Also Maciej: When you say: "2. What is conceivably possible to exist in infinite universe necessarily somewhere exist."
I gather this is the step to which Hiram objects, and I am not confident of it either. Can you state the basis for your confidence in it?
When one of us has time we ought to include in this thread what are the three interpretations you refer to here "This is what in my opinion is the problem with so called third interpretation." I presume you're probably referring to Hiram's article(s) - I will have to check.
Maciej -- By this:
"except I think that epicurean gods are deathless and painless by nature and not by success "in those fields" through progress or evolution as you seems to imply"
I presume you mean that you think gods did not have a beginning point? In other words, you think because they are deathless they have no end point, but because you think that they are that way "by nature" that the gods have always existed and did not have a beginning point. If that is your view, do you mean "all gods" or "particular gods" never had a beginning point?
I think I may agree with you, especially on the implication that one or more of these gods (maybe not all) have always existed. Deathless may be an attribute that might be evolvable over time, but one of the considerations of infinity is "no beginning point" so you are probably right to emphasize that there was no point in the past when there were no "gods"
| Passage and Problem | Alternatives and Suggested Translation | Discussion Link |
| VS 35: Bailey translates 35 this way: "We should not spoil what we have by desiring what we do not have, but remember that what we have too was the gift of fortune." | Norman DeWitt (EAHP page __ ) "We must not spoil the enjoyment of the blessings we have by pining for those we have not but rather reflect tht these too are among the things desirable." Peter St Andre: "Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for." Peter adds the note "[35] The word translated here as "ruin" (λυμαίνομαι) means, at root, to mistreat. The implication is that not honoring the good things you have achieved is a sign of disrespect and shows a lack of appreciation. See also Vatican Sayings #69 and #75. |
Discussion here. |
| VS 66: Bailey: Let us show our feeling for our lost friends not by lamentation but by meditation. | DeWitt p 327: "Let us show our sympathy with our friends, not by wailing, but by taking thought." Epicurus.net: "We show our feeling for our friends' suffering, not with laments, but with thoughtful concern." |
Discussion here |
| DL "Wise Man" Saying As to Rejoicing at Misfortune of Another (near line 120) | Bailey: "He will rejoice at another’s misfortunes, but only for his correction." Perseus: ""He will be grateful to anyone when he is corrected." Yonge: "he will propitiate an absolute ruler when occasion requires, and will humor him for the sake of correcting his habits;" | Discussion Here |
| DL "Wise Man" Saying as to Whether to Marry | CD Yonge’s 1853: “Marriage, they say, is never any good to a man, and we must be quite content if it does no harm; and the wise man will never marry or beget children, as Epicurus himself lays down in his Doubts and in his treatises on Nature. Still, under certain circumstances in his life he will forsake these rules and marry.” Loeb Classical Library version of the R.D. Hicks translation, which dates from 1931, concurs: “Nor, again, will the wise man marry and rear a family: so Epicurus says in the Problems and in the De Natura. Occasionally he may marry due to special circumstances in his life.” But Cyril Bailey in his 1926 translation says: “Moreover, the wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in the Problems and in the work On Nature. But he will marry according to the circumstances of his life.” Epicurus Reader (Inwood and Gerson) “And indeed the wise man will marry and father children….” George Strodach (1963): “In addition, the wise man will marry and beget children…. but he will marry according to his station in life, whatever it may be.” | Discussion Here |
It appears to me that we have a real problem with Cyril Bailey's translation of VS35, which speaks of "Fortune" in a way that seems positively un-Epicurean. Here are my notes so far, but I would appreciate the help of anyone and everyone in tracing down authoritative alternate translations, and also seeing if there is some reason for Bailey's use of "gift of fortune."
Bailey translates 35 this way: "We should not spoil what we have by desiring what we do not have, but remember that what we have too was the gift of fortune."
The translation that seems to be preferred on other websites, which is much more consistent with Epicurean philosophy, is: "35. Don't spoil what you have by desiring what you don't have; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for."
Peter St Andre: "Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for." Peter adds the note "[35] The word translated here as "ruin" (λυμαίνομαι) means, at root, to mistreat. The implication is that not honoring the good things you have achieved is a sign of disrespect and shows a lack of appreciation. See also Vatican Sayings #69 and #75.
