But memories, things that minds do, like remember things and talk about them, depend on brain activity. No brain activity, no mental process.
This is impossible to prove, of course, but one good line of evidence for it is the observation that progressive brain damage progressively deteriorates cognitive and motor function.
Henry David Thoreau's spyglass, Concord Museum.
Thoreau on the Synoptic View--literally, things "Seen together" in their proper relation.
THE Thomas Gray!?
This was a favored poem in my youth. Eclipsed now perhaps by Philip Larkin's poem in a similar vein:
The House of Authors in Autun, France
A very good point. Cicero's complaint about the Epicureans was that there were too many of them in his day! And it was noted elsewhere that many were seen defecting to Epicurus' camp, but few from it.
I, too, have long been an enthusiast of the Human or, as I prefer, the Holocene Calendar. It has the feel of a very deep sense of time.
The sculptures were described as 'minor works', whatever that means--they were two thousand years old. It has not been reported which two were broken.
I've gotten curious about this anonymous translator again. Let me summarize (randomly) what I think I know.
That letter by John Adams;
Dear Sir
I have been confined, with a cold for three weeks and the family have been generally affected in the same way: We have not heard from yours for some time. I long to see you all: but the Weather and the roads will keep us, at a distance I fear for some days if not weeks. I have read Seven Volumes of De la Harpe in course, and the last Seven I have run through and searched but cannot find what I chiefly wanted, His Philosophy of the 18 Century from the Beginning to the End—that revival of the ineffable Nonsense of Epicurus as related by Lucretius not as explained by himself in his Letter in Diogenes Laertius. I am in love with La Harpe. I knew not there was such a man left.—If I had read this work at 20 years of Age, it would have had, I know not what effect.—If it had not made me a Poet or Philosopher it certainly would not have permitted me, to be a public Man. I never read any Writer in my Life, with whom I so universally agreed in Poetry, Oratory History, Philosophy, Morality and Religion. I find him too perfectly persuaded as I have been for forty years, that Greece & Italy are our Masters in all Things and that Greek & Italian are the most important Languages to study—My Love to L. & G. your / affectionate and respectful Father
‘Tell us not that that is right which admits of evil construction; that that is virtue which leaves an open gate to vice.’
VS 29. To speak frankly as I study nature I would prefer to speak in oracles that which is of advantage to all men even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the constant praise that comes from the many.
A rock and a hard place?
1) Joshua do you have a cite for the precise way you quoted " By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void."
I like that version as making a very clear point, but maybe that is someone's interpretation?
νόμωι (γάρ φησι) γλυκὺ καὶ νόμωι πικρόν, νόμωι θερμόν, νόμωι ψυχρόν, νόμωι χροιή, ἐτεῆι δὲ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν (Tetralogies of Thrasyllus, 9; Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII 135)
Sweet exists by convention, bitter by convention, colour by convention; atoms and Void [alone] exist in reality. (trans. Freeman 1948)[1], p. 92.
By convention sweet is sweet, bitter is bitter, hot is hot, cold is cold, color is color; but in truth there are only atoms and the void. (trans. Durant 1939)[2], Ch. XVI, §II, p. 353; citing C. Bakewell, Sourcebook in Ancient Philosophy, New York, 1909, "Fragment O" (Diels), p. 60
-------------------------------------------
I'm pulling this straight from Wikiquote
I don't find much to disagree with in what Don has written, and I think that those who imagine a necessary relation between materialism and nihilism are never going to be impressed by any amount of space we put between Epicurus and Democritus on this point.
So when it is said that "everything else is merely THOUGHT to exist" or "exists by convention" (which implies "consensus?)
I certainly don't think this is quite what Democritus was driving at. Merely that these other aspects of nature are contingent on or emergent from matter. "Sweet" exists at the point of interaction between sense receptors on the tongue and one of a number of chemical compounds. When we say "it's sweet", I think what we really mean is "it tastes sweet [to me]". At this point we ask not the philosophical question but the Darwinian one; why do our bodies register sweetness as a reward?
And maybe now is a good time to remind everyone about the great and glorious Mochus! This Mochus, the alleged father of ancient atomism, was considered by several early English scientists to have been one and the same with Moses himself; and by this circuitous route they make God out to be the father of Atomism, and they further connect the Greek word atom with the Hebrew name Adam, the "first beginnings". Does atomism lead to nihilism or not? Per usual, they are trying to have it both ways.
In Greek:
νόμωι (γάρ φησι) γλυκὺ καὶ νόμωι πικρόν, νόμωι θερμόν, νόμωι ψυχρόν, νόμωι χροιή, ἐτεῆι δὲ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν (Tetralogies of Thrasyllus, 9; Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII 135)
By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void.
I'm sorry I couldn't make it!
I always appreciate your editing Cassius, and this week it was driven home to me when I listened to both the raw audio and, just now, the finished work. The process is transformative, and I thank you for it!
September 29th, 2022
The 450th anniversary of the death of the great French classical scholar Denis Lambin (deh-NEE lahm-BAN)
We begin regrettably with a dearth of information; the most thorough biography I can find online and in English comes from a digital republication of the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910. This is regrettable, in part, because the Catholic Church was central to the great moral evil that finally killed him.
But to begin with the facts; his short biography on Wikipedia relates that Lambin was born in about 1520 at Montreuil, Pas-de-Calais, in the North of France. "Having devoted several years to classical studies during a residence in Italy, he was invited to Paris in 1550 to fill the professorship of Latin in the Collège de France, which he soon afterwards exchanged for that of Greek."
