Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

This is the source (or part of the source) of the story of Atlantis, so it's interesting for lots of reasons.

Just for the record, there was no physical place called Atlantis. It is entirely a literary invention of Plato to make a philosophical point.

Atlantis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While some leave open the idea that Plato may have been *inspired* by accounts of the eruption of Thera or other events, the "myth of Atlantis" is just that - a myth.

The podcast Let's Talk About Myths, Baby! did an excellent series on Atlantis:

Atlantis — Let's Talk About Myths, Baby!

www.mythsbaby.com

Welcome aboard!

For anyone who would like to see my script along with notes and citations to the ancient texts (along with excerpts), I've uploaded that file to the forum at:

File

Bread and Water: Debunking the Idea of Epicurean Asceticism - Text and Notes

Did Epicurus advocate for an “ascetic way of life” or not?

Don

January 26, 2025 at 5:15 PM

Welcome aboard, Singleton ! Thanks for sharing your path here.

Quote from Singleton

I arrived at Epicureanism by way of Stoicism.

You'll find that a common thread for many of us.

Quote from Singleton

having flirted with, then abandoned, Buddhism, I found this ancient Greek philosophy to be a breath of fresh air

Ditto on the Buddhism.

The almost modern perspective of Epicurus definitely made me take notice. Now, I'll have been a member of this forum (I always feel I should say agora since Epicurus was Greek ) five years now next month. It is a welcoming place. Enjoy the stay!

Quote from Bryan

Does not this mean there is a separation between our theory and our practice? If Newton works in the real world, perhaps he is mostly all we need.

Wading into an area in which I have no expertise...

It seems to me that Newton handles the big picture, Einstein allowed us to see the relative nature of the cosmos, and quantum physics handles the cosmos at the submicroscopic world in all its weirdness. My understanding is that Newton, Einstein, and quantum mechanics all explain the realms that they intend to explain. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle doesn't break through into the macro world but that doesn't mean it's not operating.

Here's a link to my "Where was the Garden?" paper:

File

Where was the Garden of Epicurus? The Evidence from the Ancient Sources and Archaeology

While we will probably never know the exact location of Epicurus’s Garden in ancient Athens, we can take a number of educated guesses.

Don

April 19, 2023 at 11:10 PM

And the impromptu live presentation:

Attic numerals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Χ̣ΧΧ̣ΓΗΗΗΗ

XXX = 3,000

But from that, it looks like it should be 3,900.

Although I don't know how they even got any number...

One of the most poignant groups of victims are the ones discovered in the boat sheds and warehouss on the shore, all ages huddled together, waiting for ships that would never come.

I know I said desires come in 4 categories and only mentioned 3. Mea culpa.

In my defense, I was thinking of this from the letter to Menoikeus (and yes I'm splitting this idiosyncratically):

• Furthermore, on the one hand, there are
  • the natural desires;
  • on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.'
  • And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are
    • the necessary ones;
    • on the other, the ones which are only natural; then,
    • of the necessary ones:
      • on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia;
      • then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body;
      • then those necessary for life itself.

"Ain't no party like an Anti-Lucretius party, cause an Anti-Lucretius party don't stop!"

FWIW... Here's my VERY clunky translation of the French (primarily Google Translate but some other methods and notes) directly from Les Epicuriens.

***

ON NATURE, BOOK XIV

DCLP/Trismegistos 59752 = LDAB 856

[Pher. 1148: (29) Arrighetti in part]

[a: p. 46 Leone: (29.1)]...circumferences [lac. 2 lines] or rapid [ou rapides] [lac. 1 word] those who meet [lac. 1 line] undergo interlacing...

[2:p. 47 Leone] ... [what is] seen [lac. 1 word] seems to have the same [lac. 1 word] [and] larger size deviations than [lac. 2 words] for the senses...

[3 : p. 47 Leone)... insofar as we conceive through reason the transferences in it. But depending on whether [lac. 2 words] some kind [lac. 1 line] what is similar [lac. 2 columns].

[6:p. 48 Leone] [le pensée] the thought. [We affirm it,] the [lac. 1 line] is made up of the [elements] of which the associations are made up [lac. of 5 columns].

[12: p. 50 Leone: (29.7)] ... to each of the conclusions [lac. 1 word], and which cause trouble [lac. 10 columns].

[23 p. 16 Leone] ... of this therapy [lac. 2 words] which intensifies [lac. 2 words]. Therefore, not even for ... possesses [lac. 1 word]... prosperity.