Epicurism.info - the Epicurism Wiki
DeWitt, Page 326:
In thinking about the alternative version (Don't spoil what you have by desiring what you don't have; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for.) I wonder if DeWitt (We must not spoil the enjoyment of the blessings we have by pining for those we have not but rather reflect that these too are among the things desirable) might be more correct. Does it make sense to say that "the things we have are what we one hoped for" when "the things we have" could be cancer, disease, hunger, etc?) We could presume that "the things we have" refers to good things, but Dewitt's version links "the blessings we have" with "these too are among the desirable" so in the Dewitt version there is (arguably) less ambiguity. What do you think? I would like to see how other "authorities" translate this for comparison.
H - De Witt's translation of the word "εὐκταίων" as "the gift of fortune" is not correct in strict sense. The word "εὐκταίων" is used today with the same meaning as " the things I wish(ed) for". De Witt may be right if we expand the meaning of the word and assume that our wishes are materialized through good fortune.
Cassius Amicus H - I think you have the names reversed - the "gift of fortune" comes from Bailey rather than DeWitt. I have not yet found anyone else who refers to fortune besides Bailey, but I am still looking.
Cassius Amicus And given the other clear admonitions in Epicurean texts against relying on Fortune, or thinking that it is as force at all, I am thinking that any positive references to "Fortune" must be severely scrutinized and presumably avoided. I would expect Dewitt to have a similar attitude because of his respect for Epicurus. I am afraid the same cannot be said for Bailey. Bailey's primary motivation to be accurate was probably academic respectability, rather than any respect for the consistency of Epicurean doctrine. So I would think that "if we expand the meaning of the word and assume that our wishes are materialized through good fortune" is the very thing we would not do if we were looking for a consistent interpretation across the texts(??)1
Cassius AmicusGroup Admin I hope we can find some other academic translations of the Vatican Sayings. I have never found too much on them other than Bailey's collection, which presumably is based on Usener (?) I would think there would be numbers of articles about how and where it was found, what the text looks like, where it is now, etc.
I have added paragraph numbers to the "Terms of Use" page to make any section of it easier to discuss should anyone have any questions, suggested changes, etc.
https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?sc-terms-of-use/
From the point of view that new users coming to this website may not be familiar enough with the expected conversations to understand the "latest posts" listed only by date/time, let's move that feature to the DASHBOARD only and remove it from the HOME page, so that the HOME page shows the list of ten latest TOPICS from the General forum, and then the popular posts from the other forum.
After this switch New people visiting the home page see the topics at first, and can then decide whether to read the threads. So for regulars who know everyone and what's being discussed and want to bookmark and return to the list of the most recent POSTS, like I do, please use the DASHBOARD as the landing page. The only page that in my mind competes with the Dashboard as the place to visit first is the NOTIFICATIONS page (listed directly beneath the Dashboard in the Menu), but that doesn't seem optimum and has a lot of user-control-panel controls which are static and not part of an update page.
Give me some feedback on whether that's a good chance to keep - especially if there is any missing box or arrangement issue that prevents the Dashboard from being a good central place for returning users to check first every time they come to the site.
That first quote from DeWitt ("He so interpreted the significance of infinity as to extend it from matter and space to the sphere of VALUES - perfection and imperfection...") I think is purely DeWitt's suggestion, if the text is only this:
“Surely the mighty power of the Infinite Being is most worthy our great and earnest contemplation; the Nature of which we must necessarily understand to be such that everything in it is made to correspond completely to some other answering part. This is called by Epicurus ισονμία (isonomia); that is to say, an equal distribution or even disposition of things. From hence he draws this inference, that, as there is such a vast multitude of mortals, there cannot be a less number of immortals. Further, if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless.
In talking about "values" I think DeWitt is making a reasonable guess, but as I see it the paragraph breaks down into four observations:
1 - the Nature of which we must necessarily understand to be such that everything in it is made to correspond completely to some other answering part. - everything has a corresponding answering part (?)
2 - "This is called by Epicurus ισονμία (isonomia); that is to say, an equal distribution or even disposition of things." - equal distribution
3 - From hence he draws this inference, that, as there is such a vast multitude of mortals, there cannot be a less number of immortals.
4 - Further, if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless.
