Posts by Don

I would generally concur with Joshua with the caveat that, in my opinion, Epicureans would want both stability and freedom which is a difficult balance to achieve. So, I'd have to posit that they wouldn't want a totalitarian form of government that requires conformity among its citizens. However, I find it hard to think that they'd prefer a full true democracy (albeit without women, slaves, etc., participation) like ancient Athens where political positions were determined by lottery. I could see them being alright with a benevolent monarch but then you're at the mercy of who's next in line.

It's a good thought experiment, Cassius . Those articles and papers on Philodemus and Epicurus are tantalizing. There's not a lot to go on.

The Closing Columns of Philodemus’ ON THE GOOD KING ACCORDING TO HOMER, PHERC. 1507 COLS. 95-98 (= COLS. 40-43 DORANDI)

This article presents a reedition of the nal columns of Philodemus’ On the Good King According to Homer (columns 95-98 = cols. 40-43 Dorandi). In the nal…

www.academia.edu

Haven't read but looked pertinent possibly. Has actual text and translation from Philodemus "On the Good King According to Homer"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, θερα^π-εύω

Fun fact:

θεραπεύω (therapeuō) is where the English words "therapeutic, therapy" come from.

therapy | Etymology, origin and meaning of therapy by etymonline

THERAPY Meaning: "medical treatment of disease," from Modern Latin therapia, from Greek therapeia "curing, healing,… See definitions of therapy.

www.etymonline.com

therapy (n.)

1846, "medical treatment of disease," from Modern Latin therapia, from Greek therapeia "curing, healing, service done to the sick; a waiting on, service," from therapeuein "to cure, treat medically," literally "attend, do service, take care of"

@Root304 , no apologies necessary at all

Oh, and don't forget the salutation. Here's my take on that ...

The beginning of the Letter to Menoikeus comes at the very end of verse 121 in Diogenes Laertius's Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, Book X.

Verse 121: Ἐπίκουρος Μενοικεῖ χαίρειν.

"Epicurus to Menoikeus: Greetings!"

Ἐπίκουρος is, of course, Epicurus himself, author of the letter.

Μενοικεῖ

Next comes the name of the recipient - Μενοικεύς (Menoikeus) - in the dative case, Μενοικεῖ, signifying "to/for…" You most likely see the name of the recipient most often referred to as Menoeceus. This is simply the Latin form of his name. However, he was Greek! Menoeceus simply results from the penchant for scholars to have once felt it necessary to translate everything into Latin. We’ll try to avoid that proclivity here and refer consistently to him using his transliterated Greek name: Menoikeus. I have seen references online that state Menoikeus was from Lampsacus (one of Epicurus’s former residences before coming to Athens), but I can find no authoritative source for confirming this.

χαίρειν

And finally, the salutation: χαίρειν which can be translated: Greetings, Hail, Joy(‐fully), Rejoice (as a salutation). As will be seen in 122e, this word shares a root with χαρά "joy" (one of the "kinetic" pleasures) and χάρις "gratitude, grace." See more at 122e.

Then, no other pleasantries. Epicurus gets right down to work!

It's important to remember that the letter is, unfortunately, without context. We know nothing about Menoikeus himself. We may theorize he was younger than Epicurus although this is relative to Epicurus's age. We don't know what prompted Epicurus to write the letter to him other than a desire by Menoikeus to have a summary of the ethical teachings of Epicurus. All we have, thanks to Diogenes Laertius, is the text of the letter. In some ways, this is beneficial in that this allows us to imagine Epicurus writing his letter to all of us.

Wow! I'm drunk with power! What else can I get Cassius to agree to?

You've bitten off a LOT in those first two sections!! I'd suggest aiming for everything up to "First, believe..." You have plenty to talk about up to there Once the gods walk on stage, you're in deep!

I'll see what I can do to paste, but there's always just posting that link to the PDF.

Quote from reneliza

I don't think that you can draw a limit, I think the limit has to be inherent in some way. You're pursuing wealth - to what end? Your end will always (eventually) be pleasure (if not, then that's a bad sign), but do you have good reason to believe that the specific pursuit of wealth will end in net pleasure? Has it worked in the past? When will it pay off? What will happen next?

