Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Chris Fisher is if I recall one of the traditional Stoics. I give him credit at least for consistency over the "modern" stoics with whom he spars.

I can certainly understand credit for consistency, but - oh - to *believe* the universe somehow has a plan and you are an integral part of that plan strikes me as the height of hubris and delusion. I find the fact that while there is no plan, no providence, no watchmaker(s), we are still here and can still find peace and awe and friendship and pleasure in this brief time of our existence to be an occasion for joy. The terrible happens, but it's not to test our resolve or whatever. It's just terrible! But it will pass. We grieve. We cry. But friendships and loved ones comfort. We take pleasure in memory. We find - sometimes days, sometimes years - later, pleasure still awaits us. Peace of mind returns. By some providential purpose and design?! No! Through prudent choices, or sometimes just patience to give ourselves time to see it again. I find the "I am an actor in a providential cosmic play, watch my virtuous suffering" to be repugnant. The universe does not "care" about me. There is no divine Providence mapping my fate. Thank the gods, I say, tongue firmly in cheek! I set sail on my own little boat, tossed on waves or sailing calm seas. But it's up to me to determine my course and to take responsibility. I recognize there are some for whom life *is* painful, lonely, and miserable. But that is not Fate or Providence for them to endure or to accept. I cannot help all people everywhere nor will I punish myself for that. That helps neither them nor me. But I also don't accept that they should "love Fate" and wait to see what Providence has planned for them.

Atoms or Providence indeed! I plant my feet firmly in the real world and choose atoms!

I just came across this article:

'Providence or Atoms? Providence!' by Chris Fisher

Providence or Atoms A Very Brief Defense of the Stoic Worldview by Christopher Fisher Editorial note: Marcus Aurelius famously at times questioned his own…

modernstoicism.com

Providence or atoms??

Egads, I choose atoms!

Quote from Todd

Senses = the test of what is real; the primary tool of physics (natural sciences)

Feelings = the test of what is good; the primary tool of ethics

Anticipations = ???

That's an interesting schema and one I don't remember seeing before. I'm not sure I'm totally onboard with "the primary tool of..." but it seems to be in the right direction.

But I do like "the test of..." as these *are* the canon. Yours seems a good way to get at that idea.

Anticipations have been described by others in this forum as a faculty of pattern recognition. I personally keep coming back to research on children's inborn capacities for fairness, etc, just like their capacity to seek pleasure and well-being and flee from pain and discomfort.

On that note, I saw this today:

That's an excellent exposition above, Joshua . I like the idea of canon = test.

If I may, I'd like to expand on that even to say that, to me, the canon is a standard by which other things can be tested. The senses are part of the canon in that we can use them as a standard against which to test reality. Or am I stretching that metaphor too far?

I should also add that this is all somewhat academic - fun! but academic - since atoms as we know them today are *not* the same ΑΤΟΜΟΙ about which Epicurus wrote 2,300 years ago. My take has always been that it's important to recognize that Epicurus was talking about everything in the universe being composed of matter without the need for any intervention from mystical, supernatural forces. Whether "atoms fall straight down" or not has no bearing on whether Epicurus's philosophy is applicable to living a modern life. What *does* have bearing and is directly applicable is whether we accept Epicurus's axiom that we live in a material universe which is ordered in such as way as to have no need of any divine "clockmaker" to make it all run. That, to me, is one of the primary imports of getting a handle on the Physics.

Quote from Nate

Agreed. Until someone can demonstrate better reason, I'm translating ΠAPEΓKΛIΣIΣ as "[the] wiggle".

Don't get me wrong, I *really* like "wiggle" but...

On a more serious note, do the atoms "wiggle" back and forth or do they veer off to one side or the other at random intervals? The connotation of "wiggle" is that they're vibrating. παρέγκλισις seems to imply the idea of diverging from a set path (hence, "swerve" I guess) but I fully agree with you that "swerve" has too much the flavor of intentionality. κλίσις had to do with bending, inclining, or even the turning of soldiers to the left or right (per LSJ). There was κλίνω bend, slant, lean, wander, stray. etc. The English word used for clinamen or ΠAPEΓKΛIΣIΣ should evoke a random, involuntary action on the part of the atom to deviate from a set direction, itself due to nothing more than the "weight" of the atom "falling" in a straight line.

Quote from Nate

"Twerk" might be even more potent. Particles "twerk".

While I like the humor inherent in "twerk" that term to me also hints at intentionality and two particles interacting with each other per Merriam Webster:

sexually suggestive dancing characterized by rapid, repeated hip thrusts and shaking of the buttocks especially while squatting

That said, I *really* like wiggle.

