Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

the term is today more associated with a Cyreniac "pleasure of the moment" attitude.

The phrase itself is inextricable linked to Bentham and Utilitarianism. While Cassius is correct that neither Epicurus nor the Epicureans used the specific phrase "hedonic calculus," he did - all the time - use "choice and rejection" αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν. So, in some ways, one is always weighing pain and pleasure and choosing and rejecting. That is, generally speaking, a kind of "calculus." Just don't get overly hung up on the term

Quote from Cassius

The Frying pan might be hot, but if that frying pan is suspending you over the grand canyon you might be well advised to stay in the frying pan til you've figured out a way to arrange a soft landing.

Good wordsmithing there. Vivid metaphor

I think you're generally on the right track, Mathitis Kipouros . Thanks for sharing this.

Is the only extant use of isonomia from Epicurus The mention in Cicero:

Quote

Moreover there is the supremely potent principle of infinity, which claims the closest and most careful study; we must understand that it has the following property, that in the sum of things everything has its exact match and counterpart. This property is termed by Epicurus isonomia, or the principle of uniform distribution. From this principle it follows that if the whole number of mortals be so many, there must exist no less a number of immortals, and if the causes of destruction are beyond count, the causes of conservation also are bound to be infinite.

That's it? And isonomia is defined as, by Cicero, "in the sum of things everything has its exact match and counterpart." According to the LSJ Greek dictionary, isonomia is cited as occurring in Epicurus Usener Fragment 352, which is Cicero's reference. And is it really Epicurus or is it just Cicero that goes off on "it follows that .." Is isonomia just Epicurus saying "no one thing of its kind"? I could see "its exact match and counterpart" as referring to something like that idea. I'll definitely want to dive into Academia.edu or JSTOR for some papers.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἰσονομ-ία

Quote from Cassius

1077] This there is too that in the universe there is nothing single, nothing born unique and growing unique and alone, but it is always of some tribe, and there are many things in the same race. First of all turn your mind to living creatures; you will find that in this wise is begotten the race of wild beasts that haunts the mountains, in this wise the stock of men, in this wise again the dumb herds of scaly fishes, and all the bodies of flying fowls. Wherefore you must confess in the same way that sky and earth and sun, moon, sea, and all else that exists, are not unique, but rather of number numberless; inasmuch as the deep-fixed boundary-stone of life awaits these as surely, and they are just as much of a body that has birth, as every race which is here on earth, abounding in things after its kind.

This only means that there is never just one elephant, one human, one kosmos created in the universe. There is always a herd of elephants, a tribe of humans, an infinity of kosmoi. There is never a single solitary thing by itself. Things or beings are always part of a larger group. You don't have unique one of a kind things popping into existence.

FYI:

The word used in 134 is δουλεύειν "to be enslaved", related to δούλος "one who is enslaved" (Note: keeping up the metaphor started with the mistress/master idioms in the previous verse)

134: "Since it is better to follow the fictional story of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δ , δουλα^γωγ-ία , δουλ-εύω

Quote from Root304

the idea of an Epicurean Soul to mean the total package of human experience; our context, emotional and sensory depth, our passions and interests, our challenges, our relationship to ideas and people, our broadening and changing understanding as we journey through life, our histories and our relationship to that history and the core memories that shaped us.

I'd say that one... with the caveat that "soul" does NOT imply something that can exist outside the "meatsuit". The ψυχή psykhē / psyche is inextricably part of our physical, material, atomic makeup.

Final (LOL ) thought on PD10: I think PD10 is a direct refutation of the Cyrenaic position on pleasure. Epicurus and the Garden were getting painted with the same brush as them, and this is a firm statement that "We are NOT Cyrenaics".

Quote from Kalosyni

Thank you Don for your translation of the PD last night, I don't know if we have your translation on the forum somewhere?

Oh, I didn't translate the PD, just the letter. That's in my document to download on the Letter to Menoikeus.

Quote from Kalosyni

Imagine in Epicurus' time, that he was surrounded on all sides by people who believed in the myths and the power of the gods. I can see why he would continue to participate in the rituals for several reasons: 1) because there was pleasure in the festivals, and 2) he would have gotten a lot flak from everyone around him (non-Epicureans) if he hadn't participated in the rituals

I would add a third choice: I am coming to believe that one reason Epicurus took pleasure in the rites, festivals, sacrifices, etc. was that he intellectually recontextualized (sorry, neologism there?) them to coincide with his philosophy of the gods. As Lucretius talks about saying "Dionysus" but actually meaning "wine," Mother Earth but meaning the fertile, productive powers of the natural world. *If* that is the basis for ritual, I don't see any problem. Especially since there groups like Hellenion are trying to resurrect a Greek-inspired practice:

Hellenion

Quote from Cassius

In the music, does it have words to it? There is lots of religious music I like but would choke on the words that accompany it.

