Posts by Eikadistes

This is an awesome contribution of material. thank you for sharing your work!

Quote from mlinssen

Never take anyone's word for anything, and solely judge for yourself

I've come to the same conclusion with regards to translations. I've found that many of our translation of classical texts come from stuffy British lords in the late 19th-century, whose contributions are excellent, reliable, and educational, yet still inject their own linguistic limitations.

... if I read ONE more translation with "in this wise", BY ZEUS ...

Not that they are wrong, just incomplete, or in need of an update for modern ears, or in need of a review by people (100+ years later) who benefit from a vast repository of educational resources.

In that regard, I really appreciate your angle. (Also, great style. You have a strong literary voice).

Quote from mlinssen

Pros:

1. Rejection of religion
2. Rejection of the proverbial pot of gold
3. Indifference to gods
4. A stress on (autonomous!) movement and action
5. Rejection of everything outside, and sole focus on the inside
6. Rejection of reincarnation (e.g. 27, 89, 112)
7. Rejection of leaders, status

Cons:

A. Not a single mention of pleasure, and only one mention of 'my soul gave pain' in (28)
B. Thomas doesn't bother at all with any cosmogony of any kind, which fits with rejecting anything on the outside. I find the Epictetus idea of only caring for that which is in your control particularly strong in Thomas. Let's be honest, all ideas about any cosmogony are mere opinions.
C. Desire is a twin pair: desire ⲟⲩⲱϣ Noun masculine 99, Desire ⲉⲡⲓⲑⲩⲙⲉⲓ Verb 38, 47. I can't evaluate it in an Epicurean sense.
D. Nowt about friendship. Thomas' Quest is a lonely, utterly solitary one where it is even strongly recommended to avoid everyone (64, 65).
E. Knowledge comes from empiricism by oneself about oneself inside oneself. It's the only knowledge of use, and when devoid of it you are doomed, and dead

Display More

I think this is a fair summation, with perhaps one tweak on point (3)., which corresponds with an earlier observation on prayer: while the forms of the gods are indifferent to the human drama, we are encouraged to practice piety, and engage in prayer (so long as it isn't about wish fulfillment).

I do see similarities, perhaps more so than with logocentric John, or the synoptic gospels.

Out of curiosity, have you found any relationship between the propositions in Thomas and the Apikorsim tradition in Judaism? I've loosely understood Thomas to be a mystical document that emerged from post-Second Temple Messianic Judaism, so in the regard of setting a contrast against other sects, I wonder if they were sympathetic to Apikorsim (less so ideologically, but perhaps more so in an "enemy of my enemy" kind of way).

Tonally, I observe a contrast against Epicurean texts. Thomas relies heavily on (what I think Epíkouros would agree to refer to as) "the mythic drama of tragic poets", in this case, the narratives provided from ancient Hebrew texts, like Genesis and Jacob. Epíkouros suggests that only a wise person can interface with art and metaphor in a helpful manner, so using fables and metaphors as teaching tools for students is seen as obfuscating (compared with parresia, "frank speech").

That doesn't necessarily mean that the content of those metaphors is anti-thetical. I think, maybe, speaking for myself, as an Epicurean, I want to skip metaphors and ask for a frank description, because I feel like I can never truly be sure what someone wielding metaphor really means. At the same time, it isn't pure grey—like you indicate, all translations benefit from review, and I am sure that there are more authentic, versus less authentic translations, each being the consequence of the educational resources available to the translator. Inter-disciplinary study is very helpful.

I'm also curious on your thoughts on the influence the author of Thomas might have had against mystical currents that would later develop into christian "heretics" and Persian mystical sects that are sometimes loosely referred to as "Gnostic" (or, at that, if "Gnostic" is even a useful identifier).

Overall, great job. I'm going to continue reviewing because I am unfamiliar with much of this.

Greetings, friend!

We have some brief discussion of the Gospel of Thomas here, but it's largely as a result of a critical discussion about the book "You Will Not Taste Death: Jesus and Epicureanism".

I would love to learn more about any linguistic connections you have found.

Quote from DaveT

Cassius Yes, as I am not familiar with his school, and I'd be interested in determining the extent of his influence on Epicurus' school, particularly since the Cyreniac school disappeared around the time period Epicurureanism was introduced and began to flourish

Here are some similarities (and differences) between the two:

I am curious, too, if anyone has discovered any new seller! The only place I knew was Shapeways and Thangs Marketplace for 3D Creators. There was previously an order for a pendant with Epíkouros' face, available in plastic, silver, and gold, but they sold out. They do take custom orders.

I'm keeping a list on my server of Epicurean merchants, so I'd like to add if there are more.

I also attempted a translation of Dēmētrio's On Geometry with a diagram (P.Herc. 1061). He spends most of it defending a proof about the relational equalities of an isosceles triangle.