My reading of these points is that we see things here on earth exist on a scale of COMPLEXITY and/or "SUCCESS" in their achievements. For examples worms on one end and men on the other, on the scale of living beings, minnows vs dolphins, etc. This is hard evidence of a scale of progression in things like acuity of sight, acuity of hearing, physical abilities, and mental abilities.
I gather that Epicurus argued that from this scale of progression here on other it is proper to infer that that scale extends higher in other parts of the universe where life exists. Given that the universe is eternal in time and infinite in space, we should expert the scale of progression to extend these complexities and accomplishments to what we would consider an extreme degree. At the higher end of the scale of progression we should expect to find beings that are far higher in complexity and ental and physical success in humans. And as our human goal is to live as long as possible, and to live in as much pleasure/little pain as possible, it is to be expected that somewhere there are beings which have succeeded in those fields to the point where they are both deathless and painless. And that even though we might not be able to see these beings with our own eyes in the light of day, we should deduce that they exist from the things that we do see in the universe, just as we deduce (on the simple/primitive end of the scale) that atoms exist without seeing them. So in that way inferring the existence of deathless and painless beings is just the flip side of the process of inferring the existence of atoms.
DeWitt's discussion of this part seems very interesting to me: "Further, if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless.” It's not exactly the same point, but I gather what DeWitt is also observing is that while individual local bodies which comes together always end up destroyed / disassociating in the end, that is not true from the perspective of the universe as a whole, at which level the entirety is never destroyed / disassociated. Thus the forces of creation/sustenance prevail over the forces of destruction in the end. It's hard to know if this was what Epicurus was talking about, much less whether the idea would seem valid if we had a full discussion of it. But there clearly are several very subtle arguments going on here. All this does indeed in my mind spin around with the issues of eternity and infinity which Epicurus stressed we need to study in great detail. We've only scratched the surface of all this.
I just read it again. There is a lot of speculation in there. I see DeWitt thinks "equitable apportionment" is the better phrase, and that he is talking about forces that prevail on a universal level rather than on a local level. There's just not a lot to work with here.
This is the paragraph from Cicero as translated by Yonge:
“Surely the mighty power of the Infinite Being is most worthy our great and earnest contemplation; the Nature of which we must necessarily understand to be such that everything in it is made to correspond completely to some other answering part. This is called by Epicurus ισονμία (isonomia); that is to say, an equal distribution or even disposition of things. From hence he draws this inference, that, as there is such a vast multitude of mortals, there cannot be a less number of immortals. Further, if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless.”
This is a thread for discussion the details of Isonomy, as found in Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" and discussed by Dewitt in his chapter On Piety
Here is the best and really only information I have, which is from DeWitt. I've never seen anything else on the topic:
"and in fact I think in our last conversation on the subject we proved it was an incorrect theory." < I will have to look back and see what you're referring to there, as I don't recall agreeing that it is an incorrect theory at all. To the extent that it means "equitable distribution" or "distribution along a spectrum from highest to lowest" I am perfectly fine with it and think that it makes perfect sense.
Another good catch Hiram. Dewitt explains the evidence of the gods through images and/or anticipations in his chapter on party. Also the argument from isonomia etc which I prefer is in that same chapter and in "on the nature of the gods"
Good point I did not pick up the first time. The first part of the sentence I think is good, but the word "true" doesn't fit, as you say. More applicable instead of "true" would be "what is to be pursued and avoided."
Excerpts from a discussion. This is highly edited so maybe some of the comments will be helpful to someone reading this thread / maybe not....
CassiusE THANK YOU! So in Epicurus himself there are two references in the letter to Menoeceus, and then in Doctrine 33? Is that a complete list from what we would consider Epicurus himself? Meaning it does not appear in the other letters, or in the other doctrines, or the Vatican sayings? I would eventually like to find the line and page numbers in this Bailey edition so I can put together a full list which shows both the English and Greek:https://archive.org/.../Epicurus-the-Extant-Remains...Manage
E: Eudeamonia is happiness which cannot be augmented.2
Ma
CassiusGood point! "Happiness" in general does not imply that it cannot be augmented.
Eudaemonia cannot be augmented, and it is the best described word than the word "happiness" or in greek "eutychia" since the word happiness depends on many outer factors, as its meaning is connected with the word " fortune" and as Epicurus explains here : "He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. [135] It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance".
Here is the description of an epicurean man and how he has achieved "eudaemonia" in his life!
