Some of his correspondence with the married French Duchess survive. I haven't yet found the texts online, but they might be worth perusing.
http://https//www.unz.com/p…PDF&apages=0099
From the text: "William Short, Jerfferson's 'Only' Son"
Much of his writing to her was burned sometime during the Reign of Terror, though few have survived. The small, formatted text denotes the contents of letters, followed and succeeded by chronology and context of each letter.
Relevant Wikipedia links in regards to Plato's Immortal and/or divine Soul, Harmony & Vitalism, as well as a cross-post.
(Simmias) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmias_o…lato.27s_Phaedo
(Plato-Phaedo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedo#The_Affinity_Argument
(Vitalism-Emergence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism#Emergentism
(Élan vital) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Élan_vital
(Pleasure-Pain Simultaneously Thread) Can We Experience Pleasure in One Part of Our Experience and Pain In Another Part of our Experience At the Same Time?
I've read that atomism developed in both Greece and India, however in India they maintained the supernatural while in Greece they did not.
I've read into this topic before, as well as having mentioned this a few times on the podcast. Kanada was the first proponent of Atomism within India, and even founded his own school that would become one of the six orthodoxes of Vedic Philosophy. Here's a very brief summary of its materialism and atomism.
Physics is central to Kaṇāda’s assertion that all that is knowable is based on motion. His ascribing centrality to physics in the understanding of the universe also follows from his invariance principles. For example, he says that the atom must be spherical since it should be the same in all dimensions. He asserts that all substances are composed of four types of atoms, two of which have mass and two are massless.
...Vaisheshika school is known for its insights in naturalism. It is a form of atomism in natural philosophy. It postulated that all objects in the physical universe are reducible to paramāṇu (atoms), and one's experiences are derived from the interplay of substance (a function of atoms, their number and their spatial arrangements), quality, activity, commonness, particularity and inherence. Everything was composed of atoms, qualities emerged from aggregates of atoms, but the aggregation and nature of these atoms was predetermined by cosmic forces. Ajivika metaphysics included a theory of atoms which was later adapted in Vaiśeṣika school.
However, something that I've also kept in the back of my mind, is the Charvaka school of thought (6th - 5th Century BCE). The atheistic & hedonist school that opposed the Vedas and the spiritual culture within India, as well as Buddhism. In some of the articles I've read, they're often compared or grouped with Epicurus (barring a few differences obviously).
https://philolu.com/2019/03/14/the…cs-of-charvaka/
USENER 146
(Same page from 116)
Plutarch, Against Colotes, 17, p. 1117A: But what epithet do they deserve – with your "roars" of ecstasy and "cries of thanksgiving" and tumultuous "bursts of applause" and "reverential demonstrations," and the whole apparatus of adoration that you people resort to in supplicating and hymning the man who summons you to sustained and frequent pleasures?
USENER 431
Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 5, p. 1089D: Now first observe their conduct here, how they keep decanting this "pleasure" or "painlessness" or "stable condition" of theirs back and forth, from body to mind and then once more from mind to body, compelled, since pleasure is not retained in the mind but leaks and slips away, to attach it to its source, shoring up "the pleasure of the body with the delight of the soul," as Epicurus puts it, but in the end passing once more by anticipation from the delight to the pleasure
USENER 439
Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, V.34.95: The whole teaching of [Epicurus] about pleasure is that pleasure is, he thinks, always to be wished and sought for in and for itself because it is pleasure, and that on the same principle pain is always to be avoided for the simple reason that it is pain, and so the wise man will employ a system of counter-balancing which enables him both to avoid pleasure, should it be likely to ensure greater pain, and submit to pain where it ensures greater pleasure; and all pleasurable things, although judged of by the bodily senses, are notwithstanding transmitted on again to the soul; and for this reason while the body feels delight for the time that it has the sensation of present pleasure, it is the soul which has both the realization of present pleasure conjointly with the body and anticipates coming pleasure, and does not suffer past pleasure to slip away: thus the wise man will always have a perpetual continuation of pleasures, as the expectation of pleasures hoped for is combined with the recollection of pleasures already realized.
USENER 446
Cf. Zeno the Epicurean (Zeno of Sidon), by way of Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, III.17.38: "Blessed is he who has the enjoyment of present pleasure and the assurance that he would have enjoyment either throughout life or for a great part of life without the intervention of pain, or should pain come, that it would be short-lived if extreme, but if prolonged it would still allow more that was pleasant than evil."
---
Something I've always maintained when discussing continuous and anticipated pleasure, is that an example of its practice it can be seen from Epicurus himself in his letter to Idomeneus, on his last day on Earth.
"On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could increase them; but I set above them all the gladness of mind at the memory of our past conversations. But I would have you, as becomes your lifelong attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus."
Which I sometimes contrast with Usener 21 from Plutarch (That Epicurus makes... 1094E)
"Now it has not escaped Epicurus that bodily pleasures, like the Etesian winds, after reaching their full force, slacken and fail; thus he raises the Problem whether the Sage when old and impotent still delights in touching and fingering the fair. In this he is not of the same mind as Sophocles, who was as glad to have got beyond reach of this pleasure as of a savage and furious master."
While in most circumstances, pleasure arises from a movement, motion, or will to satiate a given desire. It can later be recollected with fondness in a very static manner. But we know that not all pleasures stem from desire itself, as we can think of the replenishment theory, where the passing scent of bouquet of roses is pleasant to the sense which did not require any prior desire. Further, in that freedom from any stress or pain, something generally (and all to often) regarded as a pleasure reserved for the mind or soul which is elevated from the body.
However, it would not be like an Epicurean to abandon the pleasures of the body or those involving motion to achieve, in favor of the calm and sober pleasures of the mind. As Cicero puts it well in his Tusculan Disputations (U439), we do well to employ a balance between our choices and selections of pleasure, to that end we select our pleasures to the fullest extent while avoiding pain or minimizing how often we endure it by means of the canon. It's only natural that we expect ourselves to both fully enjoy pleasure in the present, and ensure that our pleasures persist into the future, so that when it comes we may continue to enjoy the present as we always have.
Regarding my original post, the winner was this:
“We are very thankful
We are very glad
For friends we meet
And food we eat
For home and mom and dad.”
Winner because my wife and kid loved it, and we prayed it together and no supernatural beings took part
.
Mathitis Kipouros I don't have a suggestion for your kids, however, a few lines from the opening chorus of Handel's Acis & Galatea come to mind as possible options for dinner prayers, or "grace".
For us the zephyr blows,
For us distills the dew,
For us unfolds the rose,
And flow'rs display their hue.
Or/And
For us the winters rain,
For us the summers shine,
Spring swells for us the grain,
And autumn bleeds the wine.
The context of this chorus is that the shepherds & nymphs live in harmony together, living a life of pleasure with lots of callbacks to Lucretius. To them, they take from each thing its most pleasant gift & are happy and grateful for it.
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/…4&brand=ucpress
The "Throne" of Epicurus
The situation is entirely different when we come to the portraits of the Epicureans. They never taught publicly but instead withdrew to Epicurus' garden outside the city the Kepos, to live together—more like a gathering of friends, a commune, or a sect than a school—seeking the path to happiness and pleasure without disturbance and fear, under the guidance of a teacher of surpassing insight. The goal was a life of "joy and pleasure" by reaching a state of "painlessness of the body" and "lack of excitement of the soul." In Athens the disciples of Epicurus were so closely identified with a life outside the community of the polis that they were often referred to simply as "those from the Garden" (Sext. Emp. Math. 9.64). It is therefore highly improbable that any public statues were put up in the third century in honor of these men who so ostentatiously withdrew from the civic and political life of the city. More likely, the portraits stood in the Kepos itself, at least in the early period, and served there to recall Epicurus and his friends Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and Polyaenus, who were also known as "guides" or "leaders" (kathegemones ) and enjoyed the particular devotion of pupils who were referred to as kataskeuazomenoi .[24] The existence of a well-known "mnema of the Epicureans" in the Kepos is explicitly attested (Heliod. Aeth. 1.16.5).
We are fortunate to possess copies that give a good idea not only of the statue of Epicurus, but of those of his friend Metrodorus and his successor Hermarchus. Probably all three were put up soon after the subject's death, in 277 (Metrodorus), 270 (Epicurus), and 250 (Hermarchus).[25]
If we take a look at these three Epicurean statues (figs. 62–64), on the one hand (they are all more or less fully preserved in copies or can be reconstructed), and the statue of Chrysippus (cf. fig. 54), on the other, it is immediately clear both how closely all the Epicureans adhere to the same manner of pose and appearance and how fundamentally different these are from the image of the Stoic. Instead of the Stoic expression of mental strain and the hunched-over body, all three Epicureans sit calmly and quietly in classically balanced poses, the mantle carefully draped about them.
Even when seated they maintain a kind of contrapposto between the rear leg actively thrust back and the forward leg relaxed, as well as a comparable chiastic positioning of the arms. For them, evidently, thinking is not such hard work that it would be reflected in the body. The display of conventionalized standards of behavior, as in the citizen image of the fifth and fourth centuries, comes naturally and effortlessly. This is particularly noticeable in the statues of Epicurus and Hermarchus in the prescribed wrapping up of the left arm. This correct, though rather "public," posture hardly seems to suit the private image of a man quietly seated in contemplation and presents in any event a striking contrast to Chrysippus' intense concentration on intellectual pursuits or the psycho-motor tension and movement of statues related to that of Chrysippus.
This unmistakable gesture of the Epicureans can be understood only as an explicit and self-conscious indication of a desire to hold to the old traditions, a token of virtue and modesty, at a time when these very values were being called into question by other members of Athenian society. Epicurus and his friends quite ostentatiously attach great importance to the proper behavior. Anyone who withdrew from the
city, like "those from the Garden," was well advised to insure that in spite of this he appeared to be an irreproachable citizen. Indeed, Epicurus by no means rejected the rules of society but rather understood them as the prerequisite to a philosophical life of inner happiness. The maintenance of the proper citizen etiquette was taken for granted in the Kepos.[26]
The elegant wavy hair of Epicureans, the locks carefully arranged on the forehead, and especially the strikingly "classical" stylization of their beards (figs. 66–68) all demonstrate how important they considered a cultivated appearance that was based on the ideals of the past. The wearing of a beard—even a carefully tended beard like those of respectable Athenian citizens of an earlier age—had by now become a token of otherness. And yet the handsome Epicurean beard conveys a very different set of values from the unkempt or crudely trimmed beard of the Stoics, not to mention that of the Cynics. For the Epicureans, the beard implies not only an acceptance of the traditions of the polis, but also an identification with the upper class.
While at first glance the three statues of Epicureans look very similar, there are in fact important differences, which reflect the strict hierarchy that obtained in the Kepos. Epicurus sits on an impressive "throne," Metrodorus on a backed chair, and Hermarchus on a simple stone block.[27] Some have likened Epicurus' chair, with its ornamental lion-paw feet, to the thrones of the gods, and thereby linked it to the hero cult that was established for the founder of the Kepos after his death. This seems to me, however, unlikely, since Epicurus himself is not depicted as a hero, but in every respect as an Athenian citizen. For a contemporary viewer, a more obvious comparison would be with the prohedria (the front-row seats) in the Theatre of Dionysus, reserved for priests and outstanding citizens, as well as for benefactors of the city. The association would have suggested itself on account of the shape of the seat (fig. 65), especially since the elaborate seat of the priest of Dionysus, with its lion-paw feet, in the middle of the front row, stood in the same relation to the other seats of honor as Epicurus' throne to the backed chair of Metrodorus. The Kepos has thus usurped this symbol of signal public honor for officials and dignitaries, in order to mark Epicurus' achievements and his position within the school. In this way the great wise man, who showed the way to a happy life, was singled out by his pupils as the highest spiritual authority.[28]
Another conceivable association would be that of an academic "chair." As early as the time of the Sophists, an especially impressive seat seems to be a sign of the instructor's special authority and dignity. Plato portrays the Sophist Hippias of Elis giving instruction from a thronos, while his pupils sat around him on stone benches (Prt. 315). But, as we shall see, Epicurus is in fact not shown as a teacher giving instruction, so that the connotation of the academic chair is unlikely.
Against the background of the Classical image of the Athenian citizen, this kind of honor represents something new. The singling out of Epicurus from the other two kathegemones makes it clear that the Epicureans were not concerned with a search for truth through persuasive argumentation and passionate discussion, like the followers of Chrysippus, but rather with devotion to and perpetuation of a unique spiritual guide and teacher.
The same hierarchy can also be clearly detected in the faces of the three portraits. Epicurus' is marked by a curious contrast between the restless and powerfully muscled philosopher's brow and the otherwise placid expression of the face (fig. 66). Yet the brow is still different from, say, Zeno's or Chrysippus', where the mental effort looks forced and strained. Epicurus' eyebrows are raised, but hardly in motion. The raised brows are a token of superiority, reflecting his absolute authority. The powerful muscles above the brows can therefore not be understood as an expression of a momentary mental struggle, especially when the body is so relaxed. Apparently the sculptor wanted to express the idea of tremendous intellectual capacity, a state of being rather than a sudden action.[29]
Metrodorus' brow, on the other hand, does not betray even a trace of intellectual effort (fig. 67). Rather, its serenity, lack of expression, and perfect balance strike us more as an echo of Classical citizen portraits. This was, it would seem, precisely the intention. The Classical formula for characterizing a distinguished man in middle age is taken up and quoted, in order to make visible certain goals of Epicurus' teachings, such as inner tranquility and a life of enjoyment. In this way, the carefully tended hair and beard, as well as the elegant manner of dress and seated posture forge an association with the polis values of the past.[30]
With Hermarchus, however, we do seem to sense a measure of mental strain, or perhaps, concern (fig. 68). In the better copies, the brows are gently drawn together, and the wide fringe of hair emphasizes the severity of this portrait of old age. Like Epicurus, Hermarchus was a native of Mytilene on Lesbos, and they had come together to Athens and there lived and philosophized together for more than forty years. Hermarchus was thus already an old man when, after Epicurus' death, he became head of the Kepos and devoted himself to preserving his friend's heritage as faithfully as possible.[31]
Hermarchus' dress and pose (cf. fig. 64), as we have seen, deliberately imitate those of Epicurus, but with an important difference in the pose of the head and probably also of the right arm. Hermarchus' raised arm is a gesture of teaching, and his head is raised and turned to the side, as if toward an interlocutor. Epicurus, by contrast, bent his head and looked out in front of him, as Fittschen's reconstruction with casts has confirmed (fig. 62). The lower right arm, like Metrodorus' left, was gently drawn back toward the body and turned inward. The drooping shoulder also suggests a quietly relaxed positioning of the arm.[32] We may infer from this difference that Hermarchus was shown more as the teacher, Epicurus as the tranquil thinker marked by inner concentration. This in turn reflects the different roles that they played: Epicurus is the great pioneering thinker, remote and unattainable on his seat of honor; Hermarchus, the loyal disciple who preserves and propagates the inheritance of the master.
The value of ataraxia is parasitic upon that of aponia, since the only ataraxia worth having is that which comes from pleasant memories and confident expectations of sensory pleasures of a painless kind. Thus the body's pleasures have pride of place.
This is an interesting point, for the longest time I had only considered that the static, or pleasures regarding ataraxia could only result from a recollection of previous pleasures, as noticed from Epicurus' Letter to Idomeneus. But having read other literature and sources that did not prove that this was necessarily so in every instance (Aristippus section from DL), it's always been clear that the two concepts are redundant, or at least aponia is, since ataraxia implies a state that pain would make impossible.
So then, the model of pleasure follows a route of continuous pleasure, found both in the sensory pleasures here and now, with the possibility of pleasure in the long run, or in the present when reflecting upon previous pleasures.
Perhaps we should make a new thread concerning the Cyrenaics, as I have a lot of material and small tidbits of information on them, as they're of huge fascination to me, contrary to popular belief, and perhaps some on this forum. I am inclined to believe that Epicurus took more inspiration and likeness towards the Cyrenaics than is often admitted.
As for the key differences between their approach to pleasure, where the Cyrenaics believed in only the pleasure of the moment whereas Epicurus believed in pleasures recollected and anticipated further and constant pleasure in the long run (not to be confused with time spent). Just as the Epicurean Canon is essential for understanding Epicurean ethics, so too must we understand the epistemology of Aristippus & his most immediate followers.
The first Cyrenaics were "empiric-skeptics", believing with certainty that your senses are accurate to what you are currently experiencing. But they do not regard the state, or properties of what they are sensing, and do not believe that knowledge can extend beyond your current state of sensational feeling. I had a brief conversation with someone on the subject of Cyrenaic pleasures & ataraxia quite a few months ago, and he cited a position taken by a researcher, that this sensation extant in only the moment becomes a verb, so that the experience of seeing yellow becomes "I am being yellowed", or to a more accurate example: "I am being pleasured", "I am pleased", etc.
With this in mind, its perfectly clear why the Cyrenaics would deny the possibility of pleasure that could be experienced with the mind, and thus, when the present has not occurred, in essence, a "static" pleasure, since as we have discussed, and made known, pleasure and pain to the first Cyrenaics, only consisted in smooth and rough motions.
“Yes, but my plan for avoiding such treatment is this. I do not shut myself up in the four corners of a community, but am a stranger in every land.”
I'm seeing a parallel between this and Epicurus' advice to Pythocles: "Live Unknown" and "Steer clear of all culture"
1.2.1 Empedocles (494-c434 BCE), Anaxagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia, as described by Theophrastus, consider pleasure and pain as kinds of perception.
Among the early philosophers, says Diocles, his favourite was Anaxagoras, although he occasionally disagreed with him, and Archelaus the teacher of Socrates. Diocles adds that he used to train his friends in committing his treatises to memory. - Book 10, Epicurus
I think it's worth mentioning that according to DL, Anaxagoras and his pupil Archelaus were of particular favorites, or regarded with much sympathy by Epicurus. It's also interesting that Anaxagoras lived in Lampsacus for quite some time, though DL cites Favorinus via Metrodorus of Lampsacus, he is referring to Metrodorus the Elder, and not the friend and disciple of Epicurus. But his influence on the town may be the reason why Epicurus, when teaching and amassing a circle of friends in Lampsacus, was able to understand the former's philosophy.
Of course that section in Book 10, we may have to take it with a tiny grain of salt, as DL is citing Diocles of Magnesia, who wrote a biography of philosophers much like Laertius, yet nothing about him is known besides his work as a writer. Though Book 10 is not the only time where DL cites him, instead he cites him quite heavily in virtually every book regarding the Cynics and Stoics, barring a few.
Saving this thread for later, as the Cyrenaic line of thinking only survived three heirs: Aristippus, Arete, and Aristippus (the Younger).
It's important to understand their profound influence on Epicurus.
I'll respond in a bit. A little busy right now.
While searching for the appropriate forum category for this post I discovered that you've cited him along that long list of quotations & citations for the fullness of pleasure model.
The Full Cup / Fullness of Pleasure Model
"Alciphron, Letters, III.55.8 (Autocletus to Hetoemaristus {“Gatecrasher” to “Prompt-to-breakfast”}): Zenocrates the Epicurean took the harp-girls in his arms, gazing upon them from half-closed eyes with a languishing and melting look, and saying that this was “tranquility of the flesh” and “the full intensity of pleasure.”
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva…/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Epicurus is name-dropped in another letter about Menander, but Alciphron should never be considered a good source, he was a sophist and there's virtually nothing known about his life, including the time he lived in.
Nothing is harder to please, it seems, than an old man who
is just starting to behave like a boy again.
How this Epicurus is controlling me, criticizing everything, suspecting
everything, writing me incomprehensible letters and
chasing me out of his garden. By Aphrodite, even if he
had been an Adonis, though nearly eighty years old, I
wouldn’t put up with him, this lice-ridden and sickly man
who is all wrapped up in fleece instead of felt. How long
must one endure this philosopher? Let him have his
Principal Doctrines on Nature and his distorted Canons, and
permit me to live according to nature, my own mistress,
without anger and violence. I really have such a besieger,
not at all like you, Lamia, have in Demetrius. It’s not
possible to lead a virtuous life on account of this man. He
wants to be a Socrates with his chatter and irony, and he
believes Pythocles is an Alcibiades and thinks he can make
me his Xanthippe. I will end up leaving for whatever place
and flee from land to land rather than to endure his
incessant letters.
But now he has ventured into the most terrible and
intolerable act of all, which is why I’m writing to you,
hoping you’ll tell me what to do. You know that handsome
fellow Timarchus from Cephisia. I don’t deny that I’m
quite familiar with the young man (I have for a long time
been truthful to you, Lamia) and I almost got my first lesson in love from him; he took my virginity when I was living
next door. Since that time he has never ceased sending me
all sorts of nice things like clothes, gold, Indian maids and
Indian servants. I won’t mention the rest.
But he anticipates the seasons in the smallest delicacies, so that nobody
may taste them before I do. So that’s the kind of lover
about whom Epicurus says, ‘Shut him out and don’t let him
come near you.’ What kind of names do you think he’s calling him?
Not as an Athenian or a philosopher *** or of
Cappadocia coming to Greece for the first time. Even if
the whole city of Athens were full of Epicures, by Artemis, I
wouldn’t weigh them all against Timarchus’s arm, or even
against his finger!
What do you say, Lamia? Isn’t this true? Am I not right?
And don’t, I beg of you by Aphrodite, don’t let this answer
enter your mind: ‘But he’s a philosopher, he’s distinguished, he has many friends.’ He may even take what I
have, and teach others. It is not doctrine that warms me,
but the object of my desire, and I desire Timarchus, by
Demeter! What’s more, on account of me the young man
has been forced to abandon everything, the Lyceum, his
youth, his comrades and friends, in order to live with Epicurus and flatter him and chant his windy doctrines. This
Atreus says, ‘Get out of my realm and don’t approach
Leontium!’ Like it wouldn’t be more fair if Timarchus said
‘No, don’t you approach mine!’ And the man who is young puts up with his elderly rival,
the latecomer, but the other can’t stand him who has a more rightful claim.
By the gods, I implore you, Lamia, what should I do?
By the mysteries, by the release from these misfortunes,
when I think about my separation from Timarchus I immediately turn cold, my hands and feet begin to sweat and my
heart turns upside down. I beg you, take me into your
house for a few days, and I’ll make him aware of what good
things he was enjoying with me in the house. He’s not
going to stand the boredom any more; that I know for sure.
He will immediately send out Metrodorus, Hermarchus
and Polyaenus as ambassadors. How often, Lamia, do you
think I’ve told him in private: ‘What are you doing,
Epicurus? Don’t you know how Timocrates, the brother of
Metrodorous, is making fun of you because of this, in the
assembly, in the theatre, in front of the other sophists?’ But
what can I do with this man? He’s shameless in his desire,
and I’m going to be just like him, shameless, and not let go
of my Timarchus. Farewell.
Welcome @Joy X!
Inspired by Robert Hanrott and Mike Anyayahan I decided to finally make my own blog, hopefully I will remember to update it (the daily epicurean was an open domain but I thought that was too much).
https://weeklyepicurean.wordpress.com/
I did this as I felt compelled to write some more as well as brush up my skills with wordpress. Feel free to share this on the FB Group.
Interestingly enough, I went through the rest of the collection and found a feature of Epicurus as well as one on Metrodorus, though Hermarchus & Leontion were nowhere to be found.
I don't have any reason to believe that the print of Metrodorus is none other than Metrodorus the Younger. There have been other Metrodorus' throughout history but none have been as significant or recorded as much as the disciple and best friend of Epicurus, no doubt because of Laertius and Cicero.
I found a series of prints used for gem engravings in the British Museum, it dates back to 1766 and features 180 different prints with reference to Greek & Roman Figures as well as some mythological/animal prints, Horace is among them.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/obj…9-0709-891-1071
