Posts by Don

I'm saying 4 with the caveat that that motion can happen more than once over time but not as often as 2.

Quote from Lucretius, Book 2

The atoms, as their own weight bears them down

Plumb through the void, at scarce determined times,

In scarce determined places, from their course

Decline a little- call it, so to speak,

Mere changed trend. For were it not their wont

Thuswise to swerve, down would they fall, each one,

Like drops of rain, through the unbottomed void;

And then collisions ne'er could be nor blows

Among the primal elements; and thus

Nature would never have created aught.

...

The atoms must a little swerve at times-

But only the least, lest we should seem to feign

Motions oblique, and fact refute us there.

For this we see forthwith is manifest:

Whatever the weight, it can't obliquely go,

Down on its headlong journey from above,

At least so far as thou canst mark; but who

Is there can mark by sense that naught can swerve

At all aside from off its road's straight line?

Again, if ev'r all motions are co-linked,

And from the old ever arise the new

In fixed order, and primordial seeds

Produce not by their swerving some new start

Of motion to sunder the covenants of fate,

That cause succeed not cause from everlasting,

Whence this free will for creatures o'er the lands,

Whence is it wrested from the fates,- this will

Whereby we step right forward where desire

Leads each man on, whereby the same we swerve

In motions, not as at some fixed time,

Nor at some fixed line of space, but where

The mind itself has urged? For out of doubt

In these affairs 'tis each man's will itself

That gives the start, and hence throughout our limbs

Incipient motions are diffused.

Display More

Quote from Nate

I'm trying out the idea that particles are "twitchy" and "tweak" when they move. I'm finding that "twerks", "wiggles" and "wags" imply a patterned rhythm that does not reflect the spontaneous, irregular quality of the ΠAPEΓKΛIΣIΣ.

Well, I applaud you for making the observation of intentionally with "swerve." So, kudos there. Wiggle is the most fun, but still misleading.

Some random synonyms:

veer

drift

pivot

turn

.... Sigh.... Harder than it sounds like it would be!

PS: Do we know if the clinamen is supposed to be a fast swerving all of a sudden or a drifting off to one side or the other?

I'd describe most of us as "earnest students" of the philosophy. How does that sound, Cassius ?

Quote from Cassius

And why twelve fundamentals of physics (if that is the correct classification), but not a numbered list of anything else?

See, that's the issue. We have no way of knowing if it was a list of 12 physics propositions or 12 ways of sensing things or 12 basic particles or 12 fill in the blank. All the text does is quote 1 to 3 sentences (the text is unclear) that were somewhere "in the 12 basics". Whether that or those were actually "in that list" or whether they were contained in an explanation of the 12 or in the introduction to the list, we have *no way* of knowing.

PS

Quote from Cassius

not a numbered list of anything else?

We have no way of knowing how many lists, summaries, etc that Epicurus wrote and shared. We've lost too much.

I'm also not sure we should imbue "12" with some sort of significance lest we go down a Pythagorean path. My personal take was that that was just the number of basic principles of... Something (perception, sensation, physics, etc?) that Epicurus felt was sufficient in a summary to explain what he needed.

Good work, Eikadistes . That's a good summary list. I started doing this a while back and never went back to finish. Thanks for taking the bull by the horns!

A question and an observation:

Are you positing a difference between these two?

Quote from Nate

Everything radiates tiny, sensible particles. (EH 46.1-47.2)

Particles flow from things constantly. (EH 48.1-6)

Those seem to be the same. I didn't realize that section on images/eidolon was so long.

I'm still curious (and a curiosity likely never assuaged) as to what the 12 basics referred to: physics, sensations, etc. We have nothing other then those words εν ταις δοδεκα στοιχείωματα.

Quote from Nate

the 40 ΔOΞAI,

I'm still not convinced that there are actually 40 Principal Doctrines. With the text initially being in prose form, I think some of those 40 split up thoughts needlessly, creating arcane sounding principles where it's better understood in the context of a paragraph. There was 12 something referred to in the text, but I don't remember ever reading an ancient source referring specifically to 40 Doctrines.

Another good task for someone would be to reestablish the PDs in textual form and not a list.

After reading my post from last night in the light of day, I can still feel my visceral reaction to that Stoic article. However, I ask the forum: Am I being too harsh?

Epicurus certainly didn't spare his barbed words for people he disagreed with, but he also said it's better to believe in the gods than it is to accept hard determinism.

To me, though, it seems like accepting one's Fate decreed by Providence is combining *both* the gods *and* determinism and trying to sit that fence must surely be uncomfortable in the end. But if they find pleasure in "believing" that, am I to point out the precariousness of their position?

It seems to me that Epicurus also held that the best way to live was to understand how the universe actually works in reality.

Thoughts welcomed (at the risk of hijacking this thread).

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.