Posts by Don

Quote from Gassendi vis Cassius

Now forasmuch as in January, in which month the beginning of Gamelion is observ’d to have fallen, there happened a new Moon in the Attick Horizon, by the Tables of Celestiall Motions, the fourth day, in the morning, (or the third day, according to the Athenians, who as [31]Censorinus saith, reckon their day from Sun-set to Sun-set) and therefore the twentieth day of the Moon is co-incident with the three and twentieth of January

I point to this excerpt here to illustrate what we're up against. "The fourth day... Or the third day, according to the Athenians..." Do we calculate sunset to sunset? Sunrise to sunrise? New moon to New moon?

That "Athenian" calculation could make the difference between Sunday or Monday easily; however, I realize Gassendi is trying to say they were the same day just arrived at by two different calculations.

Gassendi's calculation strikes me as similar to the Usher's attempt to calculate the day of Creation

Ussher chronology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

at least Gassendi was trying to calculate a real person's birthday.

Quote from Godfrey

No, the opposite. The source, the pathe, is the same but our experience of it is different in different parts of the mind/body, over different durations and, depending on how one interprets the Greek, due to varying intensities.

Oh! In reading your post again, I think we're using source in two different ways. I was using it as the action that elicits the pathē. You're using source to mean the pathē, the sense of pleasure itself.

Do I interpret your post correctly? If so, that might change my calculus too.

Hmmm. I'll have to think on this some more. Honestly, not sure if I agree or not. But this is a tricky one... At least for us. When discussions like this come up, I always have the feeling that the ancient Epicureans read this and went "Yep, I totally agree with that and it makes perfect sense!" Insert frustration for the lost traditions here.

How we *experience* pleasure in the mind/body is the same, no matter the source?

Quote from Cassius

Here is a post from Holly at Facebook earlier this week. It is so frustrating that this is so hard to do:

"I have been following this FB group, and they calculate today as being 5 Gamelion, so the 7th would be Sunday."
https://www.facebook.com/PrayerstotheGodsofHellas

So, basically what we have here are two Hellenic reconstructionist neo-pagan groups coming up with two slightly different calendars.

I'm sticking to the original one I posted from Hellenion since they linked to (what seems) some authoritative sources for their calculations. But, in the end, we're all pretending we can pinpoint a birthday that happened 2,300+ years ago to the day.

As someone said here, it's the celebration (and commemoration) that counts.

Quote from Cassius

forget the moon issue.

Is that possible?

"Forget the moon" is either a great name for a band or for a poignant memoir.

Sure, it's possible. There's no way to perfectly calibrate the calendars.

That said, picking a random date in our calendar and sticking to it has precedent: Presidents Day (started as Washington's birthday)... Heck, Christmas is supposed to be Jesus's birthday and that's totally random!

Pick the 7th of December, January, or February and be done is a perfectly feasible solution.

Quote from Godfrey

can't comment on the correct Greek

I'll take a shot.

The word used is κατεπυκνοῦτο:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, καταπυκν-όω

"If all pleasure (singular, as in describing the general phenomenon of pleasure) 'could be κατεπυκνοῦτο'"

So the sense is compress, consolidate, "fill in the intervals".

Quote from Cassius

frustrating that this is so hard to do:

LOL! It's actually impossible. I'm surprised two reconstructed calendars can be as close as a day or so. There is no calendar that started in ancient time and remained as a time keeping device to current times.

There's confusion in genealogy research from when the US in the 1700s went from Old Style to New Style dating. It's almost impossible to line up dates that happened over 2,300 years ago.

Just celebrate Epicurus's birthday around this weekend and be done with it. That's as "exact" as we're ever going to get.

Happy birthday, master-builder of human happiness!

Quote from Cassius

Epicurus must have had a reason for everything he did, especially in writing the Principal Doctrines the way they are.

Do we know if Epicurus actually wrote the PDs or is this a summary that grew up within the Epicurean community?

Quote from Cassius

And why Epicurus himself did not state the goal of life as "reasoned pursuit of pleasure."

The goal of life is pleasure; one of the tools we use to get to that goal is practical wisdom using reason to make our choices and rejections.

Quote from Cassius

In thinking about that wording the question has not occurred to me:. Does "hedonism" as a term consider pain?

That's why I don't like to use the term because I don't think there is any "authority" that can answer that question as to what "hedonism" means.

Epicurus doesn't seem to have used a term like that so I suspect we should stay away from it too.

hedonist | Etymology, origin and meaning of hedonist by etymonline

HEDONIST Meaning: "pleasure, delight, enjoyment; a pleasure, a delight," which is related to hēdys "sweet" and cognate… See definitions of hedonist.

www.etymonline.com

Appears to have started as a term in the 1800s?

Quote from Cassius

So maybe the proper term would be "unrestrained calculus of pleasure"

I would offer the "rational calculus of pleasure" or "wise calculus of pleasure" i.e., phronēsis in the pursuit of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

"unrestrained hedonism" analysis that so many fear (but which Epicurus embraces with so much fearlessness in defining the greatest good as simply pleasure)

You're not saying that Epicurus embraced "unrestrained hedonism", are you? Because from all my reading:

Quote

Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind. [132] For it is not an endless string of drinking parties and festivals, and not taking advantage of slaves and women, nor does an extravagant table of fish and other things bring forth a sweet life but self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble.

