Bryan you are probably here one of the most expert on the full text of Diogenes Laertius. To which would you look for the best order for all of Book X? If not Bailey, Hicks?
(I see an example of such a note in Herodotus 61 of the PDF. I don't know how many such notes there are, but it would be a desirable to maybe include a statement as to what/which order the PDF follows?)
Tau Phi ---
I've been working with Book ten myself recently and in looking back over the versions that I have here at the site and in various other places, I find it very difficult to line up some paragraphs between the three versions because it appears that different translators are using different text arrangements and/or line numbers.
When I was working with the Lucretius texts I ended up using the Rouse/Loeb as "canonical" for numbering purposes, and then I forced the other translations to fit.
Did you do something similar with this PDF, or did you not run into such issues for some reason? If you used one version as the "master" reference for line numbering, which did you use?
As to Epicurus on the eternality of atoms in motion, we have:
Diogenes Laertius 43 (Hicks): "The atoms are in continual motion through all eternity. Some of them rebound to a considerable distance from each other, while others merely oscillate in one place when they chance to have got entangled or to be enclosed by a mass of other atoms shaped for entangling.
I scanned Phaedrus -- it covers lots of ground but only a portion is about the soul.
In finishing it I was surprised to see this statement right at the very end, which I seem to remember Epicurus flatly contradicts (according to Diogenes Laertius, I think):
PHAEDRUS to SOCRATES (after Socrates offers a parting prayer to the gods):
"Ask the same for me, for friends should have all things in common."
Edit - Yes - very early in DLX:
[11] Indeed, he says, they were satisfied with half a pint of wine, and for the most part drank water. He adds that Epicurus did not recommend them to put their belongings into a common stock, as did Pythagoras, who said that ‘Friends have all in common.’ For to do so implied distrust: and distrust could not go with friendship. Epicurus himself says in his letters that he was content with nothing but water and a bit of bread.
Cicero says this is explained by Plato in Phaedrus -- that dialogue is here:
Phaedrus (Jowett) - Wikisource, the free online library
Includes this:
The soul through all her being is immortal, for that which is ever in motion is immortal; but that which moves another and is moved by another, in ceasing to move ceases also to live. Only the self–moving, never leaving self, never ceases to move, and is the fountain and beginning of motion to all that moves besides. Now, the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; but the beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of something, then the begotten would not come from a beginning. But if unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything out of a beginning; and all things must have a beginning. And therefore the self–moving is the beginning of motion; and this can neither be destroyed nor begotten, else the whole heavens and all creation would collapse and stand still, and never again have motion or birth. But if the self–moving is proved to be immortal, he who affirms that self–motion is the very idea and essence of the soul will not be put to confusion. For the body which is moved from without is soulless; but that which is moved from within has a soul, for such is the nature of the soul. But if this be true, must not the soul be the self–moving, and therefore of necessity unbegotten and immortal? Enough of the soul’s immortality.
We'll need to parse this because it would appear that Epicurus would probably agree with some of this, but not all.
For reference, a Chatgpt summary of Phaedrus:
In Plato's Phaedrus, the major arguments revolve around the nature of love (eros), rhetoric, and the soul. Here’s a summary of the key themes:
In short, Phaedrus explores the intersection of love, rhetoric, and the soul, arguing that both love and rhetoric, when properly understood and applied, can guide individuals toward higher understanding and truth.
This will relate to the argument given by Thomas Paine here:
And the difference in presentation by Paine and Cicero probably affords a good clue on how to respond to it.
Paine states a key premise in question (that motion is not an inherent property of matter) as if it were a fact: "The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself."
While Cicero (at least in this excerpt) does not go so far as to directly state that matter does not move itself - he just implies it.
Epicurus states that atoms have properties of "weight," shape, and size, with weight apparently the motion aspect.
Welcome to Episode 275 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.
Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
This week we continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:
As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools.
These week we turn our attention further to "Is Death An Evil," and we will read beginning in Section XXIII where the discussion continues with more about the Pythagorean / Platonic view of the human soul.
