Posts by Don

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Don

I still maintain that ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς is "among undying goods" means "among undying pleasures" as in good=pleasure.

I am curious if it is the same word for "goods" that Aristotle uses when he talks about instrumental, intrinsic, and external "goods"?

Then Aristotle moves onto looking closer at good things in general. He says they are divided into three classes:

1. External goods τῶν ἐκτὸς (ektos)

2. Goods of the soul τῶν δὲ περὶ ψυχὴν (psykhe)

3. Goods of the body καὶ σῶμα (soma)

However, he says unequivocably that those of the “soul” are the κυριώτατα and μάλιστα ἀγαθά “the highest and best goods.” However, he also stresses that he’s talking about the soul’s “actions and activities” or energeia (Refer back to our discussion of that word back near the beginning of this text.)

A couple notes on some of the pivotal words in this paragraph.

διαταραχθήσῃ (diatarakhthese)

Note the the breakdown: dia-tarakhthese. That second component is directly related to tarakhe and it's opposite ataraxia (ataraksia)

From διαταράσσω, to throw into great confusion, confound utterly. I'm taking the dia- to convey confusion throughout oneself, from one end to the other (i.e., consider English "diameter" measure across)

So, by using this word, Epicurus is referring back to the ataraxia that comes from contemplating the points in this letter and, from that contemplation and study, having a firm, unshakable knowledge of how the world works; a firm foundation upon which to fully experience every pleasure you choose to partake of and to weather every pain that comes your way. That unshakable foundation once firmly in place in your mind will be a part of you, whether sleeping or awake, day or night.

ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς. (en athanatois agathois)

Kalosyni is right to ask about these "immortal goods." It is a tricky concept, and one I'm still wrestling with myself. Here's one take I've come up with.

athanatos (a + thanatos) does mean "un-dying" but it has a wider connotation. LSJ has some citations that are worth looking at, including Lysias, Funeral Oration. There the term used is ἀθάνατον μνήμην "have left behind an immortal memory arising from their valor. " So, what is left behind after someone dies is "undying," including the memories others have of you, the legacy you "leave behind" doesn't die with you. This idea seems relevant to me in that the friends and loved ones we leave behind allow us to "live on" to be "undying" (as long as our memory lives one... it's not technically immortal). The effect we have on people while alive is undying.

I still maintain that ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς is "among undying goods" means "among undying pleasures" as in good=pleasure. Thinking of other "undying pleasures" is a good exercise. What lives on after we die? What is it about our lives that, in the words of Maximus in Gladiator, "echo through eternity"?

135c. Ταῦτα οὖν καὶ τὰ τούτοις συγγενῆ μελέτα πρὸς σεαυτὸν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς πρός <τε> τὸν ὅμοιον σεαυτῷ,

Meditate (μελέτα) then on this and similar things with yourself day and night as well as together with those like yourself."

ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς literally "day and night" (i.e., all the time)

135d. καὶ οὐδέποτε οὔθ᾽ ὕπαρ οὔτ᾽ ὄναρ διαταραχθήσῃ, ζήσεις δὲ ὡς θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις.

"And never, neither awake nor in sleep, throw oneself into confusion, and you will live as a god among humans."

135e. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἔοικε θνητῷ ζῴῳ ζῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς.

οὐθὲν γὰρ "because no one …

ἔοικε "to be like; seems…"

θνητῷ ζῴῳ "for a mortal being (living thing)"

ζῴῳ is the dative form of ζώον which we met way back in 123 when talking about the gods.

ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς "in the midst of everlasting good things (pleasure)."

ἀθανάτοις (< αθάνατος (athanatos)) means literally a- "un-, not" + thanatos "dying" so immortal and eternal are one sense; however, it also conveys perpetual or everlasting which seems more appropriate in this context.

"Because no person who lives among eternal good things (pleasure) is like a mortal being."

Agreed. Very solid episode. Thanks for everything y'all do week in week out.

Quote from Sam_Qwerty

are there any modern books that explain this philosophy simply that have a correct understanding?

Emily Austin's Living for Pleasure.

In my opinion, THE best accessible introduction to the philosophy for the interested general reader.

