Posts by Don

Book 2.1042?

Si falsum est, accingere contra. ?

Kalosyni , I'll write up a response to your post soon. I, too, see a place for ataraxia "tranquility" but I'm still, as I said elsewhere, seeing a better translation of it as "biological homeostasis," balance in body (aponia) and mind (ataraxia).

I find it also interesting that δίκαιος, usually translated as "justice," also has a basic connotation of balance: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…:entry=di/kaios then expanding to what is right/legal... To me, what maintains balance in society which blends right into the connotation of keeping to a contract or agreement.

I think I need to emphasize, from my understanding, that balance, homeostasis, equanimity is NOT numbness or lack of feeling or similar ideas. It's proper functioning of the body, society, etc.

Random thoughts on a New Year's morning. More later.

Καλή Χρονιά! Happy New Year!

Quote from Cassius

But not a direct synonym for pain?

Unless that word is more etymologically helpful then "harm" is going to be just as ephemeral as "Justice" itself.

Pain means something we can understand clearly, but "harm"?

Pain doesn't even enter into it, and there's no clear etymology for βλάπτω. It is definitely not connected to "feel pain" or "cause pain" or anything similar. It conveys hindering, damaging hurting, robbing, etc. "Natural justice is an agreement not to hurt or to be hurt."

This is also one of the PDs that, from my perspective, is better read as part of a paragraph with the following ones, not as some stand-alone aphorism.

From Nate's compilation:

“Natural justice is a covenant of what is suitable for leading men to avoid injuring onanother, and being injured.” Yonge (1853)

“Natural justice is a contract of expediency, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.” Hicks (1910)

“Natural justice is a symbol or expression of expediency, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.” Hicks (1925)

“The justice which arises from nature is a pledge of mutual advantage to restrain men from harming one another and save them from being harmed.” Bailey (1926)

“The justice of Nature is a covenant of advantage to the end that men shall not injure one another nor be injured.” De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy (1954)

“Natural justice is a compact resulting from expediency by which men seek to prevent one man from injuring others and to protect him from being injured by them.” Geer (1964)

“Nature's justice is a guarantee of utility with a view to not harming one another and not being harmed.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 125 (1987)

“Natural justice is a pledge guaranteeing mutual advantage, to prevent one from harming others and to keep oneself from being harmed.” O'Connor (1993)

“The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, [i.e.,] neither to harm one another nor be harmed.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“Natural justice is the advantage conferred by mutual agreements not to infict nor allow harm.” Anderson (2004)

“Natural justice is an expression of the <natural> interest <everyone has> and consists in both: a) not causing harm to others, and b) not suffering harm for oneself.” Makridis (2005)

“Natural justice is a covenant for mutual beneft, to not harm one another or be harmed.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“The justice that seeks nature's goal is a utilitarian pledge of men not to harm each other or be harmed.” Strodach (2012)

“Natural justice is a pledge of the advantage associated with preventing men from harming or being harmed by one another.” Mensch (2018)

“Nature's justice is a token [or pledge] of something that promotes not harming one another or being harmed.” White (2021)

We're probably straying from the title of this thread, but ..

I find it interesting that the word used for "harm" is βλάπτω (blaptō):

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, βλάπτω

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

βλάπτω does NOT seem to convey willful harm just harm. Willful, unjust harm seems to be ἀδικεῖν which itself is connected to the meaning "unjust"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀδι^κέω

No conclusions, just food for thought.

There's actually a link to the Bronowski chapter at the link Joshua posted.

I have to slightly disagree or provide an alternative perspective on the last few posts. PD31, to me, states that the "justice of nature (What is naturally just)" is that agreement "to not harm each other nor to not be harmed oneself." I don't know if that's "universal" (probably not since the agreements aren't universal... but theoretically could be with international organizations and treaties).

PD31 Τὸ τῆς φύσεως δίκαιόν ἐστι σύμβολον τοῦ συμφέροντος εἰς τὸ μὴ βλάπτειν ἀλλήλους μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι.

