Posts by Don

This part of the thread does seem to revolve around something like the Greek πιστεύω pisteuō, from which I thought - up until 30 seconds ago! - we got the word epistemology.

πιστεύω pisteuō

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πιστ-εύω

Epistemology on the other hand:

Etymology Online: "theory of knowledge," 1856, coined by Scottish philosopher James F. Ferrier (1808-1864) from Greek episteme "knowledge, acquaintance with (something), skill, experience," from Ionic Greek epistasthai "know how to do, understand," literally "overstand," from epi "over, near" (see epi-) + histasthai "to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm."

Etymology from ἐπί (epí) +‎ ἵστημι (hístēmi)

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

So, epistemology seems to conjure up for me that idea of the Epicureans being "dogmatic" in that they were "making a stand" They were willing to take a firm position as opposed to remaining forever skeptical and puzzled.

btw, I like that word "overstand"! I think I would much rather overstand something than understand it

The closest the ancient Epicureans got to a creed in my opinion was the Tetrapharmakos.

Quote from Kalosyni

Onenski brought up the question of: Can you be certain about some things and what can you be dogmatic about in Epicureanism?

Quote from Don

On the "dogmatic" discussion, this goes back in part to Diogenes Laertius' characteristics of the sage:

https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…remain-in-doubt

The two key words are:

Epicureans will δογματιεῖν and not ἀπορήσειν.

δογματιεῖν dogmatiein

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…%3Ddogmati%2Fzw

ἀπορήσειν aporēsein

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…y%3Da)pore%2Fw2

So, my perspective has always been (similar to what Cassius was saying) that the Epicurean sage (or Epicureans in general) would take a position and lay down an opinion (δογματιεῖν) and will not remain puzzled or "skeptical" of everything (ἀπορήσειν)

Display More

Sorry to repeat myself, but I think this bears repeating. From my perspective, the "dogmatic" assertions of the Epicureans are more about being willing to take a position in opposition to the skepticism of the Academy or Skeptics or Cynics. The Epicureans say we *can* know something! That doesn't negate the holding off on an opinion until evidence is available. That's my interpretation of Diogenes Laertius's characteristics of the Epicureans. As for Cicero's jabbing the Epicurean speaker about his confident manner, I think that's just Cicero being Cicero.

Quote from Godfrey

Coincidentally, I just listened to this podcast which has a conversation on beliefs and science, beginning in the second half of the podcast.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6L…4NTFlZWE0?ep=14

That's a good high school motto BTW.

Thanks for the Alan Alda podcast reminder! Big fan but he got pushed down within my subscriptions.

It works on my Android here and in different browsers.

Just when you thought I forgot about this project....

I posted a little more on Book 3 this morning:

I'm finding points of agreement with Epicurus, but I'm getting bogged down in minutiae. After a little more of this, I need to pull back out and cover more ground from a birds eye view... Until it becomes necessary to swoop back down.

Quote from Cassius

On the bread and water material, this would be an excellent topic to write up your summary (not much needed other than what is above plus your conclusion) and we will post it as a blog post here and then promote on Facebook. Or of course just a post on your own blog that we can link to and copy here so it will be safe both places

Oh, you're talking about a blog article here?

Blog Articles - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

First, I apologize for the length of this post!

I wasn't quite sure where to post this, but this episode of the podcast seemed appropriate after hearing your discussion on whether we need to study Plato or if it's helpful to study Plato to understand where Epicurus's perspective came from. I am inclined to agree with Martin in that we can read secondary sources and don't necessarily have to read every work that Plato and Aristotle et al. wrote to understand the philosophical discussion that was going on during Epicurus's lifetime.

However, once in a while, one runs across a revelation (at least for me) that opens up a whole new line of understanding and possible exploration.

So, what was my revelation? And I freely admit this may only be a revelation to me. I can't remember if DeWitt brings this up...

I'm reading The Faith of Epicurus by Benjamin Farrington (able to be borrowed online an hour at a time from Internet Archive; I borrowed mine from the library) and came across a very interesting section that, to me, bears directly on the whole infamous "existing on bread and water" debate concerning Epicurus. Academics and the general public use this to say that Epicurus lived ONLY on bread and water. I've addressed this - from my perspective - misinterpretation in my translation of the Letter to Menoikeus (p. 72). BUT Farrington brought to light for me a related but different thread that I may very well incorporate into a revised edition of my translation at some point in the indeterminate future.

