Posts by Don

I found this fragment of Menander that illustrates the point I was trying to make in #7 above:

Quote from Menander

The lightest of all ills is bothering

You—poverty! And what is that? One friend

Who helps can medicate it easily.

Source: https://archive.org/details/menand…ge/137/mode/2up

I just realized that Menander and Epicurus were contemporaries in Athens, although Menander was (according to Wikipedia) a student of Theophrastus so they would not have hung out together but could very well have known each other:

Menander: c. 342/41 – c. 290 BCE

Epicurus: 341–270 BCE

I mentioned this elsewhere on the forum, but I'll post here as well. To me, the role of friendship has evolved since Hellenistic times. I think that people were just as committed to their friends then as they are now. However, there was much more of a reliance on one's friends - one's philoi φίλοι - for one's well-being back then. There was no "social safety net" or institutions for elder care or hospitals. Without friends, you were up the proverbial creek. Friends are still today a necessary component of a pleasurable life but I'm not sure they full the same life or death niche they did 2,000 years ago. I think that's one of the reasons why Epicurus and Torquatus et al. placed such a high importance on friendship in the texts.

I haven't read the article (and in light of Kalosyni 's review may skip it).

This does bring up the thought for me that marriage was a completely different institution in ancient Greece than today. And I do NOT advocate any kind of return to that btw.

It also brings up the topic of friendship. Friends were absolutely necessary in ancient world too. There was no "social safety net." Unless you were independently wealthy (which it appears Epicurus and others were) you were out of luck if you got sick or just got old. You relied on your friends to help you.

Now, we hope to have marriages between friends for companionship, mutual support, etc.

We also have professionals in elder care, hospitals, hospices, etc. That doesn't mean we don't need a social support system!

So, the need for friends fills a slightly different niche than it did 2,000 years ago.

I'm not sure where you went with that whole "Peace and safety" discussion, and I'm curious to hear what the verdict was on pleasure or instrumental good. But on the idea of its being an Epicurean slogan, I don't see any evidence that this was a catchphrase of the Epicureans in Thessaloniki or elsewhere. This idea comes only from DeWitt a far as I can tell with no more evidence than the words Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια "Peace and safety" in I Thessalonians 5:3. I don't doubt that Epicureans valued peace and safety over war and insecurity, just like everyone else! But I don't see any reason to think this was a regular saying among the Epicurean community. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. You can even see some of my early posts on this forum included it because of DeWitt's comments. But, after looking at the source (I Thessalonians 5:3), I stopped using it. I've seen some papers that point out that it doesn't even have to be read as a slogan or phrase. It's simply "while they are saying 'peace' and 'safety'..." and a number of commentators make a strong case that the actual people that Paul is referring to are the Romans and their imposed peace and security of the Pax Romana. While the Romans are saying peace and safety, the Lord is going to come back and smite them all... So be ready... Or some religious fantasy fever dream like that.

See also:

1 Thessalonians 5 :: King James Version (KJV)

1 Thessalonians 5 - But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.

www.blueletterbible.org

"Peace, Security, and Labor Pains in 1 Thessalonians 5.3," Leaven 23.1 (2015): 37-42.

In this brief essay, I present the case for reading "peace" (eirene) and "security" (asphaleia) as two separate but complementary qualities…

www.academia.edu

Quote from Cassius

it wasn't easy to assess the reliability of the fragments

That's one of the nice things Les Epicuriens. They do give (lacuna of 10 lines) and (1 word missing) and such. Then you can compare the papyrus transcription and the drawings of the leaves. The papyrus is surprisingly intact over wide sections.

I'm still working on the translation from the French but felt I could give an update and some additional resources:

First, here is the link to the actual papyrus of [On Choices and Avoidances]:

DCLP/Trismegistos 62463 = LDAB 3639

I've been able to use this because the French translation in Les Epicuriens gives the column numbers, and they line up perfectly.

All that being said, there is a translation of this work which appears to be in English:

[Philodemus]: [On Choices and Avoidances]. Giovanni Indelli, Voula Tsouna-McKirahan. (Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici, La Scuola di Epicuro, Collezione di testi ercolanesi diretta da Marcello Gigante, 15.) Pp. 248. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1995. ISBN: 88-7088-343-4.

There is a limited search available at Google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=Go1fAAAAMAAJ

Tsouna also cites [On Choices and Avoidances] extensively in her The Ethics of Philodemus.

