Posts by Don

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!!

For consideration:

Democritus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This has a good section of the implications (and possible misinterpreting) of Democritus's "only atoms and void are real."

Also a thought on the "slippery slope to nihilism" if by nihilism one means "the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence or arbitrariness of human principles and social institutions." (Wikipedia) Democritus was known as the "laughing philosopher" so he obviously had a reputation of being of good cheer. I think this stems directly from his "only atoms and void are real" perspective. In the words of The Beatles:

Quote

Nothing is real,

And nothing to get hung about.

"Strawberry Fields Forever"

It seems to me that Democritus was saying, "We're all just ultimately atoms and void. All those problems you worry about, all that fame you're chasing, all that will ultimately dissolve into atoms and void! Just chill out and laugh!"

FYI...

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK IX, Chapter 7. DEMOCRITUS(? 460-357 B.C.)

An excerpt is below. Both the similarities and differences between Democritus and Epicurus are intriguing.

The third phrase interested me though:

"everything else is merely thought to exist."

τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα πάντα νενομίσθαι

That last word νενομίσθαι is simply a verb form of the same word used in the Democritus quote above: is by custom, is commonly used, etc. So Diogenes corroborates the reference by a Sextus Empiricus.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, νομ-ίζω

Excerpt:

Such was the life of our philosopher.

[44] His opinions are these. The first principles of the universe are atoms and empty space ; everything else is merely thought to exist. The worlds are unlimited ; they come into being and perish. Nothing can come into being from that which is not nor pass away into that which is not. Further, the atoms are unlimited in size and number, and they are borne along in the whole universe in a vortex, and therby generate all composite things--fire, water, air, earth ; for even these are conglomerations of given atoms. And it is because of their solidity that these atoms are impassive and unalterable. The sun and the moon have been composed of such smooth and spherical masses [i.e. atoms], and so also the soul, which is identical with reason. We see by virtue of the impact of images upon our eyes.

[45] All things happen by virtue of necessity, the vortex being the cause of the creation of all things, and this he calls necessity. The end of action is tranquillity, which is not identical with pleasure, as some by a false interpretation have understood, but a state in which the soul continues calm and strong, undisturbed by any fear or superstition or any other emotion. This he calls well-being and many other names. The qualities of things exist merely by convention ; in nature there is nothing but atoms and void space. These, then, are his opinions.

Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, Book 3 (English Text)

On the Nature of Things, Book 3:

In considering these things, [370]

you cannot accept at all the theory

in the revered views of great Democritus

that individual primary particles

of body and of soul are put in place,

alternating one after the other,

and shape our limbs, holding them together.(12)

(12) Democritus (c. 460 BC-c.370 BC), a Greek philosopher, is credited as the first to propose a detailed atomic theory. Democritus claimed that atoms of body and soul were equal in number and united in pairs throughout the human body

Quote from Joshua

In Greek:

Quote

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)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=no%2Fmos2

νόμωι "by custom, conventionally" is an interesting word to use, and I'm not sure I completely disagree with Democritus. We are all - everything - is literally temporary arrangements of atoms and void. That doesn't mean we're not "real". If one drills down far enough, you end up with atoms and void. But through our arrangements of atoms, we interact with the world, each other. Epicurus himself or Lucretius said atoms don't have color or smell or taste, but arrangements give rise to color and smell and taste.

Edit: I suppose I should also include ἐτεῆι δὲ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν "for, in reality, atoms and void." ἐτεῆι does mean "in reality." In fact, LSJ uses Democritus's quote in its definition.

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

Quote from Kalosyni

But it is very upsetting that it is on the wikipedia website

Yeah, I'm going to need to go in and take that out of the Wikipedia article with a "citation needed" if someone's going to say "Epicurus called life a "bitter gift."" I've spent some time with the letter to Menoikeus and I can say for certain that that phrase is *not* in there.