In Chapter 1, Farrington calls attention to the section in Plato's The Republic where Socrates is discussing the earlier or simple origins of the way of life in the city and how it has evolved. Socrates appears to be advocating for the simpler way of life. Here is the excerpt - emphasis is mine - from the Perseus Digital Library:

Quote from Plato "The Republic"

Socrates:

First of all, then, let us consider what will be the manner of life of men thus provided. Will they not make bread and wine and garments and shoes? And they will build themselves houses and carry on their work in summer for the most part unclad and unshod and in winter clothed and [372b] shod sufficiently? And for their nourishment they will provide meal from their barley and flour from their wheat, and kneading and cooking these they will serve noble cakes and loaves on some arrangement of reeds or clean leaves, and, reclined on rustic beds strewn with bryony and myrtle, they will feast with their children, drinking of their wine thereto, garlanded and singing hymns to the gods in pleasant fellowship, not begetting offspring beyond their means [372c] lest they fall into poverty or war?”

Here Glaucon broke in: “No relishes (ὄψον is anything eaten with bread, usually meat or fish) apparently,” he said, “for the men you describe as feasting.” “True” said I; “I forgot that they will also have relishes—salt, of course, and olives and cheese and onions and greens, the sort of things they boil in the country, they will boil up together. But for dessert we will serve them figs and chickpeas and beans, [372d] and they will toast myrtle-berries and acorns before the fire, washing them down with moderate potations and so, living in peace and health, they will probably die in old age and hand on a like life to their offspring.” And he said, “If you were founding a city of ***pigs,*** Socrates, what other fodder than this would you provide?” “Why, what would you have, Glaucon?” said I. “What is customary,” he replied; “They must recline on couches, I presume, if they are not to be uncomfortable, [372e] and dine from tables and have made dishes and sweetmeats such as are now in use.” “Good,” said I, “I understand. It is not merely the origin of a city, it seems, that we are considering but the origin of a luxurious city. Perhaps that isn't such a bad suggestion, either. For by observation of such a city it may be we could discern the origin of justice and injustice in states. The true state I believe to be the one we have described—the healthy state, as it were. But if it is your pleasure that we contemplate also a fevered state, there is nothing to hinder.

Plato goes on from here to talk about justice, etc., over the course of the rest of The Republic. "They are the subject-matter of the remaining eight books. They are also the objects of Epicurus's attack. | It can hardly be doubted that Epicurus had noted this passage in the Republic and taken strong exception to it." (Farrington, p. 17)

Farrington notes that Athenaeus in the Deipnosophistae that Epicurus was indebted to Plato for the distinction of "natural" and "superfluous" needs:

Quote from Athenaeus, The Deipnosophistae, Book 12 (511-12)

And in the eighth book of his Republic, the same Plato has previously dilated upon the doctrine so much pressed by the Epicureans, that, of the desires, some are natural but not necessary, and others neither natural nor necessary, writing thus - "Is not the desire to eat enough for health and strength of body, and for bread and meat to that extent, a necessary desire ? - I think it is. - At all events, the desire for food for these two purposes is necessary, inasmuch as it is salutary, and inasmuch as it is able to remove hunger ? - No doubt. - And the desire for meat, too, is a necessary desire, if it at all contributes to a good habit of body? Most undoubtedly. - What, then, are we to say? Is no desire which goes beyond the appetite for this kind of food, and for other food similar to it, [512] and which, if it is checked in young people, can be entirely stifled, and which is injurious also to the body, and injurious also to the mind, both as far as its intellectual powers are concerned, and also as to its temperance, entitled to be called a necessary one ? - Most certainly not." (Source)

BUT, back to the "bread and water" debate! Farrington makes note of the following excerpt in Lucretius on the Epicurean picnic that echoes The Republic!

Quote from Lucretius, Book 2 and 5

Yet still to lounge with friends in the soft grass

Beside a river of water, underneath

A big tree's boughs, and merrily to refresh

Our frames, with no vast outlay- most of all

If the weather is laughing and the times of the year

Besprinkle the green of the grass around with flowers.

***

These tunes would soothe and glad the minds of mortals

When sated with food,- for songs are welcome then.

And often, lounging with friends in the soft grass

Beside a river of water, underneath

A big tree's branches, merrily they'd refresh

Their frames, with no vast outlay- most of all

If the weather were smiling and the times of the year

Were painting the green of the grass around with flowers.

(Sources: Book 2 and Book 5)

Display More

These two excerpts echo Socrates in the Republic, and, additionally, there is Epicurus's fragment about reclining on couches (Usener 207):

Quote from Epicurus

Porphyry, Letter to Marcella, 29, p. 209, 1: "It is better for you to have confidence {about the future} while lying on a cheap bed than to be disturbed while possessing a golden couch and an extravagant table." (Source)

So, my take on all this? Epicurus is making a point in the "bread and water" sayings about enjoying the simply, everyday things (like the regular midday meal of the ancient Greeks on bread and beverage) as I mentioned in my translation. However, he's also specifically refuting Plato's ideal city-state as laid out in the Republic, what Socrates calls "the luxurious city," and is making a point of contrasting the overgrown city-state that imposes so many unnecessary desires and demands on its citizens, with what nature can provide.