Epicurus

[24 : p. 56 Leone: (29.3)] ...we must count ourselves fortunate in this, too - that all who are engaged in such trivialities may have some sort of remedy by which it is possible, simply to attain at times calmness in the contemplation of nature, to get rid of their inborn ([σ]υμφύτου; French: connaturel) [trouble; ταραχ]ῆς], which even later [missing 1 column].

[ἀ-]

γ̣απητ[ὸν] καὶ τοῦτ[ο], τὸ

δὴ πάντα τὸν συνε̣[χό]με-

νον̣ [ταῖς] τοιαύταις περι-

εργ[ε]ίαις ἔχειν οἱονὶ φάρ-

μακ̣ον δι' οὗ κα̣τα̣στάσεις

ἁ̣πλ[ᾶς ἔστι]ν ἐν τῆι περὶ φύ-

σε[ως θεωρί]αι ἀπαλλαγή-

σε[σθαι τῆς σ]υμφύτου ἑαυ-

τα̣[ῖς ταραχ]ῆς ἣ καὶ ὕσ̣τε-

10ρον̣ [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ η̣πο ̣ ̣ σιτ ̣ ̣

γε [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ὥστε ̣ ̣ ̣ υ̣ ̣

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τοιού̣[τοι]ς ̣ ̣

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ον̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩]

[26:p 17 Leone (29:14)]...would present [lac. 1 or 2 words] an aporia**, and [lat. 3 words] relief, it seems, [to] men... [hommes]

**Note from Les Epicuriens: Perhaps: a needlessly disturbing aporia, which Epicurean physics would allow "to dissipate" (or "to relieve"; on κουφιζειν, see Philodemos, [L'Arrogance], 10, p 620). The two preceding fragments explicitly recall the therapeutic function of this physics (see Capital Maxims, XI and XII)

[DB: aporia: “an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory.”]

[27: p. 57 Leone: (29.16)] In reply to those who say that the substance of water is produced by the condensation of clouds, and who think that this too is a sign that all things come from a single substance which changes its character by condensation and rarefaction…[28: p.57 Leone (29.17)] ...water is composed...of the [lac. 1 word] of the forms which are taken (lac. 1 line] from which this ... water [lac. 2 words] some water [lac. 1 line] be produced.. [29: p. 58 Leone] ... similar impressions they commit a paralogism [lac. 2 lines] sensation [lac. 3 words] attests...

[30:p. 18 Leone: (29.18) ... men do it, but also some of those who are called "philosophers" (and to whom I am charmed, by Zeus, to give this name, if Democritus also must have it): would we oppose all their notions of celestial phenomena and [others of the same species]?

[31 : p. 18 Leone: (29.19)]... which will receive many particles, and from the other associations [lac. 2 lines] of the sky [lac. 2 lines] by rarefaction [lac. 1 line] principle [lac. 2 words] would conclude [lac. 8 lines] from the air... [32: p. 19 Leone: (29.21)] in nature [lac. 3 lines] vaporize [lac. 2 words] water... [ 33: p.19 Leone: (29.20)] [It is not] according to the condensation or the rarefaction [of the air] that things are generated, but it is according to the differences of forms that the power of deviations manifests [lac. 4 lines] depending on the condensation [lac. 2 lines] is not powerful …

[34 : p. 19 Leone: (29.22)]. [those] who specify a particular form belonging to fire, earth, water or air, are more ridiculous than those who, without specifying any, according to the juxtapositions, willy-nilly, that certain particular species of forms arise, which correspond to each of the associations which one could call substantial (for some are mistaken on the subject of the elements); but in speaking thus, they would say something that is more in line with these. And generally also they [introduce ?] differences in mixtures, and...

[35: p. 60 Leone: (29.23)] [The Platonists do not explain how one could] conceive of water, air or fire [as solid and indissoluble], since one could not even conceive of the Earth as solid and indissoluble ; even less do they divide them, by making these assertions. For, if none of these bodies has the possibility of being conceived as a solid, it is a great diversity of impressions of forms that [the elements] will deliver, when the cuts are made, and not triangles, pyramids, cubes or any other specific shape. For [the Platonists] would have no plausible way to explain why we should believe that we can find these four forms visible, when the cuts are made, rather than all kinds of forms. [36: p. 60 Leone: (29.24))... These sorts of forms, in accordance with their appearances, [are sometimes found in] the remaining elements. But it is not only - even supposing that it is - in the case of fire that an impression of form as he indicates would never appear to arise, and that form would not always arise [in fire], nor as belonging to any kind of fire, but as belonging to that part of the fire which is the flame, and belonging to the latter only in particular environmental conditions. When he approaches these kinds [of fire], he sometimes seems to indicate a different form for fire (in its various forms] ....

