Posts by Eikadistes

Right off the bat, I think I need some context into what "marriage" meant to ancient Greeks.

Were they primarily economic arrangements? Was there a romantic tradition that encouraged the subjective pursuit of passion? Were they as bad at picking partners as our current divorce rates suggest we are? Were couples expected to produce children? Was marriage primarily an institution to promote reproduction? Did ancient Greek marriages suffocate women with domestic roles? Did they put excessive economic strain on men? How prevalent and severe were sexually-transmitted infections at the time? How universally-accepted was pederasty? How tolerant were Greeks on non-traditional sexual practices? For that matter, what were the Greeks traditional sexual practices? How old were men and women, on average, when they married? I'm curious because I have no idea.

Depending on the definition of "marriage" to ancient Greeks, I may have more or less sympathy with Epicurus' position. Marriage as companionship between two best friends is utterly different that marriage as marrying-off your 13-year-old daughter for political gain. Historically, "marriage" tends to imply "duty" or "social responsibility", which is antithetical to Epicurean philosophy, so if that's the tree up which Epicurus was barking, I definitely agree.

There's a consistent metaphor of harbors and storms at sea through Epicurean lore, inspired both by both Odysseus' shipwreck on the island of the Phaeacians and the later association of Epicurus with his own shipwreck, prior to establishing the Garden. Using this same metaphor, Lucretius explains how it can be pleasure to watch the vast travails of others:

Quote

"It's sweet, when winds blow wild on open seas,

to watch from land your neighbor's vast travail,

not that men's miseries bring us dear delight

but that to see what ills we're spared is sweet;

sweet, too, to watch the cruel contest of war

ranging the field when you need share no danger.

But nothing is sweeter than to dwell in peace

high in the well-walled temples of the wise,

whence looking down we may see other men

wavering, wandering, seeking a way of life

with wit against wit, line against noble line,

contending, striving, straining night and day,

to rise to the top of the heap, High Lord of Things.

O wretched minds of men, O poor blind hearts!"

(De Rerum Natura translated by Frank O. Copley, Book 2, Lines 1-14)

Display More

I share a similar feeling with this analogy living in Florida with hurricanes. For me, the stormy skies are beautiful. The winds are still captivating. The exploding power transformers are magical. Skipping work is a relief. Knowing that I don't have to fight with crowds in public is a blessing. I've always had the privilege of living beneath a safe roof on high ground.

Hurricanes mean something completely different to lonely seniors, or people living in mobile homes, or homeless members of our society, or people living within modest means near the seashore. To them, this event is an existential threat. It's not a joke, it's not a poetic metaphor, it's not something at which to smile. It's terrifying, tragic, and life-changing.

I have never lived through a non-deadly hurricane. Every hurricane for which I have been present has always lead to at least one drowning. While I was watching those trees dance in the wind, others were hiding on a floor while a tree fell through their roof. The juxtaposition between peoples' experiences based on their levels of security is staggering.

That juxtaposition also provides a learning opportunity. For every person that dies of disease, there was a case study that contributes to a future treatment. For every drowning during a hurricane, civil engineers design better and better structures, and people adopt safer and safer practices. It is always a pleasure to grow wiser and practice prudence.

Quote

"...And inspired before the same loud clamor, some will strive with the effort of Apollophanes [the Stoic] to advance wonderfully to the podium, but others, having landed in [philosophy's] harbor and with hopes offered them that 'not even the venerable flame of Zeus would be able to prevent them taking from the highest point of the citadel' a life that is happy, afterwards, in spite of opposing winds...." (Philodemus, P.Herc 463)

Suppose a small gang of people in poverty are set on committing theft: Let's say one member of the group (we'll call them "Buddy") has a change of heart and decides to go home at the last minute. Fast-forward several months ... the rest of the group has been caught and sentenced.

Prior to the group being sentenced, Buddy felt apprehension, knowing that, maybe, he could have gotten away with it. If he had, the money he acquired could have helped him escape poverty, as it may potentially for the rest of the gang who went through with the theft.

Just before sentencing, Buddy was kicking himself in the pants.

Upon the gang being sentenced, Buddy feels tremendous relief, like drinking water when thirsty, or eating when hungry, or making a sound choice when anxious. Their sentencing indicates that Buddy was prudent and made the profitable choice. Prior to the gang being sentenced, Buddy felt anxiety. The moment of the sentencing, Buddy feels vindicated.