I like where you're going in this paragraph! What are the ends you're working toward? That has to be answered by someone "pursuing wealth." Wealth for wealth's sake is empty. Wealth for a specific pleasure or pleasurable goal could be something different. Although it could also be problematic if it's working for wealth only to be enjoyed decades from now and not finding any pleasure now. If I've misconstrued your intentions with those lines, just let me know.

Quote from reneliza

I would disagree, at least for my own self, with the wisdom in pursuit of an ambiguous goal that may never pay off when there are so many strong pleasures (mostly) easily available to me. That doesn't mean I don't believe in hard work or that I never choose pain for a greater pleasure

Same here. I think you're raising some really good points here.

I'm not sure anyone's done this yet, but I thought it might be instructive to see where the word empty "kenōs" is used in other places.

Saint-Andre translation of PD29 which includes the scholia commentary

29 Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion).

(Epicurus regards as natural and necessary desires which bring relief from pain, as e.g. drink when we are thirsty ; while by natural and not necessary he means those which merely diversify the pleasure without removing the pain, as e.g. costly viands ; by the neither natural nor necessary he means desires for crowns and the erection of statues in one's honour.--Scholia)

PD30 also addresses empty beliefs/opinions/doctrines κενὴν δόξαν "kenēn doxan":

Hicks translation

30 Some natural desires, again, entail no pain when not gratified, though the objects are vehemently pursued. These desires also are due to groundless opinion, and when they are not got rid of, it is not because of their own nature, but because of the man’s groundless opinion.

Saint-Andre translation

30 Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind.

Epicurus wiki translation:

Those natural desires which create no pain when unfulfilled, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless opinion; and if they are not dispelled, it is not because of their own nature, but because of human vanity.

Nussbaum translation, p.153

Whenever, among those natural desires that do not lead to pain if they are not fulfilled, an intense eagerness (spoudē suntonos) is present, they too are the products of false belief. And it is not on account of their own nature that they are not dispelled, but in account of the human being's empty believing. (On suntonos "intense", see Nussbaum, chapter 8). Philodemus uses the word of the sort of anger the Epicurean will avoid.

PD37 uses empty in a novel way, to describe "empty sounds, words, prattle" The phase is φωναῖς κεναῖς "phōnais kenais" and yes that's where English "phone" comes from, so φωναῖς κεναῖς = empty sound, meaningless yelling, blah blah blah

Saint-Andre translation

37 Among things that are thought to be just, that which has been witnessed to bring mutual advantage among companions has the nature of justice, whether or not it is the same for everyone. But if someone legislates something whose results are not in accord with what brings mutual advantage among companions, then it does not have the nature of justice. And if what brings advantage according to justice changes, but for some time fits our basic grasp of justice, then for that time it is just, at least to the person who is not confused by empty prattle but instead looks to the facts.

The word empty is also used here for the ἀρετὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας "empty and trifling virtues (aretas)"

116. I summon you to sustained enjoyment and not to empty and trifling virtues, which destroy your confidence in the fruits of what you have. ἐγὼ δʼ ἐφʼ ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς παρακαλῶ καὶ οὐκ ἐπʼ ἀρετὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας καὶ ταραχώδεις ἐχούσας τῶν καρπῶν ἐλπίδας.

And in Fragment 202, we get "empty beliefs/groundless opinions" κεναῖς δόξαις (kenais doxais) in juxtaposition with "following nature" so, in a way, setting up the dichotomy of natural vs empty.

Fragment 202. He who follows nature and not groundless opinions is completely self-reliant. With regard to what is enough by nature, everything he owns is a source of wealth; whereas with regard to unlimited desires, even the greatest wealth is poverty.

ὁ οὖν τῇ φύσει παρακολουθῶν καὶ μὴ ταῖς κεναῖς δόξαις ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτάρκης· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ τῇ φύσει ἀρκοῦν πᾶσα κτῆσίς ἐστι πλοῦτος, πρὸς δὲ τὰς ἀορίστους ὀρέξεις καὶ ὁ μέγιστος πλοῦτός ἐστι πενία.

