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.
There is on "outside" the universe.
Cassius I believe you will want to correct this sentence. Minor point but...
My first thought was: There is no "outside light" on in the universe.
(Does anyone else use the phrase "outside light" or is that a regional thing?)
I've never felt that the "gods" issue is the hill to die on (so to speak) in working toward a reconstituted Epicurean philosophic school
Agreed... But I still maintain we should understand *why* Epicurus placed such a high priority in having a correct understanding of the nature of the gods in the PDs, writing to Menoikeus, plus a book written on the topic, plus Philodemus's illustrations of his piety in On Piety, plus Diogenes Laertius's statement that "His piety towards the gods ... no words can describe." (DL X.10)
Plus we need to understand what his correct understanding was and possible applications of that for us today.
I believe a big part of Epicurean piety is knowing that the gods (regardless of their ultimate nature):
- do NOT concern themselves with humans
- do NOT bestow blessings or punishment
- - (although it appears "blessings" or benefit can accrue to the Epicurean "worshipper" of the gods... See below)
- do NOT have any part in the creation or maintenance of the cosmos
- enjoy the "highest possible" happiness (ευδαιμονία) that can be conceived, which cannot be augmented (literally, having no increase in intensity [tightening or slackening])
- can be "worshipped" (in the widest possible sense) within traditional/cultural rites and practices as long as the other characteristics above are adhered to.
Thoughts on that?
I always come back to the definition of the ancient Greek "dogmatizō" meaning "to declare or take a position." I have come to see this word used to oppose the Epicureans to Skeptics especially in the use of the two words in the characteristic https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…oubt?authuser=0
Just listened to the Alda episode. Made a lot of sense and some practical ideas. That's a great podcast and an interesting episode. Thanks Godfrey !
I just remembered that that was one of the charges against Socrates: that he was creating new gods when he talked about listening to his daimon.
Maybe that's one of the reasons why Epicurus and the Epicureans worked within the existing symbols and why Lucretius could say it's okay to say Bacchus and Mother Earth as long as we remember they're metaphors and that we're actually talking about wine and ability of the earth to bring forth life.
- "natural conception of god" (της του δαιμονος επινοιας) Note we're using daimonos instead of theos here. Not sure why.
Don, do we have any other instances of rhetorical symmetry between daimonos and theos?
Excellent question. I'm not *aware* of any but that doesn't mean there isn't, of course. I often wonder if eudaimonia connotes a connection and what the ancient Greeks understood by using that term.
I thought it might be helpful to link to my notes from Philodemus's On Piety (edited/translated by Dr. Dirk Obbink).
I also just (re-)found P.Oxyrhynchus 215 as possibly being written by Epicurus or, at the very least, an Epicurean philosopher: https://archive.org/details/oxyrhy…up?view=theater
I found this translation on p. 32 interesting emphasis added):
' Nor, indeed, even when this further statement is made by the ordinary man, •' I fear all the gods and worship them, and to them I wish to make every sacrifice and offering." It may perhaps imply more taste on his part than the average, nevertheless by this formula he has not yet reached the trustworthy principle of religion. But do you, sir, consider that the most blessed state lies in the formation of a just conception concerning the best thing that we can possibly imagine to exist ; and reverence and worship this idea.' [και θαυμαζε ταυτην την διαληψιν και σεβου']
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δ , διαλα_κέω , διάληψις (tufts.edu)
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Σ ς, , Σεβάστ-ιος , σέβομαι (tufts.edu)
btw... I'm assuming this topic may just come up during the 20th celebration tomorrow. 
I'll do my best to join in. Happy 20th Eve!
If this charges of atheism had merit, I would expect at least one treatise by Philodemus called Against Piety, or a polemic by Metrodorus called Against the Gods. Instead, we have the exact opposite
Your political analogy makes a lot of sense, but the matter of merit is beside the point. Many attackers neither strive to exhibit merit nor even take it into consideration. Critics see an opening, stretch a pebble of truth into a whole specious mountain, and go ad hominem on their targets. The charges of impiety and atheism were leveled against the Epicurean school. Philodemus documents it and addresses it directly in On Piety. The reason Philodemus didn't write Against Piety is because he felt that it was only the Epicureans who were practicing true piety, the only ones who had the correct perspective on the divine. Everybody else was impious. I would make the same case for Metrodorus. Epicureans could take part in the rituals and festivals with a clear conscience because internally they were practicing *true* piety and *knew* they had nothing to fear from the gods.
