Posts by Don

For your consideration:

"on the one hand, there are the desires arising from our physical, material existence; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.' And of the desires arising from our physical, material existence , on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which merely arise from our physical, material existence; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself."

As always, Eikadistes , a pleasure to read your insightful commentary!

Your post got me thinking again.

The two main categories of desires are:

φυσικοι "natural/physical"

κεναι "empty/vain/groundless/void"

I am going to assume that natural was chosen by many translators because of its nice alliteration with "necessary": natural AND necessary.

However, I got an inclination that this somewhat skews an English-reading audience to think it's "natural" as in "It's natural to have those desires" as in:

Definition of NATURAL

based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; being in accordance with or determined by nature; having or constituting a classification based on features…

www.merriam-webster.com

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong

instead of more like

5 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn

It sets up a "natural" vs "unnatural" as in acceptable vs deviant.

In thinking about "physical/material" Ι'm considering what it would mean if we looked at those desires as "physical and necessary" and "physical and unnecessary" in the sense of φυσκιος's meaning of "physical, having to do with the study of the material world."

These are desires arising from our being part of the material world, having a physical existence.

As opposed to those desires that are empty or *void.*

This would set up a categorization of *desires* that mirrors or complements the basis of our material existence:

atoms (which are the material basis of our existence) paired with physical desires

void (which is empty space) paired with "void" desires

I don't have this fleshed out entirely, but I wanted to get it down for reaction before I forgot it!

Quote from Kalosyni

Seems like they should put them behind glass protectors, or they need to more securely mount them.

They have SO MUCH loot gathered from so many centuries they were probably like, "Oh, could somebody pick that up?"

I realize that's not entirely fair, and we do have them to "thank" for the Vatican Sayings I suppose.

Quote from Godfrey

One minor detail (correct me if I'm wrong): looking at the dates it appears that Aristotle died after Epicurus was born. Aristotle still would have been an aging (and soon, dead) superstar in relation to the young Epicurus however

Egads! Thank you!!! I always mess up the BCE's negative numbers!! I'll get that fixed!

I wish we'd just do away with that and use... I don't know ... Kurzgesagt's "Human Era" (HE) reckoning and just count forward!

12,023 Human Era Calendar

Available only for a short time: the 12,023 Human Era Calendar is here! This year you can join us on a journey through the hidden worlds of the microcosm.11" x…

shop-us.kurzgesagt.org

They, only somewhat tongue in cheek, say we should just start arbitrarily reckoning dates from the beginning of settled agriculture 10,000 years BCE and count forward! So, we're living in 12,022 HE.

In which case, Epicurus would have been born in 9,659 HE and Aristotle died in 9,678 HE! Well, look at that 9678 is after 9659! How easy was that!

It also makes it much easier to see at a glance how long ago it was from us when we're talking about something that happened in "BCE" dates.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm starting an Epicuruean study of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. Instead of posting my 11-pages of notes here on the forum, I decided to just use a sub-page of my current website (see above). The opening page is a short intro with a link to my notes on Book 1.

I do not plan to apply myself to this project in any kind of speedy manner. This is a curiosity project, a chance to engage with a text or at least ideas that Epicurus himself no doubt had access to and with which he probably wrestled when devising his own philosophy. I hope - at some point - to maybe put in more links to resources, etc., but that's a maybe. Please think of these notes - if you think of them at all - as first thoughts, reactions, etc. to a text I've been meaning to get around to for years! Enjoy the ride if you stop by the site!

Quote from Kalosyni

The "Epicurus in Lycia" source says three different versions of KD's !!!

It seems to me the three are more editions of the same text rather than thinking of them as three different "versions." Not saying it's not important to see the differences among the editions but I don't think we're seeing completely divergent texts.

Quote from Cassius

My thoughts are definitely parallel with those of Usener

My thoughts parallel Diskin Clay's in that excerpt in thinking Epicurus himself formulated and distributed a work forming the basis of the KD that may have been added to and edited after his death

Well, Diogenes includes it in Epicurus's list of works. I realize that's not definitive, but KD holds together much better than Vatican Sayings which is definitely a compilation. Could a scribal error have mixed up some sections of KD? Definitely! Does KD have it's overall organization in a work by Epicurus? That's my position. And Epicurus didn't have to call it KD though I don't see why he couldn't. But I'd want to check references to such a work in Seneca, Cicero, and Philodemus et al. before staking a flag too deep:

Such, then, in number and character are the writings of Epicurus, the best of which are the following :

Of Nature, thirty-seven books.