I'm not sure exactly what the context is, philosophically-speaking. Read it HERE.

Happy birthday!

Quote from Bryan

Quote from Eikadistes

Karneískos' fragment to Philístas

Your productivity has made it difficult to keep up lately, but that is a great problem to have. This is wonderfully done! The translation and the presentation are both spectacular.

As you know, we need to do this to all the P.Hercs. The task is large. Thank you for your help!

On a side note, I have enjoyed many items from the Emporium, but I have to say the "Happy Eikas Sweater" is one of my new favorite pieces of clothing. Staying warm is natural and necessary, therefore, we all need one of these sweaters.

Thank you, thank you! I'm glad you like the sweater! I really like the Eikas print, in particular. I actually got laid-off on Halloween, so I've had some extra time to spend and anxiety to diminish.

Along those lines, I also just took a swing of Demētrios of Lakonía's fragmented text On the Size of the Sun. A few passages seem a little obscure and I'm reviewing, but it's interesting. In general, regarding distance, he makes an brief observation about a loose correlation between brightness, clarity, color, and closeness. Elsewhere, he seems (to me) to speculate that the sun may be an extinguishing-and-reigniting mass that ignites from a sort of friction against some, vaporous region above our horizon ... sort of like how we understand in the modern era that the phenomenon of a vapor trail on a comets seems to "burn" based on its proximity to the sun's radiation.

Outside of context, it may be one of several, missing explanations. I haven't learned anything for certain. As is usual, no matter what the topic, the ancient Epicurean authors seem to spend more time talking about acknowledging the reality of death, and the priority of lessening anxiety than spending more time deconstructing anything else. The more I read and translate, the more I read many of these scrolls as practical self-help guides, moreso than scientific compendiums.

Quote from TauPhi

Thank you Eikadistes . To read something completely new so close to the source is a real treat.

I especially like this part: 'and [we will] forever [live] having remembered [them] exactly as during [their] time living, [thoughtful] of the natural end, [...]' but this line also made me pause when I first read it. I know 'forever' here is not to be understood literally and it's just an expression but taking into consideration the context of a dead friend, this 'forever' made me stop and ask: 'wait, what?'. If I may suggest something, I think translating ἀεὶ as 'always' instead of 'forever' might be more fortunate here. 'Always' retains permanence but is free from implying infinite amount of time dedicated to living and remembering.

Anyway, thanks again for sharing this translation. I appreciate it.

Great suggestion! (and solid reasoning) I'm immediately stealing it.

I took a swing at Karneískos' fragment to Philístas and published it here.

The text was translated from P.Herc. 1027.

While I'm at it, I recommend another essay with a similar tone on a similar topic, "On Bullshit" by Dr. Harry Frankfurt from Princeton University. You can find it here.

Having discovered that Polýainos was born on the sixth of Metageitniṓn, I compiled a list of "Polyaenus Day" celebrations for the next century. Find it here.

Quote from Cassius

One more thought / question on this point:

If we were to add a separate subforum on "Rhetoric" at some point (and not just under Philodemus) would that be clearly more appropriate for the "Ethics" section, or is it possible that it should be considered under "Canonics?"

That in itself is possibly an interesting discussion. Is part of the problem with "rhetoric" that it is being asserted to be a standard of truth? Or is it clearly and distinctly an issue of Ethics/Politics?

I think I'd put it with "Rhetoric" because I break down some technical vocabulary that Philódēmos employs. It could be both: I portray politics as a sort of antagonist to the truth of sensation.

Happy Eikas! I hope everyone is keeping warm.

I just wanted to share a reflection I published through the Society of Friends of Epicurus that reviews the dialectic, rhetoric, oratory, and political propoganda, “…A Disembowelment of the Dialectic, Politics, and Other Organs of Bullshit”. It’s partly an analysis of Philódēmos’ work On Rhetoric, and partly an honest attempt to manage my feelings about civics right now.

I personally struggle to cope with other peoples’ politics (especially in my area). The noise of seedy narratives is way too loud right now, and difficult to avoid, whether its bumper stickers or my LinkedIn feed, so I wanted to see how my friends in the ancient world dealt with manipulative rhetoric, weak dialecticians, shallow orators, and self-serving politicians. Anyway, I managed to finish the article without naming any names or projecting my own, partisan frustrations, so I’ll call it a win. …though, I do mention the Chewbacca Defense (about which, I am sure, Philódēmos would have had a lot to say...).

I also started a Twentiers Discord server to consolidate the resources I share on TWENTIERS.COM! Both friends and Epicureans alike are invited to pay our digital Garden a visit. (Please at least help us water Diódōros the Garden Tree. He’s a thirsty boy.)

