Posts by Elli

On ethics the epicurean terminology is mentioned on medicine i.e. the therapy of a disease that is spread like a plague (see Diogenis of Oinoanda inscription), and that is idealism.

We epicureans are healers as we give the right medicine (philosophy) to patients/idealists. However, patients must ask for their therapy. If not asked bid all of them farewell, leaving them to live inside their platonic illusions and fairytales. IMO monarchy, despotism, kingship, tyranny etc are constitutions of a primitive tradition that platonism and stoicism prevail.

If we examine both exhortations by Epicurus on the wise man, we see that:

a) The wise man will give lectures in public only if asked.

b) The wise man will serve a monarch when occasion requires.

IMO for an epicurean to ivolve with any public political affairs, it is an issue ONLY IF is asked!

The greek word "θεραπεύω" has several meanings e.g. a) I am in the service of someone b) I heal someone c) I appease someone for setting him in the right position.

The word "θεραπεύω" does not mean "pay court to" since this phrase includes "flattery" and I am not quite sure that Epicurus would use this phrase with such meaning. Since, epicureans are not flatterers like Plato that was the flatterer of the King Dionysus in Syracouse. HA

If you connect that the wise man will give lectures in public only IF asked, then the wise man will serve or appease or heal (through philosophical exhortations) a king only if asked. Because an epicurean feels pleasure if he corrects/heals someone OR if he is being corrected/healed by someone else. So simple, I suppose!

Here is an historical fact of the epicurean Cineas that was a consultant/advisor to the King Pyrrhus.

Log into Facebook

I' ll do my best. By the way, I would like to post here a new graphic. It's my best one !

Hello my friend Cassius. How are you? Yes, I agree that graphics are good to say many things with n a few words.

An excerpt of a work of mine entitled "Some thoughts for the epicurean Gnoseology (The CANON)".

<<The wise Heraclitus said these two words: “μεταβάλλον αναπαύεται» (metavalon anapavetai) i.e. “in rest is changing”, and that means we may perceive the environment and the Universe as to be static, but in the same time it is changing/moving.

However, and as the epicurean Diogenis of Oinoanda remarks, although the reality is flowing/changing/moving, but we can perceive and pre-receive a situation of it, with our senses and feelings in the basis of the experiences along with their consequences, as we are also able to think and to describe with words what is happening in us, and around us. So with epicurean philosophy the endless doubtful that nothing can be known as Socrates said, it is wrong as well as, with the manifold way /multivalued of the epicurean Canon and in the basis of hedonic calculus it depends on whatever we are choosing it takes different values, for this the pleasures are varied, but the result and the goal is always the pleasure that its limit is : to not feel pain in the body and agitation in the soul and both at once.

So, Epicurus unites the knowledges, as one thing, the sensed or perceptible or observable (αισθητά) along with the conceivable (νοητά) and connects both of these two, as mechanism of the materialistic brain/body in the materialistic reality, and gives the word “prolepses” that always must be testified through the senses/feelings and are transmuted to the others (i.e. are making sense) through the speech. The fact is that Epicurus insists that the meaning of the words must be grasped immediately.

He said that you do not need so much effort to understand each other of what the words denote. You do not need endless definitions of the words, because you would end up your researches and the conversation in confusion and doubt. As he also said, you do not need to be focused to just one theory as the absolute truth, since the truth is relevant according to the experiences and circumstances of the materialistic reality and as the phenomena are proceeding and evolving. The reality is not linear of one cause and one effect, it is not predetermined. The reality and Nature is dynamic and works in the basis of many causes and many effects. So, with this, Epicurus breaks the inexorable of the Necessity and Fate and introduces the Swerve, and our autonomous responsibility to choose the best among many options for living pleasantly>>.

Our whole organism or aggregate (as Don remarks) is a dynamic system and it is in accordance with Nature/enviroment that may seem to be in rest/static but it is changing/moving in accordance what we choose and what we avoid.