Of Atoms and Void.

Of Love.

Epitome of Objections to the Physicists.

Against the Megarians.

Problems.

Sovran Maxims. Κύριαι δόξαι

Of Choice and Avoidance.

Of the End.

Of the Standard, a work entitled Canon.

Chaeredemus.

Of the Gods.

Of Piety.

[28] Hegesianax.

Of Human Life, four books.

Of Just Dealing.

Neocles : dedicated to Themista.

Symposium.

Eurylochus : dedicated to Metrodorus.

Of Vision.

Of the Angle in the Atom.

Of Touch.

Of Fate.

Theories of the Feelings--against Timocrates.

Discovery of the Future.

Introduction to Philosophy.

Of Images.

Of Presentation.

Aristobulus.

Of Music.

Of Justice and the other Virtues.

Of Benefits and Gratitude.

Polymedes.

Timocrates, three books.

Metrodorus, five books.

Antidorus, two books.

Theories about Diseases (and Death)--to Mithras.41

Callistolas.

Of Kingship.

Anaximenes.

Correspondence.

Edit: Oh, his Wikipedia article lists the work as Fundamental Propositions. I like that!

Quote from Cassius

We know they were referred to as "Authorized"

I wouldn't put too much stress on that one word. What they are called are the κυριαι δοξαι kyriai doxai.

The doxai are beliefs, doctrines, opinions, etc. This is where English gets the -dox in words like orthodox "correct/right beliefs".

Kyriai is related to the the Kyrie (vocative case of kyrios) in the Christian prayer "Kyrie, eleison" "Lord, have mercy"

Kyrie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The kyriai has connection to kyrios "lord, master, sir, the big kahuna, etc." So, these beliefs, doctrines, opinions are, in one sense, the *important* ones, the master doctrines, the important beliefs, the ones you're going to hold if you're an Epicurean.

Here's the definition of kyrios

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

You'll see words like power, ordained, authority/authorized/authoritative, supreme, sovereign, principal, valid, proper, etc... All are equally correct and all bring their own English baggage with them. That's why some academics simply use KD (Kyriai Doxai) to refer to them.

That's why you have SO many variations on the title of that work, which remember was NOT originally written as a numbered list!

Quote from Cassius

Don or Nate, what about the varying translations of "natural" vs "physical"? What explains that variation and which do you think is best?

I'm interested to hear Nate's take.

My initial thought would be "the whim of the translator." φυσικός is transliterated "physikos" so it looks like (and is the source of) English physical, physics, so some translators play up that similarity. Others lean on the definition instead:

I. natural, native, opp. to διδακτός, Xen., Arist.

II. of or in the order of nature, natural, physical, opp. to ἠθικός, Arist.

This is again why it is SO important to go back to the texts! Two English words in translations can imply there's something going on where in fact it's just the quirk of the individual translator pulling at different connotations of a word.

Φυσικός comes from the word φύσις physis which is even more nuanced. See below.

To address your "which is best?" The best is φυσικός but seriously they both have good points and bad points but any English word is ultimately going to bring its own semantic baggage and be looking at the texts through a glass darkly. The best we can do is be aware of this and NEVER rely on one translation like it's the King James Bible.

Φύσις

I. the nature, natural qualities, powers, constitution, condition, of a person or thing, Od., Hdt., attic

2. like φυή, form, stature, ἢ νόον ἤ τοι φύσιν either in mind or outward form, Pind.; τὸν δὲ Λάϊον, φύσιν τίνʼ εἶχε, φράζε Soph.; τὴν ἐμὴν ἰδὼν φύσιν Ar.

3. of the mind, one's nature, natural bent, powers, character, Soph., etc.

4. often periphr., πέτρου φύσιν σύ γʼ ὀργάνειας, i. e. would'st provoke a stone, id=Soph.; ἡ φ. αὐτοῦ for αὐτός, Plat.

II. nature, i. e. the order or law of nature, κατὰ φύσιν πεφυκέναι to be made so by nature, naturally, Hdt., etc.;—opp. to παρὰ φύσιν, Eur., Thuc.; so, προδότης ἐκ φύσεως a traitor by nature, Aeschin.:—so, in dat. φύσει, by nature, naturally, Ar., etc.:—f4usin 24exei, c. inf., it is natural that . . , Hdt., Plat.

