We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Donna Zuckerberg's book delves into the implications of the bleached white statues that came down from antiquity:
The Hershenov paper mostly has to do with the Epicurean attitude on death. Here's the conclusion:
This paper sought to illuminate an important aspect of the wrongness of killing while defending the claim that death is not a harm. If this endeavor has been successful, readers can accept what is right about the Epicurean claim-that death is not a harm and an evil-without having to abandon the very reasonable claims that (in most cases) more life is good, it is prudent to make efforts to stay alive, allowing death when rescue is easy is wrong, and killing the innocent is very evil and should be prevented and punished. This should remove much of the motivation they may otherwise have had to misconstrue Epicurus's challenge (i.e., change the subject) or to meet it with some very controversial metaphysical theories about existence, reality, and time.
Okay, so the Epicurean ideal (in the widest, non-Platonic sense!!) is the untroubled, blessed life of the gods, content in their incorruptible existence.
So, I have no problem with aspiring to living a life of pleasurable fulfillment and contentment. A mind untroubled by unfulfilled desires? Without nagging anxiety? Experiencing pleasure as it becomes available, varying my well-being? That sounds pretty good actually.
I see an Epicurean way of life as being a path toward a goal, and a goal that is met from time to time and then back on the path.
That's a lot of commentary on Cassius 's part and I haven't read all of his or the full paper. So, I'll have to dive into the paper and Cassius 's response later. In a cursory glance at both works (paper and posts), I'm not sure I *fully* agree with either but they do provide good food for thought and discussion.
Thanks for posting kochiekoch !
It could be important in that PD21 does say "the limits" of life: τὰ πέρατα τοῦ βίου and not "the limit". There's more than one limit implied by that plural. Does it mean the two extreme limits? The singular form is πέρας:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πέρα^ς
I find it interesting that the LSJ definition includes that πέρας (peras) "generally, limit, either opposite of ἀρχή (arkhē), or including it"
The ἀρχή and τέλος are what
"pleasure is the beginning/foundation/ἀρχή and the end/goal/τελος of a blessed life τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν (same blessed as in PD1)."
We also find πέρας in:
48. While you are on the road, try to make the later part better than the earlier part; and be equally happy when you reach the end.
πειρᾶσθαι τὴν ὑστέραν τῆς προτέρας κρείττω ποιείν, ἕως ἂν ἐν ὁδῷ ὦμεν· ἐπειδὰν δʼ ἐπὶ πέρας ἔλθωμεν, ὁμαλῶς εὐφραίνεσθαι.
Εἰ τὰ ποιητικὰ [τῶν περὶ τοὺς ἀσώτους ἡδονῶν] ἔλυε τοὺς φόβους τῆς διανοίας τούς [τε περὶ μετεώρων καὶ θανάτου καὶ ἀλγηδόνων], ἔτι τε τὸ πέρας τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐδίδασκεν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε εἴχομεν ὅ τι μεμψαίμεθα αὐτοῖς, πανταχόθεν ἐκπληρουμένοις τῶν ἡδονῶν καὶ οὐδαμόθεν οὔτε τὸ ἀλγοῦν οὔτε τὸ λυπούμενον ἔχουσιν, ὅ περ ἐστὶ τὸ κακόν.
Saint-Andre ,(with revision): If the things that produced the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind’s fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires (literal: the limit of desires (epithymiōn)), then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that’s what is bad).
πέρας also shows up in PD18 "the limit of pleasure"; in the variant άπειρος "unlimited, infinite" in PD19 as well as the limits measures by reason: "Infinite time and finite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning."
I just reread the Archive link and noticed them saying "The paragraphi are original, but the other punctuation marks.... added later."
A paragraphus is a "short stroke in the margin marking a break in sense."
From Greek, παράγραφος (sc. γραμμή), ἡ,
"A line or stroke drawn in the margin, with a dot over it, to mark the change of persons in a dialogue, or the corresponding parts of a chorus or parabasis"
Hmm, so there's something to look for in the older manuscripts although that punctuation could have been obsolete by the time we get to the 1100-1500s unless the scribe was copying exactly what they saw from earlier manuscripts.