he left the physical details loose
I'm not sure if that's the case or not, and the physical details seem inextricably linked to their nature. I don't have Long and Sedley The Hellenistic Philosophers available right now, but I'd be interested to see how much detail there is. If I remember, Epicurus talks about the gods' anthropomorphic shape, but I've also seen scholars say that's because the gods are idealized humans, what humans may aspire to. So one has to "see" them in your minds eye as human-shaped to be able to gain inspiration from them. But Diogenes Laertius directly contrasted the Epicureans' idea of the happiness of the gods with the happiness that humans can experience:
Two sorts of happiness can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures.
I also keep coming back to the emphasis and importance Epicurus placed on a correct understanding of the gods. It's first in the letter to Menoikeus. It's the first Principle Doctrine. I maintain it behoves us to examine and come to grips with this because Epicurus found this to be a foundational matter in his philosophy.
he said what he meant and meant what he said
What did Epicurus actually say? btw, That's meant to be neither combative nor rhetorical. What are the extant remains of what Epicurus had to say about the gods and our relationship to them? It seems to me both the "realists" and "idealists" can make a case. Personally, I find it hard to believe that Epicurus would believe in over-sized anthropomorphic aliens existing somehow between universes/world-systems. I think he was more sophisticated in his theological leanings than that and had to work within the vocabulary of his time to convey his understanding and that of his school. He said clearly "There are gods" but what "he meant" by that, I believe, is still an open question.
it's really a matter of whether Epicurus was being truthful or a Platonic noble liar,
I don't accept your premise in that statement. That's a false dichotomy. Or, at best, those two positions don't sit on the same spectrum.
We've all had these go-arounds on the nature of the gods etc. ad infinitum (or is it ad nauseum?)... but there has to be a reason why they keep bobbing to the service.
Another paper examining Caesar's possible Epicurean affinities.
Epicurus/Epicurean section but also Carneades, which I believe DeWitt mentioned in relation to the sorites logical argument.
Note: I'm still in the idealist camp when it comes to the gods. Just sayin'.
In reference to the discussion of the middle of section 38 at around 20:00. The Greek is with pertinent words underlined:
Ἔτι τε44 τὰς αἰσθήσεις δεῖ πάντως τηρεῖν καὶ ἁπλῶς τὰς παρούσας ἐπιβολὰς εἴτε διανοίας εἴθ᾽ ὅτου δήποτε τῶν κριτηρίων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα παθη, ὅπως ἂν καὶ τὸ προσμένον καὶ τὸ ἄδηλον ἔχωμεν οἷς σημειωσόμεθα.
So...
sensations = αἰσθήσεις aisthēseis Same word as PD23 and PD24
ἐπιβολὰς εἴτε διανοίας = epibolas eite diagnosis. Note, NOT prolepsis! This is the similar words (prefaced by phantastikas as what some call the fourth leg in DLX.31)
παθη pathē (the feelings are two)
that rings a dim bell from the distant past, as indicated by the red circle
LOL. Did NOT see that "uploaded by" name!
Boustrophedon is such a great word! 
Clever wordsmithing from those ancients!
Nausiphanes references...
Herculaneum Papyri - Epicurus Wiki
There are multiple On Rhetoric papyri. Do we have a more exact citation?
In other words we are sure we are not talking some "Bible Code" nonsense?
Oh, I don't think this is anywhere near something like the Bible Codes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code?wprov=sfla1 )
However, I doubt you're going to find an in-depth explication of this in Lucretius in an ancient extant source (other than those mentioned in the paper). We are lucky to have any ancient texts at all.
Your Bible code analogy falls down when one considers we don't know who wrote the Bible and then people pick and choose across books and wide time periods to "discover" their prophetic bs. With Lucretius, we know one person who we know wrote one work (we know of) and we know he was a master wordsmith. I have no problem thinking he would use every trick in his literary quiver to convey his message.
I fully agree with Joshua (to whom, I might add, I defer to in all matters poetical). The probability that those letters would arrange themselves in that order "by accident" in a work as finely-tuned as Lucretius's is extremely low. I think the paper's author lays out a strong case. Just another example of how far removed we are from the social and cultural context the ancients took for granted. I could easily imagine an ancient, well-read reader of Lucretius getting to that point and saying, "Oh, clever! I see what you did there, Lucretius. Well played!"
