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.
So are there intact sentences which give context to the usage?
Yes. Both On Anger and On Frank Criticism have much of their papyri intact. Here's a better link to Column 1 of On Anger:
I tracked down "set before the eyes" in both Philodemus's On Frank Criticism and in his On Anger. I found the first two mentions but haven't had a chance to read all the columns yet. But Tsouna is absolutely correct in using that phrase. It is a literal translation of τιθῶμεν πρὸ ὀμμάτων:
On Frank Criticism/Peri parressias Column 26.4-5
τιθῶμεν πρὸ ὀμμάτων
On Anger/Peri orges (De ira (Latin)) Column 1.23
τιθέναι πρὸ ὀμμάτων
τιθῶμεν/τιθέναι < τίθημι "place or put"
(with ἐν ὄμμασι (en ómmasi)) I set before one's eyes
522 BCE – 443 BCE, Pindar, Nemean Ode 8.43:
μαστεύει δὲ καὶ τέρψις ἐν ὄμμασι θέσθαι πιστόν
"yet delight also seeks to set a trustworthy pledge before the eyes"
(Full ode: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…3DN.%3Apoem%3D8 )
LSJ entry for τίθημι: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…7:entry=ti/qhmi
ὀμμάτων = poetic word for "eye" (very popular! See quotations at Wiktionary entry: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%84…1#Ancient_Greek )
LSJ entry: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…57:entry=o)/mma
I think Pindar's use of the phrase is instructive since the whole context seems to point toward a vivid picture in the mind:
Pindar, Nemean, Nemean 8 For Deinias of Aegina Double Foot Race ?459 B. C.
Excellence grows among skillful and just men up to the liquid air,
as a tree shoots up fed by fresh dew.
The uses of friends are of all kinds;
those in times of toil are the highest,
yet delight also seeks to set a trustworthy pledge before the eyes.
Which brings up the idea that Epicureanism may work best for people with a strong and healthy physical constitution
According to DeWitt (and some ancient sources?), Epicurus himself suffered from ill health and (according to DeWitt) had to to taken back and forth from home to the Garden in a 3-wheeled cart/chair.
Unless there is some allowance for the pleasure of release from pain
I think that's supposed to be the intent of the last two lines of the Tetrapharmakos:
On the one hand, the good [pleasure] is easily obtained;
On the other, the terrible (pain) is easily endured.
But the last line has to be understood to include chronic pain in that, even then, some pleasure can be "easily" found if one looks for it and also remembers past pleasures.
Interestingly, the brain was sometimes dealt with in a rather cavalier fashion in antiquity
Yeah, I still like the stories of the ancient Egyptian embalmers taking such care with the heart, placing it in its own canopic jar... Then sticking a hook up the nose and just yanking out the brain, chunk by chunk 
it is extremely damaging to a normal person's hope for happiness for them to come to believe that they are the slaves of any kind of fate whatsoever and that they can have no effect on their futures no matter what they do.
To the best of my understanding, this is part of Daniel Dennett's position with regards to free will.
I've recently become interested in researching the Epicurean practice of "setting before the eyes" which I learned about via Dr. Voula Tsouna's book, The Ethics of Philodemus. According to her, it was a rhetorical technique employed by teachers within the Epicurean school to correct students behaviors, especially when it came to anger. The teacher would "place before the eyes" of the student what they look like when they are angry or what the consequences would be of their anger. I'm just using that as an example. From her writing it appears to have had wider application.
I'm starting this thread to engage in discussion with forum members on this topic, but I also want to provide a placeholder for posting further documentation, both ancient and modern, for this practice/method/technique.
Up front, I need to emphasize that his does *not* appear to be some form of esoteric meditation practice or visualization like Tibetan Buddhist meditation. That being said, as Dr. Tsouna explains it, it does strike me as some form of vivid, imaginative technique to really drive home the error of engaging in certain behaviors during a session of frank speech directed to the student. Frank speech is also used to correct teachers, but usually that's a peer to peer situation and not students correcting teachers (according to Tsouna's book). This vivid picture is "set before the eyes" of the student so they "see" themselves red-faced, scowling, heart racing in anger and then also the consequences of carrying through on that anger without making rational choices and rejections.
That's my current interpretation.
The phrase "setting before the eyes" is evocative to me, and that's why I'm intrigued enough to delve deeper on this topic.