Thank you for all that Don. It's easy to see why the general tenor is judged to be Epicurean - I would agree with that, if this reconstruction is halfway accurate.
It appears the papyrus is surprisingly intact, so a reconstruction isn't nearly as necessary as it is in some other texts. I take this to be predominantly reliable.
I was working through Les Epicuriens before I have to return the interlibrary loan book and came across this in the section of Epicurus' writings. I was not aware of Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 215, but it appears to possibly be an unknown text of Epicurus although some scholars debate this attribution. It could just be a section of a known work that doesn't have the title at the end, too. It is definitely an Epicurean text, that's not debated.
The "O man" translation part includes ὦ] ἄνθρωπε, μακαριώ[τα]τ̣ον which is indeed, "O human being (anthrope)," then a word directly related to the word usually translated as blessed when describing the gods in PD1 and elswehere.
I was also skeptical of the "By Zeuz - as they say, right", but it does seem to imply this in the Greek.
Here's the Wikipedia article on the papyrus:
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 215 - Wikipedia
Here's the transcription on the Papyri.info site:
DCLP/Trismegistos 59745 = LDAB 849
Here's a link to the transcription at Internet Archive which also includes part of an English translation:
Here's the French translation from Les Epicuriens (I had to type in to Google Translate, so I figured someone else most likely has better French skills than me so I'm sharing it):
.1. Il n'y a point de vraie piete quand on (amoindrit) ce qui -- comme je l'ai dit -- est propre a la nature, ni quand du moins, pardi, les mots suivants sont (repetes) par les premiers venus: "Je crains tous les dieux (et) les venere; et pour eux je veux faire toutes sortes de sacrifices et d'offrandes." De fait, un tel homme est sans doute de meilleure compagnie que d'autres, de simples profanes; neanmoins, ce n'est pas non plus encore ainsi que la piete acquiert une reelle solidite.
Pour ta part, o homme; tiens pour une chose au plus haut point bienheureuse le fait d'avoir la belle preconception de ce que nous sommes capables de penser comme (l'etre) le meilleur parmi les etres; admire cette claire perception et revere (sans crainte) cette perfection. Puis (missing 2 lines) comme (missing 2 words) lorsqu'ils ont l'intention de (lui) rendre un culte, mais (garde-toi) seulement de meprise une si grande majeste en l'envisageant par comparaison avec le bonheur qui est le tien. Et, pardi, a propos de cette (joie) qui decoule de la ... .2. (missing plusiers lignes) (sache profiter...?) (de ce qui est) a meme de (missing 1 word) et fait plaisir, si l'occasion s'en presente, en (honorant) la contemplation meme (des dieux) qui est la tienne au moyen des plaisirs naturels de la chair -- pour peu qu'ils soient convenables -- , mais parfois aussi en te pliant aux lois.
En outre, n'introduis pas ici de la crainte, en supposant que des dieux pourraient te manifester de la reconnaissance d'agir ainsi. Car, au nom de Zeus, -- comme on dit, n'est-ce pas? -- a quoi bon eprouver de la crainte? Penses-tu que ces etres-la aient un comportement injuste? Si oui, a l'evidence tu les rabaisses: comment peux-tu donc te representer la divinite comme un etre qui ne soit pas vil, si justement celle-ci s'abaisse a ton niveau? Ou alors, ton comportement injuste t'a fait imaginer qu'en agissant de la sorte tu adoucirais (un dieu), et que celui-ci, prenant la chose en compte, ferait quelquefois remise aux hommes de chatiments qu'il leur destinait? Car aussi bien, (certains) croient que, s'ils doivent les craindre et les honorer, c'est pour retenir par le (sacrifice les dieux) de s'en prendre a eux; (de la sorte), ou leur croyance est juste et ils n'auront pas du tout de ceux qui honorent (les dieux est nulle ...(?)) (missing 1 line)...
.3. (missing several lines) brule. De fait, (etre pris en faut) causerait du tort (si l'on) s'attendait a (etre recompense). Et independamment de ces considerations, (parce qu'ils cherchent a obtenir) par leurs prieres des marques de gratitude aupres (de dieux) qui ne leur en (fournissent) pas, et (parce qu'ils ont l'espoir) qu'ils viendront (plus) facilement a eux, a eux-memes et a ceux (qui leur sont chers), ils (les) (invoquent) precisement de toutes les manieres possibles, (en donnant des gages) pour (se proteger (?)) du chatiment et detourner d'eux la (punition. Et) it faut calculer que ... (remaining 7 lines damaged)
And here's what I got from Google Translate:
There is no true piety when one (diminishes) what -- as I said -- is proper to nature, nor when at least, of course, the following words are (repeated) by the first comers : "I fear all the gods (and) worship them; and for them I want to make all kinds of sacrifices and offerings." In fact, such a man is probably better company than others, mere laymen; nevertheless, it is not yet in this way that piety acquires real solidity.
For your part, O man; hold for a thing at the highest point blessed the fact of having the beautiful preconception of what we are capable of thinking as (the being) the best among beings; admire this clear perception and revere (without fear) this perfection. Then (missing 2 lines) as (missing 2 words) when they intend to worship (him), but (beware) only of despising such great majesty by considering it in comparison with the happiness which is yours. And, of course, about this (joy) which stems from the... (missing several lines) (know how to take advantage...?) (of what is) even from (missing 1 word) and gives pleasure, if the opportunity presents itself, by (honouring) the very contemplation (of the gods) which is yours by means of the natural pleasures of the flesh - as long as they are suitable -, but sometimes also by bowing to the laws.
Also, do not introduce fear here, assuming that gods might show you gratitude for doing so. For, in the name of Zeus, -- as they say, right? -- what is the good of feeling fear? Do you think these beings behave unjustly? If so, obviously you lower them: how can you represent the divinity to yourself as a being who is not vile, if precisely this one lowers itself to your level? Or else, your unjust behavior made you imagine that by acting in this way you would soften (a god), and that this one, taking the thing into account, would sometimes give men the punishments he intended for them? For as well, (some) believe that, if they must fear them and honor them, it is to restrain by the (sacrifice the gods) from attacking them; (so), or their belief is right and they won't have any honoring ones at all (the gods are nothing (les dieux est nulle)...(?)) (missing 1 line)....3. (missing several lines) burned. In fact, (being caught) would cause harm (if one) expected (to be rewarded). And independently of these considerations, (because they seek to obtain) by their prayers marks of gratitude from (gods) who do not (provide) them, and (because they have the hope) that they will come (more) easily to them, to themselves and to those (who are dear to them), they (them) (invoke) precisely in all possible ways, (by giving pledges) to (protect themselves (?)) punishment and divert from them the (punishment. And) it is necessary to calculate that ... (remaining 7 lines damaged)
The Epicurus quote is from Seneca's letter 19:
Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 19 - Wikisource, the free online library
Ut se res habet, ab Epicuro versura facienda est. 'Ante' inquit 'circumspiciendum est cum quibus edas et bibas quam quid edas et bibas; nam sine amico visceratio leonis ac lupi vita est.'
Google translate: As things stand, the verses must be made by Epicurus. 'Before,' he says, 'it is necessary to consider with whom you eat and drink, rather than what you eat and drink; for without a friend the entrails of a lion and a wolf are life.'
I assume he's talking about lions and wolves eating other animals entrails (visceratio)?
Well, that certainly gives another spin on it! I really need to learn Latin. Who has a better grounding in Latin to provide an alternative translation?
"Thou art (saith (Epicurus)) to take care with whom thou eatest and drinkest before thy meate, then what thou eatest and drinkest: for a plentifull and fleshie feast without a friend, is the life of a Lion or a Wolfe. "
Do we think even those dots date back to the original, or did they evolve later
For contrast, here's a page from Philodemus' On Choices and Avoidances from P.Herc. 1251. dating to between 50 to 1 BCE.
