Elli -- As quoted by Joshua above, DeWitt says that the letter to Menoeceus is composed in a different "style" of Greek writing than are the other two letters. Do you agree that the letter to Meneoceus seems more "elegant" or is written in a different style of grammar?
DeWitt on page 12 holds up the letter to Menoeceus as (alone of the extant letters) "composed according to the rules of rhythmical prose". Epicurus in this one letter is writing artfully.
Elli do you agree that there is a difference in "style" between the Letter to Menoeceus and the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles?
Actually words like "arbitrary" or "capricious" might be better than "random." Not arbitrary, but undirected.
All this is a very good start to this thread.
I see no point in a generalization like that.
That's largely the point of this thread, to discuss things like that. My concern is that - at least in specific cultural contexts - the argument for supernatural religion is buttressed by covering words such as "random" with unacceptable connotations of "chance" that also seem improbable (and rightly so, because what we see is produced by the nature of the elements, not by supernatural outside forces which arbitrarily and capriciously inject new elements that are totally unpredictable). Regular / Normal non-physicist people need a frame of reference that rejects supernatural intervention without indicating that version of "chance."
Here is a definition of "random" from dictionary.com. As you indicate, Martin, the three standard definitions, especially the first one, is probably in whole or part acceptable (but .."pattern?")
. It is the "slang" definitions that are the problem for ordinary people, I think, and in developing this discussion I am thinking that this "slang" meaning is increasingly overtaking the standard definitions in normal discussion. And in these senses, the slang version of "random" contains ( I think ) much the same objectionable content as you and I (and apparently Epicurus too) agree is indicated by "chaotic."
Table of Topics For the "Lucretius Today" Podcast
| 1743 Daniel Browne |
One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six |
| Munro | One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six |
| Munro Notes |
One | Two | Three |
Four |
Five | Six |
| Bailey | One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six |
| Bailey Notes |
One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six |
| Munro Latin |
One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six |
Note: The links in this table should be correct. Some of the links on page two of the current pdf version need to be updated. Most are correct, but the links to the Bailey and Munro notes sections for each book require updating.
What would you suggest in its place Martin? Especially keeping in mind that the context is not really specialized physics but general understandability for a layman.
12/2/19 Edit to make item five more encompassing and clear:
From:
5. Not "humanism,” “individualism”, “collectivism”, “egoism,” “altruism,” or “social progress,” but friendship which “is formed and maintained by means of community of life among those who have reached the fullness of pleasure.”
To:
5. Not "humanism," "transhumanism," "individualism," "collectivism," "egoism," "altruism," "social progress," "Marxism," "democracy," "tyranny," or any "one size fits all" political ideal of any kind, but social structure based on friendship which "is formed and maintained by means of a community of life among those who have reached the fullness of pleasure."
I have never seen any, Godfrey. I have never seen any information whatsoever about who Menoeceus was, or anything about its context. I am not aware that there is any information about it at all other than what is in Diogenes Laertius, which gives very little.
There is this comment, after the letter to Pythocles:
And then this, before and after the letter, which Bailey represents here by the line of dots so he can pull out the letter and highlight it separately from the biography:
As far as I know, that is the extent of our knowledge about the letter to Menoeceus.
Today I saw the phrase "not random, but undirected" and think it is probably a good high-level summary of the Epicurean position in physics, given that the properties of the elemental particles give rise to their motions, while at the same time the concept of "the swerve" is also operational, but that none of this is "random" in the sense of "chaotic" or "subject to fortune." The key is in the definitions of these words, but the issue is that Epicurus was concerned to explain the observed regularity of the universe while still preserving a mechanism for free will, and it helps to have ways to capture this attack on both religion and radical skepticism in a single phrase.
This subforum and thread are set up to discuss that. I have googled for the phrase without finding this precise formulation very often (if at all) but here is a clip from an article that is very close - discussing animal behavior. The book is "Animal Behavior" by Michael D. Breed and Janice Moore; this context of animals is no doubt not a perfect analogy, but there are other examples relating to "undirected graphs" and other aspects of mathematics which are probably better, but I don't have those at hand.
I also think this is probably closely related to the matters discussed in "Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism" by AA Long.
For the time being, this is more a placeholder than an assertion of a conclusion...