LOL... That's why I did this: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?…wall/comment196

That was fun! I hope I didn't monopolize the conversation. Here are a couple links I mentioned:

Podium-Arts

Spoken Ancient Greek; texts in reconstructed pronunciation. For learning or enjoyment. Samples of audiobooks (most of which are for sale on www.ancientgreek.eu…

youtube.com

ScorpioMartianus

Spoken Latin videos by Luke Amadeus Ranieri. 🤠🦂 Topics & tags: Latin Language Lessons for beginners, Latin Language, Classical Latin, Ecclesiastical…

youtube.com

(See his Ancient Greek in Action playlist especially)

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK X, EPICURUS (341-271 B.C.)

Are you coming back?

Imma gonna do my best to be there tonight, so be ready to cross reference PD10 with Menoikeus 131 including the ancient Greek.

Yeah, I've used a provocative title, but it's a fascinating video. Science!:

I don't think it's what you're referring to, Godfrey , but, if I remember, the smallest size anything can be is the Planck length:

The Planck scale: relativity meets quantum mechanics meets gravity. (from Einstein Light)

This is a fascinating thread of this conversation. Thanks for starting it, SimonC

I am still gobsmacked by that photo... even after three years.

Here's a larger image link from Reddit: https://i.redd.it/ib66b4sje7e31.jpg

I also think ya'll are on the right track with the lines of reasoning, too, about why we don't have basketball sized atomoi or why we can't see them.

That photo is exactly where I was heading, Eikadistes . Thanks for posting!

Okay, since I couldn't find anything in DeWitt or in Clay to satisfy me, I went through and picked out ALL of the uses of the word στοιχεῖον (as in Δώδεκα στοιχείωσις) and its variations within Diogenes Laertius, Book X. It's used 5 times within the letter to Herodotus (the most within Book X). I've included both the Greek and English (Hicks) from the Perseus Project below for everyone's inspection. Unfortunately, I have not had time (nor do I plan to take the time!) to go and search within Philodemus or the extant On Nature fragments. Sorry. Life is too short

(30) Canonic forms the introduction to the system and is contained in a single work entitled The Canon. The physical part includes the entire theory of Nature : it is contained in the thirty-seven books Of Nature and, **in a summary form, in the letters.** (**καὶ ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς κατὰ στοιχεῖον**)

The usual arrangement, however, is to conjoin canonic with physics, and the former they call the science which deals with **the standard and the first principle, or ***the elementary part*** of philosophy (περὶ κριτηρίου (kriteriou) καὶ ἀρχῆς (arkhes), καὶ ***στοιχειωτικόν (stoikheiotikon)***), while physics proper, they say, deals with becoming and perishing and with nature.

(34) They affirm that there are two states of feeling, pleasure and pain, which arise in every animate being, and that the one is favourable and the other hostile to that being, and by their means choice and avoidance are determined; and that there are two kinds of inquiry, the one concerned with things, the other with nothing but words.So much, then, for his division and **criterion in their main outline**. (καὶ τοῦ κριτηρίου στοιχειωδῶς.)

From the Letter to Herodotus:

(35) Those who have made some advance in the survey of the entire system ought to fix in their minds **under the principal headings an *elementary outline* of the whole treatment of the subject** (ἐν τῇ τῶν ὅλων ἐπιβλέψει τὸν τύπον τῆς ὅλης πραγματείας τὸν *κατεστοιχειωμένον*). For a comprehensive view is often required, the details but seldom.

(36) ...since it is the privilege of the mature student to make a ready use of his conceptions by referring every one of them to ***elementary facts and simple terms** (πρὸς ἁπλᾶ στοιχειώματα καὶ φωνὰς (apla phonas "simple terms")).

(37) Hence, since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this, have prepared for you just such **an epitome *and manual* of the doctrines as a whole** (τινὰ ἐπιτομὴν (epitome) *καὶ στοιχείωσιν* τῶν ὅλων δοξῶν).

(44) But that colour varies with the arrangement of the atoms he states in his "Twelve Rudiments" (τὸ δὲ χρῶμα παρὰ τὴν θέσιν τῶν ἀτόμων ἀλλάττεσθαι ἐν ταῖς Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί φησι.)

(47) For if it changed its direction, that would be equivalent to its meeting with resistance, even if up to that point we allow nothing to impede the rate of its flight. **This is an *elementary fact* which in itself is well worth bearing in mind.** (χρήσιμον δὴ καὶ τοῦτο κατασχεῖν *τὸ στοιχεῖον*.) (NOTE: This is the one mention that gets close to stating this is one of the elements: Something like "Atoms don't change their direction or speed"??)