For now, my sources are the book itself and these several papers that are cited or that I found online:
Tsouna, Voula. "Portare davanti agli occhi: Una tecnica retorica nelle opera morali di Filodemo ('Setting-before-the-eyes')", Cronache Ercolanesi, 33, 2003, pp. 243-247 (cited in the book)
Sean McConnell. "Epicurean education and the rhetoric of concern." Acta Classica, 2015. https://www.academia.edu/16006034/Epicu…oric_of_concern
Tsouna, Voula. Philodemus on Emotions. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement No. 94, GREEK AND ROMAN PHILOSOPHY 100 BC – 200 AD: VOLUME I (2007), pp. 213-241 (29 pages) (Available on JSTOR)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43767829
I hope to delve into these sources and share excerpts and/or thoughts on them on this intriguing topic.
I also wonder what evidence could have led Epicurus to claim that the rational soul is situated in the chest.
Because that's where you "feel" many emotions, the metaphorical and literal "tightening of the chest." It's the same cultural idea we have vestiges of with words like "heart broken."
There was a real debate in the ancient world of whether the mind was centered in the brain or the heart.
FYI:
"Prioreschi (1996) concluded that by the end of the 5th century B.C., the question of whether the heart or the brain was the seat of intelligence remained unresolved in Western medicine. This changed with the works of Hippocrates (ca. 460 BC–ca. 370 BC)"
"We now think that the opposing view – cardiocentrism – is obviously wrong. But thinkers as prominent as Aristotle subscribed to this view. Why? One possible explanation is that these philosophers observed that when the heart stops beating, you die, and so they conjectured that the heart must control the mind. Many prominent ancient Greek physicians held this view, and indeed the debate between cardiocentrism and encephalocentrism continued well into the Renaissance."
Thanks for the link, Kalosyni , to the article on Jefferson's beliefs.
I have any number of problems with Thomas Jefferson and remain ambivalent with regards to him. He's never been one of my favorite Founders (I'm more a Franklin fan). I've also never been entirely comfortable with his image being in the header to this forum, but that is entirely Cassius 's call.
I don't believe Jefferson was entirely an Epicurean, but I'm sure he found facets of the philosophy with which he agreed. He was also enamored with Jesus as a philosopher since he created what came to be known as The Jefferson Bible. He also praises Epictetus in a number of places including:
In morality read Epictetus, Xenophontis memorabilia, Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Cicero’s philosophies.
So, I think Jefferson's "I am an Epicurean" should best be understood as only a part of his philosophical outlook, which appears to me to be quite eclectic if syncretic (to use last week's Word of Week 
). As any "gentleman" of the 18th century, he was widely read in ancient Greek and Latin authors. He peppers excerpts from Horace, Cicero, and others throughout his diaries and letters. Later in his life (1803), he wrote:
I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkeable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate: say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. (emphasis added)
Granted, his letter to Short was in 1819, so *maybe* his affinity toward Epicurus grew since 1803. BUT, as Kalosyni 's link shows, he was saying things like this in 1823:
"[T]he truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words."
He as still defending Jesus against his "greatest enemies" and was not fully committed in any way to an Epicurean path.
For reference, here is a link to the National Archives collection of Jefferson's papers where the term epicur* occurs (i.e., Epicure, Epicurean, Epicurus, etc.):
and simply epicurean
https://founders.archives.gov/index.xqy?q=Pr…=1511211111&r=1 (includes Short letter)
and here are Short's letters to Jefferson:
But the main take away here is that Buddhism has as it's goal the removal of suffering.
Well summarized! And, interestingly enough, there are some/many who would unfortunately describe Epicurean philosophy the same way: the removal of pain is the goal.
I think your next statement, Kalosyni , is exactly on point:
Epicureanism has as it's goal the experience of pleasure
I wanted to say too that my understanding is that Buddha didn't seem to question the underlying cultural concept of rebirth. He taught that his path led to the cessation of rebirth. I suppose that could be understood as being reborn every moment. I found your saying this very interesting:
Basically this: that conciousness depends on the body
That sounds nearly identical to what Epicurus would say in the Principal Doctrines. 
So it sounds like what you're saying is that Buddha used the terminology of "rebirth" but recontextualized it to mean moment by moment "rebirth" of my consciousness in this life? Color me intrigued
I also found the raft reference intriguing in light of Epicurus's use of harbors and little boats as metaphors.
Excellent posts, Kalosyni . Thanks!
