and that for this reason the nature of the world stands fast without any strokes from the outside and the uppermost and lowest parts cannot part asunder in any direction, because all things have been always pressing towards the center (if you can believe that anything can rest upon itself); or that the heavy bodies which are beneath the earth all press upwards and are at rest on the earth, turned topsy-turvy, just like the images of things we see before us in the waters. In the same way they maintain that living things walk head downwards and cannot tumble out of earth into the parts of heaven lying below them any more than our bodies can spontaneously fly into the quarters of heaven; that when those see the sun, we behold the stars of night; and that they share with us time about the seasons of heaven and pass nights equal in length to our days.

[1067] But groundless [error has devised such dreams] for fools, because they have embraced [false principles of reason.] For there can be no center [where the universe is] infinite; no nor, even if there were a center, could anything take up a position there [any more on that account] than for some quite different reason [be driven away.] For all room and space, which we term void, must through center, through no-center alike give place to heavy bodies, in whatever directions their motions tend. Nor is there any spot of such a sort that when bodies have reached it, they can lose their force of gravity and stand upon void; and that again which is void must not serve to support anything, but must, as its nature craves, continually give place. Things cannot therefore in such a way be held in union, o’er-mastered by love of a center.

[1082] Again since they do not suppose that all bodies press to the center, but only those of earth, and those, of water, [both such as descend to the earth in rain] and those which are held in by the earth’s body, so to say, the fluid of the sea and great waters from the mountains; while on the other hand they teach that the subtle element of air and hot fires at the same time are carried away from the center and that for this reason the whole ether round bickers with signs and the sun’s flame is fed throughout the blue of heaven, because heat flying from the center all gathers together there, and that the topmost boughs of trees could not put forth leaves at all, unless from time to time [nature supplied] food from the earth to each [throughout both stem and boughs, their reasons are not only false, but they contradict each other. Space I have already proved to be infinite; and space being infinite matter as I have said must also be infinite] lest after the winged fashion of flames the walls of the world should suddenly break up and fly abroad along the mighty void, and all other things follow for like reasons and the innermost quarters of heaven tumble in from above and the earth in an instant withdraw from beneath our feet and amid the commingled ruins of things in it and of heaven, ruins unloosing the first bodies, should wholly pass away along the unfathomable void, so that in a moment of time not a wrack should be left behind, nothing save untenanted space and viewless first-beginnings.For on whatever side you shall first determine first bodies to be wanting, this side will be the gate of death for things, through this the whole crowd of matter will fling itself abroad.

[1107] If you will thoroughly con these things, then carried to the end with slight trouble [you will be able by yourself to understand all the rest.]

For one thing after another will grow clear and dark night will not rob you of the road and keep you from surveying the utmost ends of nature: in such wise things will light the torch for other things.

Bailey:

[1037] For even as the nature of living things, robbed of food, loses its flesh and pines away, so all things must needs be dissolved, when once matter has ceased to come for their supply, turned aside in any way from its due course.

[1041] Nor can blows from without on all sides keep together the whole of each world which has come together in union. For they can smite on it once and again, and keep a part in place, until others come, and the sum may be supplied. Yet sometimes they are constrained to rebound and at once afford space and time for flight to the first-beginnings of things, so that they can pass away freed from union. Therefore, again and again, it must be that many things rise up, yea, and in order that even the blows too may not fail, there must needs be limitless mass of matter on all sides.

[1051] Herein shrink far from believing, Memmius, what some say: that all things press towards the centre of a sum, and that ’tis for this cause that the nature of the world stands fast without any blows from outside, and that top and bottom cannot part asunder in any direction, because all things are pressing upon the centre (if indeed you can believe that anything can stand upon itself): and that all heavy things which are beneath the earth press upwards, and rest placed upside down upon the earth, like the images of things which we see, as it is, through water. And in the same way they maintain that living things walk head downwards, and cannot fall off the earth into the spaces of heaven beneath them any more than our bodies can of their free will fly up into the quarters of heaven: that when they see the sun, we are descrying the stars of night, and that they share with us turn by turn the seasons of the sky, and pass nights equal to our days.

[1067] But empty error has commended these false ideas to fools, because they embrace and hold a theory with twisted reasoning. For there can be no centre, since the universe is created infinite. Nor, if indeed there were a centre, could anything at all rest there any more for that, rather than be driven away for some far different reason: for all room and space, which we call void, must through centre or not-centre give place alike to heavy bodies, wherever their motions tend. Nor is there any place, to which when bodies have come, they can lose the force of their weight and stand still in the void; nor must aught that is void support anything, but rather hasten to give place, as its own nature desires. It cannot be then that things can be held together in union in such a way, constrained by a yearning for the centre.

[1082] Moreover, since they do not pretend that all bodies press towards the centre, but only those of earth and liquid, the moisture of the sea and mighty waters from the mountains, and those things which are, as it were, enclosed in an earthy frame; but on the other hand, they teach that the thin breezes of air and hot fires at the same time are carried away from the centre, and that for this cause all the sky around is twinkling with stars, and the flame of the sun is fed through the blue tracts of heaven, because all the heat fleeing from the centre gathers itself together there; nor again can the topmost branches grow leafy upon trees, unless from the earth little by little each has food [supplied by nature, their thoughts are not at harmony with themselves. There must then be an infinite store of matter], lest after the winged way of flames the walls of the world suddenly fly apart, dissolved through the great void, and lest all else follow them in like manner, or the thundering quarters of the sky fall down from above, and the earth in hot haste withdraw itself from beneath our feet, and amid all the mingled ruin of things on earth and of the sky, whereby the frames of bodies are loosed, it pass away through the deep void, so that in an instant of time not a wrack be left behind, except emptied space and unseen first-beginnings. For on whatever side you maintain that the bodies fail first, this side will be the gate of death for things, by this path will all the throng of matter cast itself abroad.