Overwhelmingly, I find that Lucertius' neologisms compliment the insight of Epicurus. Referring to particles as "firstlings" is a great example. I actually think that he could have even added a few others, but, in general, I think his translation is a true homage to the source.

Happy birthday(s)!

That's what I found, as well. H. A. J. Munro is the only author I've found who seems to consistently stick to Lucretius' neologisms, as opposed to inserting modern scientific jargon. I made a list of the vocabulary words and phrases that Lucretius uses when referring to particles here.

...and as far as gaslighting goes, that's how I'd describe the other activities to which I think you are alluding. It's tough to be racist when nature finds diversity attractive, and it's tough to be bigoted when nature finds novelty exciting, and it's tough to be violent when nature finds peace preferable. Nature is constantly overriding everyone's learned prejudice. Pornhub reminds us of this every year in that each State's political prejudices are usually subverted by their closet fetishes.

Brainwashing and gaslighting are pervasive, and brutally effective, so, even more important than just "following your nose", so to speak, or listening to your gut, is sober analysis. We can rely on the reality of our feelings, but not necessarily their truthfulness. We need the mind for that.

Quote from wbernys

Agreed but with that said do you think a "feeling of guilt/disgust/shame" is something an Epicurean can hold as a genuine reason for virtuous activity

Absolutely.

We define virtue as a good used to achieve the goal of pleasure, and we recognize virtuous behavior as acting "practically, properly, and peaceably" (KD5). Practicing these virtues requires choice and avoidance, like avoiding things that lead to guilt, so avoiding guilt is definitely virtuous because it is a choice made to reduce pain and maximize pleasure, which is the goal of life. I'd put it right up there with avoiding doom-scrolling and yelling and political commentators on cable.

Quote from wbernys

moral progress often takes so long, disgust or shame at the idea of breaking tradition, race mixing, irreligiousity, or not being "patriotic enough", making it a real double edged sword.

I watched this documentary on Netflix last night about child abuse in Utah ... the bottom-line is that the perpetrators were controlling mothers and fathers by manipulating their religious guilt (over really inconsequential things like masturbating and looking at adult porn), and had those people surrender their children... AND THEY DID! Watching it, I couldn't decide if I was angrier at the vicious abusers, or their weak parents. Guilt was central in all of this, and a special kind of false, religious guilt, unjustified, but strongly felt, and it lead to actual crimes against children.

Even then, though, a proper analysis of guilt could have revealed that the religion is bunk. If you have guilt over an objectively non-harmful action, it's time for some therapy. Proper therapy would have revealed that the judgy messages from religion are harmful, not masturbating. Thorough analysis would also have questioned the methods of the abusers, rather than conform. I think the trick is in determining if your feeling of guilt is justified, or if you've been gaslit. That's tricky.

Quote from Cassius

And if they are insane, in what constitutes sanity?

From my readings, I interpret this: "insanity" is the rejection of reality, and "sanity" is observance of reality. An "insane" person is full of pseudodoxies, false beliefs and opinions. A "sane" person makes "true" statements which properly correspond with the physical reality around them.

One such physical reality in post-Alexandrian Greece was the exchange of foreign forms of piety, and the need to explain the existence of these foreign, yet recognizably spiritual institutions. Surely something natural exists at the source of this seemingly-universal sense of piety.

Epíkouros calls this the divine nature. (Whether or not that corresponds with theoretical super-humans is up to you, but at least this much is true: a natural phenomena is responsible for the evolution of religion). Philódēmos records this as something like visions during dreams.

I believe that Epicureans dismissed atheists as being "insane" because they interpret atheists to be "rejecting the existence of the naturally-occuring, universal, awe-inspiring dream visions", as well as "reducing the practice of piety to a delusional narrative that has no basis in physics."

In that regard, I think he is making more of an anthropological observation than a theological proposition. I ... wonder if it is possible that they were, sort of, talking passed each other? They were both anti-creationist, anti-interventionist, anti-superstition, anti-metaphysics, etc.

I get the feeling that ancient atheists didn't buy into Epíkouros' definition of "the gods". I think, maybe, the interpretation of Epicurean Philosophy by ancient atheists was similar to ancient Christians: 'god must be seen as a supernatural super-being' is what they're observing.

Quote from Cassius

But I do want to single out Eikadistes for special mention. Among all of us who pursue Epicurean philosophy, Eikadistes is the one who has set up his own website, prepared very substantive original materials, published them, and generally become and independent source of Epicurean learning. There are many different approaches among those of us who are really "into" the study of Epicurus. What Eikadistes has done in pursuing an independent path without unnecessary negativity about the path of others is an example that deserves special consideration for what all of us might do in our own ways.

I'm very flattered. It feels good to have your work recognized. Thank you, friends!