I think many western people see that the Buddha is a non-theistic path and especially if they are running from western Judeo-Christian traditions, they see the Buddha as an eastern sage offering an alternative path. But the reality is though that a monotheistic “God” is not material to Buddhism, there are plenty of unsubstantiated metaphysical premises that the philosophy is built upon
Yes! Looking back, I believe that was my mindset when I discovered Buddhism. I also found the concept of "rebirth" more palatable than the Christian "you're being tested in this life for the real prize in the afterlife." My go-to thought was "Rebirth just makes more sense" with the seasonal cycles of nature, for example. When compared to the Christian "One strike and you're out", the idea of rebirth was an intriguing alternative. But then I tried to wrap my brain around the convoluted explanations of: there is no atman/soul in Buddhism so nothing "transmigrates" from one life to the next; it's like stamping a ring in clay with the ring being one life and the clay being next and the stamp being the karmic imprints from one to the next and.... etc. Humans are clever little primates and can really come up with some wild ideas!
As Diogoenes of Oinoanda stated it, we accept that the flux exists, but not that it is so fast that we can't come to grips with it!
I find this an interesting parallel to the concept of the Buddhist Two Truths, "conventional" truth and "ultimate" truth.
The Buddhist version goes "Provisional or conventional truth describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and Ultimate truth describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics."
From my perspective, the Epicurean version goes something like "Provisional or conventional truth describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and Ultimate truth describes the ultimate reality as consisting of only atoms and void." There are only *really* atoms and void but that doesn't negate or make it any less important that we are alive, we make decisions, our decisions have consequences, and we can live a pleasurable life. But, in the *ultimate* analysis, we are simply momentary aggregates of atoms moving in the void.
This is a fascinating thread. Thanks for initiating a "fresh" one, Cassius !
I'll admit I'm a little intimidated by the depth of knowledge displayed by Eikadistes. His grasp of early Indian philosophies is far deeper than I even realized was available! Thanks for sharing that! I find it fascinating that there was such a wide divergent spectrum of beliefs and philosophies.
I also appreciate Kalosyni 's post. One of the things that had attracted me to Buddhism in the first place was its lists and outlines and the sense that all that gave of "We have this all figured out. Here's the charts and diagrams and outlines to prove it!" Maybe that's what attracted me initially to Epicurus, too? The Principal Doctrines, the Three Legs of the Canon, the 3-part Physics/Canon/Ethics have that flavor of "Here's the basics" when first encountered. Yes, I realize there's SO much more to wrap one's head around but being able to say "Here's an outline" is somehow gratifying and inviting and sparks curiosity to dig deeper.
Kalosyni gave the Four Noble Truths in her post. From another source, these are:
(1) dukkha exists (i.e., There is dukkha)
(2) dukkha arises from causes
(3) we can end dukkha
(4) by following the Buddha’s path to awakening (The 8-fold Path).
(See https://tricycle.org/magazine/dukkha-meaning/ )
My penchant for going back to the original texts was strong even back when exploring Buddhism, so I found many translations of dukkha somewhat misleading and pale reflections of the connotations of the original. That Tricycle article I linked to had an interesting point:
This central term [dukkha] is best understood alongside the related word sukha. The prefix su- generally means “good, easy, and conducive to well-being,” and the prefix du- correspondingly means “bad, difficult, and inclining toward illness or harm.” On the most basic level, then, sukha means pleasant while dukkha means unpleasant. The noble truth of suffering, however, does not simply refer to bodily pain; its meaning is far more subtle and rich.
One can also feel mental pleasure and pain. Here, the twin prefixes are employed again. A “good mind” (su-manas) is contrasted with a “bad mind” (du-manas) to yield the Pali words most often used to describe happiness (somanassa) and sorrow (domanassa), also known as mental pleasure and mental pain.
The traditional way of translating the First Noble Truth is: Life is suffering. But that's not exactly the meaning of that "Truth" (yes, I'm going to start putting it in quotes). Kalosyni 's link does a great job of displaying the original texts (Thanks!) and it seems to me that even Epicurus would agree that the things that Sariputta lists can be described as "terrible things" (as the 4th line of the Tetrapharmakos calls "pain").
I also find it interesting in the Tricycle article's discussion of the prefixes su- "good" and du- "bad" which, it seems to me have parallels in Epicurus's focus on pleasure and pain. So, it also seems to me that, ultimately, Buddhism and Epicureanism are both concerned with "pain" and "pleasure" and maximizing "pleasure" in one's life...
