Posts by Cassius

i will combine them!

velleius would have some spicy language about religion.

I was about to ask you because I cannot recall what is the point of the letter to Marcella?

There is so much good in the primary sources that it would be a shame to include too much secondary material.

And I wouldn't dream of putting the letter to Marcella or any plutarch ahead of the Torquatus or even Vellius material that Cicero has preserved.

The Torquatus material in particular is very hard to match, and probably a direct copy from an Epicurean work anyway even though it has Cicero's name on it.

This is similar to Hiram's question on what is the most important sections. I know personally that I would never want to abridge the "introductory" sections of each of the six books, and there are some key sections on "epistemology" and on death and romantic love and on the development of the world over time.... gee as I list them there is a lot I would want to see kept in as is. But no doubt there is a lot of repetition of some of the proofs which could be "abridged" pretty easily.

Hmmm I personally find the description very unpersuasive, but the face may be detailed enough to be recognizable as Hermarchus? I wonder if Elli agrees with that?

I know that the standard list would include the section on romantic love, and some of the discussion on atoms and void, but really the most interesting sections are the beginnings of the six books. Those are much more lively than a lot of the details, and they explain the significance of what is being discussed. That kind of context is missing from many discussions of Lucretius and without them it's easy to take some of the details and think that it's all a waste of time.

Charles when you get a chance could you set up a separate thread entitled Anti-Seneca (or however it should be designated) within his subforum, and possibly copy to it either what you've pasted above or a link to where you have transcribed what is available?

Thanks for that correction Hiram. Well, I wish Robert well, and I presume he does the same for us on our separate paths.

Here, for comparison, are the relevant sections on marriage and resisting fate from Inwood and Gerson's "The Epicurus Reader."

NOTE: I moved this discussion into a new thread since it is not relevant to the agenda issue.

Quote from Charles

I know Robert Hanrott fairly well and we email back and forth in addition to being added to his family email list, he's very reasonable and agreeable, if this is necessary I can bring it up with him.

Charles feel free to bring it up with him if you like, but that's up to you and I don't plan to contact him myself. He and I have had a pleasant enough though distant and very infrequent relationship for the 10 years or so that we've both been blogging about Epicurus. We go in different directions without any public disagreement with each other as far as I know. And like I said, I didn't state any issue to him when he changed his name to Epicurus today and registered the epicurus.today domain name, even though I was already operating under Epicurustoday.com and had held the domain name for many years. So I would be surprised if he saw any issue with my calling a podcast Epicurus today since he doesn't currently have a podcast by that name.

I am thinking that Hiram just asked the question here out of a sense of being cautious, since he is a regular collaborator with Robert, rather than hearing from Robert that he has an issue. Since Robert didn't contact me about any potential confusion when he changed his website to a website name I already held, and I didn't register any issue with him, I wouldn't imagine a podcast name would be an issue for him now. I think we're all just fans of Epicurus doing the best we can to promote the philosophy and all wish each other well on our own paths.

EDIT: This appears to be his previous name probably used up to 2017

Edit2 - Your question got me interested in the history. I don't know that the Wayback Machine at archive.org is accurate, because I think there was a website present at epicurustoday.com before that, but even using the Wayback dates, my website opened in its current format on 12/11/17. The Wayback machine shows that at least several days later, probably up to 2/9/18, Robert was still using "The Epicurus Blog" as his name.

On first thought - the introductory sections of each of the six books, all of which refer to Epicurus and/or general ethics issues

The section reconciling us to death (end of book three)

The section in book four discussing the primacy of the senses over reason.

I just checked both and I see what you mean about the formatting. That's great work Charles!

My memory as to when Robert Hanrott changed his name to Epicurus.today is somewhat better - he just did that in 2017, and it appears he did not do the name change until at least January of 2018.

Wow time flies -- I registered Epicurustoday.com way back in 2009!

Of course if that was something that concerned him and he asked me to name it something else i would certainly consider it, but he didn't contact me when he renamed his website Epicurustoday even though I have had Epicurustoday.com registered for many years previously, so I would be surprised if he felt this was an issue now.

Not sure yet what his page name was before 2018 because I haven't linked to it in the past, but I recall it changing -- probably was called The Epicurus Blog if I remember correctly

i'd have to go back and check the history, but I already own Epicurustoday.com and have held that longer than his website has existed under that name - as I recall he had another name for his blog previously and changed it to that rather recently. I am subject to being corrected on that, but it's an interesting point. I consider it a generic name anyway and I feel sure that he does not hold a copyright or would assert such a claim, as we already have that situation. Now if he already had a podcast by that name I might think otherwise, but as far as I know he does not.

A more general comment -- this book includes more pictures than I would expect, and fewer footnotes as to textual issues.

And as for this photo, how does she know it is an Epicurean philosopher?

Ok this appears to me to be REALLY troubling.

Here is the Bailey version: "He [the wise man] will face fortune and will never desert a friend."

Here is what appears in the Mensch version: " He will face his destiny and will not make any possession dear to him."

What in the world?????????