Our general discussion guide for Tusculun Disputations is here: https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/notes/epicurea…html#org0c11d2e
And a side-by-side version with comments is here: https://epicureanfriends.github.io/tusculundisput…glish/section:5
Here is the heart of the argument regarding motion that we will want to address:
“That which is always moved is eternal; but that which gives motion to something else, and is moved itself by some external cause, when that motion ceases, must necessarily cease to exist. That, therefore, alone, which is self-moved, because it is never forsaken by itself, can never cease to be moved. Besides, it is the beginning and principle of motion to everything else; but whatever is a principle has no beginning, for all things arise from that principle, and it cannot itself owe its rise to anything else; for then it would not be a principle did it proceed from anything else. But if it has no beginning, it never will have any end; for a principle which is once extinguished, cannot itself be restored by anything else, nor can it produce anything else from itself; inasmuch as all things must necessarily arise from some first cause. And thus it comes about, that the first principle of motion must arise from that thing which is itself moved by itself; and that can neither have a beginning nor an end of its existence, for otherwise the whole heaven and earth would be overset, and all nature would stand still, and not be able to acquire any force, by the impulse of which it might be first set in motion. Seeing, then, that it is clear, that whatever moves itself is eternal, can there be any doubt that the soul is so? For everything is inanimate which is moved by an external force; but everything which is animate is moved by an interior force, which also belongs to itself. For this is the peculiar nature and power of the soul; and if the soul be the only thing in the whole world which has the power of self-motion, then certainly it never had a beginning, and therefore it is eternal.”
Now, should all the lower order of philosophers, (for so I think they may be called, who dissent from Plato and Socrates and that school,) unite their force, they never would be able to explain anything so elegantly as this, nor even to understand how ingeniously this conclusion is drawn. The soul, then, perceives itself to have motion, and at the same time that it gets that perception, it is sensible that it derives that motion from its own power, and not from the agency of another; and it is impossible that it should ever forsake itself; and these premises compel you to allow its eternity, unless you have something to say against them.
Thanks for the detailed updates. These are fascinating and useful!
Added to the "Files" section here.
Tau Phi, I included you as one of the people who can edit that section, so if you make revisions you should be able to upload them there yourself -- or just flag me and I'll do it. Thanks again!
Episode 274 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is entitled: "Is The Soul Held Down By The Body And Death Allow The Soul To Ascend To A Better Place? " as we proceed further into part one of Tusculan Disputations
This response from "Oso" (see the blue section) came in today at the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group. My references are to the Facebook group policies, but the post is in regard to the same "no partisan politics" rule we implement here. I thought it would be good to share here in this thread:
That looks great and thank you Tau Phi!
In this week's Lucretius Today podcast (Episode 274), Cicero relates this about Democritus (the underlined section):
I will have nothing at all to do with that fortuitous concourse of individual light and round bodies, notwithstanding Democritus insists on their being warm, and having breath, that is to say, life. But this soul, which is compounded of either of the four principles from which we assert that all things are derived, is of inflamed air, as seems particularly to have been the opinion of Panætius, and must necessarily mount upwards; for air and fire have no tendency downwards, but always ascend; so should they be dissipated, that must be at some distance from the earth; but should they remain, and preserve their original state, it is clearer still that they must be carried heavenward; and this gross and concrete air, which is nearest the earth, must be divided and broken by them; for the soul is warmer, or rather hotter than that air, which I just now called gross and concrete; and this may be made evident from this consideration,—that our bodies, being compounded of the earthy class of principles, grow warm by the heat of the soul.
Thus the question in the title - Democritus did not apparently come up with the swerve, but did he think that atoms can be alive?
I checked and I don't think we have made any effort to make up a chart of differences between Epicurus and Democritus, and we need to develop one. If anyone already has one or knows of links please post, and let's develop one. There seem to be many and deep differences and we need to have this information readily available. Democritus was certainly a great man, but did he fully break from supernatural religion? That, at the very least, needs to be something we are very clear about.
Tau Phi when I click on the pdf I get a window that shows this:
Have you tried getting the PDF generator to produce a table of contents with the names of the letters and name for major sections like the Principal Doctrines, Will of Epicurus, etc? That would probably be more useful than the page thumbnails, if that's possible. And yes I agree with Bryan's suggestion and I will rework a section of the front page to make it easier to see where to find versions of the texts like this.
Great - thanks very much Tau Phi!
My late reading into the Matthew Stewart book. combined with the fact that Joshua and I are about to pick up on the topic of "motion" in the podcast (via Tusculun Disputations) reminded me of this article - "On The Existence of God by Thomas Paine. It's an example of the disappointment I feel in the deists not going all the way back to Epicurus, and I have to think that their failure to do so was a major part of what doomed their entire "deist" enterprise.
https://www.thomaspaine.org/works/essays/religion/the-existence-of-god.htm
I am hopeful that we can address Paine's "motion" argument in the upcoming podcast(s) so if anyone has a comment, please post. Here's the thrust of Paine's argument:
Let us examine this subject; it is worth examining; for if we examine it through all its cases, the result will be that the existence of a SUPERIOR CAUSE, or that which man calls GOD, will be discoverable by philosophical principles.