Quote from Kalosyni

Maybe Joshua has some insights, as I see a reference to "bitter gift" from an Ancient Greek tragedy Hippolytus by Euripides ("bitter gift" of Poseidon):

https://books.google.com/books?id=s7wvD…polytus&f=false

Oh, this is fun! That line is also translated:

Hippolytus

Poseidon your father's gifts, what woe they brought!

In Greek:

Ιππόλυτος

ὦ δῶρα πατρὸς σοῦ Ποσειδῶνος πικρά.

That last word of the Greek πικρά "bitter" is the same word that shows up in Democritus's quote about "by convention" we've been discussing elsewhere.

So, ὦ δῶρα πικρά. is literally "the bitter gift."

I was a bit shocked to see "bitter gift" so widespread across the Internet!

It's just so counterintuitive if one knows anything about Epicurus's philosophy. Life is a precious gift if anything... Although "gift" sets up the idea that there's a giver so that's a bit problematic.

So, there's yet another topic that needs corrected... In addition to all the rest

By Zeus! "Bitter gift" shows up everywhere!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22bitter+gift%22+Epicureanism+&client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&ei=gEA7Y6-hNLKnptQP3sSCsAg&oq=%22bitter+gift%22+Epicureanism+&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQghEKABMgUIIRCgATIFCCEQoAEyBQghEKsCOgoIABBHENYEELADOgUIABCABDoGCAAQHhAWOggIABAeEA8QFjoHCCEQoAEQCjoHCCEQChCrAkoECEEYAFCgDljwhAFgoo4BaAJwAHgAgAHhAYgB7QySAQUwLjkuMZgBAKABAcgBBcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

Quote from Joshua

In Greek:

Quote

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)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=no%2Fmos2

νόμωι "by custom, conventionally" is an interesting word to use, and I'm not sure I completely disagree with Democritus. We are all - everything - is literally temporary arrangements of atoms and void. That doesn't mean we're not "real". If one drills down far enough, you end up with atoms and void. But through our arrangements of atoms, we interact with the world, each other. Epicurus himself or Lucretius said atoms don't have color or smell or taste, but arrangements give rise to color and smell and taste.

Edit: I suppose I should also include ἐτεῆι δὲ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν. That word does mean "in reality." LSJ uses Democritus's quote in its definition.

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

Quote from Cassius

That "bitter gift" reference now has me curious. Doesn't seem like something someone would come up with at random, and even the "gift' part doesn't sound really like Epicurus. I wonder if this person has totally transposed this thought from someone else and that "life as a 'bitter gift'" is a core thought of a competing philosopher.

It's also word for word in the Wikipedia article:

Epicureanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Pacatus

insisted that the best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing."

My personal preference is "well-being," playing of the literal breakdown of eu + daimon.

Quote from Pacatus

For myself, I tend to use "happy well-being" (where I intend well-being to be the opposite of ill-being -- say, tarache and pone)

And don't forget there's the literal opposite of eudaimonia, kakodaimonia.

Quote from Pacatus

not an (Aristotelian?) abstraction

I'd say Platonic. I was surprised in Book I of Nichomachean Ethics that Aristotle doesn't like Plato's abstract Ideal Forms. I think I know this but he's basically like "I liked Plato but I am not a fan of the Forms."

Quote from Pacatus

I sometimes get the impression that, for the Stoics, eudaimonia reduces to a kind of self-righteous pat on the back: "Look how virtuous I have been! What a happy feeling!"]

And from which they get pleasure. LOL. It just always seems to end up with pleasure! No getting around it.

Quote from Godfrey

Didn't the ancients discuss "the most pleasant life" rather than happiness?

Epicureans or in general?

Happiness is the usual English translation of ευδαιμονία eudaimonia.

I've actually just started today deciding to work thru Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and he uses eudaimonia and makarion and they are translated happiness and supreme happiness.

