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.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sleepl…-may-be-natural
For me the subject of empathy always comes down to: The "empath" episode of Stat trek the original series
For those not up on their Star Trek original episodes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Empath?wprov=sfla1
Is empathy what we're talking about, too?
I was looking at Sedley's paper for something else and came across this:
According to Diogenes Laertius (X 31), the Canon gave the three criteria as being sensations, προλεψεις, and feelings. Cicero's translation of this phrase shows that there is no significance; except perhaps a grammatical one, in Diogenes' omission of the article before προλεψεις. I mention this because Furley and Rist have deduced from it that προλεψεις were lumped together with sensations as constituting a single category. Its inclusion of προλεψεις as truth-criteria dates the Canon at any rate later than the Letter to Herodotus, according to the principle established above. It may well also be significant that the metaphor of κανων, meaning a truth-criterion, does not occur in the fragments of On Nature Books I-XV, or in the Letter to Herodotus, but is found frequently in the writings which we have already established to belong after 300 B.C.71
This should help dispel the mystification created by Diogenes Laertius' observation that the Epicureans add φανταστικαι επιβολαι της διάνοιας as truth-criteria, which has appeared to many to conflict with Epicurus' own acceptance of these 'image-making mental acts of concentration ' as virtual truth-criteria in the Letter to Herodotus 79 and in KD XXIV. If we assign an early date not only to the Letter to Herodotus but also to KD XXIV, the most satisfactory solution will be that when he came to develop the notion of προλεψεις in the following years he subsumed under it certain truth-criteria to which he had previously granted an independent validity. We have already observed that the 'fundamental meaning of a word ' became an element in the broader concept of προλεψεις ; and the same goes also for the φανταστικαι επιβολαι της διάνοιας , without which we could not visualise things at will, and consequently could have no generalised conceptions at all. Thus when he came to write the Canon he had downgraded φανταστικαι επιβολαι της διάνοιας in favour of προλεψεις. And if later Epicureans chose to upgrade them once more to the status of criteria, they had good authority in their master's early works for so doing. (p.16)
Sedley's paper is available on Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/4310042
one's own pleasure must be set aside for these goals. For example, pursuing the perfection of a virtuoso violinist, a prima ballerina, or an olympic champion
The question of "Does this bring me pleasure?" can only be answered by those violinists, ballerinas, and champions. In many if not most cases, I would think they'd have to answer "yes."
Pity per JRR Tolkien not Nietzsche:
Pity + Mercy = Compassion? or something else?
I have to say I like the "Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." I don't know whether it's Epicurean or not, but that's some good wordsmithing imho on the part of JRRT.
For background on Pandora, I can't recommend more highly Natalie Haynes entertaining episode:
She also literally wrote the book on Pandora:
...even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, for although necessity is beyond our control, they see that chance is unstable and there is no other master beyond themselves, so that praise and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves. [134] Because of this, it is better to follow the stories of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers, because necessity is not moved by prayer...
Ep.1p.11U. (pl.), al.
This looks to me like a citation to Usener's Epicurea, no?
That's what I thought but "Usener 11" doesn't seem to line up with anything.
The only thing I've found do far is this Vatican Saying :
LXVI. Let us show our feeling for our lost friends not by lamentation but by meditation.
*LXVI. Συμπαθωμεν τοις φίλοις ου θρηνουντες αλλά φροντιζοντες.
[Sympathōmen tois philois ou thrēnountes alla phrontizontes]
Bailey commentary:
"LXVI. Usener is probably right in holding that this fragment cannot refer to sympathy with living friends (θρηνουντες is against that), but to
feeling for friends who are dead The true Epicurean will not idly lament their death, but meditate on their lives. Compare PD11."
Συμπαθωμεν is a verb. "Let us 'sympathize'"
θρηνουντες refers to wailing, singing a dirge, lamenting.
φροντιζουντες connotes reflection on, giving thought to...
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Φ φ, , φρι_κ-ώδης , φροντ-ίζω
His focus was more on pleasure, not on escaping pain, right?
That's certainly my take.
You bring up a good point, Scott . We technically dealing with 3 different things that sometimes get conflated:
Common language sometimes sees those as synonyms, but you're right to focus on the distinctions.
I found it interesting that the LSJ specifically reference the philosophy of Epicurus in its definition of sympatheia:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, συμπάθ-εια
"in the Philosophy of Epicurus, corresponding 'affection' or quality, affinity, Ep.1p.11U. (pl.), al."
I'm not sure what that citation to Epicurus means 
I seem to remember reading somewhere (a while ago!) that the predominant ethos in ancient Greece was to do everything you could for your friends and associates and do everything you could to crush your enemies. The world was divided into friends/enemies.
That being said, Diogenes of Oenoanda's inscription was specifically designed to spread the "good news" of Epicurus to all who came in contact with it:
καὶ νῦν̣ ̣κ̣αὶ ἀεὶ πᾶσιν Ἕλλησι κ[αὶ] βαρβάροις "both now and always for all Greeks and barbarians (non-Greeks)"
We have Janko's book in the library. I'll have to check on this one, Joshua.
The Sedley book is Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom
I find that book fascinating. Especially, now again that I'm working through On Nature in Les Epicuriens. The connections between Epicurus's work and Lucretius's is very interesting. I find this doubly so (and I have source amnesia on this) that I've read Cicero was possibly using Philodemus for his Torquatus and other Epicurean material; while Lucretius had been using older texts - maybe even exclusively Epicurus's On Nature. Philodemus (and the more contemporary Epicureans) may have updated some of Epicurus's older celestial observations with more "modern" observations including the size of the sun argument. That may very well be in Sedley, so be on the lookout. I get the sense that Philodemus didn't refute Epicurus so much as update his work with more current observations.
Look forward to hearing what you think of it.
On that note, we turn next to Diogenes of Oenoanda
The Greek of the inscription is available at https://papyri.info/dclp/865216
I'm going to attempt to find a few of the words that Joshua highlighted and see where we get...
The first quote is from Fragment 3:
ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀταραξία, καὶ ἑνὶ καὶ πᾶσι τὸ αὐτό ἐστιν.
Our old friend ataraxia is here: translated here as "freedom from disturbance"
"for both one and all it is the same" (kai eni kai pasi...)
I think "his mission" is being conveyed by
τὸ κατεσπουδ̣ασμένον ἡμῶν "our earnestness" It's an interesting paraphrase there to the best of my ability right now.
It's also getting late. Maybe get a fresh start tomorrow night.
Thanks for the fun translation exercise! 
one by David Sedley, and the other by Michael McOsker;
The Philodemus one looks interesting. I have to ask: Which Sedley book did you get? Look forward to seeing some reviews if you get the chance. Happy reading!
My only question, Joshua : Why goldenrod?
We had this conversation about a symbol for Epicureans before (e.g., ⟐ as the symbol of the philosophy of Epicurus ) but I like the arch... Unless someone else uses it.
I'm curious if any of the newer members of the forum have ideas on a "symbol/logo" for Epicureanism.
We had this conversation about a symbol for Epicureans before (e.g., ⟐ as the symbol of the philosophy of Epicurus ) but I like the arch... Unless someone else uses it.
The Romans are definitely credited with perfecting the true arch (as opposed to corbelled vaults) and running with it. Arches are all over Roman architecture: triumphal arches, aqueducts, amphitheaters, tunnels, etc etc.