Hiram Crespo does appear to have access to the Indelli/Tsouna translation or Les Epicuriens or both and has much for facility with French and/or Italian than I do. He wrote several commentaries/reviews of the work at his website. I haven't had a chance to read all of his commentary yet but here are the links:

Reasonings About Philodemus’ On Choices and Avoidances (Part I) | Society of Friends of Epicurus

Reasonings About Philodemus’ On Choices and Avoidances (Part II) | Society of Friends of Epicurus

Reasonings About Philodemus’ On Choices and Avoidances (Part III) | Society of Friends of Epicurus

Even so, I'm going to continue my translation exercise, especially since I'm getting to compare the papyrus with the French with the snippets online and in Hiram's commentary even though I realize this is a roundabout way of getting at the text! "Why don't you just get a copy of the Indelli/Tsouna book, duh?" I'll probably do that at some point through interlibrary loan, but there are not a lot of libraries that have it even. Part of my motivation is for the same reason I did my translation and commentary of the Letter to Menoikeus, to make the project more personal and to stretch my linguistic legs. But this is definitely a roundabout way of getting at the text - no question!

Greek papyrus > intermediate translations and copying > French > Google Translate > refining translation into English > compare to Greek papyrus > refine again...repeat.

So, don't expect anything soon... let's say soon-ish.

"We're all made of quantum fields..."

I've said it elsewhere on the forum and I'll restate it here slightly differently (and maybe more emphatically). This is rapidly becoming my position:

Epicurus's τἀγαθὸν (tagathon) = "The Good" , i.e., the greatest/highest/ultimate good thing = Pleasure = "that at which everything else aims"

The good things are not ranked. Pleasure is The Good; all other good things are instrumental in achieving pleasure. Pleasure stands alone. Virtue, wisdom, etc. are subservient to pleasure. Pleasure is the "foundational" good thing (the αρχή) ; it is our inborn, natural good thing; it is the goal at which we aim (our τέλος). Epicurus says φρονησις phronesis/practical wisdom is the "greatest good" (but didn't call it τἀγαθὸν) which I'm taking as the greatest instrumental good to achieve pleasure and a pleasurable life. Everything we do is - or should be - for the sake of pleasure, that is, for leading a pleasurable life.

I'm in the process of "Google translating" Philodemus's [On Choices and Rejections] in Les Epicuriens and was excited to find an explanation and endorsement of the Tetrapharmakos! It was unexpected. And, to note, this is not the papyrus from which the 4-fold formula is usually cited. That is PHerc 1005. This is PHerc 1251. I'm working on making the translation more flowing and will share as I'm able. Since this has the Tetrapharmakos, it too has the word ταγαθον.

Quote from Cassius

go back to Epicurus' own letters, Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus, in that order.

Sounds interesting. And definitely in that order! Maybe I'll rejoin in 2024 when you get to Menoikeus

Quote from Cassius

I agree with most of what is written above, but one additional point I would include is that the Latin authorities were much closer to the Greek language and to the Epicurean texts than we will ever be (as to both).

I can respect where you're coming from, but it's still a secondary filter with their own cultural assumptions coloring the interpretation.

Quote from Cassius

So when we know that someone like Lucretius is trying to be faithful, I think their interpretations are entitled to great deference, even to the extent of considering them to have much more expertise than our own efforts to grasp the Greek.

One issue with Lucretius is that we know virtually nothing about the person. Where did study? Did he just have access to Epicurus's On Nature and some letters and teach himself (granted, as we do!) or did he learn his Epicurean philosophy from an authoritative teacher of the school itself? I've seen some papers that argue he was unaware of some contemporary Epicurean thought.

As far as deference, my preference would be - wherever possible - to compare two Greek sources to see how they're using terms and concepts either in comparison or contrast. But again, I respect where you're coming from, but the Latin authors - especially Cicero - are still one step removed from the original sources. There's some evidence that Cicero used Philodemus for the Torquatus material. In which case, I'm going back to Philodemus and see where he can illuminate Cicero, not the other way around.

PS... I should say that it's not that I don't think the Latin sources are important! By Zeus, we have so few sources to begin with! But I am saying that, for me, defence will always be given to Greek sources. De Rerum Natura is priceless, *but* I want to squeeze everything I can out of every scrap of Lucretius's *sources* especially Epicurus's On Nature. That's why I'm trying to translate the texts in Les Epicuriens that I haven't been able to find anywhere else. Granted, it's like reading a description of the reflection of the Moon in the pond through sunglasses (fancy designer French sunglasses) but it's all I got

Quote from Nate

(https://philarchive.org/archive/PACTCO-8v1).