From Letter to Pythocles:

(86) We do not seek to wrest by force what is impossible, nor to understand all matters equally well, nor make our treatment always as clear as when we discuss human life or explain the principles of physics in general--for instance, that the whole of being consists of bodies and intangible nature, or **that *the ultimate elements of things* are indivisible** (ὅτι ἄτομα *<τὰ> στοιχεῖα*), or any other proposition which admits only one explanation of the phenomena to be possible.

From Letter to Menoikeus:

(123) Those things which without ceasing I have declared unto thee, those do, and exercise thyself therein, holding them to be ** *the elements* of right life**.(στοιχεῖα τοῦ καλῶς ζῆν)

Clay says "His (Epicurus's) language makes it plain that he regarded the nine propositions set out earlier in the letter as stoicheia... "kai de touto" looks back to the stoicheiomata and their usefulness." I'm still unclear on how Clay is slicing the Letter to Herodotus to come up with only nine stoicheiomata, and the number is clearly 12 "elements." So, why would Epicurus only include 9?

I *think* I'm willing to accept that the Δώδεκα στοιχείωσις *probably* referred to the physics of Epicurus, BUT in Section 30, Diogenes Laertius specifically talks about Canonic being the στοιχεῖον... So, again, as I did earlier, I ask: Did the Twelve Elements refer to the atoms, void, physics stuff or did it refer back to the use of the senses within the canonic? Both DeWitt and Clay seem too self-assured for my full endorsement of their lists.

And I see what Clay was trying to do, I think, in calling the article after Epicurus's will. He's trying to say that even though Hermarchus is his philosophical heir, it is actually Lucretius who ends up being his "heir" because we get Lucretius's whole poem to carry on Epicurus's philosophy. Yeah, that's a little arcane.

Thoughts welcome!!

I took a look through my copy of Dewitt and he goes on and on about the Twelve Elementary Principles... But with what authority? He just states, with no citation to an actual text, things like:

The procedure was regularly from the general to the particular. The truths of Physics were reduced to Twelve Elementary Principles. These

corresponded to a general map, affording a panoramic view of the nature of things. Of the Twelve Principles the most important was the third:" The universe consists of atoms and void."

How can he state this so matter-of-factly? What is her basing this statement on? How does he know this is the third principle? Did I miss Lucretius expounding the Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί? I've tried to get just twelve principles from the letter to Herodotus and it's not easily done. Without question, Epicurus wrote a work called Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί but Diogenes doesn't list it among the most important works of the philosopher. Is it a later compilation? And are we sure it's about physics as I asked in my previous post. I respect Dewitt's scholarship (mostly), but many times he flies off in flights of fancy with, from what I can see, little to back it up.

Apollo, Helios, and the Solstices in the Athenian, Delphian, and Delian Calendars

Apollo, Helios, and the Solstices in the Athenian, Delphian, and Delian Calendars

www.academia.edu

Looks like Eratosthenes did his experiment on the summer solstice:

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (article) | Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

Also

Ancient Greek Calendars

Ancient Greek Calendars

www.academia.edu

Adding for future reference:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Greek_and_Roman_Chronology/W_gaUJ4wjicC?hl=en

Quote from Nate

Clay also has a slightly different version in Lucretius and Epicurus, but I do not have access to it. They are essentially the same, but Clay never presents the same list in the same order twice

That's the primary problem with trying to reconstruct a lost text with NO surviving fragments. My understanding is that the ONLY reference to the "Twelve Fundamentals" is the one in Diogenes Laertius: colour varies with the arrangement of the atoms he states in his "Twelve Rudiments". Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί ; further, that they are not of any and every size ; at any rate no atom has ever been seen by our sense.

Epicurus uses στοιχεῖα in the letter to Menoikeus (123) to refer to the elements of the noble/good life: στοιχεῖα τοῦ καλῶς ζῆν.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, στοιχεί-ωσις

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

Without at least some fragments, there's no way to know what the Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί discussed. Who knows? Epicurus could have been talking about something else and brought in the color and size of atoms to make a point about our senses. Maybe the Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί were about those who say we can't trust our senses and Epicurus was laying out why we could. There's no way to know again without at least some fragments of papyrus or other references.

PS. The only reference to a "twelve" of anything in the surviving fragments of Diogenes' wall inscription is: For if the pain takes a turn for] the worse, it no longer continues severely, but the crisis comes and passes away in the shortest time; while if it is relieved, it ushers the creature to health. What then, in the name of the twelve gods, is terrible about that? Or how can we justly bring a complaint against nature, if someone who has lived for so many years and so many months and so many days [comes to his last day?]

PPS: If I'm missing a key reference or textual fragment of the Δώδεκα στοιχειώσεσί, please don't hesitate to point me towards it! If love to be wrong about the one reference in Laertius.