[37: p. 61 Leone: (29.25)] [the fire] escapes the pressure exerted by the air, being itself composed of extremely fine particles, and incapable of being captured by the air into a reassemblable aggregate. For neither the compactness nor the fineness of the particles, in certain quantities, admits the pressure but it is a certain proportionality which, in certain quantities, is able to accomplish just this sort of thing. But this, too, is a ridiculous form of analogical reasoning from impression, which manifests an ignorance of the means of deducing what is not apparent from what is. Furthermore, neither can the Earth in the same way as... [38:p.61 Leone: (29.26)] [Regarding the] triangles, from which [Plato] also constructs the remaining forms, if he believed them to be atomic, why didn't he offer some proof that they are atomic bodies? Or, if he didn't believe they were atomic, why would anyone think that all the other things that you cobble together yourself out of whatever materials are made from these? But there will be another opportunity to extend this discussion. For now, suffice it to say that it turned out, ridiculously, that this man said, in a sense, that punishing [French: punir] was like [lac. 2 words] of forms [lac. 1 line], exactly at the same time he... [39: p. 62 Leone: (29.27)]...the form he specifies is [appropriate in each case] to the affects produced by these four elements - ideally and primarily each of the two, but failing that the one which is homeomeric with the phenomenon. But let's end this discussion here.

I wish to discuss a few points of detail against those who think that it is by spirit of rivalry, when one names a substance, that those who use these words act; and also against those who, when a certain disposition of style has been made necessary, launch sophistical arguments on the basis of these questions. For they say that those who change their minds... [40: p. 63 Leone: (29.28)] ... [is proper] to him who has bound into a set of mutually consonant and consequent materials, who has mixed with doctrines which are not proper to it such and such a correct doctrine, even if he happens to have attacked it before. Indeed, a compiler is not someone who assembles a doctrine scattered at random with other doctrines foreign to himself, but someone who juxtaposes mutually incompatible doctrines, whether they come from himself or from others. And if someone says something intelligent that comes from Empedocles, but happens to add something unintelligent…

[41: p. 63 Leone: (29.29)]. For it is not the case that [the sage] suddenly praises someone, and then goes on to praise someone else who holds the opposite opinion to that of the first, nor that he praises some particular thing said by someone, and goes on to praise the opposite of that opinion, as stated by someone else. But, when he praises the kind of correct conclusion reached by so-and-so, and goes on to praise that of someone else, what he is praising is not the opposite of the conclusion of the first, but any conclusion consonant with it. And that's how he behaves in any case: first, as I said, he doesn't even think it's fair to opine on some [statements] of those: wherefore he does not cite the poets, sophists, and orators who lack [the understanding of] any [reasoning] whose conclusion is correct.

[42 p. 64 Leone: (29.30)] ... [compilers] who utter clamours in the form of enthymemes23 and apophthegms24. And of someone who fails to put together anything of consequence, [one can justly say] that he is committing complete doctrinal solecism [DB - see note below]; and, similarly, the one who for his part has undertaken to proceed by following another: a single guide for a single subject! But this is not the case with someone who does not pledge himself entirely to adopt the thesis of such and such, but only imitates it up to a certain point [lac. 1 line] and restores clean... [43: p.64 Leone: (29.31)] For it is fair to say that they are committing a solecism or that, by compiling a correct form of conclusion, they precisely ruin the chance part of their own nature [French: ils ruined precisement la part de hasard de leur propre nature]. As for those to whom the common usage, due both to reason and to chance, of a name or an undifferentiated expression no longer allows them to perceive the difference, let them be absolutely silent! [π̣αντελῶ[ς] ἡσυχίαν [ἐ]χέτωσαν]

[Final title: p. 64 Leone]

Epicurus

On Nature

Book XIV

3,800 Stiques***

written under the archonship of Clearchus****

***The stique is a line of hexametric type, serving as a conventional unit of length, and containing between 34 and 36 letters. The total for Book XIV would therefore be about 136,800 letters, or just over 20,000 words.