That's the exact article I uncovered, too

I find the brief exposition of Democritus's philosophy in that paper to be an interesting precursor to, or to dimly presage, Epicurus's own.

It strikes me that one reason we're getting tied up in knots about this is our trying to reconcile ancient Greek and Latin sources. For me, any Latin source will always - always! - be secondary to an ancient Greek source, even Cicero or even (*gasp*) Lucretius. Lucretius was using Epicurus as a source but had to translate what he found there. Any ancient Greek source can quote verbatim from Epicurean sources without the need for translation into a different language and idiom. The Greek sources are going to be debating using shared cultural memes, maybe vehemently disagreeing but most likely coming from a common background. A Latin source is, for me, always going to be - to use a Zen metaphor - looking at the finger pointing to the Moon and not looking at the Moon directly. Latin is like, to put it a different way, looking at the Moon's reflection in the pond and not looking at the Moon itself. English is even worse, especially if it's a translation of a Latin source! That's like reading a description of the reflection of the Moon in the pond! Getting hung up on summum bonum is, in some respects, pointless. Epicurus didn't use that phrase, Philodemus didn't use that phrase (who knows, he may have used it in conversation with his Roman friends but he certainly didn't need to use it in his texts), Diogenes Laertius didn't need to use that phrase, etc. For me, to understand what Epicurus and the Epicurean school taught, we always need to return to the Greek.

This is why I'm becoming more intrigued with the word τἀγαθὸν which appears in Epicurus and Philodemus as well texts from before Plato, in Aristotle, in Plutarch... And that's just what I found this morning poking around online. I think that's what the Romans were trying to "point at" with their summum bonum, but I'm finding I don't care as much now. I'm becoming curious about the significance of τἀγαθὸν itself within that Greek cultural milieu and why it was so widespread. Epicurus couldn't conceive of τἀγαθὸν "without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms." τἀγαθὸν is not simply ἀγαθὸς "good" with "the" definite article slapped on the front. It is an ancient Greek cultural meme, endlessly debated for hundreds of years from before Plato (428 BCE) through Aristotle through Plutarch (119 CE) and beyond to even 15th-century Christian theologians (see https://epistole.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/the…humanist-ethos/ ). I'll have more to say at some point. For now, that's where my head is at.

Thanks for the positive shout-out regarding my "scatter shot" translation proclivities I really do think it's necessary sometimes to get at the nuances of the original languages.

Quote from Kalosyni

sometimes wisdom is a primary tool for making choices and other times pleasure works best as the primary tool for making choices... and sometimes both wisdom and pleasure at the same time

From my perspective, wisdom (practical wisdom/phronesis) is always subservient to pleasure. We use wisdom to pursue pleasure, to make choices on immediate pleasure or postponing pleasure. Pleasure is always the goal. Wisdom is a means to get there.

Thanks for that, Eikadistes . That's some good food for thought.

Along similar lines, I'm thinking that pleasure is the good that stands alone, it is the guide/telos/ταγαθον. Other "good things" are *instrumental* goods in helping us get to that goal of pleasure, in greater and lesser degrees ( Cassius 's toenail clipping vs sex). I'm still working on these thoughts, but that's where I'm heading.

Quote from Cassius

Is *that* what Epicurus was talking about?

Yes.

Quote from Nate

Where do we fit the following phrase from Ep. Men. into this discussion?

"...TO MEΓIΣTON AΓAΘON ΦPONHΣIΣ..."

Epicurus then compares ΦPONHΣIΣ against the "other virtues", therein linking the concepts of AΓAΘON with APETAI.

Good question. How do you parse his calling "practical wisdom" as the "greatest good" in light of this thread so far?

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Is there a goal other than pleasure that you would suggest?

Not ME! But there are a lots of other philosophers who would beg to differ, and they insist on arguing on "logic" grounds for other goals.

Ah! But Epicurus based his answer on nature (babes and animals), not devious logic. So, my first inclination is to say "Who cares what the other philosophers argue?" I think that's what he meant about needlessly prattling on about the Good. His argument was "look to nature." That'll tell you what the Chief Good is.

Wow That's a lot to work through. For now...

Quote from Cassius

We *don't* think that in regard to the movement of the atoms through the void, so why should at some other point there be a single goal?

Atoms don't have free will. Humans do. Therefore, humans can decide to what goal they wish to direct themselves. Is there a goal other than pleasure that you would suggest?

I want to ask more questions about your post, but I'll leave it at that to get/keep the ball rolling.