On his early travels in Italy, the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:
"He entered the service of the Cardinal de Tournon, whom he accompanied on two visits to Italy (1549-53; 1555-60). In this way he saw Rome, Venice, and Lucca, and was brought into contact with Italian scholars such as Faerno, Muret, Sirleto, Fulvio Orsini. During his sojourn in Venice, at the suggestion of the Cardinal de Tournon, he translated Aristotle's "Ethics" (1558)."
He returned to France in 1561.
He was without question a brilliant and learned scholar, and his knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages was of a high order. Among his achievements are translations of Aristotle, Aeschines, and Demosthenes. What he is really remembered for is his acclaimed scholarship in critical editions of four Latin writers; Horace, Lucretius, Cicero, and Cornelius Nepos. It was Lambin who demonstrated philologically that the biography of Atticus whose authorship was long contested was indeed the work of Nepos. His edition of Lucretius was groundbreaking in its scholarship, and a personal copy of this work was annotated with marginalia by Montaigne.
The Encyclopedia again:
Moreover, the commentary on Horace and Lucretius is extensive and accurate, contains many quotations, correct remarks, and explanations based on a profound knowledge of Latin.
There is a curious thread of Epicureanism in all of this. In addition to Lucretius and Horace, and Atticus, his work on Demosthenes and Aeschines are circuitously involved in the same interest; editions of those works published by none other than Atticus himself were highly regarded in antiquity. His name was Latinized in the tradition of humanist scholars as Dionysius Lambinus ('Denis' means follower of Dionysus),
And so we come down to a difficult question; what were his genuine opinions on the relevant issues? The Catholic Encyclopedia once again has this to say:
The two former friends, moreover, were separated by their tendencies. Muret had become a friend of the Jesuits, whom Lambin detested on account of their differences with the University of Paris. Lambin was regarded by the Catholics of Italy as inclined to heresy, although on 8 July, 1568, he, with seven of his colleagues, took the oath of Catholicism.
I think we may be sure that they did not seek to do so of their own accord. What we are driving at in all of this is the great crisis in Paris that intervened in the last months of his life, 450 years ago.
Denis Lambin died, per the Catholic Enclopedia, in 1572, "from the effects of the shock given to him by the Massacre of St. Bartholomew."
One would be forgiven for raising a skeptical eyebrow here. This event is now known to history as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre--notice the subtle shift of blame in the older wording. There is a second problem; there was not just one massacre, but several of them. There was not a single day of bloodletting--it lasted for over a month. And it was not restricted to a district in Paris, but spread like the plague to nearly every corner of France. During the course of these varied bloodbaths, a deranged Catholic mob (goaded perhaps by the King of France of himself) took the advantage of a prominent Protestant wedding in Paris to go on a rampage, slaughtering the Huguenot 'heretics' beholden or suspected of conversion to a Protestant reformed theology. I will not begin to contrast the relative merits of these two faith systems. Nor will go into detail about the massacres themselves, except to say that the brutal murder of over 5,000 French people was praised by, among others, the Pope in Rome, who struck a commemorative medal (really?), and that the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 described the massacre as "an entirely political act committed in the name of the immoral principles of Machiavellianism" and blamed, not the Catholic mob, but "the pagan theories of a certain raison d'état according to which the end justified the means". To which we may reasonably ask the following question; is the Pope a pagan?
Among the dead and the damned was a French scholar and personal friend of Denis Lambin named Peter Ramus; it has long been thought that the savage killing of Ramus gave Lambin the shock that finally killed him.
So on this day, 450 years later, we commemorate the life of one of the most brilliant humanist scholars of the Renaissance, who laid the foundation for all the future study of the poet Lucretius, of Horace, and of the life of Titus Pomponius Atticus.
Stephen Greenblatt starts us off, and not too badly, in the Preface of The Swerve.
“The stuff of the universe, Lucretius proposed, is an infinite number of atoms moving randomly through space, like dust motes in a sunbeam, colliding, hooking together, forming complex structures, breaking apart again, in a ceaseless process of creation and destruction… There is no master plan, no divine architect, no intelligent design. All things, including the species to which you belong, have evolved over vast stretches of time… In a universe so constituted, Lucretius argued, there is no reason to think that the earth or its inhabitants occupy a central place, no reason to set humans apart from all other animals, no hope of bribing or appeasing the gods, no place for religious fanaticism, no call for ascetic self-denial, no justification for dreams of limitless power or perfect security, no rationale for wars of conquest or self-aggrandizement, no possibility of triumphing over nature, no escape from the constant making and unmaking of [physical] forms… What human beings can and should do, he wrote, is to conquer their fears, accept the fact that they themselves and all the things they encounter are transitory, and embrace the beauty and the pleasure of the world.”
Epicureanism found the field most favorable for expansion in the East, especially Asia Minor and Palestine. It was late arriving in Italy but spread rapidly in the last century of the republic. The movement was fully matured before the poem of Lucretius was published.
-Notes on the History of Epicureanism, by Norman DeWitt
After all, much of religion has historically been used to create contentment in misery.
It's outside the general scope of this forum, but worth noting in passing that this was the essence of Marx's critique of religion in the introduction to his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. (And because this is the internet, I now have to clarify that I'm not taking a Marxist possession, but describing one...)
My more specific answer to your question is that it is certainly achievable to derive something worthwhile from Epicureanism for those of little means, though it won't solve their tangible economic problems. I say "something worthwhile" because Epicurus said (and I'm paraphrasing) that unlike other pursuits, which give pleasure only after much difficulty, the study of philosophy gives pleasure and alleviates suffering while you're "doing" it, and not exclusively after you've "achieved" it.
Robert Botine Cunninghame Graham; Mogreb-el-Acksa: A Journey in Morocco; 1898; a travelogue describing the conditions that gave rise to the Greek->Arabic loan-word bikouros, a pernicious title given to lazy Christian missionaries by reference to the name of Epicurus.