Looking at Nate's compilation may be helpful, but for now, here's my translation:

"The justice of nature (What is naturally just) is an agreement of interests to not harm each other nor to not be harmed oneself." right, lawful, just, τὸ δίκαιον right, opp. to τὸ ἄδικονσῠ́μβολον n (genitive σῠμβόλου); second declension

• a sign or token by which one infers a thing
• a pledge or pawn, on which money was advanced
• in pl. tallies
• at Athens, a ticket, counter
• a permit or licence to reside, given to aliens
• n Eccl. the distinctive mark of Christians, a confession of faith, a creed
• in legal phrase, σύμβολα were covenants between two states for protection of commerce

συμφέρον n (plural συμφέροντα)

• interest, rights (business connection with material advantage)

Βλάπτω III. after Hom. to damage, hurt, mar, opp. to wilful wrong (ἀδικεῖν), Aesch., etc.αλλήλους reciprocal or reflexive pronoun

• each other, one another

Quote from Kalosyni

Don you gave my post on ethics a confused smilie. Do you think that what I posted about ethics might not be Epicurean, or possibly goes beyond Epicureanism? What part were you confused about?

Oh!! My bad! I didn't see its connection to the specific article right before it. That's the only reason for the confused emoji.

That's a good article. I especially liked the last line:

Quote from Shermer

The fact that science progresses toward, say, eradicating diseases and landing spacecraft on Mars must mean that our perceptions of reality are growing ever closer to the truth, even if it is with a small “t.”

I think the canonical faculties are there to give us a "true" presentation of what's "out there" in the real world. Epicurus says as much, to me, when he wrote (emphasis added):

Quote from Epicurus

For the presentations which, e.g., are received in a picture or arise in dreams, or from any other form of apprehension by the mind or by the other criteria of truth, would never have resembled what we call the real and true things, had it not been for certain actual things of the kind with which we come in contact.

Those things "with which we come in contact" are the things in the real world which our senses sense. I will say Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's research augments my understanding on this. We jump from a stick or rope on the ground, thinking it is a snake, because it's easier for our brains to identify "long, thin shape on ground = snake > Run!" than to analyze every instance. Save yourself first; Laugh at false alarm later. That's a nutshell from me. Thanks for posting!

Quote from Don

Quote from Kalosyni

The zine would just be an 8-1/2" x 11" piece of paper that is folded, and anyone could download it and print copies.

Hmmm... An 8-page zine... Wheels are turning...

Okay, so here's my quick rough draft of a basic outline of what could be covered in an 8-page zine from a folded 8.5x11 paper. Each page would need illustrations and be eye-catching. In any case, for your consideration:

1 General invitation/intro/cover

2 Who is Epicurus?

3 Living in a material world (physics, atoms and void, etc)

4 Knowing what you know (Canon, evidence from senses)

5 Choosing the best life (Ethics, personal responsibility)

6 If it feels good, consider the consequences (all pleasure feels good, some pleasures aren't chosen)

7 Epicureanism vs Stoicism

8 Where do I find more information?

Quote from Scott

Quote from Kalosyni

I feel like I want to thoroughly understand the ethics of Epicureanism before I start "proselytizing"

Right there with you, Kalosyni. I'm not there yet.

We're all on this journey together.

Quote from Kalosyni

The zine would just be an 8-1/2" x 11" piece of paper that is folded, and anyone could download it and print copies.

Hmmm... An 8-page zine... Wheels are turning...

Thanks for posting this food for thought, Kalosyni ! Those are valuable points to ponder. As I mentioned in reply to Scott , we should be able to explain the basics of the philosophy to a child.

But that begs the question: Even if we could explain it have basic intros, how to get them in front of people's eyes?

The philosophy has to be accessible in more ways than one, that's for sure: able to be understood & able to be obtained!