2. origin, birth, φύσει γεγονότες εὖ Hdt.; φ. νεώτερος Soph.; so, τὴν φύσιν Xen.

III. nature, universe, Plat., Arist.

IV. as a concrete term, creatures, animals (cf. φύστις), θνητὴ φ. man kind, Soph.; πόντου εἰναλία φ. the creatures of the sea, id=Soph.; θήλεια φ. woman- kind, Xen.; οἱ τοιαῦται φύσεις such creatures as these, Isocr.

V. a nature, kind, sort, βιοτῆς φύσις Soph.: species, Xen.

VI. sex, Soph., Thuc.

Okay, my mind is rambling, I'm tired, it's late, and still getting over some illness, but I made the decision to start playing with the Greek. Here's my work in progress... But then I'm really hanging up the phone and going to sleep. Really... Really!

PD30

ἐν αἷς τῶν φυσικῶν ἐπιθμιῶν μὴ ἐπʼ ἀλγοῦν δὲ ἐπαναγουσῶν ἐὰν μὴ συντελεσθῶσιν, ὑπάρχει ἡ σπουδὴ σύντονος, παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν αὗται γίνονται, καὶ οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν οὐ διαχέονται ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κενοδοξίαν.

τῶν φυσικῶν ἐπιθμιῶν the "physikon" desires

φυσικός < φύσις

I. natural, native, opp. to διδακτός ("things taught, learned"), Xen., Arist.

II. of or in the order of nature, natural, physical, opp. to ἠθικός ("morals, ethics"), Arist.

So, the φυσικῶν ἐπιθμιῶν seem to be, while usually translated just "natural desires", are those desires that arise naturally from within the needs of our bodies and from the needs within our minds, too, maybe, since Epicurus teaches that our minds are physical; from our physical nature, not those desires that we learn or are taught we *should* have. These desires arising within our minds can also come from the need for well-being and not just shelter, food, and other physical needs.

Then when saying that καὶ οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν οὐ διαχέονται "and not through their own 'nature' (φύσιν) are they not dispelled themselves." (Double negatives were common ways of emphasizing a point not the way we think of them)

Compare the last phrases:

καὶ οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν οὐ διαχέονται ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κενοδοξίαν (διαχέονται).

-- οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν "*not* by its own nature dispelled

-- παρὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κενοδοξίαν "by the empty beliefs of humans dispelled

παρὰ with the accusative case can mean "*by* which anything increases or decreases, and so of the cause according to which anything comes into existence or varies" which seems to be the intent here in this phrase.

I'll take you up on that challenge... tomorrow

But the big difference I see off the bat is that 26 just mentions desires ἐπιθυμιῶν and 30 specifically physical/natural desires τῶν φυσικῶν ἐπιθμιῶν.

More tomorrow....

Edit: Thanks, Eikadistes !!! I need to scroll better before I just post! Those vocabulary lists are great! Your compilation continues to be a great resource!

Here's the section where it appears in Galen. I borrowed the book for an hour from Internet Archive, so it's available for anyone to download for that amount of time with a free account:

On the elements according to Hippocrates : Galen : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

236 pages ; 25 cm

archive.org

Okay, found it:

Die fragmente der Vorsokratiker, griechisch und deutsch, von Hermann Diels. v.2.

I was able to use one of the Greek words to track down the quote in Diels book.

P. 25 (digitized page 39) gives it a cited by Galen in his "Elements according to Hippocrates." There appears to be more context with that in the Greek.

P. 60 (74) cites Sextus Empiricus's "Against the Mathematicians" (that's cited in the Wikipedia article)

The two has slightly different orders of the characteristics considered conventional:

Galen: χροιη (color), γλυκυ (sweet), πικρον (bitter), but in reality atoms and void.

Sextus: γλυκυ (sweet), πικρον (bitter), θερμον (hot), ψυχρον (cold), χροιη (color), but in reality atoms and void.

The Sextus citation sets up a nice dichotomy arrangement, but whose to say which is "correctly" quoting Democritus?

Also..

https://faculty.umb.edu/adam_beresford/courses/phil_310_08/reading_taylor_democritus.pdf

A solid examination of that quote starts this paper.

Quote from Joshua

Quote

1) Joshua do you have a cite for the precise way you quoted " By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void."

I like that version as making a very clear point, but maybe that is someone's interpretation?