I think we need to look at alternative translations, too (Thanks to Eikadistes 

“If every pleasure were condensed, if one may so say, and if each lasted long, anda ffected the whole body, or the essential parts of it, then there would be no differenceb etween one pleasure and another.” Yonge (1853)

“If all pleasure had been capable of accumulation, if this had gone on not only in time,but all over the frame or, at any rate, the principal parts of man's nature, there would not have been any difference between one pleasure and another as, in fact, there nowis.” Hicks (1910)

“If all pleasure had been capable of accumulation,—if this had gone on not only by recurrence in time, but all over the frame or, at any rate, over the principal parts of man's nature, there would never have been any difference between one pleasure and another, as in fact there is.” Hicks (1925)

“If every pleasure could be intensifed so that it lasted and infuenced the whole organism or the most essential parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another.” Bailey (1926)

“If every pleasure were alike condensed in duration and associated with the whole organism or the dominant parts of it, pleasures would never differ from one another." De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 235 (1954)

“If every pleasure were cumulative, and if this were the case both in time and in regard to the whole or the most important parts of our nature, then pleasures would not differ from each other.” Geer (1964)

“If every pleasure were condensed in <location> and duration and distributed all over the structure or the dominant parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)

“If every pleasure were condensed and existed for a long time throughout the entire organism or its most important parts, pleasures would never differ from one another.” O'Connor (1993)

“If every pleasure were condensed and were present, both in time and in the whole compound [body and soul] or in the most important parts of our nature, then pleasures would never differ from one another.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“If every pleasure could be prolonged to endure in both body or mind, pleasures would never differ from one another.” Anderson (2004)

“If all pleasures could be added together consecutively with respect to space and duration, and across the entire span over which they had all existed, or at least across the principal parts of human nature <which are naturally susceptible to pleasures:> then, pleasures would not be different from each other in any respect.” Makridis (2005)

“If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.” Saint-Andre (2008)

Actually, my response was meant to be serious. Only the individual in the moment can answer what is "most pleasurable."

Quote from Cassius

How do you describe in words the attributes of one pleasure that make it more or less pleasant than another?

My perspective is "that which brings the greatest pleasure" *to you* in the present moment. There is no absolute comparative scale of pleasures.

The significance of καρπίζεται is also to pluck the greatest pleasure at the right time, when the time is ripe so to speak.

Quote from Cassius

Thank you. What I am asking you also is "What do you take 'most pleasant' to mean"?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you give a few more details on the dilemma?

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

Quote from Cassius

Just to refresh my memory Don do you have a preferred interpretation of what is translated as "the greatest pleasure"?

126c. ὥσπερ δὲ σιτίον οὐ τὸ πλεῖον πάντως ἀλλὰ τὸν ἥδιστον αἱρεῖται,

τὸ ἥδιστον "the most pleasant"

αἱρεῖται "is chosen/choosing"

126d. οὕτω καὶ χρόνον οὐ τὸν μήκιστον ἀλλὰ τὸν ἥδιστον καρπίζεται.

126c and 126d exemplify again why it's important to look at the words Epicurus used and not just modern English translations. Take a look at the final phrases of each:

126c. ...ἀλλὰ τὸ ἥδιστον αἱρεῖται,

"choosing that which brings the greatest pleasure"

126d. …ἀλλὰ τὸν ἥδιστον καρπίζεται.

"enjoying the fruits of that which bring the greatest pleasure."

Both of these use the word ἥδιστον (hēdiston) which is the superlative of ἡδύς (hēdus) "pleasant, sweet" which is related to ηδονή (hēdonē) "pleasure". By variously translating these two occurrences of the same exact word as "most pleasing/brings the greatest joy," "most delicious/happiest," "nicest/most agreeable," or "most enjoyable" (for both), the fact that Epicurus used the same word is lost. Only Yonge uses "most pleasant" for both. Epicurus teaches that pleasure is the greatest good and by refusing to translate words like ἥδιστον more literally as "(that which) brings the most pleasure" it would appear that translators are consciously shying away from acknowledging that pleasure was Epicurus's North Star. When Epicurus says pleasure, he means pleasure. Translators should not equivocate or obfuscate. They should strive to illuminate and communicate.

For more, check out my translation of the Letter to Menoikeus Epicurus's Letter to Menoikeus - A New Translation with Commentary

Here's my translation of the excerpt from the letter (verse 126):

Quote

Just as the most food is not chosen but that which brings the greatest pleasure; choose as well not the longest time but that in which one enjoys the fruits of that which bring the greatest pleasure.

I find it significant that Epicurus's word is καρπίζεται (karpizetai) related to the Latin carpe as in Carpe diem "Pluck/Harvest the day."

Again, if you're getting that impression from DeWitt... I have issues with DeWitt's fabricating "historical fiction" on the barest (if not non-existent) evidence or citations.