For consideration:

What Is Happiness and Why Is It Important? (+ Definition)

Do you think happiness is the same thing to you as it is to others? Find out!

positivepsychology.com

https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/happiness-definition.html

What We Get Wrong About Happiness, According To A Real Happiness Professor

There's a Yale class that teaches students how to be happy. We asked the instructor to share some of her lessons.

www.huffpost.com

Commentary:

I come back to the Greek (big surprise) with eudaimonia instead of English "happiness." I know Cassius isn't keen on using untranslated Greek words but I think words like eudaimonia or ataraxia can also jolt us out of preconceptions and make us reexamine what we mean when we use an English word casually. I don't think "well-being" is exactly synonymous with "happiness." I think a sense or feeling of well-being can be more stable while happiness can be fleeting. But maybe that's just me. I think that's why it is SO important to know what word is used where in texts when translations use "happiness."

Quote from waterholic

No worries at all, heated arguments are more than welcome.

Thanks! And I hope my post came across as more "light" than "heat"

Quote from waterholic

I imagine myself in front of my 20 something son, who lives in the world of all the social media, gaming, basketball, memes (you can add to the list). Should I expect him to have the same patience and curiousity?

I hear you!! I agree that avenue could be about marketing (what Diogenes might call "evangelism"). Social media is, for better or worse, THE giant stone wall with inscriptions in the marketplace now. That's also where heartfelt conversations come in between father and son, between friends, etc. Not lectures but "what do you think?"

Quote from waterholic

I believe this is not (only) due to the effective communication. Stoicism has been merged with most despotic states since Rome. It has always been an extremely convenient philosophy for the central state alongside any superstition.

Amen! Come to think of it, there's a reason the Christians kept transmitting Stoic (and Platonic) texts and burned Epicurean ones. Hmmm. Why could that be?

Thanks for the thoughtful response!!

Quote from waterholic

I like the idea, but to do so I feel I miss a simple and modern body of knowledge/message

By "modern" do you mean contemporary, modern science communicators or modern figures that present "Epicurean" ideas whether or not they identify specifically as Epicurean?

Quote from waterholic

Vatican collection is the closest, but even then it's archaic and requires a predisposition to reading old texts. There is little point in attempting to convey valid, strong and sensible ideas driven by facts in a language that is not accessible for most people.

I think it all depends on the translation. I could certainly advocate for "updated" translations and certainly wouldn't advocate for anything with thee's, thou's, or behold's that give off a "Biblical" vibe.

That said, I also think there's something very valuable in reading "old texts" if for no other reason than to clearly see that human nature hasn't changed all that much in say several millennia. Even Ancient Babylonians were worried about dying, losing friends, and the exercise of power. We still do that and, no doubt, will continue to do that as a species. That thread is worth investigating, from Gilgamesh, Euripides, Shakespeare, even through even Ecclesiastes and religious and literary texts we don't necessarily agree with. Recognizing and struggling with texts makes us better able to decide what we ourselves believe and why and why not. Seeing what we believe - or sharpening what we believe - by using the classical Epicurean texts to me is a way to make a human connection to a well-worn path instead of cutting a way down the jungle path again and again.

I think there's also something to be said for being part of - dare I say - that tradition, lineage, or a worldview informed by a cohesive "body of knowledge." For me, I take pleasure in attempting to apply a school of thought that has stood the test of time. Being able to see reflections of Epicurus's Garden in contemporary thought and science amazes me and was something that attracted me enough to say " What is up with this 2,500 year old philosophy that sounds so modern??"

I don't think we can abandon the "old texts," but I also don't think we should intentionally imbue them with archaic language or fetishize them. Updating time-tested ideas is how the modern "Stoics" have managed to corner the market on "look at this ancient wisdom we're selling." But they've thrown out or repackaged a LOT of inconvenient ancient Stoic principles to speak (i.e., to make sense) to a modern audience to the extent that I feel Marcus Aurelius or Seneca would say "Well, those are interesting ideas but... Stoicism? I don't quite recognize that as my school." I think Epicurus can survive MUCH more intact and still appeal to a modern audience. That's my argument for keeping the original texts and encouraging people to study them.