So the Epicurean orientation toward pleasure-seeking stems from the foundation of the Epicurean orientation toward reality, not the other way around. Pleasure and pain are realities to us, and so feeling is a part of the Epicurean canon of truth, while dialectical logic is not.
Also: https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/phaedo/section9/
Here is a very informative response from a FB poster:
"Second sailing or second voyage" is an Ancient Greek sailing proverb; "when the wind fails, we use the oars." Plato uses the term in Phaedo 99d. He claims that the physicists were not able to satisfy him regarding the true causes of nature. He finds a clue in Anaxagoras' notion of mind (nous) and believes dialectic can take him the rest of the way. Hence, the move from the natural power of the wind to the artificial power of the oars. I think it is correct to characterize Epicureanism as rejecting the second voyage. Addressing Plato's concerns regarding the failure of the Physicist to explain adequately the causes of nature would surely have been one of Epicurus' key objectives.
The excerpt below is not directed at Nietzsche or Al-Razi, but it contains an independent insight that is worth taking out of that context. This paragraph points to what really makes Epicurus unique and important - not his ethics, but his insight into the nature of the universe. "Positing only material atoms and the void, the Epicureans attempt to account for all being, knowledge, and value without relying upon any “supernatural” explanatory entities." Without this foundation, the ethics lead nowhere:
Yes that is an excellent observation too -- something is different about this letter. I wonder if Elli has any insight into the stylistic issues involved? Or whether the name "Menoeceus" has any background meaning?
So we know from the other two major letters that Epicurus used the standard format of beginning his letters with an explanation of why he was writing, yet in this one he apparently just launches into a discourse with no context.
And we know (or think we know) that this one as written in a very different style.
The other letters give us at least a small amount of information about the recipient, in telling us why they were written. I wish we know anything at all about who "Menoeceus" was, other than that he was someone who apparently had had prior direct dealings with Epicurus.
Welcome @Uwe ! For those who don't know, Uwe is a name I recognize well from past Epicurean discussions, and he has been very helpful in several research matters. Very good to see you here! Uwe and Martin , you ought to say guten tag to your fellow countryman - I don't think you two know each other.
But here is the rest of the general welcome: When you get a chance, please tell us about yourself and your background in Epicurean philosophy.
It would be particularly helpful if you could tell us (1) how you found this forum, and (2) how much background reading you have done in Epicurus. As an aid in the latter, we have prepared the following list of core reading.
Thanks for joining us and we look forward to talking with you.
----------------------- Epicurean Works I Have Read ---------------------------------
1 The Biography of Epicurus By Diogenes Laertius (Chapter 10). This includes all Epicurus' letters and the Authorized Doctrines. Supplement with the Vatican list of Sayings.
2 "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Norman DeWitt
3 "On The Nature of Things"- Lucretius
4 Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
5 Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
6 The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
7 "A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
8 Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus (3) Others?
9 Plato's Philebus
10 Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
11 "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially on katastematic and kinetic pleasure.
12 Chance and Natural Law in Epicurean Philosophy - AA Long -
13
14
15
Observation: Both the letter to Pythocles and the letter to Herodotus start out with a specific detailed greeting explaining the purpose of the letter and saying that these people are being provided a summary of a part of Epicurus' philosophy.
The letter to Menoeceus, in contrast, does not start the same way. It does not identify the reason that prompted the letter, state the purpose of the letter, or refer to it being a summary of the principles of ethics.
The second paragraph does imply that what follows is in explanation of the things Epicurus "used unceasingly to commend to you..." but this is after an introductory paragraph that seems to be floating out of context. Is something missing, or was there something about the rationale of the letter to Menoeceus, or about Menoecus himself ("that I used to commend to you"), that is relevant for us to keep in mind?
This is in contrast to the letter to Herodotus:
And the letter to Pythocles in particular mentions this context, and even refers to the letter to Herodotus - but does not refer to the letter to Menoeceus:
I know nothing about that Thomas Moore novel. Have you read any of it?
Thanks again Joshua. I set up a new subforum "Notable Opponents of Epicurean Philosophy" and moved this thread there.
How do you interpret that Joshua? I am not sure I understand the meaning.
Joshua I think you will really enjoy the Parthenon. I have been there twice and it's really monumentally impressive. The statue on the inside is also huge, if perhaps a little plasticy-looking (if I remember). But I go by there any chance I get and I highly recommend it.