***BUT! *** (before anyone's head explodes! 
)
It seems to me they both started from different locations on *how* pain exists and what "pleasure/good things" means. From the start, Epicurus posited 2 feelings - pleasure and pain - which Epicureans use as the "yardstick" by which to measure which actions would be most advantageous to move us to a more pleasurable life.
Buddha, on the other hand, said that our very existence - the very components of our physical and mental makeup, "the five clinging-aggregates" - are themselves dukkha/pain/unsatisfactory. The only release from this dukkha is found in dousing the fires of our desires, our clinging, that which connects us round after round on the wheel of rebirth. I think Buddha said that nirvana/moksha could be experienced while alive (or was this expanded on in later sutras and traditions like the bodhisattva foregoing his/her own "release" until all sentient beings are freed) but the ultimate "prize" is NOT being reborn, not having to go through all the dukkha all over again and again and again.
Epicurus had something to say about that attitude:
So, everything we experience, we experience in this life. There is no rebirth. There is no karma determining our future existence although understood more broadly, we DO experience the consequences of our actions and decisions - which is one understanding of "karma" - and that does determine our life in the future in this life. Which, to me, is a reason for defining terms. I could see a Buddhist saying that Buddhism is designed to allow a person to lead "the most pleasurable life" or better "the most blissful life." But right there, how do you define "pleasure" or "bliss" and even "life."
There is a modern strain of Western Buddhism - secular Buddhism (that even has its own podcast!) but to me (and one of the things that finally led me away from Buddhism as a path) that attempts - from my perspective - to do something similar to some modern Stoics and try to separate a "modern version" of the philosophy from its underpinnings and its historical context. Which is why I think Cassius 's focus, for example, on the underlying Epicurean physics on this forum is important. We have to look at the totality of the philosophy and where it grew from if we're to understand the rest of it. A cafeteria-style Buddhism or Stoicism is just a watered down version of the original. And if you want watered-down philosophy, I suppose that's one way to go.
2 - While it looks more appropriate to use "dialectic" rather than "logic," that really doesn't answer the question because as cited above the term is generally now being referred to as "dialectical logic" to reference a particular form or type of logic
That's one of my arguments for always going back (a) to the original text (What word is used before translation?) and (b) What is the context and connotations of the word during the time period of the writing? While Diogenes Laertius is writing hundreds of years after Epicurus, it was Metrodorus and Epicurus who were writing "against the dialecticians." It seems to be that during their time, dialectic seems to refer to what we call the "Socratic method." I get the impression Epicurus did not agree with this round and round "What do you mean by _____?" He strikes me as "say what you mean." Even Torquatus prefers the lecture/presentation approach over continual back and forth dialogue/dialectic with Cicero.
See also
Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ; related to dialogue; German: Dialektik), also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and the modern pejorative sense of rhetoric. Dialectic may thus be contrasted with both the eristic, which refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument (rather than searching for truth), and the didactic method, wherein one side of the conversation teaches the other.
If using this as a jumping of point, it seems that Epicurus may be more of didactic than dialectic.
Diogenes Laertius:
"...the Logicians [he called] ‘The destroyers,’"
[24] Metrodorus’ writings were as follows:
Three books _Against the Physicians. About Sensations. To Timocrates. Concerning Magnanimity. About Epicurus’ Ill Health. Against the Logicians._ Nine books _Against the Sophists. Concerning the Path To Wisdom. Concerning Change. Concerning Wealth. Against Democritus. Concerning Nobility of Birth._
[31] Logic they reject as misleading. For they say it is sufficient for physicists to be guided by what things say of themselves. Thus in _The Canon_ Epicurus says that the tests of truth are the sensations and concepts and the feelings; the Epicureans add to these the intuitive apprehensions of the mind. And this he says himself too in the summary addressed to Herodotus and in the Principal Doctrines. For, he says, all sensation is irrational and does not admit of memory; for it is not set in motion by itself, nor when it is set in motion by something else, can it add to it or take from it
All the "logic" references in Diogenes Laertius are "dialectic" (διαλεκτικός etc) in the original which I take refers to the conversational/dialogue method of getting at the truth, not Aristotelian formal logic.
Plus, induction is a kind of logic which appears to have been endorsed by the Epicureans.
If the Authorized Doctrines be read item by item it may be observed that almost all are contradictions of Plato
I'm still not convinced of this.
Still reading, more later.