[133] "Who, then, is superior in thy judgement to such a man ? He holds a holy belief concerning the gods, and is altogether free from the fear of death. He has diligently considered the end fixed by nature, and understands how easily the limit of good things can be reached and attained, and how either the duration or the intensity of evils is but slight. Destiny, which some introduce as sovereign over all things, he laughs to scorn, affirming rather that some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency. For he sees that necessity destroys responsibility and that chance or fortune is inconstant ; whereas our own actions are free, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach. [134] It were better, indeed, to accept the legends of the gods than to bow beneath that yoke of destiny which the natural philosophers have imposed. The one holds out some faint hope that we may escape if we honour the gods, while the necessity of the naturalists is deaf to all entreaties. Nor does he hold chance to be a god, as the world in general does, for in the acts of a god there is no disorder ; nor to be a cause, though an uncertain one, for he believes that no good or evil is dispensed by chance to men so as to make life blessed, though it supplies the starting-point of great good and great evil. He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. [135] It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance.3
This word has been rejected, as it comes from the ancient greeks who were pagans and they worshiped those statues that were not gods but daemons.
So, this word EU+DAEMON+IA has already something evil inside and has to be rejected from the vocabulary of greeks and non greeks.
The worse DAEMON of all was the god PAN. Pan became the devil.2
AR Yes. Christians have rejected it. We have not rejected it.2
AR Now Diogenes says this:
although pleasure is the first and a natural good, for this same reason we do not choose every pleasure whatsoever, but at many times we pass over certain pleasures, when difficulty is likely to ensue from choosing them.
CassiusOK here is my comment, so E you correct me: If Eudaemonia literally means "good demon" then Epicurus and the Greeks of the time were using the word "figuratively" as you say for the "highest .... what" - because Epicurus didn't believe in demons. Above you wrote: "Eudeamonia is happiness which cannot be augmented." To some extent that is circular, if we don't know the meaning of "happiness."
We know the meaning of Pleasure without being told. I don't think we know the meaning of happiness without it being defined. That's why pleasure, and not happiness, is the guide of life.
I like the word eudaemonia and think we should use it in context, but we probably need a detailed definition of how and why it is being used and why we would not in English simply say "happiness."
I continue to think that we should translate ALL words, giving detailed definitions, so that no one is left with the idea that we have a mystical idea that cannot be translated (which is exactly the situation I think the world is in with "ataraxia")
Manage
Cassius Amicus
CassiusLet me emphasize that last point. I think it is imperative that we always translate all words and state a precise definition, even if we use the Greek in shorthand. For the non-Greeks using the word in casual conversation is probably not a good idea, especially with new people who don't know the meaning and who think therefore that we are talking in secret code. I hate secret codes.
...
So there Torquatus is summarizing the goal in one sentence: "Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain. (What possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable?)
...
Anyone who comes across this thread, please post if you have questions or comments about how the website is organized. Currently it is set up to balance two goals: (1) People who come here for the first time need quick access to samples of information that is here so they will dig further and return, and (2) People who return regularly need quick access to updated messages without having to scroll through too much of the same static content.
So the way this is currently set up is that the Home page has the most static content highlighting the features of the website, while the Dashboard and Timeline pages focus on a balance of the message and changing content and can be used for bookmarking the site to return to in the future.
If anyone has suggestions for better implementing this please comment.
Very interesting! I don't think there is any issue with the fact that the brain takes all its inputs and assembles a conclusion, as stated at 2:57 in the video. Of COURSE we can't always trust what we see or here or any other sense - that is the purpose of multiple exposures and examining the facts from as many different sides as we can. Epicurus absolutely knew that and taught to compensate for it, and it's just a fallacy of anti-Epicureans to suggest that he would be taken aback by this kind of things.
So in the end I think this is an excellent video for getting to the root of the issue - illusions do NOT invalidate the need for sensation, and that's just the point that Lucretius argues about sensations in Book IV.
And we look forward to having you with us Brendan!
There are indeed scary aspects of it and I agree that it is not a subject to bring up lightly - which is why we speak of it infrequently on facebook. And yet it is a good example of Epicurus carrying through the "atomistic universe" premise to its ultimate conclusions, and as we face death and other sobering aspects of reality, it's something else that has to be faced in its proper time. But certainly as not one of the first steps, and certainly not with strangers. 