It would be a mistake to view Buddy as being a sadist for feeling pleasure at a situation that leads others to pain; it would also be a mistake to judge Buddy for not choosing to perform a sacrificial act of altruism (such as taking credit for the theft to release his "friends").

It is not!

I'm pleased that another Epicurean out there is producing memes!

I believe that was a bust of Diogenes Laertius.

Upon review, we can definitely update any text that is unclear. It's meant as a teaching tool, so it may be in need of some refinements.

There's a characterization from the 2nd/3rd-century CE Greek grammarian Athenaeus of Naucratis of Epicureans as being "atom-prophets".

I can dig it.

Quote

Instead, for Athenaeus, Epicurus provides only the sharp contrasts with the Odyssey: Homer gives us the context for a symposium and stipulates who is to be invited; in contrast, Epicurus launches into the symposium without a prologue and thus presents a scene with no place or time. Furthermore, Epicurus’ Symposium is un-Homeric in that the gathering is attended solely by philosophers, whom Athenaeus dubs 'atom-prophets' (προφήτας ἀτόμων, Ath. 5.187b; cf. 5.177b). While Epicurus’ symposiasts are flatterers and Plato’s are caustic, Homer’s dinner guests temper their speech (The Learned Banqueters 5.182a). – The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus, 45-46

ἔτι δὲ ὁ μὲν Ὅμηρος ἡλικίαις εἰσάγει διαφέροντας καὶ ταῖς προαιρέσεσι τοὺςκεκλημένους, Νέστορα καὶ Αἴαντα καὶ Ὀδυσσέα, τὸ μὲν καθόλου σύμπαντας τῆς ἀρετῆςἀντεχομένους, εἴδει δὲ διαφόροις ὁδοῖς ὡρμηκότας ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν. ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουροςἅπαντας εἰσήγαγε 'προφήτας ἀτόμων' καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἔχων παραδείγματα τήν τε τοῦποιητοῦ τῶν συμποσίων ποικιλίαν καὶ τὴν Πλάτωνός τε καὶ Ξενοφῶντος χάριν. ὧν ὁμὲν Πλάτων τὸν μὲν Ἐρυξίμαχον ἰατρόν, τὸν δὲ Ἀριστοφάνη ποιητήν, ἄλλον δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ἄλλης προαιρέσεως σπουδάζοντας εἰσήγαγεν, Ξενοφῶν δὲ καί τινας ἰδιώταςσυνανέμιξε. πολλῷ τοίνυν κάλλιον Ὅμηρος ἐποίησε καὶ διάφορα παρατιθέμενοςσυμπόσια. πᾶν γὰρ ἐξ ἀντιπαραβολῆς ὁρᾶται μᾶλλον. ἐστὶν γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸ μὲν τῶνμνηστήρων οἷον ἂν γένοιτο νεανίσκων μέθαις καὶ ἔρωσιν ἀνακειμένων, τὸ δὲ τῶνΦαιάκων εὐσταθέστερον μὲν τούτων, φιλήδονον δέ. τούτοις δ᾽ ἀντέθηκε τὰ μὲν ἐπὶστρατιᾶς, τὰ δὲ πολιτικώτερον τελούμενα σωφρόνως. καὶ πάλιν αὖ διεῖλεν τὰ μὲνδημοθοινίαν ἔχοντα, τὰ δ᾽ οἰκείων σύνοδον. Ἐπίκουρος δὲ συμπόσιον φιλοσόφωνμόνων πεποίηται. (Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 5:3) <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…erseus-grc2:5.3>

I couldn't find an English translation of Deipnosophistae.

PEACE AND SAFETY - /'piːs ænd 'seɪf.tiː/

PAX ET SECURITAS – /'pæks ɛt sɛːˈkuːri.taːs/

Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια – /iː'riːniː cɛ as'faːliːa/

ΕΙΡΗΝΗ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΑ – /e.'rɛ.nɛ kǎi̯ as.'pʰaːle.a/

__________________________________________________

Do we have any instances of this Epicurean saying besides 1 Thessalonians 5:3?

Absolutely. I think the mistake is on the behalf of the inquirer. Questions about measuring the relative geometric proportions of celestial objects implies that Epicurus had such an answer, or, more importantly, cared about it, which I think he did not.

He recognized that we had a functional understanding of the immeasurably large, immeasurably distant spheres above the terrestrial regions of the World, so there was no need to posit any number, large, or small, as the predominant view seems to imply.