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

-------------------------------------------

I'm pulling this straight from Wikiquote

Display More

Democritus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Quote

Texts

The standard scholarly edition of the ancient evidence concerning the views of the Presocratic philosophers is Diels-Kranz’ work (cited as DK): H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th edition, Berlin: Weidmann, 1951. A fuller presentation of the evidence for Democritus, with commentary in Russian: Solomon Luria, Demokrit, Leningrad, 1970. English translation and commentary (cited as Taylor 1999a): C.C.W. Taylor, The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus. Fragments, A Text and Translation with Commentary, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999a. See also the report on Democritus in: Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (Loeb Classical Library), R.D. Hicks (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925, book 9.34–49.

"[Democritus] famously denies that perceptible qualities other than shape and size (and, perhaps, weight) really exist in the atoms themselves: one direct quotation surviving from Democritus claims that ‘by convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void’ (DK 68B9, trans. Taylor 1999a)."

Quote from Cassius

If a perspective about atomism leaves out the fact that we are mortal and changing beings, and implies that our existence is somehow of lesser rank or less important than the atoms themselves, then that perspective is destructive to our well-being, and I would expect Epicurus to denounce it just as he denounces supernatural religion or false claims of life after death

Okay, now I can see where you're coming from. While I can agree with Democritus (and Epicurus) in that atoms are the only "immortal" unchanging thing in the universe (for the sake of current argument), one can't stop at *that* realization. It's only half the picture. Got it.

Quote from Ben

Great to have tracked you down. I am really interested in how the communities functioned on a day to day level. Were they isolated, with no money used (barter economies) or drop-in places etc. I believe the children were communally cared for but little more. How did it work in practice in other words?

I, too, am very interested in the day-to-day workings of the Gardens, both Epicurus's original one in Athens and subsequent ones that grew up later in cities across the ancient world. There is most likely a good chance that they all did not work the same as well.

I see no evidence that they were isolated. Even though Epicurus situated the original Garden "outside the city walls of Athens" it was literally *right outside* the city walls and also on the same road that led to Plato's Academy. It's situation near/in the Kerameikos section of the city means it was near the potter's shops/homes as well as the tombs of the city. The Garden was on one of the busiest roads leading into the city right outside one of the busiest gates (the Dipylon Gate) leading into the city itself. Those who want to make the Garden to be some sort of walled-off exclusive commune isolated from the rest of society are barking up the wrong tree.

I certainly don't see a "barter economy" taking place "within the Garden" unless within certain parameters given the ancient setting. It's also important to remember that the Garden was neither a "commune" in the colloquial nor in the literal sense. Epicurus specifically decided that resources should not be shared in common among his students.

I've always seen the Garden as more of a drop-in/"commuter school" than a residential school. It's important to remember (and I have problems remembering this myself) that the Garden as as much a philosophical school as Plato's Academy, Aristotle's Lyceum, Chryssipus' Stoa, etc. I would conjecture that all the schools worked similarly administratively. The BIG difference between all those and the Garden was that the Garden was private property! All the others were founded on public grounds (near the gymnasiums for Plato and Aristotle, near the public agora for the "Stoics"). The fact that Epicurus also welcomed enslaved people into the Garden also tells me that it was not primarily residential. Those who were enslaved by others would only have been able to visit on their days of liberty, they'd need to go back to their master's house at night. Same way with women and especially hetairai. And there must have been enough enslaved people and women attending classes in the Garden for people to make a big deal out of it and be scandalized by it.

Those are some thoughts off the top of my head, but Norman DeWitt wrote a paper entitled "Organization and Procedure in Epicurean Groups" (Classical Philology. Volume 31, Number 3. Jul., 1936) which may interest you. Itis definitely an intriguing topic!! Thanks for raising it!

Quote from Joshua

Merely that these other aspects of nature are contingent on or emergent from matter. "Sweet" exists at the point of interaction between sense receptors on the tongue and one of a number of chemical compounds. When we say "it's sweet", I think what we really mean is "it tastes sweet [to me]".

Well put, Joshua !

Quote from Joshua

And maybe now is a good time to remind everyone about the great and glorious Mochus! This Mochus, the alleged father of ancient atomism, was considered by several early English scientists to have been one and the same with Moses himself; and by this circuitous route they make God out to be the father of Atomism, and they further connect the Greek word atom with the Hebrew name Adam, the "first beginnings". Does atomism lead to nihilism or not? Per usual, they are trying to have it both ways.

LOL! I was completely unaware of "great and glorious Mochus"! By Zeus, those Christians will co-opt anything!!