[1107] These things you will learn thus, led on with little trouble; for one thing after another shall grow clear, nor will blind night snatch away your path from you, but that you shall see all the utmost truths of nature: so shall things kindle a light for others.

More on that issue of "incapable" --

Somewhere I recently saw a variation of this picture from one of the Planet of the Apes movies:

The reason it comes to mind is that I think is would be core to Epicurus that despite the talk about the gods speaking Greek, there was ultimately nothing "special" to Epicurus about Greeks or humans or any other animals or things. At least if "special" means "ordained by God" or "ordained by the Universe" then that just doesn't comport with Epicurus' system, in my view. Things are as they are without any blessing that it is "right" that they be that way, and within the limits of nature things can change dramatically over time, since there is no "fate" or "hard determinism" that things must be the way they are now, at least among "higher animals" that have agency.

Ha - I hope my graphic there isn't inappropriate. I am not really a planet of the apes fan and don't remember much of anything about those movies except the statue of liberty on the beach scene! But to me the photo has that kind of "shock" effect that maybe helps make the point that there is no divine order. We get caught up in our idealized categories when there really isn't any higher justification for them at all, other than the facts of experience as they exist today. And that can easily change quickly.

Quote from Don

NOTE: What does this mean? How does this connect with the evangelical nature of the philosophy? We know women were a part of the Garden and wrote treatises, so the "state of body" can't exclude women. And Epicurean communities were in "barbarian" lands. How to interpret this? Is this where DeWitt is getting that Epicurus said non-Greeks couldn't achieve wisdom? I can certainly see that if someone is incapable of studying and applying the philosophy due to mental illness, brain injury, or other condition. I can also see some "nations" not being conducive to allowing or encouraging study and application because of repression, culture, exposure to the philosophy, etc. I would be reluctant to say (for modern applications) anything akin to "women can't be sages" or "Russians can't be sages."

On this one, which i also agree is important, I don't think there is a conflict between (1) we are evangelical toward those who either are or could be our friends, but also (2) we acknowledge that some people just aren't and arent' going to be our friends. I agree with you that mental illness and brain injury are two categories , but there are probably lots of other circumstantial categories, at least at particular times, like age, health, culture etc. That's why I would definitely agree with you that Epicurus would not say "women can't be sages" (though he might generalize more than we would prefer, in the same way he might say that "children" or "the very aged" or someone else who due to personal circumstance would be facing an emergency or some obstacle that infringed on their freedom of action or thought).

But again , what is a "sage"? Do we limit "sagehood" to "teachers" or "leaders of schools"? If we did that, then it would probably be possible to say that there are a wider variety of obstacles toward being such a leader, such as personality issues.

But I still tend to think that "sage" in this context means more like "any human acting wisely under their circumstances" so I personally would draw a much tighter circle on who is "incapable" of it. I would say today that "incapable" would mean mostly just some mental or physical handicap that we'd agree would have to be significant. However if we used "incapable" more broadly to mean "incapable under their current circumstances" then the net would be much wider and contain all sorts of people who due to personal circumstances have been hindered or brought to a point where they just can't see their way past the problems of the moment to a wider perspective.

In fact that approach is probably the key to what I would propose as the answer. Given enough time and education and resources virtually everyone has great potential. But if you focus on the immediate present, which is probably a very valid way to look at it since we're trying to stay away from idealism, then you have to be more practical about the question of who is capable of "being a sage" now, or next week, or next month, or next year.

So maybe I am thinking that we are sensitive about this analysis because we are looking to avoid overgeneralizing, but maybe Epicurus was just looking at the relative near term and judging more practically based on experience, and that he was in fact totally talking without reference to categories or overgeneralizing. Every time I think about Epicurus' approach to "categories" I think (Hey, that sounds like Aristotle and Plato, there are no "natural categories" in an atomist natural universe) -- and I tend to then think that Epicurus is saying "don't get caught up in categories, just look at the facts of the present and the foreseeable future."

Sorry we just crossposted and I elaborated on my earlier post....

But I think your comment emphasizes my question. "Can't"? What does "can't" mean with a human nature possessing agency, and absence of fate?

"The sage, once wise, won't fall back into ignorance, nor will they willingly do this on purpose."

Just now finding time to start detailed comment. That one has always caused me concern as being mangled, because I hear in it something that conflicts with the "free will" position. If it means that the wise man definitely won't fall back into ignorance, then it almost sounds to me like a Christian "once saved always saved" argument. If it means that the wise man probably won't fall back, then does that really mean anything other than a "truism"?

I always presume that Epicurus either is saying something important, or he is repeating for emphasis and clarity something that he already has said that is important.

So I am thinking there is more than meets the eye, or maybe I am really agreeing with what you indicate is one of the alternate translations in consolidating the passages into a point about the wise man not being generally susceptible to being overcome by emotion and pushed back into ignorance.

Is there another alternative for meaning here?

Thanks and yes t hat looks much better. For the benefit of anyone else reading, it's not necessary to go into the code view if you just block select the text that is hard-coded, then select the Font Size, Font Family, or Font Color option in the editor menu. Click on that button and the last option at the bottom of each is "Remove....." and that lets you remove the hard-coding using the GUI. But either method works fine.

Yes great work Don! Also, would you mind editing your post by blocking it all and selecting "remove color" from the menu? Pasting it from Google brought over hard-coded dark text which is hard to see using a dark forum style. Might be good to "remove font" too so that it looks best on all forum styles. I could do it myself but once you see how that works you ll know for the future.

Fascinating! Thanks Joshua!

And also, once you prepare a full-size final version, you would be potentially be able to 3d scan so that replicas could be made?