If suggest fidget but that may involve intentionality. Harkening back to W Pennsylvania roots, I'd suggest "rootchy." Atoms can be "rootchy." Pennsylvania Dutch word meaning to be restless in one spot, be fidgety or squirm.

Eikadistes raises a number of good questions above. My suggestion?

1. Ignore both Dewitt and Clay
2. Go through the letter to Herodotus oneself
3. Come up with any number of foundational principles one wants because there's no way to know what those "12 Rudiments" were referring to.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Whether it's physics or sensation or the Canon or something else that needs to mention that color is a product of the arrangement of atoms, there's no way to tell from the context in Diogenes Laertius.

And thus DeWitt and Clay set out to "reconstruct" the list by looking for the common foundational points in Lucretius and Letter to Herodotus, which seems to be a pretty reasonable approach. I am not aware of other attempts to do that but seems like a fruitful topic for future writing.

Yes and no. There's no way to tell what those 12 basics were (other than the 1, 2, or 3 stated there). For example:

Metrodorus in his Timocrates, whose actual words are : "Thus pleasure being conceived both as that species which consists in motion and that which is a state of rest."

Nor, again, will the wise man marry and rear a family : so Epicurus says in the Problems and in the De Natura.

It's likely that Metrodorus talked about things other than the species of pleasure in his Timocrates, and Epicurus wrote about more then marriage in Problems and in On Nature. We know Problems was a complete work because it's in the list that Diogenes gives.

As for the "12 basics" it could be the title of a work or a list in another work, and it could be 12 basic principles applied to the senses like color is due to the arrangement of atoms, sounds are due to the ...?, touch is due to ...?... And so on with dreams, memory, taste, etc. They could be 12 foundational ideas of physics. They could be 12... etc. There's simply no way to tell. It's a quote from a commentator citing a quote out of context from a work or excerpt.

PS: That's not to say one can't try to pull together a list of "fundamental physics principles" if one wants to, be that 9, 10, 12, 20, 40. But they should be under no illusions that these are "The Twelve Rudiments " referred to by the scholiast adding notes to the manuscripts.

Quote from Don

The placement of Δώδεκα between the definite article and στοιχειώσεσί leads me to interpret ταῖς Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί as "in The 12 Principles/ Elements."

I just realized that that capital Δ delta wouldn't be in the original manuscripts. They were all "capital" letters in the early scripts. So, those "twelve basics" could simply have been part of another work, say a list of 12 foundational principles within Epicurus's On Nature. Literally, all that scholiast wrote was:

ΤΟ ΔΕ ΧΡΩΜΑ ΠΑΡΑ ΤΗΝ ΘΕΣΙΝ ΤΩΝ ΑΤΟΜΩΝ ΑΛΛΑΤΤΕΣΘΑΙ ΕΝ ΤΑΙΣ ΔΩΔΕΚΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΩΣΕΣΙ ΦΗΣΙ

followed by - and these need not be included within the 12 the way the sentences are written - "Also they are not of every size; no atom has ever been seen by our senses."

ΕΝ in this case with the dative can mean simply "within, among" so if Epicurus is talking about 12 fundamental principles or giving a summary of something that includes 12 items within one of his works, that would still be ΕΝ ΤΑΙΣ ΔΩΔΕΚΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΩΣΕΣΙ "among the 12 fundamentals."

Yeah, I'm not seeing this as "12 volumes" but rather as a summary of something with 12 items. Whether it's physics or sensation or the Canon or something else that needs to mention that color is a product of the arrangement of atoms, there's no way to tell from the context in Diogenes Laertius.

The reference to this mystery list/book/work is only mentioned in a scholia (scribal note added to a manuscript) at Diogenes Laertius 10.44:

He (Epicurus) says below that atoms have no quality at all except shape, size, and weight. But that colour varies with the arrangement of the atoms he states in his "Twelve Rudiments" ; further, that they are not of any and every size ; at any rate no atom has ever been seen by our sense.

So, according to that, the only thing we know for sure that the "Twelve Rudiments" contains is that "1. colour varies with the arrangement of the atoms." I'm not sure of that line that comes after, but, theoretically, the "Twelve rudiments" could include "2. atoms are not of any and every size" and "3. no atom has ever been seen by our sense." But that doesn't mean there's a simple list of 12 things. So, the work could be talking about the senses, not the physics. It seems it could have been translated as "The 12 Basics" or "The 12 Fundamentals."