Quote from waterholic

Epicurean philosophy does not need any of that since the message is very simple and applicable

I agree Epicurus's message is very simple and applicable, but it can be deceptively simple. That's a LOT behind it, serving as a foundation, that, if one doesn't grasp that, it can be a thin veneer. That's one reason why I now agree with Cassius and others on this forum about getting a grasp of how and why Epicurus's physics is so important and how it underpins the philosophy and why one shouldn't jump right to the ethics. I disregarded a lot of the physics for awhile, but without building from the ground up, the understanding of the whole system isn't as steady. Listening to them go through the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles specifically were very instructive.

In the end, I think the old texts ground us, show us we're not alone in our ages-old struggle to come to grips with our mortal lives, and allow us to avoid reinventing the wheel over and over again.

All that said, if I've addresses something you didn't intend or completely misinterpreted what you were saying, mea culpa!

Quote from Sid

The Buddha’s exhortation to not accept things on faith and his encouragement of critical thinking really struck a chord with me. However as I dived deeper into it I found the same issues with Buddhism as with other faiths.

Although I wasn't a serious Buddhist (getting bestowed a refuge name being evidence to the contrary I suppose ) I found I eventually had some of the same initial attractions and then objections/misgivings as you in trying to reconcile myself with that philosophy/religion. Epicurus filled a void (no pun intended... Well, maybe unintentionally intended) in providing a completely material non-supernatural perspective.

Welcome aboard the forum!

Quote from Pacatus

God, I’m going to hate myself for saying this! 😉

LOL! Uh oh!

Quote from Pacatus

Are we worrying this too much?

First, I'll say "no" to that but only because Epicurus repeatedly brings up the health of the body and the tranquility of the mind, or variations on that theme. As such, it seems to me that it's good to understand what the significance was to Epicurus and the classical Epicureans and how it can be applied to an Epicurean way of life.

Quote from Pacatus

It seems to me that (whatever the ancient Greeks might have thought) the mind/body distinction is at best relative. That does not make it unimportant, Yes, I can (hopefully) overcome – at least somewhat, if not perfectly – the tarache in my mind that stems from the pone in my aching tooth. (Most Buddhists would, I think, say something similar)

The distinction may be relative realistically, scientifically, or medically; however, how we experience our minds is often very different than how we experience our bodies.

The disturbance in my mind is not *always* connected to an immediate physical pain in my body. It could just as easily - or more easily - have originated from rumination on a memory of an event earlier today, yesterday, or years ago.

Also,the ponos of aponia isn't pain per se. Ponos is defined as:

• work, especially hard work; toil
• bodily exertion, exercise
• work, task, business
• the consequence of toil, distress, trouble, suffering
• anything produced by work, a work

So, aponia is not so much "pain" in the body (and I've been guilty of perpetuating that mistake!) as it is a lack of exertion, toil, distress, suffering. In light of that, I may begin to interpret aponia as a positive relaxation in the body, a body that's not stiff and tight and troubled and exhausted; the same way I'd interpret ataraxia as a positive calm, clear-headed, mindful attitude in the mind.

Quote from Pacatus

But – and this was my whole original thrust – from an Epicurean view, there is no disembodied (non-physical) substance called mind or soul – as a substance of some sort.^ So everything is, at bottom, physicalist.

Oh, of course! *Everything* has a natural, material origin. We're all - and every part of us - just atoms and void! Yep! But that doesn't mean our different parts don't have different needs anymore than we wear shoes on our head or eat with our ears. I'm being absurd, obviously, but just because there's no non-physical supernatural woo-woo "mind" doesn't mean I don't have a "mind" that I need to care for for my mental well-being.

I really like your posts, and they've also given me a chance to think out loud. Keep them coming!