That's a good point and it makes me consider a few other things:

The Heliocentric model, itself, was in need of being tweaked for systems with binary stars (which are actually the most common types of systems in the universe), so Epicurus' model is consistent with contemporary relativity. That also applies to any systems (WARNING: EXTREME SPECULATION) with life-holding worlds that have stable orbits around Black Holes.

Heliocentrism carries a danger of being seen as a geometrically-ideal solar configuration to which other Solar System must necessarily conform. Relatively defaltes that.

For that matter, his speculation is also applicable to (another common, cosmic possibility, to which our own system is, again, an unusual rarity) systems where the only identifiable life exists on the satellites of gas giants. To a lunar organism making this cosmic inquiry on the moon of a Gas Giant, the discovery of Heliocentrism – which is key to a planetary organism – becomes a less significant scientific advancement than Geocentrism to a lunar organism, especially considering that a primary energy source for such a satellite would be volcanism, fueled by the shifting tidal forces of the parent gas giant's colossal gravitational force, not the Sun. Geocentrism is the Heliocentrism of Moonlings.

Given attempts to measure the relative sizes and energetic-importance of neutron stars, gas giants, brown dwars, and supermassive black holes to the possible life-supporting planetoids which orbit around them, Copernican Heliocentrism comes up sort of short.

Interesting point, that "the size it appears to be" may not have meant: that the Apparent Size or Apparent Magnitude of the star to an observer on Earth is equivalent to an objective measurement of that star's actual Size or total Luminosity; and may have meant something more like: that the non-Platonic, non-Aristotelian-influenced observations of pre-Socratics were correct; that the Sun is a massive object, in the same category of objects as stars, which are distant Suns, and that the Moon is something more closely related to the Earth, like the spheres we imagine accompany those distant Suns ... or something like that.

I agree that the rhetorical function of his mentioning the sizes of the appearances of the Sun and the Moon was to refute the Platonic hypothesis that they were deities.

The prevalent interpretation that Epicurus was arguing that the Apparent Size of the Sun is equivalent to an objective measurement of its actual Size is really an Aristotelian idea: 'the Sun is (duh) obviously smaller than the Earth, and (duh) revolves around the Earth, because (duh) look up, stupid'. It would be uncharacteristic and inconsistent of Epicurus to support this, especially when he posits the explicit existence of exoplanets. That, and also, he generally supported the idea that these physical relationships are obvious to all seeing humans, and not simply learned mathematicians, so he wasn't submitting a mathematical figure (big or small) in the first place. The point is somewhat moot.

There's something else I thought that makes this criticism more meaningless:

Suppose another solar narrative like our own, except, allow for the possibility that instead of G-type main-sequence star (our white-yellow Sun), "our Sun" is a neutron star only 20 km in diameter. It would appear to be incredibly small in the sky; it would actually be incredibly small, at that. Unexpectedly small (even to 21st-century cosmologists).

In a parallel timeline, that society would not have accurately measured the diameter of their parent star until their 21st-century. However, both that society, and our own would have functionally measured the comparative size of the star since antiquity

Epicurus' observation is still true when taken to mean that all of these objects are what they appear to be, compared to tall trees, massive monuments, and huge mountains: immeasurably massive and immeasurably distant on cosmic scales. Thus, they are "about the size they appear to be", or, in other words "immeasurably large".

Whether one's planet's parent star is a G-type main-sequence 400x as massive as the Earth's Moon (and almost exactly 400x as distant), or whether it's a neutron star barely one-third of the size of Rhode Island, the human ethical condition is unchanged. Furthermore, excessive speculation about these measurements without the necessary scientific tools will inevitably lead to superstition and mysticism, so are to be avoided.

Thinking out loud...

While Epicurus sailed the Aegean, he would have seen how the Sun and the Moon maintain their size, no matter where they are located in the sky, nor in which direction they are moving; whereas, even the tallest mountains of Greece shrink in the distance as we sail away from them at a moderate pace, so the Sun and the Moon must be immeasurably larger by comparison than a mountain.

If some of the light of the Sun can still be seen when the Moon is in front of it, then the Sun must be larger than the Moon, and must be removed from the Moon by a distance greater than its own diameter (already defined as being "immeasurable large by comparison"), so the space between the Sun and the Moon must be at least as immeasurably large as the diameter of the Sun.

