Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Staying with that full glass analogy for the moment, I would think that the glass "spilling" some because it is overfilled would have to be interpreted carefully.

If the glass is spilling because more is being poured into it, and the liquid simply overflows because new liquid is being added, I would see that as "variation" and not a bad thing (just not something that increases the total experience of pleasure.

On the other hand if the glass spills because it is jostled, and the liquid spills over the edge and thus the total liquid declines, that would be a bad thing from just about every perspective, I would think.

We may be taking the "full glass" metaphor further than is useful

Quote from Cassius

But on the other hand those two lives are not at all the same in many other respects

Expand on that. In what ways? (I'm not necessarily saying I disagree but for the sake of discussion, I can't just let that statement stand on it's own)

Quote from Don

once the glass is full, it's full. Whether the glass stays full a day or an infinite time, it's the same volume.

In rethinking my comment there, I want to emphasize that the goal is to keep the glass full all the time by having banished fear, anxiety, etc. until you die. I don't want it to be understood as Cassius 's being full "for a moment" comment. Because of the glass is full and you die tomorrow or you die 100 years from now, it's the same limit of pleasure.

PS: That's why I think ataraxia and aponia are necessary components in an Epicurean worldview / perspective / paradigm (take your pick). To me, that's what keeps the glass full while, at the same time, allowing one to experience the "limit of pleasure" while going about your daily routine of laughing, loving wisdom/philosophizing and tending to one's home life and using one's other goods. Having that glass full is what saturates ones life with pleasure and also allows one to enjoy the other pleasure of life unalloyed with anxiety or pain. There's no room for ascetism or self-mortification within that worldview.

Quote from Cassius

"Once the glass is totally empty, it's totally empty. Whether the glass stays empty for a day or for an infinite time, it's the same volume."

Emptiness is pain, dissatisfaction, anxiety, trouble.

Fullness is pleasure, joy, happiness, well-being.

Quote from reneliza

I will say, I think the whole thing makes sense together to say:

Once you realize that pleasure doesn’t increase beyond removal of all pain, you can see that as much pleasure can exist in a limited life as an unlimited one.

But I’m not certain if that’s how it was intended

Yes, reneliza , I think the way you've worded it is exactly how it was intended.

Basically, once the glass is full, it's full. Whether the glass stays full a day or an infinite time, it's the same volume. That's the "limit" of pleasure: the full glass.

I sometimes fall back on the idea that that which is outlined in our minds - the image of divinity writ as widely as possible - is nothing more than an innate capacity for awe, to be in awe of something larger than ourselves or something literally awe-inspiring, something encompassing our solitary mortal existence. Looking up into the stars, we feel awe at contemplating our insignificance in the face of the universe (Hey, hey! No getting depressed! That's not the point!). Taking in an expansive natural vista like Yosemite Valley from Tunnel View (photos are wholly inadequate!). We're taken out of ourselves in that moment, and I can surmise that an ancient Greek, confronted by the gigantic statue of Athena within the dimly-lit Parthenon, could experience that awe. Trying to come to terms with that feeling of awe could lead to this idea that it's tied up with divinity.

But it's just an idea.

It occurs to me that I've misinterpreted or mischaracterized the characters' motivation in The Good Place with respect to that way out of existence. Joshua , please feel free to weigh in

The people in the Good Place still experienced desires for novel experiences, still feared "death" (even though they were already dead), etc. However, those who expressed their readiness to, let's say, dissolve into the cosmos, expressed it as being at peace. The others couldn't understand the person! But there was acceptance, peace of mind, nothing holding them back, from just letting go. It was NOT boredom that led them to realize it was "time to go." They were fulfilled, at peace, etc. The ones being "left behind" were still afraid of "death", craving new experiences, or just wanting to relive the same experiences over and over.

There are a number of interpretations of this scenario, but an eternal, indestructible peace of mind a la an Epicurean god is not out of the question. Even so, we are NOT immortal nor can we be. So... The challenge to interpret pd19 continues.

I don't know if this will clarify or obfuscate matters, but I was inclined to parse the second phrase in PD19.

ἐάν τις αὐτῆς τὰ πέρατα καταμετρήσῃ τῷ λογισμῷ.

ἐάν = if

Both τις and αὐτῆς are feminine singular which, to me, seems to refer back to τὴν ἡδονὴν (pleasure) from the previous phrase which is also feminine.

τὰ πέρατα we've mentioned are "the limits" but, more precisely, defined as "end, limit, boundary"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πέρα^ς

In philosophy, a πέρας (singular) can refer to "the perfection" of something. LSJ gives cites including one to P.Herc 831.8 https://papyri.info/dclp/59491

which brings us to a dative construction in the last three words:

καταμετρήσῃ τῷ λογισμῷ

I find the idea of the "boundary" interesting in light of καταμετρήσῃ (noun singular feminine dative) "measuring out" from the verb καταμετρέω

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, καταμετρ-έω

...which could just mean "measure out" but could also refer to laying out a camp ("castrametation" a word I never read before), i.e., measuring out the area of an encampment or "assigning land held by military tenure." Joshua may find this interesting from a surveying perspective.