LSJ:

στοιχεί-ωσις , εως, ἡ,

A. teaching, “ἀρετῆς” Hierocl. in CA11p.445M.; elementary exposition, “τῶν ὅλων δοξῶν” Epicur.Ep.1p.4U.; αἱ δώδεκα ς., a work by Epicurus, Id.Fr.56; ἡ ἠθικὴ ς., work by Eudromus, Stoic.3.268; “ς. καθολικαί” Phld.Rh.1.104 S.; τὰ ἁπλᾶ πρὸς στοιχείωσίν ἐστιν ἐπιτήδεια elementary teaching, Simp. in Cat.13.29.

2. doctrine of the elements, Gal.7.678, 15.175, 19.356.

Also:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, στοιχεῖον

Quote from Cassius

Diskin Clay has a discussion of these 12 in an article he wrote I believe by the title of something like "The Last Will of Epicurus."

I've looked at that paper (looking at it right now, in fact) and I'm not impressed with Clay's exposition. He writes about 10 stoicheiomata in the letter to Herodotus but there's really 12 (in relation to that title) so he adds two from the Tetrapharmakos. That just seems sloppy.

Eikadistes , I had never seen that but I am definitely intrigued.

So, the form of that is:

ΣTOIXEIΩΣEIΣ ΔΩΔEKA

(or in upper & lower case, for comparison)

Στοιχειώδεις δώδεκα.

I was curious to see how the other sets of books were listed in Diogenes ' Book 10:

Περὶ φύσεως ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα.

On Nature (in) 37 (books)

Ἐπιστολικὰ περὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέους εἴκοσι καὶ δύο.

Letters concerning Empedocles (in) 22 (books)

Πρὸς τοὺς σοφιστὰς ἐννέα.

Against the Sophists (in) nine (books)

Πρὸς τοὺς ἰατροὺς τρία.

Against the Physicians (in) three (books)

There were others but those only used numerals. But these three here all use the number directly after the title and are translated, with no fanfare, as Title (in) X# (books).

I do notice that the form in Diogenes 10.44 is ταῖς Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί with the number preceding the "elements/principles." However, in looking at them placement of other numbers in relation to the noun they're modifying, some are before, some after. The placement of Δώδεκα between the definite article and στοιχειώσεσί leads me to interpret ταῖς Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί as "in The 12 Principles/ Elements." I'm not saying I couldn't be persuaded otherwise, but that's my current understanding.

Welcome, Plantpierogi , to our virtual Garden

PS: After reading Cassius 's post below, I'll second his "Glad that you found the lurking helpful, and welcome to the club "

...we say pleasure is the foundation and fulfillment, the beginning and end (ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος) of the blessed life.

~ Epicurus, Letter to Menoikeus

May your old year end and your new one begin with pleasures, both great and small!

Happy New Year!

All very cool! Plus people shouldn't forget your 20er moon phase icons (must say I'm obviously partial to that one )

Quote from Don

But that's a conversation for another thread

Like this one ...

Thread

Do Pigs Value Katastematic Pleasure? ( Summer 2022 K / K Discussion)

Had this been shared before?

https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/47860495

Don

June 29, 2022 at 11:26 PM

Quote from Nikolsky

If Epicurus did not divide pleasures into kinetic and static,

I still think Epicurus (and Metrodorus and Philodemus) did use those categories; however, I think much ado has been made of them by later commentators.

But that's a conversation for another thread

Quote from Don

The sage will found a school, but not in a way that attracts a crowd around themselves or plays to the mob.

I don't know if this is a repeat of info, but I just discovered today that this could be a response (or a jab) at Theophrastus, head of Aristotle's school, who regularly spoke to thousands of pupils:

Quote from Diogenes Laertius 5.2.37

About 2000 pupils used to attend his lectures. In a letter to Phanias the Peripatetic, among other topics, he speaks of a tribunal as follows2: "To get a public or even a select circle such as one desires is not easy. If an author reads his work, he must re-write it. Always to shirk revision and ignore criticism is a course which the present generation of pupils will no longer tolerate." And in this letter he has called some one "pedant."

Reading through the Routledge chapter and it strikes me that when they mention enargeias, this appears to be a related word to the one that Epicurus used to describe our perception of the gods in the letter to Menoikeus:

Gods exist, and the knowledge of them is manifest to the mind's eye (ἐναργὴς enargēs).

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , ἐναπο-στέγω , ἐναργ-ής

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , ἐναπο-στέγω , ἐνάργ-εια