I found that fascinating and worth investigating.

Canon comes from the Greek word: κανών which was a straight measuring stick made out of reed. Canon was often used by carpenters or masons for measurement and also to test out straightness.

From this meaning, the word "canon" evolved to mean a “measurement”, “norm”, “standard”, “regulation”, “list” etc.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Κκ , κανυσῖνος , κα^νών

On the "dogmatic" discussion, this goes back in part to Diogenes Laertius' characteristics of the sage:

The two key words are:

Epicureans will δογματιεῖν and not ἀπορήσειν.

δογματιεῖν dogmatiein

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δ , δμῳ-ή , δογμα^τ-ίζω

ἀπορήσειν aporēsein

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀπορ-έω

So, my perspective has always been (similar to what Cassius was saying) that the Epicurean sage (or Epicureans in general) would take a position and lay down an opinion (δογματιεῖν) and will not remain puzzled or "skeptical" of everything (ἀπορήσειν)

One of my favorite fragments is:

163. "Flee from all indoctrination, O blessed one, and hoist the sail of your own little boat." (My own translation) παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν, μακάριε, φεῦγε τἀκάτιον ἀράμενος.

I really like this one! The "flee" φεῦγε is the same word that Epicurus uses as the title of his work commonly called "On Choices and Avoidances," and I've shared my thoughts on that word elsewhere in the forum. I've chosen "indoctrination" here for παιδείαν since that is what Epicurus seems to consider the prevailing system of education in his time to be, nothing more than indoctrination. I also like the image of the τ(ο) ἀκάτιον, "a small boat or skiff with a single sail." That's why I chose "little boat" instead of ship, for example, but didn't choose a specific kind of boat because who (other than one who sails) knows the difference among skiff, dinghy, skow, etc. It's just a small craft. My perspective is that this encapsulates the Epicurean concept of self-reliance perfectly! However, it doesn't include the idea of friendship. So, maybe we need to find our own path, our own art of living; but, once we've embarked, we'll find like-minded individuals with whom to walk the path with us - to join our small flotilla to keep the metaphor of this saying. The journey comes first. We find companions along the way.

Plutarch, On Listening to Lectures, c.1, p. 15D: Shall we ... force them to put to sea in the Epicurean boat, and avoid poetry and steer their course clear of it?

Note: In L&S, under παιδεια - 2. training and teaching, education, opposite of τροφή,

τροφή: nourishment, food; that which provides or procures sustenance; a meal ; nurture, rearing, upbringing; education

II.nurture, rearing, bringing up, Hdt., Trag.; in pl., ἐν τροφαῖσιν while in the nursery, Aesch., etc.

rearing or keeping of animals

a place in which animals are reared

So it looks to me like τροφή has more of a connection to nature whereas παιδεία has more of a sense of acculturation, something imposed or overlayed on the individual.

On the word for boat:

ἀκάτιον Dim. of ἄκατος Note: τἀκάτιον = το + κατιόν e.g., ταγαθον

I. a light boat, Thuc., etc.

II. a small sail, perh. a top-sail, Xen., Luc.

Modern Greek = dinghy, small skiff

ἀράμενος middle masculine participle of "lift, raise" (for yourself with middle sense).

Part of me wants to come up with a "Live like an Epicurean for a Week" annual event like the Stoics have. Surely, we could come up with selected readings, suggested activities/exercises, etc.

Anyway, food for thought.

If we're going to go down the route of discussing words and their relationship to physical phenomenon and mental concepts, I think we'll need to review the following papers:

David Sedley, On Nature, Book 28

File

On Nature Book 28 - Reconstruction By David Sedley - 1973 Article

Sedley reconstruction of fragments from Book 28

Cassius

April 15, 2019 at 10:55 AM

And maybe this one:

“New Evidence for the Epicurean Theory of the Origin of Language: Philodemus, On Poems 5 (PHerc. 403, fr. 5, col. i),” Cronache Ercolanesi (2015) 45: 67-84.

“New Evidence for the Epicurean Theory of the Origin of Language: Philodemus, On Poems 5 (PHerc. 403, fr. 5, col. i),” Cronache Ercolanesi (2015) 45: 67-84.

This article presents new evidence from the Herculaneum papyri for the Epicurean theory on the origin and development of language. After a brief overview of…

www.academia.edu

Quote from Cassius

what do you think about that Don? We could create the threads under the Aristotle scrion here:. Epicurean Philosophy vs. Aristotle

...and move this thread into that section too

Sounds good to me.

Did you want to try and move the individual posts about the 3 books to their threads there and leave the general ones in the "overall thread."?

All that is beyond me so the logistics would be your bailiwick.