Same with 422 κενὰς δόξας "groundless opinions"

422. We need pleasure when in pain because of its absence; but when we are not experiencing such pain, and are perceiving stably, then there is no need for pleasure. For it is not the needs of nature which, from outside us, create harm, but desire driven by groundless opinions.

τότε χρείαν ἔχομεν τῆς ἡδονῆς, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι αὐτὴν ἀλγῶμεν· ὅταν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ πάσχωμεν ἐν αἰσθήσει καθεστῶτες, τότε οὐδεμία χρεία τῆς ἡδονῆς· οὐ γὰρ ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἔνδεια τὴν ἀδικίαν ποιεῖ ἔξωθεν, ἀλλʼ ἡ περὶ τὰς κενὰς δόξας ὄρεξις.

471. (Saint-Andre) It is rare to find a man who is poor with regard to the aims of nature and rich in groundless desires. For a fool is never satisfied with what he has, but instead is distressed about what he doesn't have. Just as those who are feverish through the evil of their sickness are always thirsty and desiring the opposite of what they should, so those whose souls are in a bad condition are always poor in everything and through their greed fall into ever-changing desires. [note] σπάνιόν γε εὑρεῖν ἄνθρωπον <πένητα> πρὸς τὸ τῆς φύσεως τέλος καὶ πλούσιον πρὸς τὰς κενὰς δόξας. οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν ἀφρόνων οἷς ἔχει ἀρκεῖται, μᾶλλον δὲ οἷς οὐκ ἔχει ὀδυνᾶται. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ πυρέττοντες διὰ κακοήθειαν τῆς νόσου ἀεὶ διψῶσι καὶ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, οὕτω καὶ οἱ τὴν ψυχὴν κακῶς ἔχοντες διακειμένην πένονται πάντων ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς πολυτρόπους ἐπιθυμίας ὑπὸ λαιμαργίας ἐμπίπτουσιν.

[NOTE 471] In the second chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle characterizes desires as groundless and trifling (κενὴν καὶ ματαίαν) if they are not related to or subsumed under an overarching goal of life; in this fragment and in Fragment 442, Epicurus applies the same terms to certain kinds of desires. (See also 116 above)

Fr. 485. Unhappiness (kakodaimon) is caused by fears or by endless and empty desires; but one who is able to rein these in creates for oneself a blissful understanding (logismon).

ἢ γὰρ διὰ φόβον τις κακοδαιμονεῖ ἢ διʼ ἀόριστον καὶ κενὴν ἐπιθυμίαν· ἅ τις χαλινῶν δύναται τὸν μακάριον ἑαυτῷ περιποιῆσαι λογισμόν.

χαλινῶν genitive: rein, bit, something that restrains

μακάριον makarion = blissful, the same word used to describe the gods

περιποιῆσαι keep, preserve; procure, secure, achieve.

512. "I spit on the kalon and on those who wonder at it in an empty fashion -- whenever it does not produce any pleasure."

προπτύω τῷ καλῷ καὶ τοῖς κενῶς αὐτὸ θαυμάζουσιν, ὅταν μηδεμίαν ἡδονὴν σοιῇ.

That's a translation of Nussbaum's and it's much more literal (and better) than other paraphrases I've read of this Fragment. Here we see κενῶς "kenōs" empty used to describe how some people wonder at The Noble/The Beautiful τῷ καλῷ Tō Kalō(n)

Quote from reneliza

And in the end I wonder if that’s the sort of wrong-thinking that the void desires stem from: treating the thing as an end in itself instead of only using it as a means to obtain maximum overall pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

As for "agreeably" I get the idea that was intended just to be a synonym of "pleasantly" without intending much of a distinction. I don't think I recall anyone asserting that anything significantly different was intended.

Exactly. They're all translating ἡδέως which is just the adverb of "pleasant."

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

PS: Translators' choices like using "agreeably" stem from an uneasiness or dislike in calling "pleasure" pleasure, in my opinion. A puritanical mindset seems to pervade some earlier translators' approach and persists to the present. They may feel "pleasure" isn't high-minded enough and they need to obfuscate or otherwise dilute that idea.