Quote from Scott

I doubt this philosophy was so wildly successful for 7 centuries without being able to be presented in simpler form, easy to understand and remember

Absolutely!! Wired has YouTube videos where an expert explains a complex topic in 5 levels of detail to different ages:

We should be able to explain Epicurean philosophy in the same way. Epicureanism spread throughout the Hellenistic world not because there were so many scholars but because it appealed to such a wide swath of society. Some had deeper understanding than others, but the "basics" could be grasped by anyone, and the summaries and epitomes like the Principal Doctrines were memory aids.

Quote from Scott

If only we had more of the original content! Some of this must surely have existed.

Oh, I bemoan this all the time! Epicurus alone wrote over 300 works. Another early Epicurean, Apollodorus, is said to have written 400 works. And that's just 2 and not mentioning Philodemus even!!

Quote from Scott

(How are our finances? Do we have enough to engage a top tier marketing/promotions firm to develop and deploy the content? )

LOL No wealthy benefactors here.

Good post, Scott . Thanks!

Thanks, Cassius. You also raise some good points.

• Note that it's eudaimonia (let's use well-being as an inadequate translation) not pleasure that the excerpt is describing.
• There's no value judgment, just an observation. "We can imagine 2 types of eudaimonia..."
• It's also an important observation from that excerpt that our eudaimonia is *composed* of pleasures. The pleasure that comprises the gods' eudaimonia cannot be increased. They're filled up. For us mortals, pleasureS can be added or subtracted to the eudaimonia of us mortals... But we can work toward the fully immersive total pleasure of the gods.

PS I think it's important to point out that eudaimonia is just what we call a pleasurable life. It's a description of what happens as we experience the pleasures in life.

Quote from Epicurus

Neither must one who is young delay in loving and pursuing wisdom; nor should one who is old grow weary of loving and pursuing wisdom; because it is neither out of season nor untimely for the health of the psykhē. And one who says either the season to love and practice wisdom is not yet arrived or the season has passed by is like someone who is saying either the proper time has not arrived or is no more for eudaimonia. Therefore, both the young and old must love and pursue wisdom. On the one hand, the old can be young by means of gratitude for the pleasures which have happened; on the other hand, the young can be as if they are old in years by means of the fearlessness of facing what is intended to be done or what is to come. You must study and meditate upon that which produces eudaimonia. For if indeed that is present, we have everything; if that is not present, we do anything to have it.

I'd paraphrase by saying "You must study and meditate upon how to experience pleasure (i.e., that which produces eudaimonia). If pleasure is present, we have everything. If pleasure is not present, we do anything to experience it."

Is the The Terminator an Epicurean movie series????

Quote from Matt

I’ve seen Zuckerberg’s ads for his dystopian matrix world where we all will have animal avatars walking around in an artificial Zoom conference room looking at a holographic 3D PowerPoint.

Wicked exciting. 😂 The future….

I watched the video and OMG! (or should I say Paian Anax! (By Apollo!)) That looks... terrifying? superfluous? intriguing??

I can see applications for VR but actually getting work done? I'm very skeptical. Visiting a virtual version of a reconstructed Herculaneum? Yeah, I'd "visit" that. But having the "metaverse" be the primary or only means of accessing information online? That seems superfluous. If I want to look up who starred in a movie (to take a trivial example), I don't want to strap on a headset, choose an avatar, etc. I don't know. Maybe I'm old fashioned? I don't find typing that onerous. ...sigh...

Didn't we already do this with Second Life???

Second Life - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was all the rage for a while.

Shouldn't we be focused on our one life? Just sayin'.

Quote from Matt

Welcome to the Meta verse!

Shouldn't that be Meta Garden

Or is that ΚυβερΚεπος CyberKepos?

Quote from Matt

But the walls need to remain reinforced as purely Epicurean.

(Let's call those last two "big toes up!)

Oh yeah! Fully agree! By definition, if there was a sign near the *gate,* that means there had to be walls for the gate to be in. It was The Garden, not The Field