I was somewhat critical of the 'mindfulness movement' that's been raging for the last decade and a half. But in this, as in all things, I take an Epicurean view of choice and avoidance. If mindfulness brings pleasure or removes or avoids pain, then pursue it! What I reject is specifically the idea that mindfulness is inherently good, or absent-mindedness bad
I'll be the first to say I find John Mulaney funny, and I agree that "mindfulness" may be overhyped or better stated, become just another commodity to be monetized. However, I believe it is objectively true that we can only live in the present moment (literally) because that's where we make our choices and rejections. There's nothing "wrong" with daydreaming and letting your mind wander ("not all those who wander are lost"). But we do that *now* and can make that choice now... Even deciding to "let it happen" is a choice of sorts.
I'm also intrigued by the interoception research going on and its connection to mindfulness (writ large) and that potential connection to Epicurus's philosophy of "listening to your feelings" of pleasure and pain: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/a…g-interoception
That would seem to be either an error in the text or maybe different meanings of the word "quality." Is it "quality" in the senses of "properties of atoms v qualities of combined bodies," or "quality" in the sense of "purity" or maybe even "intensity?"
Good questions. Maybe a look at the original text. I haven't seen that yet. If I dig it up, I'll explore.
Chapter XXVI
LOL..
'For how many and of what sort were the atoms which the father of Epicurus poured forth from himself, when he was begetting Epicurus? And when deposited in his mother's womb, how did they coalesce, and take shape, and form, and motion, and growth? And how did that small drop, after calling together the atoms of Epicurus in abundance, make some of them into skin and flesh for a covering, and how was it raised erect by others turned into bone, and by others bound together with a contexture of sinews?
'And how did it adapt the many other limbs, and organs, and entrails, and instruments of sense, some within and some without, by which the body was quickened into life? For among these no idle nor useless part was added, no, not even the meanest, neither hair, nor nails, but all contribute, some to the benefit of the constitution, and others to the beauty of the appearance.
'For Providence is careful not only of usefulness, but also of beauty. For while the hair of the head is a protection and a covering for all, the beard is a comely ornament for the philosopher. The nature also of the whole human body Providence composed of parts, all of which were necessary, and invested all the members with their mutual connexion, and measured out from the whole their due supply.
Okay, that is *not* why I have a beard.
Also...Evidently, Eusebius not think much of human biology's role in human reproduction and development. egads... God did it!
Just going through chapter XXI here and this caught my eye:
some say that as the principle and criterion of choosing and avoiding we have pleasure and pain: at least the Epicureans now still say something of this kind: it is necessary therefore to consider these points also.
Aristocles is writing in the 1st c CE; Eusebius is quoting him in the late 3rd/early 4th c CE. I know I just recently did a timeline, but it never ceases to amaze me (and serve as a reality check) that Epicurus's philosophy was still seen as enough of a threat to the Christians in the early 300s CE that he needed to be refuted. Epicurus died in 270 BCE, over 500 years before Eusebius. And yet, Eusebius still saw him as a threat. Way to go, master-builder of human happiness!
Here are some other thoughts from the chapter:
it is reason that tells whether it is to be chosen or avoided.
Aristocles/Eusebius seems to think this is a "gotcha." Epicurus himself says practical wisdom (phronēsis) is a tool for making wise decisions... To guide one to a more pleasurable life. It's not phronēsis for phronēsis's sake.
For although they maintain that every pleasure is a good and every pain an evil, nevertheless they do not say that we ought always to choose the former and avoid the latter, for they are measured by quantity and not by quality.
I'm not sure what the argument is here if quantity vs quality. However, given some other discussions we've had on the forum, I thought making note of this may be valuable.
'While the senses are like the toils and nets and other hunting implements of this kind, the mind and the reason are like the hounds that track and pursue the prey. Better philosophers, however, than even these we must consider those to be who neither make use of their senses at random, nor associate their feelings in the discernment of truth. Else it would be a monstrous thing for beings endowed with man's nature to forsake the most divine judgement of the mind and entrust themselves to irrational pleasures and pains.'
This seems to be Aristocles/Eusebius main argument against the horror of using the feelings of pleasure and pain for anything.
If I continue reading, I'll post some more excerpts and thoughts to this thread.
I looked over the outline...
...and now I must apologize...I have not yet read much of this, and now realize that I must read it first, before I participate.
That sounds like a good reason to go chapter by chapter in a "book discussion" group (btw I haven't read much of it either... It's on my list)