Welcome to the rabbit hole LOL!

I hope I didn't use honorably/honestly?! Καλώς had a LOT of synonyms, but switching between two words in the same paragraph in a translation certainly isn't recommended when the same Greek word is used.

Epicurus's theology is primarily directed at removing one's fear of the gods. He wanted to get people to rid themselves of the ideas that their every move was being tallied, and the gods were either going to rain down divine punishment now or after death, or they were going to bestow blessings on the pious. Neither of those scenarios were going to happen according to Epicurus.

He maintains "gods exist" but "not as the hoi polloi believe." As you'll read here and elsewhere, there are two primary perspectives on the gods in modern scholarship:

1. Epicurus believed there were real beings existing somewhere in the universe who were eternally blissful, who had bodies that didn't decay, and who took no interest or action in human affairs, and who did NOT create or maintain the universe.

2. Epicurus used the vocabulary of the "gods" to describe mental concepts or archetypes of what a blissful, incorruptible being would be like and that Epicureans could use those concepts as an ideal of what a blissful existence could be like. David Sedley is one of the prime advocates for this position.

1 is referred to as the realist approach. 2 is the idealist approach. Personally, I fall well towards 2 in my current understanding.

Yeah, I mostly agree with you.

I could accept something like "Even the smallest pleasure can bring the greatest joy" but that is NOT what Bailey is saying.

BAILEY: [116] For not even the lowest animal, although ‘a small thing gives the greater pleasure,’ would be seized by such foolishness, much less one who was possessed of perfect happiness.

HICKS: [116] For such folly as this would not possess the most ordinary being if ever so little enlightened, much less one who enjoys perfect felicity.

INWOOD/GERSON: For such foolishness would not afflict any ordinary animal, even if it were a little more sophisticated, let alone one who possessed complete happiness.

YONGE: Nor can such folly as this occur to any being who is even moderately comfortable, much less to one which is possessed of perfect happiness.

[116] οὐδὲ γὰρ (αν) εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ζῷον, κἂν (εἰ) μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη, ἡ τοιαύτη μωρία ἐμπέσοι, μὴ ὅτι εἰς παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν κεκτημένον.

So, the major difference in translation here seems Bailey's decision to put in the proverb itself that he says the line κἂν (εἰ) μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη "obviously" alludes to: "The smaller the trifle, the greater the joy." While the others don't seem to necessarily accept this as alluding to a "proverb":

- if ever so little enlightened

- even if it were a little more sophisticated

- any being who is even moderately comfortable

χαριέστερον

"in Attic, freq. of persons, in relation to qualities of mind, elegant, accomplished"

χαρίεις - Wiktionary

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, χα^ρίεις

Yeah, I don't get Bailey's proverb allusion there. It doesn't quite seem to fit to me and the other translations seem more on the mark.

And the "perfect happiness" παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν is our old friend eudaimonia modified by that word pantele (from pan-telos) "all-accomplishing, all-complete, absolute, etc."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, π , παντα^χοῖ , παντελής

The only difference between the Greek of Hicks and Bailey appears to be αν:

[116] οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ζῷον, κἂν (εἰ) μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη, ἡ τοιαύτη μωρία ἐμπέσοι, μὴ ὅτι εἰς παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν κεκτημένον.

Hicks

[116] οὐδὲ γὰρ (αν) εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ζῷον, κἂν (εἰ) μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη, ἡ τοιαύτη μωρία ἐμπέσοι, μὴ ὅτι εἰς παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν κεκτημένον.

Bailey

Here's Bailey's commentary on those lines:

Greek Word Study Tool

That mine/drilling disaster video was fascinating!! I had never heard of it. Thanks for sharing, Joshua !

Quote from Kalosyni

I have to say, I am not sure I agree with this.

When death is imminent then yes I agree with the need for tranquillity.

Yet, when death is not imminent, there is more than tranquility needed for a complete life. There was a moment in which I had a peak experience, in the past -- it was a state of pure bliss, and it was at that moment that I felt my life was complete. It was a completely "safe" experience but I wouldn't say it was "tranquil" one bit because it was active and in motion -- it was a active and ecstatic experience.