At that time, everyone just "knew" where to read punctuation and the script was written continuously and in all "capitals" to our way of thinking... But that was just how they wrote. Once Greek started to be a lingua franca among disparate cultures (or just to make it easier to read!), the punctuation and accent marks were "invented" and added to the text.
It's the difference between this:
ITWOULDBEQUITEDIFFIC
ULTBUTNOTIMPOSSIBLE
TOREADTHISWAYINTEXT
and this
It would be quite difficult, but not impossible, to read this way in text.
So, the "punctuation marks" were always there, after a fashion, even if they weren't written. That said, it can be interesting to see how phrases were punctuated. Here's an example from my characteristics of the sage:
Wow thank you Don! At least we are now pretty sure the original was divided neatly and numbered to 40! But I do see regular "dots" that presumably indicate something (?)
My pleasure! It was fun.
The "dots" are typically either "semi-colons" (a raised dot in Greek manuscripts) or periods.
Okay, as promised, here are the best digitized manuscripts I can find online of Diogenes Laertius with citations and images of where the Principal Doctrines start. I have not begun to go through the various texts to see where gaps appear to be, but the Oxford Arundel MS531 seems to be the most promising for that exercise; however, the others definitely need to be examined.
Oh, and this isn't intended to be just for people who read Greek. I would be curious for anyone to take a look at the pages starting where I've indicated to see if anyone sees, to their eyes, natural breaks in the text. Even if you don't read Greek, point them out! We'll see where they end up.
Enjoy!
First manuscript from 14th century CE
codex Parisinus gr. 1759 (14th c.) known as P
Principal Doctrines start on 247v, bottom of page, middle of the 3rd line from the bottom with το μακαριον…
Second manuscript from 14/15th c. CE
codex Parisinus gr. I758 (14th or 15th c.) known as Q
Principal Doctrines start on folio 206, middle of page; 14 lines from the top, right side; alternatively, 12 lines from the bottom
Third manuscript from the 12 century CE
codex Laurentianus Plut.69.35 - written 1101-1200 CE (12 century CE)
http://mss.bmlonline.it/s.aspx?Id=AWOItZA2I1A4r7GxMME1&c=Laertius%20Diogenes#/oro/496
Principal Doctrines start on folio 243v, 10 lines from the bottom on the left side.
Fourth Manuscript from 2nd half of 15th century CE
Oxford Arundel MS531
https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_531_fs001r
Principal Doctrines start on f.176r: 7 lines down from the top after a NOTICEABLE SPACE in the text.
There is a fifth manuscript, codex Vaticanus gr. 140 (14th c.) known as W
but the digital copy is in terrible shape!
I'll add a link to my commentary for anyone interested in diving in...
I cannot promise to keep up the pace of same-day turnaround between recording and posting
Applause for Cassius on even attempting the one-day turnaround! Being in the behind-the-scenes of a podcast at work, I know what goes into the post-production. Kudos to you!
To build on Eikadistes 's post...
Also, Fragment 68. To those who are able to reason it out, the highest and surest joy is found in the stable health of the body and a firm confidence in keeping it. τὸ γὰρ εὐσταθὲς σαρκὸς κατάστημα καὶ τὸ περὶ ταύτης πιστὸν ἔλπισμα τὴν ἀκροτάτην χαρὰν καὶ βεβαιοτάτην ἔχει τοῖς ἐπιλογίζεσθαι δυναμένοις.
PD35 Οὐκ ἔστι τὸν λάθρα τι κινοῦντα ὧν συνέθεντο πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἰς τὸ μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι, πιστεύειν ὅτι λήσει, κἂν μυριάκις ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος λανθάνῃ. μέχρι γὰρ καταστροφῆς ἄδηλον εἰ καὶ λήσει.
Hicks translation: It is impossible for the man who secretly violates any article of the social compact to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for until his death he is never sure he will not be detected.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πιστός
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, π , πισσόχριστος , πίστις
I really liked Kalosyni 's closing comments. I thought that was a good summary!
I thought Joshua might be interested in this paper...
I'll add in the link to my commentary...
As you'll see in the excerpt below, this author seems to dismiss Epicurus as arguing that the gods are "pure nonsense" which is off the mark. But the title is intriguing nonetheless.
The Neurobiology of the Gods
Excerpt:
Gods, demons, angels . . . muses, spirits, ghosts . . . fairies, devils, imps, fauns, unicorns, dragons, poltergeists, ghouls, vampires, djinns, werewolves. . . saviors . . .
Have you ever wondered why humans have spent so much time writing and worrying about, praying to, running from, blessing, cursing, exorcizing, and placating these entities? If there is so little physical evidence that any of these things exist, why do we spend so much energy thinking about them?
Philosophers as early as Epicurus argued that they are pure nonsense, yet since the dawn of our existence humankind has been convinced of the power of these ``spiritual'' entities. Isn't this irrational? Illogical? Even potentially harmful? Why would such a propensity evolve, when clearly a more rational animal would never waste precious biological resources on self-sacri®ce, burnt offerings, or self-mutilation in the name of a god?
I started reading the article Godfrey posted, more out of curiosity than anything. I thought a passing similarity between Jungian archetypes and Epicurean gods would be it, but, as I'm reading, this line jumped out at me:
we Jungians cannot go on basing our theory of archetypes on scientific assumptions which have been falsified by more recent research if we do not want to run the risk of becoming ridiculous in the scientific world. It is important that we stop arguing that archetypes are transmitted genetically if we want to be taken seriously.
I would amend that first phrase as:
"we Epicureans cannot go on basing our theory of prolepseis on scientific assumptions which have been falsified by more recent research if we do not want to run the risk of becoming ridiculous..."
The use in paper of the word "innate" also seemed to echo the idea of the prolepseis in Cicero and other spots.
Seligman's paper may be interesting to look up for our purposes here.
Preparedness: Even Seligman (1972), a behavioural psychologist and certainly not a friend of analytical psychology, found a phenomenon which he called ‘preparedness’: it refers to the interesting fact that humans generally develop anxieties and especially phobias towards animals like snakes or spiders, even though they may never have had any contact with them, but usually not towards animals such as rabbits or cows. He explains this by a biologically based preparedness which has developed throughout evolution and serves the aim of protection against poisonous animals – otherwise it could be possible that one cannot learn from a first contact experience because one does not survive it.
I like the author's first line of the conclusion:
I must admit that, for now, there are more questions than conclusions...
Now, *there's* a direct parallel with the prolepsis of the gods!
Another interesting angle could be the cultural complex paper that the author referenced (Singer & Kimbles 2004) .
Okay, after reading I do see parallels between prolepsis and archetype, but I also think this author's perspective, attitude, and honesty is relevant to our search for understanding the conundrum of prolepsis, especially of the divine. I continue to insist that Epicurus found a correct understanding of the gods to be of vital importance to his philosophy. It is put first in several places, at least the PDs and the letter to Menoikeus plus he devoted sections of On Nature to the topic. He seemed to see it as a necessary thing to "get right" to be able to live a pleasurable life. Now, whether he saw this primacy in the context of his own time ("This is how I make sense of the way we can worship the gods in the culture in which we live...") or as fundamental to his whole system of philosophy ("This is the way we MUST understand the gods if we are to have no fear of them! You must get this right FIRST!") can be argued. I lean toward the latter but not leaning so far as to fall over (to take that metaphor to its end).
So, for further rabbit-holing, I'm looking for:
- Seligman, M. E. & Hager, J. L. (Eds.) (1972). Biological Boundaries of Learning.
Appleton: Century-Crofts
- Singer, T. & Kimbles, S. (2004). ‘Emerging theory of cultural complexes’. In Analytical
Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Psychology, eds. J. Cambray & L.
Carter. Hove & New York: Brunner-Routledge.