Example: let's think that I give a great importance to the friendship and comradery without giving a great importance to the right study of Nature, to the self-sufficiency (that means freedom, bravery and generosity) and the first principle of friendship that is based on common benefit (which is enricheed with deeds and what we call trust). What kind of friendship is that and where can be found ? In Plato's imaginative ideas!

Thanks

Τhanks Joshua. I wish you the very best for the New Year2022 that is coming soon.

Hello my epicurean friend Cassius,

I've missed all of you and our pleasant discussions. As you know I'm waiting impatiently to become a grand-mother, and I have a lot of works to do for this issue that is the most important and happiest issue in my life.

My best greetings to all the epicurean friends.

The word "weakness" , in greek is given with the word "ασθενές" [asthenes] is connected with another significant greek word that is: "μέριμνα" [merimna], in english this word is given with the words "care or providence". It is a sign of weakness to have "merimna" i.e. care or providence. So, then with this word "merimna" we go straight to the "God's providence".... and God provides... and then from this word "merimna" derives and the word "eimarmeni" and "moira" in english is "fate" and "necessity". But the epicurean ethics has nothing to do with "God's providence", "Eimarmeni", "Fate" and Necessity". These are timeless issues that come by the slavish [andrapoda] i.e. the astrologers et. al . who their only filthy job is to reinforce people fears, superstitions and conspiracy theories for the aim to control the mob.

Epicurus insists, a blessed and indestructible being is not connected with "merimna" i.e. does not care, does not provide anything, has no needs and troubles.

For this reason Epicurus in his letters to Herodotus and Pythocles gives us the General Picture how the whole Universe works and the causes of the phenomena that are explained always in the basis of his probabilistic-manifold way of the Canon. On the investigation of the phenomena of Nature his methodology is always scientific as he excludes any Myth e.g. that the Gods are weakness beings that care-provide and create the whole Universe and involve in our Cosmos and our matters. Since the epicurean first principles are always "the atoms and the void" that create everything that exist.

In Epicuru's LTH we read:

Furthermore, the motions of the heavenly bodies and their turnings and eclipses and risings and settings, and kindred phenomena to these, must not be thought to be due to any being who controls and ordains or has ordained them and at the same time enjoys perfect bliss together with immortality (for trouble and care and anger and kindness are not consistent with a life of blessedness, but these things come to pass where there is weakness and fear and dependence on neighbors).

And in his LTP we also read:

The signs of the weather which are given by certain animals result from mere coincidence of occasion. For the animals do not exert any compulsion for winter to come to an end, nor is there some divine nature which sits and watches the outgoings of these animals and then fulfills the signs they give. For not even the lowest animal, although ‘a small thing gives the greater pleasure,’ would be seized by such foolishness, much less one who was possessed of perfect happiness.

From LTH : <<and in particular with the immediate or present apprehensions (παρούσας επιβολάς [parousas epibolas]) whether of the mind or of any one of the instruments of judgment, and likewise in accord with the feelings existing in us, in order that we may have indications whereby we may judge both the problem of sense perception and the unseen>>.

As for the representational OR better as "the imaginational apprehensions of the mind"... Thanks mrs. Voula Tsouna! My representantional or imaginational apprehension of the mind - for to judge the unseen - is my insistent that Epicurus is painted in the fresco entitled : "School of Athens" by Raphael! Since, my desire that is connected with the feeling IS that I do not want my teacher to be insult anymore. And anyway, I'm waiting in a situation of ataraxia the confirmation on this issue!

From David Sedley we read:

As Cicero’s Epicurean spokesman Velleius explains, Epicurus’ godlike superiority lay above all in his powers of intellectual vision:For the same man who taught us everything else taught us also that the world was made by nature without the need for craftsmanship, and that this thing which you call impossible without divine creativity is in fact so easy that nature will make, is making and has made infinitely many worlds. Just because you [the Stoic Balbus] do not see how nature can do this without a mind, unable to develop your plot’s dénouementyou copy the tragic poets and resort to a god. You would not be demanding this god’s handiwork if you saw the measureless magnitude of space, endless in all directions, into which the mind, projecting and concentrating itself (in quam se iniciens animus et intendens), travels far and wide, seeing as a result no boundary of its extremities at which it could call a halt. In this measureless stretch of widths, lengths and heights there flies an infinite mass of countless atoms, which despite the presence of void between them stick together and by taking hold of each other form a continuous whole. And from these are made those shapes and formations of things which you think are impossible without bellows and anvil. With this thought you have placed as a yoke upon our necks a permanent overlord, for us to fear day and night [...] Freed from these terrors by Epicurus, and delivered into freedom, we do not fear those whom we understand neither to bring trouble upon themselves nor to try and make trouble for others, and with holy reverence we worship their supremely fine nature (ND, I, 53-54, 56).

Velleius thus brings out what Epicureans can achieve for themselves if they follow Epicurus on his odyssey of the mind, and thus come to appreciate the inevitability that mere atomic accident, operating as it must do on an infinite scale, will produce worlds like our own, without the need for divine craftsmanship. That in its turn requires them to see, by mental projection, what the universe’s infinity really means.A decade or so before Cicero wrote this, Lucretius had eulogised Epicurus in similar terms (I, 62-79) as the pioneering Greek thinker who burst through the visual barrier presented by the outermost heaven –the ‘flaming walls of the world’ –to travel in thought through boundless space and discover the scope and limits of physical possibility.

Lucretius goes on (III, 14-30) to describe how he has himself been enabled by Epicurus’ lesson to make the same mental breakthrough, and to enjoy the intense pleasure of seeing the world as entirely unthreatening. The Epicurean thought experiments, arguments and mental exercises by which this vision can be achieved are set out at length by Lucretius towards the end of his first book (I, 951-1051). For example, we are invited to imagine going to some hypothetical boundary of the universe and throwing a spear past it (I, 968-983).13Velleius, in speaking of the mind ‘projecting itself’, se iniciens, into infinite space, is capturing in Latin Epicurus’ technical term, epibole tes dianoias. A possible subtext underlying Velleius’ words is that the method of discovery which Epicurus pioneered was one which he thereby earned the privilege of naming. At any rate, elsewhere Velleius makes a similar claim about the term prolepsis(ND,I, 43-44): Epicurus was uniquely able to explain the universal human ‘preconception’ of god, having himself discovered and named this basic criterion of truth.

DAVID SEDLEY - EPICUREAN THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE FROM HERMARCHUS TO LUCRETIUS AND PHILODEMUS

I think Nate is the artist and can do this job with Ken Burns effect!

Please read this link of a blog by a person named. E.J.Duckworth who is Yale Ph.D. graduated in History of Art, 1990.

http://e-arthistory5.blogspot.com/2017/11/raphae…-left-side.html

He or she writes on this blog for Epicurus: <<EPICURUS (341-270 B.C.) wears grape vines in his hair and seems to be checking on a recipe for good food, the philosophy of pursuit of perfect pleasure being his IDEAL; his belief in an eternal universe places him among the IDEALISTS>>.

My question is : Do you want the academics with the PhDs spreading around such false ideas for Epicurus ?

So, dear epicurean friends, why do we to not be able writing an essay all together as a team of e.g. 10 pages with bla bla bla, like the academicians are doing, while we are observing some details on this fresco that are connected with the sources for Epicurus ?

Example: we could mention that Epicurus with his company (males and females) is in the left side since up there, in this side, it is the statue of Apollo. As far as we know from Diogenis Laertius source Epicurus mentions only two gods Apollo and Zeus.

For Apollo I made a post here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…550719684976976

For Zeus it is in the VS33. "The flesh cries out to be saved from hunger, thirst, and cold. For if a man possess this safety and hope to possess it, he might rival even Zeus in happiness".

Thus, we connect the source by DL (that maybe Raphael had read) in which he says that Epicurus mentions the god Apollo which is in the fresco as a huge statue above the side of Epicurus and his friends.

Nate said: "The Church has a history of destroying artwork (and artists) that didn't support their narrative, so why would Epicurus have been allowed on a wall in the Apostolic Palace?"