I found this line from the 2nd papers introduction interesting (emphasis added):

What sets Epicurus apart from many hedonists, however, is his idea that the greatest (in the sense of most valuable, or most choiceworthy) pleasures are generated in a state of ataraxia, or tranquillity. This is a condition in which a person is free from physical pain and mental distress.

To me, that gets at an idea of ataraxia (and aponia, although I don't believe the paper mentions that specifically) being the ground on which we can more fully experience other pleasures. Without that ground or foundation, other pleasures are experienced but may be fleeting. With a steady, tranquil mind and healthy body, we are already feeling pleasure, then other pleasures vary our experience.

And I would offer that one can be "tranquil" in activity. It doesn't mean sitting on a cushion, meditating. Or being numb (as some might say, both ancient and modern)!!

By a "complete life," Epicurus meant "one filled with pleasure." Once you're filled, you're complete, the goal has been reached. PD20 uses the phrase.

"Life complete" is conveyed by τὸν παντελῆ βίον. I contend that this is one of the more important phrases in the original Greek. This is the kind of life that is produced by following the Epicurean path. Again, we have to delve into Epicurus' words to really appreciate what he's saying. Παντελῆ derives from παν "all, every" + τέλος "goal, end" but not just any goal or end, the ultimate, fully-accomplished end of something, its fully-realized purpose. So, Epicurus is calling us to a life where he believes we can find that every goal is accomplished, every purpose fulfilled IF we understand the limits of pleasure and desire. That will provide us with τοῦ ἀρίστου βίου "the best life" of all the possible ways of living.

Good questions, Kalosyni .

Broken record that I am, when anyone says something like "Not only do we need to understand the word pleasure, but also "virtues" and "happiness"" I immediately think "Back to the source material!" I agree with Kalosyni , so what words does Diogenes of Oenoanda (DO, for short) use that are translated as pleasure, virtue, and happiness. And how were the words DO used understood by him in the period he was writing. That's the rub from my perspective.

I'm using this resource:

DCLP/Trismegistos 865216 = LDAB 865216 (papyri.info)

Pleasure is the familiar hedone ἡδονῆς (which the Latin writers translated to voluptas)

Virtue is arete ἀρετή

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀρετή (tufts.edu)

Arete is a slippery word that's accumulated a LOT of baggage over the centuries. The more literal meaning is "excellence" as in displaying excellence in character or deed. It came to take on the idea of "virtue" due to this original meaning.

As for happiness...

the word DO uses is eudaimonia ευδαιμονία, and even more slippery word than arete!

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , εὐγλάγ-ετος , εὐδαιμον-ία (tufts.edu)

As anyone who's been around these parts for any time knows, eudaimonia has sparked any number of discussions on this board, with both pro and con advocates. I personally like the word, and my preferred translation is "well-being". To me, that's almost a pun on the literal eu "good/well" + daimonia "daemon, 'in-dwelling spirit"" (you could have a "good" spirit (eudaimon) or a "bad" spirit (kakodaimon)) Socrates talks about taking advice from his daemon. But enough about him.

So, I think Kalosyni 's "satisfaction" isn't too bad as a translation. Other translations include "well-being, prosperity, good fortune, true full happiness." Mr. Roger's theme song literally just popped into my head, especially the first few lines that, to me, describe eudaimonia. Never thought of Fred Rogers as an Epicurean hmmm:

It's such a good feeling,

To know you're alive,

It's such a happy feeling,

You're growing inside,

And when you wake up, ready to say,

"I think I'll make a snappy new day."

It's such a good feeling,

A very good feeling,

The feeling you know,

That I'll be back,

When the day is new,

And I'll have more ideas for you,

And you'll have things you'd want to talk about,

I will too.

You always make each day such a special day,

You know how, by just you being you,

There's only one person in the whole world

Exactly like you, and that's you yourself,

And people can like you exactly how you are,

It's such a good feeling,

A very good feeling,

The feeling you know,

That we're friends.