Posts by Don

Quote from Joshua

A book that I always meant to read but never got around to is God is not One; The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World by Stephen Prothero.

Thanks! Added to my Good Reads "Want to read" list

Quote from Kalosyni

More on an idealist Epicurean view of the gods, by Sedley:

https://www.academia.edu/11365772/Epicu…ogical_innatism

That's a good one. Sedley is the big name when it comes to this topic.

I'm looking forward to listening!

And August 20 is the anniversary of the Launch of Voyager II in 1977 to explore the cosmos.

Voyager 2 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Cassius

and therefore you will no more approach their shrines with an easy mind, no more in tranquility and peace will you be able to receive the images, the representations of their divine forms, that form from their pure bodies and strike powerfully upon the minds of men:

I think it's interesting to consider the opposite of what Lucretius is saying:

If you do purge your mind of such conceits, and do banish them your breast, and do forebear to think unworthily of the gods, then you can approach their shrines with an easy mind, in tranquility and peace will you be able to receive the images, the representations of their divine forms, that form from their pure bodies and strike powerfully upon the minds of men.

That's how Epicurus approached his participation in the rites and festivals of the gods.

Okay, "seize the day" has been so in-grained in modern Western popular culture to equate with FOMO (Fear of missing out) or constantly seeking new thrilling experiences that I feel obliged to urge everyone to take a look at Horace's original.

Wikipedia actually has a nice article:

Carpe diem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To me, I prefer the more literal "Pluck the day" or "Harvest the day".

Compare Greek καρπός (karpós, “fruit”) and κείρω (keírō, “to cut off”), English harvest, sharp, shear.

"Seize" always has such a frenzied feel to it. Seizing, grasping, clutching... And that's not what the original means.

I envision Horace plucking a ripe peach from a tree and sinking his teeth into its perfect, juicy flesh.

Quote from Cassius

Dewitt comments that Epicurus is pointing to a way to console us for loss of immortality (presumably as alleged by religious viewpoints). I am not so sure about that, and in fact I wonder if we fail to grasp some of what Epicurus is saying because we are trying to fit his perspective into a mold in which life can be viewed as fair to everyone. .

Oh my! I'm about to defend DeWitt everybody! Mark your calendars.

It's true that the Principal Doctrines literally laid out the "basic doctrines" of the philosophy for Epicureans to study and memorize. But Epicurus was providing practical solutions and philosophical medicine to real people. I think he had to provide "a way to console us for loss of immortality (presumably as alleged by religious viewpoints)." I'm not sure of the word "console" but he had to provide an alternative. This went hand in hand with removing the fear of divine punishment or reward. Even without Eternal Hell/Heaven, there was also the prevalent ancient Greek of existing eternally as a shade as Homer describes Odysseus' trip to Hades. Even as a shade, you still get to "live" forever. And most people, I believe, would answer in the affirmative if asked "If you were given the ability to be immortal, would you?" before, of course, thinking about the details. So, yes, Epicurus had to provide consolation or at least a reasonable alternative to the desire for immortality.

Quote from Cassius

t could be that Epicureans were flatly so convinced of the universe's total lack of overall plan that they weren't at all thinking about any "perfection" and that they were constantly thinking only on practical terms about how best to spend "the present" whatever that happens to be.

I think that's the *Epicurean* perspective, but the Principal Doctrines no doubt circulated as a"recruitment tool" as well. As you've said, Cassius, they should make sense to "normal" people

I just came across this paper:

Horace, Ofellus and Philodemus of Gadara in Sermones 2.2

This paper examines Horace's portrayal in Sermones 2.2 of Ofellus, the poet's rustic spokesman whose recent loss of property provides the opportunity…

www.academia.edu

Good analysis of Epicurean themes in Horace. Still reading but seems solid. One basic thread is the encouragement to be satisfied with little - to take pleasure in little - if circumstances change and little, ie, only the basics, is all you have.

Quote from DavidN

one to poke at Don, Wouldn't the Jefferson Bible count as an epicurean "job".

Oh, exactly.

Somebody now needs to purge the "irrelevant" material out of DeWitt's book on Epicurus.

Quote from Cassius

Is not boredom a pretty general human problem?

I'll have to push back on that statement. Boredom comes from dissatisfaction not lack of variety. Sometimes people looking for variety are running from something - possibly even an emotional trauma. They try to fill a void with novelty. I have a real problem if we start using boredom as a reason for varying pleasures.

(Note: I'm posting this from my previous post so people can respond to this topic without Cassius' and my DeWittean banter)

Quote from Cassius

Don has done a good job of placing his criticisms of DeWitt in context so the only thing I really want to say is to remind everyone that Don has been here a long time; he reads Greek very well; he's read tons of specialized academic articles, and he's far ahead of the curve in understanding the subtleties. He's an expert reader and researcher and he's far from being a novice.