An Recte Dictum Sit Latenter Esse Vivendum

Greek

Plutarch, An Recte Dictum Sit Latenter Esse Vivendum, stephpage 1128a

English

Plutarch, An Recte Dictum Sit Latenter Esse Vivendum, section 1

Adversus Colotem

Greek

Plutarch, Adversus Colotem, stephpage 1107d

English

Plutarch, Adversus Colotem, section 1

Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum

Greek

Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, stephpage 1086c

English

Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, section 1

Quote from Godfrey

This reminds me of the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers".... marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before (that's from memory, I may have misquoted).

No, you got it right. That's the way I remember it, too.

Bart Ehrman's book The Triumph of Christianity is a good one to read on this. He emphasizes that triumph is used literally and metaphorically in the title. Literal in that a Roman Triumph was the parade where a general was given permission to parade his conquered enemies that he had trodden underfoot through the streets of Rome to celebrate his victory and humiliate the vanquished.

Quote from Sam_Qwerty

Sometimes there is guilt at feeling pleasure or happiness after a loved one passed away. I told myself, "how can I feel happy after losing my father?" But he wouldn't have wanted me to stop living just because he is no longer alive.

Agreed. I've actually found over the last few funerals I've been to, that sharing stories about the one who died, especially when coupled with photos or a slide show of photos, is helpful and bittersweet, and pleasurable. Giving people a conversation starter with the photos is good. The first time I remember this is putting together the photos for my grandmother's funeral. Family joined in. But after the funeral, it can be hard. Epicurus' philosophy drives home though the preciousness of life, both remembering the life of the one who died and the life we go on living. We should not feel guilty for going on living. The dead live through our memories of them. That's the only afterlife we get. Famous people may leave books and writing and now video and audio, but they're still only memories.

... And, lo, the thread strayed far from the purpose that Cassius had set for it; for those who did post did take tangents and walk down many fascinating paths, whilst leaving Metrodorus stranded far behind, beseeching them to return.

Epicuriens | Search Results | Society of Friends of Epicurus

Mention of Les Epicuriens in an article at the site usually means it's either part of a fragment or a harder to find work (eg, volumes of On Nature). There are valuable resources here.

Quote from Cassius

And in the end, something similar for Hermarchus, though I gather there's a much smaller universe of surviving fragments.

It's important to remember that some of the Vatican Sayings are attributed to Metrodorus, too.

Metrodori Epicurei Fragmenta collegit scriptoris incerti Epicurei Commentarium moralem, subiecit Alfredus Koerte : Metrodorus, of Lampsacus, d. 277 B.C : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

26

archive.org

It is in Latin and Greek, but it's also a source for citations to look up. It's come in handy in the past for me.

Quote from Sam_Qwerty

I have found that you have to allow yourself to feel the grief before you can release it. Sometimes in our culture, expressing emotions is not considered macho. You don't have to cry in front of other men. You can wait until you are in private. But if you don't allow yourself to ever cry, you will be carrying your grief around with you.

I'll agree that you don't have to cry in front of other men, but I reject wholeheartedly the stoic character that men are too often expected to maintain in our culture. I was at an extended-family event recently, and a young boy (4-6 years old?) hit his head under a table under which he was crawling around under. He was stoic, holding the top of his head, walked over to his grandmother and buried his head under her arm and cried. She said, "he doesn't like people to see him cry." My heart ached. I wanted to say "hey, it's okay to cry" but I didn't. Extended family and all. The son of the daughter of a cousin. That attitude instilled in this young boy, understandable from a societal perspective, does damage. Feeling feelings is human, it's a natural part of living. To say "it's not manly.. not macho... To cry" or even most times to show affection even, that does no one any good. Express the feelings you feel honestly.

Grief is a natural, human reaction to loss, and Epicurean philosophy accepts everyone will feel the sting of grief at the loss of a loved one.

The thing is not to be overwhelmed by the grief. The person who died can no longer feel anything. If they were in pain, they no longer feel pain.

The memory of the one who died is precious, and should be cherished, should bring pleasure.

Fragment 213. Sweet is the memory of a dead friend. ἡδὺ ἡ φίλου μνήμη τεθνηκότος

Welcome aboard!!

To get a fictional look at how the Catholic Church may react to beings on another planet, I highly recommend The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. It doesn't go well, let's say. There's also a sequel: Children of God.

(Side note: Russell also wrote two great novels featuring Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp)