Posts by Don

I just saw melikraton in that one excerpt from the book. That's VERY similar to the word used in Philodemus's poem!

μελιχρότερα

melikhrotera

(Merriam Webster) melicrate

archaic

: a fermented or unfermented beverage of honey and water : hydromel

I haven't read Frischer's book yet. I need to add it to my ever-growing list of books to read.

On hero worship: From my perspective, there's no doubt that Epicurus was "venerated" as (sort of) divine figure. We just have to look to the hymns to Epicurus in Lucretius. That's also part of the whole birthday observations. It wasn't simply "cake and presents" to use a modern metaphor.

The word used in the Will of Epicurus in the "funeral offerings to my father, mother, and brothers" is ἐνάγισμα "enagisma." These were not just performed at the funeral, these were "an offering to the dead" per LSJ. There is also a German Wikipedia article on the practice. Here's a Google Translate version of that article:

Enagisma - Wikipedia (de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog)

So, that's in relation to Epicurus's father, mother, and brothers. It looks like standard practice for the dead.

The "the customary celebration of (Epicurus's) birthday" and "the meeting of all my School held every month on the twentieth day to commemorate Metrodorus" strikes me as those days each month dedicated to gods like Apollo, Aphrodite, Dionysus, etc. There is no specific word in those phrases that refer to a specific kind of celebration like enagisma.

"Let them also join in celebrating the day in Poseideon which commemorates my brothers." συντελείτωσαν δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμέραν τοῦ Ποσειδεῶνος:..."

The "celebrating" the day in Poseidon is συντελέω synteleo (συντελείτωσαν); and, according to LSJ, that is "celebrate or hold sacred rites."

"...and likewise the day in Metageitnion which commemorates Polyaenus, as I have done hitherto." συντελείτωσαν δὲ καὶ τὴν Πολυαίνου τοῦ Μεταγειτνιῶνος καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς. The same word συντελείτωσαν is used here as well. So, the practicing of "sacred rites" was established by Epicurus himself for his brothers and Polyaenus. In fact, both "funeral offerings" and monthly "sacred rites" were performed for Epicurus's brother.

The book The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period by Gunnel Ekroth is available for reading online. It sheds some light on the terms within those texts:

Chapter I. Terms assumed to be related to hero-cult rituals

In the modern literature on hero-cults, a number of terms have been classified as being particularly applicable to the sacrifices to heroes. This terminology…

books.openedition.org

Quote

The general tendency in modern scholarship has been to regard enagizein and its associated nouns as particularly connected with sacrifices to the dead and the heroes....Casabona’s detailed study of the sacrificial terminology has shown, however, that the relation between enagizein and thyein is that of a technical term versus a very general term.

...

On the general level, the meaning of enagizein has been understood as tabu facere, to render sacred or to place in the domain of the sacred, i.e., to remove from the sphere of the living.237 Concerning the rituals covered by the terms, two main explanations have been advanced. On the one hand, enagizein has been considered to refer to a total destruction of the victims or offerings by burning them in a holocaust.238 In this sense, an enagizein sacrifice would imply that no part of the animal would be available for consumption by the worshippers. On the other hand, the terms have been linked to various kinds of libations, such as wine, melikraton, milk and, in particular, blood.239 It has also been suggested that enagizein and the related nouns can refer to both kinds of actions, i.e., the discarding of the blood of the animal followed by the burning of the carcass.

Chapter IV. The ritual pattern

1. The sacrificial rituals of Greek hero-cults This study has had two aims, first of all, to establish the sacrificial rituals of Greek hero-cults in the…

books.openedition.org

Quote

Destruction sacrifices at which no dining took place, covered by the terms holokautos in the inscriptions and enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the literary texts, are rare and cannot be considered as the regular kind of ritual in hero-cults. All the terms seem to cover the same kind of ritual, the destruction of the offerings, but they have different bearings on the character of the recipient. Holokautos was more neutral, being used for both heroes and gods, while enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are particular to hero-cults and the cult of the dead. Apart from referring to a destruction sacrifice, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos also mark the recipient as being dead and therefore impure in some sense, and distinguish him, or a side of him, from the gods, who are immortal and pure. In most cases, the destruction sacrifices to heroes were performed as separate rituals and not in connection with a thysia.

I found the underlined section interesting in that the gods in Epicurean theology were "immortal and pure" and Epicureans were seen as able to live akin to the gods in life. Since there is NO afterlife in Epicurean philosophy, it's also interesting to think how these rites would be interpreted within the Garden.

Diogenes Laertius 10.7:

he spent a whole mina daily on his table, as he himself says in his letter to Leontion and in that to the philosophers at Mitylene.

[ U158 ]

Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 18.9: The great hedonist teacher Epicurus used to observe certain periods during which he would be niggardly in satisfying his hunger, with the object of seeing to what extent, if at all, one thereby fell short of attaining full and complete pleasure, and whether it was worth going to much trouble to make the deficit good. At least so he says in the letter he wrote to Polyaenus in the archonship of Charinus {308 - 307 B.C.}. He boasts in it indeed that he is managing to feed himself for less than a half-penny, whereas Metrodorus, not yet having made such good progress, needs a whole half-penny!

And I'm going to have to find out from the Latin what those "pennies" actually translate.

[9] Certos habebat dies ille magister voluptatis Epicurus quibus maligne famem exstingueret, visurus an aliquid deesset ex plena et consummata voluptate, vel quantum deesset, et an dignum quod quis magno labore pensaret. Hoc certe in iis epistulis ait quas scripsit Charino magistratu ad Polyaenum; et quidem gloriatur non toto asse <se> pasci, Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto.

As (Roman coin) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PS: According to some websites I found:

(1st Century A.D.)

1 one pound loaf of bread = 2 asses

1 sextarius wine (~0.5 liter) = 1 - 5 asses

Remember that it is Seneca using the as as the coin in question, and he lived 4 BC – 65 AD. So, technically according to Seneca's quotation of a letter by Epicurus, Epicurus didn't need a whole "as" to live on for per day. However, Epicurus wouldn't have used the "as" coin since that was a Roman currency. Without the original text, there is NO way of knowing how much money Epicurus was referring to. However, even if we take Seneca's anachronistic currency, if Epicurus were "experimenting" with eating bread and drinking water, he could have bought a 1 pound loaf of bread for 2 asses and it would have lasted him two days. A pound of bread is a pretty good-sized loaf.

In his Coinage and History of the Roman Empire (vol. 2, p. 21), Vagi reports that "around the time of its destruction in A.D. 79 the average pay of a laborer in Pompeii was about 8 asses (half a denarius) per day, though actual salaries ranged from 5 to 16 asses per day. Skilled miners in rural Dacia earned wages of 6 to 10 asses, which were supplemented by free room and board values at 2 to 3 asses per day, bringing their true salaries more in line with the workers at the resort town of Pompeii."

This is an interesting question because as I remember reading somewhere, Epicurus experimented with how much he needed to maintain his happiness and pleasurable living from time to time. Sorry, can't think of the citation off the top of my head.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but Lucretius's poem was considered unfinished even in the ancient world, right?

Very good question but if so I am not aware of anything to establish that. Isn't one of the only ancient comments someone (a church father?) making the comment about Cicero "emending" it?

Ah! That's what I believe what I was thinking of. The whole Cicero thing. Thanks!

That would be a nice counterpoint to:

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

***

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas

Atque metus omnes, et inexorabile fatum

Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but Lucretius's poem was considered unfinished even in the ancient world, right?

Quote from Todd

Not to sound like a skeptic, but to me, this kind of thing is a reminder of how much we really don't know - even in areas that we tend to assume modern science has pretty well figured out.

That sounds like withholding judgement until more evidence of available... Very Epicurean

Thanks for those, Todd

If anyone's looking, I'd suggest the books by Bart Ehrman, too.

Quote from Don

We know the mind is inextricably linked to the brain, but I've never been that hard on Epicurus for the chest thing. From the literally "breathtaking" feeling one feels in the presence of awe-inspiring sights to the feeling of being heartbroken, we really do *feel* emotion in the chest!

The phrase used in Diogenes Laertius 10.66 is:

τὸ δὲ λογικὸν ἐν τῷ θώρακι

to (de) logikon en tō thōraki

"(and) the reason/intellect {is} in the "the thorax""

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λογι^κ-ός

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, θώραξ

I also found it interesting that just prior to the logikon section, the "a-logos" is said to be distributed throughout the body.

I'm going to have to go back and see how that Scholion fits into the pathē and pleasure and pain, etc. especially since it says we feel fear and joy in the "thorax"/chest.

Quote from Godfrey

So Epicurus was on to something: maybe (part of) the brain is in the chest

Fascinating with respect to the Canon!

We know the mind is inextricably linked to the brain, but I've never been that hard on Epicurus for the chest thing. From the literally "breathtaking" feeling one feels in the presence of awe-inspiring sights to the feeling of being heartbroken, we really do *feel* emotion in the chest!

Can You Physically Feel Emotions?

Emotions are both a physical and mental experience.

psychcentral.com

Quote

Here are some of the more common physical sensations of emotions:

• Anxiety. Lump in your throat, churning stomach, trembling, dry mouth, sweating, shortness of breath, feeling weak or tense.
• Anger. Hot or flushed face, clenched fists or jaw, shaking, jerky body movements.
• Joy. Feeling of lightness in your body, warm heart, “butterflies” in your stomach.
• Sadness. Feeling of “heartache,” heaviness in your body, tightness in chest, fatigue, drooping face.
• Shame. Hot face, lowered eyes, sunken body posture.
• Fear. Dizziness, weakness in legs, goosebumps, fast breathing and heart rate.

We also have numerous sayings referring to the mind-body connection:

• hot-headed (anger)
• hot-blooded (passionate)
• heartbroken
• getting cold feet (doubt or apprehension)
• stomach-dropping news
• gut-wrenching anxiety

Maybe related, but intriguing nonetheless...

Science | AAAS

Can the legacy of trauma be passed down the generations?

Our children and grandchildren are shaped by the genes they inherit from us, but new research is revealing that experiences of hardship or violence can leave…

www.bbc.com

Intergenerational transmission of trauma effects: putative role of epigenetic mechanisms

This paper reviews the research evidence concerning the intergenerational transmission of trauma effects and the possible role of epigenetic mechanisms in this…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Quote from Cassius

I need to read back up the thread to see the list Don gave, but I don't think it is likely a good bet to draw a bright line at "five" or "six" or "ten" or whatever.

Post

RE: Episode 155 - "Epicurus And His Philosophy" Part 11 - The Canon, Reason, and Nature 02

It's also important to remember we have more than "5" senses, including, at least:

1. Vision
2. Hearing
3. Smell
4. Taste
5. Touch
6. Balance (vestibular sense)
7. Temperature
8. Proprioception (body awareness)
9. Pain (nociception)

https://www.press.jhu.edu/newsroom/how-m…nses-do-we-have

See also

https://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/best/senses.html

Don

January 10, 2023 at 10:50 PM

Quote from Cassius

just consider the receipt of images, as Lucretius does in Book IV, along with the other phenomena of the senses like seeing, hearing, etc.?

That's always been my take. The mind is just a sensory "organ" that perceives subtle images.

And we know now, there are more than the 5 traditional senses (see one of my other posts), but even just adding on the mind makes 6.

Quote from Godfrey

FWIW, this from Epicurean Philosophy: An Introduction from the "Garden of Athens", page 144, kindle edition:

Quote

the reputable American Professor of Psychiatry and famous writer Irvin Yalom recently wrote: “The more I learn about this extraordinary Athenian thinker, the more strongly I recognize Epicurus as the first existential psychotherapist”

Staring at the Sun - Excerpt — Irvin D. Yalom, MD

Quote

The more I learn about this extraordinary Athenian thinker, the more strongly I recognize Epicurus as the proto-existential psychotherapist, and I will make use of his ideas throughout this work...

Quote from Cassius

Yes did Emily list examples on that one?

Unlimited desires like "you can't be too wealthy, too popular, too powerful."

Quote from Nate

As Todd mentioned, #18 seems almost Platonic, and I do not find support for this proposition in Epicurus’ texts. I may be missing something in translation, but at this point I do not accept this one.

I don't like the "levels" in 18. That doesn't sound right. One text that ***maybe*** gets at 18's sentiment is from the end of the epistle to Herodotus:

Quote

81] "There is yet one more point to seize, namely, that the greatest anxiety of the human mind arises through the belief that the heavenly bodies are blessed and indestructible, and that at the same time they have volitions and actions and causality inconsistent with this belief ; and through expecting or apprehending some everlasting evil, either because of the myths, or because we are in dread of the mere insensibility of death, as if it had to do with us ; and through being reduced to this state not by conviction but by a certain irrational perversity, so that, if men do not set bounds to their terror, they endure as much or even more intense anxiety than the man whose views on these matters are quite vague. [82] But mental tranquillity (ἀταραξία ataraxia) means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths.

[82] ...καὶ συνεχῆ μνήμην ἔχειν τῶν ὅλων καὶ κυριωτάτων.

... and having a constant memory...

τῶν ὅλων "of the whole"

(Interestingly τὸ ὅλον can also mean the universe, as in "the whole thing!"; differing from τὸ πᾶν, as implying a definite order)

... and κυριωτάτων of the highest/most important things.

(the superlative of κύριος kyrios as in κυριαι δοξαι Kyriai Doxai "Principle Doctrines")

I take that to mean we need to constantly remember that everything is reducible to atoms and void. Everything! If we remember that, we won't be fooled into looking for supernatural causes and all the rest.

Quote from Cassius

Maybe Democritus' tone would seem different to us if we had more of his work, or maybe this was an area (like determinism) where Epicurus was modifying what Democritus had taught.

You're right. Either is a possibility.

Quote from Cassius

Was Democritus laughing because he was truly happy, or was his laughter cynical and to the effect that people are nothing but whirling windbags of atoms bouncing around with no more intelligence than billiard balls?

My take has always been that Democritus is laughing because he doesn't take himself too seriously, in the end we're all atoms and void. I think he can laugh about people who get caught up in the rat race (to use a modern metaphor) and take themselves too seriously. People - all things! - really are *ultimately* nothing more than "whirling windbags of atoms." That doesn't mean in any way that we don't enjoy our lives at the level we experience them! But chill out! Take a breath! Carpe diem - pluck the fruit of each moment.

PS. From Heraclitus 's Wikipedia article:

Weeping philosopher

In Lucian of Samosata's "Philosophies for Sale," Heraclitus is auctioned off as the "weeping philosopher" alongside Democritus, who is known as the "laughing philosopher" part of the weeping and laughing philosopher motif. This pairing, which may have originated with the Cynic philosopher Menippus, has been portrayed several times in renaissance art, where it generally references their reactions to the folly of mankind.[better source needed] Heraclitus also appears in Raphael's School of Athens.

Along with Democritus's quote, it is a fact that sweet, bitter, and color are emergent properties of the atoms. Even my mind is an emergent property of my atoms that have no mind of their own. Atoms have no taste, color, etc., but in their configurations, they give rise to the phenomena of the cosmos which I experience on a day to day basis.

I personally have no problem accepting that there are "two levels" of reality, of the physical universe. I don't live in the realm of atoms, but I know its there. The fact that my physical senses that I feel are in reality *ultimately* composed of atoms and void doesn't make them any less real *for me.* Being composed of atoms doesn't lessen the "meaning" of my life (whatever that means... I'm not overly fond of the "M word.")

This goes back to Democritus:

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

Quote from Joshua

Pleasure is subversive.

Gimme that old time subversion! It's good enough for me!

Everybody sing along!!