Nate hi according to the above with the god Apollo on the left and goddess Athena on the right side we realize that specifically in this fresco on the wall in the Apostolic Palace christian popes had permitted to be painted and the statues of the foreign gods!

The freedom to chose who is Epicurus and if he has to have a main position on this famous fresco has been left from the painter to the epicureans, and not only the school of Epicureans, since as they say, Raphael wanted to include on the fresco all the philosophers.

For there is not that case (for the moment being) to be confirmed or not to be confirmed if Raphael had seen the figure of Epicurus somewhere, we will proceed with the hypothesis IF the epicureans of our days like to preserve that speculation that indicates that Epicurus is that boy with a silly smirk and wreath on his head; and it's up to them to preserve this same speculation for centuries and centuries.

Dear friends, you've read the text with my thoughts with the usage of senses (I observed with my own eyes a figure that is identical to the bust of Epicurus) I measured through my positive feelings and in the basis of such anticipations that: on this fresco we see a company that is friendly embraced while one of them gestures to the central figures (Plato and Aristotle), as if is doubting on something.

Finally, I would like to ask you this: if you were the responsible organizers of an epicurean Symposium… what would you do with these of my thoughts in the text? Would you make a censorship in all these throwing in the oblivion and silence, because my desire is to change a speculation with another speculation that holds that Epicurus has a main position in something, or you would prefer to maintain a speculation that insults Epicurus?

Imo here lies the whole issue!

Don, in the text you linked, there are latin letters in this name. With latin letters the greek name ΝΕΑΡΧΟΣ becomes as NEARKOS or NEARCHOS because the greek letter "X" it sounds like "K". In this ring we see greek letters as "NEAΡΚΟΥ" since there is the lettter "Yiota" in the end, but in greek names there is not such a name as NEAΡKOΣ in genitive NEAΡΚΟΥ, but as I said "NEAΡΧΟΣ".

Τhere are some greek letters engraved on the right ring. I read the letters that form the word "NEAΡΚΟΥ". There is no such a greek name that includes the letter "K". But as far as I know there was a greek name as "NEAΡΧΟΣ" with the letter "X" and in genitive is "ΝΕΑΡΧΟΥ", and we meet this name as one the famous explorer, a navarch and officer in the army of Alexander the Great.

Cassius there is already a post by you on rings. Rings Featuring Epicurus or Epicureans

If you did not see this picture, I post it on FB yesterday, entitled "the school of the world".

Raphael saw somewhere a bust, a ring or an engraving of Epicurus, not necessary inside the Vatican, but in one villa of his wealthy friends/florentines bankers who had statues from Villas of Romans e.g. Villa Hadriana etc, and as I mentioned above in one of my comments. Raphael painted Epicurus and his figure is so identical with the bust of Epicurus we know today. I assume when the pope asked Raphael who is who, he did not say anything for anyone. Only for Plato and Aristole that in fresco they hold already their books and they were (and still are) well esteem by the popes.

However, I insist for my speculation since for that person with the yellow chiton that I claim is Epicurus, along with the embraced friendly company next to him, it prevails a total silence!!

Don, as far as I know, it has never been found a bust or a statue of Speusippus. For Speusippus there is only an engraving that was done from imagination. Speusippus was not so famous that has companion and friends. Besides if that figure was Speusippus, as he was socratic-platonist, the figure next to him it would not be appropriated to make a gesture of doubt or question, it is supposed that the platonists knew what Plato had said.

Μyths and fairytales (Jesus and Saul/Paul) mixed with books and movies (Umberto Eco and Dan Brown) and a totally rejection of the two creteria of truth of the Canon which are our own eyes and our feelings for the examination on the issue: where and who is Epicurus on the fresco by Raphael?

The right answer is: well, the bust of Epicurus had not been discovered in the era of Raphael, so that we conclude that Epicurus on that fresco is that stupid little boy with the smirk and wreath on his head.

No, he did not. However, I did not know the existence of these drawings too. You did a good catch Cassius!