Finally, we come to τῷ λογισμῷ "to logismoi"

The basic definition of λογισμός "logismos" is "counting, calculation" or simply "calculation or reasoning" if not associated with numbers.

This is related to λόγος "logos" which is notoriously tricky to parse (and is even used to refer to Jesus as part of the Trinity "Ho Logos" "The Word"). Check out the LSJ definition:

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

So, at its most basic, "to logismoi" could be parsed "by using one's logos" which puts us right back into the "notoriously tricky" parsing of what logos means. Reasoning is acceptable, but it carried a lot more connotations in ancient Greek. Hence my hobby horse/soap box about translators feeling they have to reduce complex connotations to one simple English word with its own linguistic baggage.

So, an alternative translation of the second phrase of PD19, *could* be:

"if pleasure (is) being measured out through the logos."

Take that for what its worth. LOL. You were expected clarity?

PS. I found that the prefix κατα- kata- in a word like καταμετρήσῃ katametrēsēi (kata + metrēsēi) can convey "fully, completely". metrēsēi is related to English meter, measure, etc. So we're getting a phrase that conveys something like measuring out or laying out the boundaries or limits fully and completely through the use of our reasoning powers, to fully understanding how pleasure impacts our life and not accepting a popular notion of the hoi polloi that pleasure is insatiable and expands infinitely, we must understand and internalize that pleasure has limits and boundaries that can be understood.

Quote from Kalosyni

Was the word used in this PD "hedone" or "eudaimonia" ?

hedone "pleasure" τὴν ἡδονὴν (ten hedonen - accusative case)

In reading this thread, I'm reminded of the TV show The Good Place.

***BIG SPOILER ALERT for anyone who hasn't seen the show and wants to experience it**"

*

*

*

You have been warned...

The basic premise is that, after you die, there is a Good Place and a Bad Place. First few seasons, the bar has been raised so high, most everyone goes to the Bad Place. Then we find later that those in the Good Place are bored out of their minds and miserable. The main characters are given the opportunity to remake The Good Place and let more people in. Which they do.

But, even given infinite time and given the opportunity to experience literally everything they could ever conceive of or imagine, they still eventually run out of things to experience. They come to a point where there's literally nothing new to experience! After countless eons of existence, they are then given the choice of dissolving back into their constituent "atoms" let's say, or dissolving back into the universe, or however you want to phrase it. The show is ambiguous. There's a place in the woods where you can walk through a gate and it just happens. It's not portrayed as suicide because they're by definition already dead. But some of the other characters see it that way when another character realizes they're "ready to go."

Anyway, it's hard to explain, but this whole idea that we need infinite time to experience infinite pleasure brought this to mind.

If anyone else has watched The Good Place, I'd be interested to get your take on any applicability to our current discussion that you see.

btw: it seems I brought up this same point in January with a response from Joshua in a discussion about Buddhism and the Epicurean gods :

Post

RE: 2022 Epicurus vs Buddhism Compare and Contrast Thread

That seems to be a solid epitome to me! Well done!

[…]

This always intrigued me about the Buddhist gods on the wheel of samsara: They're so blissed out and pleasure-filled, they can't conceive of not being reborn as a god (to greatly simplify the situation).

Which got me thinking: How does this apply to the Epicurean gods ? They are supposedly experiencing pleasure all the time. Is that correct? Isn't this just another form of "harps in heaven"? Would a blissful, pleasure-filled eternity get…

Don

January 30, 2022 at 2:57 PM

Just came across this paper:

The Epicurean Morality of Vergil's "Bucolics"

Vergil's "Bucolics" can be read as an Epicurean therapy to heal the disturbance of civil war.

www.academia.edu

I skimmed it, but it's an interesting take on comparing Lucretius' work with Vergil's Bucolics and Georgics.

Donna Zuckerberg's book delves into the implications of the bleached white statues that came down from antiquity:

Not All Dead White Men — Donna Zuckerberg

Some of the most controversial and consequential debates about the legacy of the ancients are raging not in universities but online, where Alt-Right men's…

www.hup.harvard.edu

The Hershenov paper mostly has to do with the Epicurean attitude on death. Here's the conclusion:

Quote

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.

PD10

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.

Quote from Cassius

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:

The Oxyrhynchus papyri : Grenfell, Bernard P. (Bernard Pyne), 1869-1926 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

26 35 43

archive.org

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. "

The workes of Lucius Annæus Seneca, both morrall and naturall Containing, 1. His bookes of benefites. 2. His epistles. 3. His booke of prouidence. 4. Three bookes of anger. 5. Two bookes of clemencie. 6. His booke of a blessed life. 7. His booke of the…