In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is equally as impossible of proof as to assert it.
It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say-if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable, as is before said, by natural philosophy.
I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is.
The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself.1
It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited.
The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion.
Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion.
But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies.
But the motion that upholds the solar system is of an entire different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entire different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system.
Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it.
When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD.
As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature’s God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the Power that ordained them.
God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon.
But infidelity, by ascribing every phenomenon to properties of matter, conceives a system for which it cannot account, and yet it pretends to demonstration. It reasons from what it sees on the surface of the earth, but it does not carry itself on the solar system existing by motion.
It sees upon the surface a perpetual decomposition and recomposition of matter. It sees that an oak produces an acorn, an acorn an oak, a bird an egg, an egg a bird, and so on. In things of this kind it sees something which it calls a natural cause, but none of the causes it sees is the cause of that motion which preserves the solar system.
Let us contemplate this wonderful and stupendous system consisting of matter, and existing by motion. It is not matter in a state of rest, nor in a state of decomposition or recomposition. It is matter systematized in perpetual orbicular or circular motion. As a system that motion is the life of it: as animation is life to an animal body, deprive the system of motion and, as a system, it must expire.
Who then breathed into the system the life of motion? What power impelled the planets to move, since motion is not a property of the matter of which they are composed? If we contemplate the immense velocity of this motion, our wonder becomes increased, and our adoration enlarges itself in the same proportion.
The full article is not very long and well worth reading:
https://www.thomaspaine.org/works/essays/religion/the-existence-of-god.htm
living in stormy political times and refusing to take sides
That phrasing emphasizes to me that "refusing to take sides" is not at all the same thing as "refusing to take risks" or even "refusing to endure pain." It seems that Atticus was very well ready to take personal risks that might include up to death for offending the wrong people - when he thought that the reward was worth the risk.
It's a point worth emphasizing that refusing to engage in political feuds is not the same thing at all as refusing to take risks under the right circumstances.
Not significant but in reading up on Thomas Young I was interested to see if there was a portait of them.
I'm not finding anything other than this link below, which due to the dates does not appear to be our target.
If anyone in the future finds that there is a portrait, please add it to this thread. Thanks.
I've seen this book praised many times here in the past by Eikadistes and Joshua so it's well past time we have thread dedicated to it.
Just in the last week or so have I had time to pick it up, and I have to say I am very impressed so far. This is a subject (usually filed under "Deism") that I started reading into shortly after college, and it had a major impact on my thinking long before I picked up Epicurus. I'm less than a quarter of the way through it but I'm already very impressed by its level of detail, including material on Ethan Allen, whose "Reason The Only Oracle of Man" I read many years ago. But it had not sunk into my consciousness that there was a relationship between him and Thomas Young, a figure that I posted about years ago, but never pursued (that I can recall).
While strictly speaking "Deism" is considered to be closer to the watchmaker model, where the universe was originally created by a supernatural god, and therefore not compatible with Epicurean physics, it seems that there was a lot of variation among the thoughts of those who were labeled as deists, and some of them may indeed have had almost a full Epicurean viewpoint.
I post this because over time and new people discover this book, I'd like it to have a thread that people can find to add their thoughts. No doubt there are many details about people like Young who are mentioned in the book about whom it would be good to research to look for clues to the development of their thought and Epicurean connections.
Also, while we always need to steer clear of contemporary partisan politics, I think one of the most important implications of studying these figures is the connection between their "activism" and their Epicurean-adjacent worldviews. It seems like almost a whole generation of people, even those who were not as educated as others, understood that this non-supernatural worldview logically leads to greater, not not lesser, interest in and engagement with the world around them. And rather than living in "fear" or being unwilling to experience any pain at all, they went to a lot of effort and personal risk to pursue living as they thought it should be conducted.
It's frustrating to read in Stewart's book about how so many of them from Washington and Franklin and even Jefferson kept their views to themselves, no doubt out of concern for what would happen to them if they were too vocal. Even so it is motivating to read about these figures and consider the extent to which we can add to their work given that our environment -- at least for now -- allows many of us to speak a little more openly than was available to them.
Thanks for posting that Cleveland -- lots of good info in there!