I sincerely appreciate the kind words, even if I don't necessarily see myself in that way all the time. Thank you!

Quote from Cassius

On the other hand, if you are a "normal person"

Hey! Who're you calling "abnormal"!

I'm glad Cassius can at my screeds against Dewitt above. He is well acquainted with my perspective at this point over these last few years on the forum. I do tend to soapbox sometimes.

Quote from Kalosyni

Oh wow! Yikes on DeWitt! -- I've been saving the reading of that book till we have a future book study Zoom. It seems that the excerpt in post number twenty-four above (especially the first few paragraphs) is very helpful

Yes, i don't want to imply that there's not value in reading Dewitt 's magnum opus. Dewitt does provide some insightful, helpful, and refreshing insights. It's just his use of references devoid of context, Epicurean-inspired Christianity notions, and similar dross that irks me. Someone needs to do a "Jefferson Bible" job on "Epicurus and his Philosophy."

Quote

He liveth long who liveth well

See, that's my issue. The "Christian hymnology" citation is superfluous and wrong.

Here's the source of that line that Dewitt is citing:

https://allpoetry.com/He-Liveth-Long-Who-Liveth-Well

That hymn seems to me to be the opposite of what Epicurus stood for. Bonar is saying "living well" is keeping your eye on heavenly rewards not the here and now in THIS life, the only one we have.

Quote

He liveth long who liveth well;

All other life is short and vain;

He liveth longest who can tell

Of living most for heavenly gain.

He liveth long who liveth well;

All else is being flung away;

He liveth longest who can tell

Of true things truly done each day.

Be what thou seemest; live thy creed;

Hold up to earth the torch divine:

Be what thou prayest to be made;

Let the great Master's steps be thine.

Fill up each hour with what will last;

Buy up the moments as they go;

The life above, when this is past,

Is the ripe fruit of life below.

Sow love, and taste its fruitage pure;

Sow peace, and reap its harvest bright;

Sow sunbeams on the rock and moor,

And find a harvest-home of light.

Display More

Yuck!! "The life above, when this is past, Is the ripe fruit of life below"?!   That's certainly not the Epicurean fruit to be plucked.

I find Dewitt doing this too often: taking a line or phrase out of context and imbuing it with meaning it doesn't necessarily have.

Maybe this is another hymn that needs an Epicurean do-over.

PS. I'll stop there. I don't want to derail this thread with a polemic against Dewitt. I think he's a top-shelf scholar and I like his academic papers, but, by Zeus, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" (not to mention his "St Paul..") suffers from some flaws in presentation that, for me, make it hard to fully embrace it.

Quote from Cassius

In this case I think his Christian allusions are maybe better placed than in some other areas.

Well, a broken clock is right twice a day.

Okay, that was harsh, I'll admit that... But you already know I'm triggered by his Christian allusion hobby horse. Those take me right out of his argument with an eye-rolling "By Zeus, another @#$& Epicurean-inspired Bible verse!?? At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if Dewitt wrote "John 11:35 clearly shows that Jesus was an Epicurean because..."

Thanks for posting those excerpts.

I think I'm in agreement with Dewitt in these, but, honestly, it's sometimes hard to tell with his convoluted, almost-Victorian prose style along with his superfluous Christian non sequiturs.

I sometimes have an easier time parsing Ancient Greek than I do Dewitt!

Godfrey , I'm going to take a shot at paraphrasing my understanding of your interpretation. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

• Bounded, finite time is contained within infinite time.
• We can only experience finite time as mortal beings.
• Therefore, the only pleasure we can actually experience is finite no matter how we might desire infinite pleasures; so we need not (nor should not) concern ourselves with worrying about infinite time or infinite pleasures.

Am I close?

Quote from Cassius

Don how would you restate what Godfrey is saying?

Actually, I think Godfrey has done a good job right there of what I might have said

I'm going to at some point go through the manuscripts like I started to for that other post to see if there are any obvious demarcations in the texts.

But this is a good start!!

Cassius !

I am very intrigued by Godfrey 's Interpretation and as it's expanded on by others.

Let's take a look at what pd19 actually says, because I think a case could be made for Godfrey 's novel (to me) take on it.

That specific line says:

Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος ἴσην ἔχει τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ ὁ πεπερασμένος (χρόνος)...

I've added the second χρόνος for clarity.

So we're dealing with:

Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος infinite time (khronos)

καὶ ὁ πεπερασμένος (χρόνος) and finite (time)

The infinite is the same word used to describe the number of worlds, the extent of the universe, and atoms.

πεπερασμένος is finite, limited, bounded

Greek can split up phrases like that so the arrangement is no big deal other than that he might emphasized the infinite time by placing it first.

ἴσην ἔχει τὴν ἡδονὴν has equal pleasure

isēn ekhei tēn hēdonēn

isēn is from isos where we get isometric, isosceles, etc. It means Same, equal, etc.