For a distant object to appear larger than a nearer object, it must at least slightly larger; for a severely distant object to appear larger than a significantly nearer object, it must be much larger than the closer object. The Sun is removed from the Moon by an immeasurably-large-by-comparison amount of space, so the Sun could be immeasurably larger by comparison than the Moon.

I suppose I'm postulating then Epicurus may have had more nuanced opinions about the celestial spheres than we have documented. Simple knowledge of the eclipses should seem to have demonstrated that the Sun is, at least, demonstrably larger than the Moon, if not incredibly larger. Surely, Epicurus saw that the moon seems larger than distant mountains, which are obviously immense.

The morning of August 15th 309 BCE, while Epicurus was teaching his first pupils at Lampsacus, a total Solar Eclipse darkened his sky. No doubt, Epicurus would have spent time addressing this phenomena with his students.

Anyone who witnessed this event could have made the following observations:

1. Parts of the Sun are still visible even when the Moon slides in front of it, so the Sun must be bigger than the moon no matter where it is.

2. The body of the Sun goes behind the Moon, so the Sun and the Moon must occupy different regions of space, the Sun being further away.

3. The body of the Moon is not damaged, so the Sun's distance behind the moon is at least greater than the size of its own diameter.

Given these observations which I am certain Epicurus would have made, I'm curious why he suggested that both celestial objects are about the same size. Do we have any documentation of his estimation of the size of comets?

__________________________________________________

ASTRONOMICAL EVENTS DURING THE TIME OF EPICURUS

COMETS

Epicurus would have witnessed several comets throughout his lifetime. The only one I confirm is Halley's Comet which he would have seen in above the hills of Colophon with his Democritean teacher Nausiphanes in October of 316 BCE.

SOLAR ECLIPSES

It is an incredibly unique and rare coincidence that Earth's ONLY star, and Earth's ONLY satellite appear to be the SAME SIZE to Earthlings. We have not seen this mathematical accident replicated on any of the thousands of exoplanets we have discovered.

Interestingly, NASA has a database of all Solar and Lunar eclipses. [https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-0399--0300.html]

Throughout Epicurus' lifetime (341 - 270 BCE) , there only seems to have been a single Total Solar Eclipse (between the years 320 BCE and 301 BCE.) that would have placed both Lampsacus and Athens directly in the Moon's umbra.

I'm going to do more research to flesh this out, but we should be able to accurately define every solar eclipse, lunar eclipse, and comet (at least the ones that are still around) that Epicurus would have directly witnessed in ancient Greece.

It could be possible Epicurus happened to have lived in a time period where Total Eclipses over Athens were rare, and, thus, an unreliable phenomena to drawn conclusions from due to its rarity, so, perhaps it wasn't of great interest.

Witnessing [Distant Object I of Size A] seamlessly slide behind [Distant Object II of Size A] begs a few geometric questions about the objects' spatial relationship.

Same here – I'd like to watch it, but Weekdays are busy.

I'm not buying the Anaximander connect, because he wasn't bald:

The Internet also seems to have gained consensus about Pythagoras, but I can't believe that any painter would have chosen to depict Pythagoras without headwear.

The figure's baldness is interesting, and also severely narrows our search.

I only know of several Greek figures that are depicted as balding.

Hippocrates:

Archimedes:

Xenocrates:

There appear to be ten bald, or balding men in the School of Athens. Three of whom are Socrates, Plato, and Diogenes, so that leaves seven unidentified bald men:

a. Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 5.06.41 PM.png

b. Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 5.07.56 PM.png

c. Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 5.08.00 PM.png

d. Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 5.06.29 PM.png

e. Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 5.06.13 PM.png

f. Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 5.06.25 PM.png

g. Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 5.06.18 PM.png

Nothing jumps out at me. I think though, that we can cross-reference the bald and balding figures, because there are significantly fewer of them, both in the painting, and in the history of philosophers, who generally seem to sport a shaggy hairstyle.

Plus, miscommunication between "someone being honored" versus "someone being derided" would not have been acceptable. Raphael would have made obvious visual choices that would not have confused his audience.

Suspicious that we are so confused at something that would have been obvious.

Perhaps, so obvious that no one cared to write anything down about it.

I'm curious why no one bothered writing any of this down at any point.

Surely bishops and Popes were as curious as we are.

Ah, good point. I see it now:

That hand is grabbing the figure's shoulder.

The figure, themself, is holding each end of the book. You're right.

Quote from Don

I just realized he's not writing in the book, he's reading.

Sure about that?

Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 3.45.40 PM.png