To digress to Plutarch for a moment, I found it interesting that Lucretius's image of seeing a shipwreck or battle from afar and being thankful it wasn't happening to oneself an echo of the quotations from Metrodorus and Epicurus:

Quote from Metrodorus

Metrodorus asserts in his Reply to the Sophists: ‘Hence this very thing is the Good (τὸ ἀγαθόν > τἀγαθοῦ), escape from the evil; for there is nowhere for the Good (τἀγαθὸν) to be put when nothing painful to the body or distressing to the mind is any longer making way for it.’

Quote from Epicurus

For what produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the contrast of the great evil escaped; and this is the nature of good, (τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν) if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about (περιπατῇ) prating meaninglessly about good

Wow! You dove right in!

I'm honored that you think my ramblings are interesting enough to comment on and to think about how to make it easier for others to comment on. This really started as a personal investigation to assuage my own curiosity. I was initially reluctant to go public, but then figured why not. The Google Sites don't allow for comments. As I mentioned previously, I'm just fitting this into my day as I can/want/am able, so I'm not sure how long it'll take to complete all 10 books. But I'm encouraged by your interest and am open to your ideas on how to point to it or allow people to comment on it on this forum.

With that, I have some comments on your comments...

Quote from Cassius

Why is it not objectionable to seem to presume, without proof, that such a thing as "THE good" ("it has been well said that the Good is That at which all things aim.") is not only NOT well said, but stupidly said? And why is not Epicurus' response ("I know not how to conceive....") best understood as a statement that such a thing as a single good does not really even exist at all except as a construct of the mind useful for debate but not as something which truly has an independent existence?

Hmm... Unfortunately, I don't agree with your general point in this excerpt and your other general comments in this direction. My perspective and interpretation of the Epicurean position as I see it laid out by, at least, Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Philodemus, was that the discussion of the good ταγαθον (tagathon < ton agathon, literally "the good") appears to have been a question every Greek philosopher wanted to answer at least as far back as Eudoxus of Cnidus (c. 400-350 BCE). Aristotle was 384-322 BCE. And they all used that word ταγαθον, including Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Philodemus, to drive home their point. I don't see the Epicureans denigrating the idea of "the good" or thinking it was a silly or meaningless discussion. My perspective is that the Epicureans, starting from Epicurus himself, felt that they had answered the question "what is ταγαθον 'the good'?" once and for all. They all used that word ταγαθον deliberately and purposefully to drive the point home that they had answered that question decisively, finally, and there was no need - had never been a need! - to "stroll around endlessly prattling on about the good." The answer had been staring everyone in the face for at least 100 years since the whole discussion began. *Pleasure* is that to which every action and thought points. We experience pleasure for itself and not as a means to an end. And it is pleasure writ large, including *every* pleasurable feeling, both katastematic and kinetic.

So when you say...

Quote from Cassius

it is very important from the beginning to establish that Epicurus was drawing a bright line of warning against the entire endeavor of obsessing over the discussion that such a thing as a single good applicable to everyone even exists at all.

I don't think Epicurus was doing that at all. I think Epicurus *was* in fact saying there is a "single" good - "the good" ταγαθον - and that good is pleasure. But importantly, it is NOT an abstract or idealized good like virtue, or an unattainable good open to only a select few. It is the concrete, physical feeling of pleasure as felt by human beings, pleasure in ALL its multifariousness. THAT is the good. THAT is "That at which all things aim." Epicurus felt he had definitively answered the question that had vexed Eudoxus, Plato, Aristotle, and all the rest. To me, he's saying, " Quit your endless prattling and simply acknowledge that feeling of pleasure is that at which all things aim."

I'll have more to say (and I'm thinking you might as well, Cassius ) but that's it for now. The day calls.

Okay, I got a little side-tracked with the Plutarch quote this evening. I didn't get any further in commenting on Aristotle, but thought I'd share the "work-in-progress" which is Book 3, Part 3:

I really went down the rabbit hole with Plutarch, looking for alternative translations and tracking down the Greek I wanted. I think it fits where I put in the Aristotle commentary, but I need to get back on track soon. But... I was getting pleasure from the endeavor, so I suppose I shouldn't apologize

Hmmm .. maybe I'll have to tackle Plutarch after the 10 books of Nichomachean Ethics.

Got it!

[ U423 ]

Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 7, p. 1091A: Not only is the basis that they assume for the pleasurable life untrustworthy and insecure, it is quite trivial and paltry as well, inasmuch as their "thing delighted" – their good – is an escape from ills, and they say that they can conceive of no other, and indeed that our nature has no place at all in which to put its good except the place left when its evil is expelled. … Epicurus too makes a similar statement to the effect that the good is a thing that arises out of your very escape from evil and from your memory and reflection and gratitude that this has happened to you. His words are these: "That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about {a jibe at the Peripatetics}, prating meaninglessly about the good."