****Either 301/300 BCE

Per Merriam Webster:

solecism

1: an ungrammatical combination of words in a sentence

also : a minor blunder in speech

2: something deviating from the proper, normal, or accepted order

3: a breach of etiquette or decorum

Did you know?

The city of Soloi had a reputation for bad grammar. Located in Cilicia, an ancient coastal nation in Asia Minor, it was populated by Athenian colonists called soloikoi (literally "inhabitants of Soloi"). According to historians, the colonists of Soloi allowed their native Athenian Greek to be corrupted and started using words incorrectly. As a result, soloikos gained a new meaning: "speaking incorrectly." The Greeks used that sense as the basis of soloikismos, meaning "an ungrammatical combination of words." That root, in turn, gave rise to the Latin soloecismus, the direct ancestor of the English word solecism. Nowadays, solecism can refer to social blunders as well as sloppy syntax.

A 1766 English translation (hard to read, and also with the long S's)

[Anti-Lucretius. Books 1-5. English]. A translation of Anti-Lucretius. By George Canning ... 1766 : Polignac, Melchior de, Cardinal. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[Anti-Lucretius. Books 1-5. English]. A translation of Anti-Lucretius. By George Canning ... 1766..Digitized from IA40313615-50.Next issue:...

archive.org

A 1771 edition

Poems : Canning, George, d. 1771 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

With this is bound [Polignac, Melchior de] A translation of Anti-Lucretius. London, 1766

archive.org

He's the section from my recent talk:

Did the Epicureans follow a simple, plain, frugal lifestyle? Yes, from all descriptions they appeared to live a simple, plain, frugal lifestyle… NOT unlike other average ancient Greeks of the time. Not “spartan,” not “ascetic,” not a life of self-denial! Simple, plain, frugal. Frugal doesn’t mean self-denial.

Words and phrases along these lines often associated with the school were:

Simplici victu = They led a simple, plain way of life

οἱ τε λιτοὶ χυλοὶ = They had simple, inexpensive, frugal flavors and tastes

Καλιάδα = a simple cottage (Philodemus’ description of his apartments in the lavish estate of Piso)

εὐτελέστατα καὶ λιτότατα διαιτώμενοι = lead one's life in a manner that was easily paid for and simple, inexpensive, and frugal.

To me, this doesn’t sound like self-denial or asceticism. It sounds like common sense! It sounds like Epicurus is reminding people to live within their means!

"most modern scholars hold that [the book of Matthew] was written in the last quarter of the first century by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time." (Wikipedia)

So, written 75 to 100 CE.

Both things could technically be true: dogs and swine as regular literary metaphor; it's use as a stand in for Cynics and Epicureans depending on the demographics where the writer was living. I'm skeptical that Jesus would have used it to refer to the philosophical schools since I'm not sure there would be many from those two schools in Galilee and Jerusalem at his time. But I'm still intrigued by this line of inquiry.

Fellows are the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar who were/are scholars who met in the 1970s/80s(?) to literally vote on whether Jesus said what the gospels say he said.

Grey means it was a toss up. Red would mean they agreed Jesus said it. Black, he didn't. (I think there is a pink category, too: red, pink, grey, black.

Here's the commentary on those verses from the Jesus Seminar 's The Five Gospels:

The five Gospels : the search for the authentic words of Jesus : new translation and commentary : Funk, Robert Walter, 1926-2005 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

A Polebridge Press book.

archive.org

(Read with free account)

The saying is preserved in Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas. Here the end of that section in the book:

Of course, there's only so many ways to say "pig" in Latin, but fwiw:

Latin for reference: Matthew 7:6: 6 Nolite dare sanctum canibus: neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis, et conversi dirumpant vos.

Horace for reference:

Latin
inter spem curamque, timores inter et iras
omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum:
grata superveniet quae non sperabitur hora.
me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises
cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum.

English (Loeb Classics)

Amid hopes and cares, amid fears and passions,
believe that every day that has dawned is your last.
Welcome will come to you another hour unhoped for.
As for me, when you want a laugh, you will find me in fine fettle,
fat and sleek, a hog from Epicurus’s herd.

Also, from Wikipedia as a start (emphasis added):

Cynicism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cynicism gradually declined in importance after the 3rd century BC, but it experienced a revival with the rise of the Roman Empire in the 1st century. Cynics could be found begging and preaching throughout the cities of the empire, and similar ascetic and rhetorical ideas appeared in early Christianity.

I'm intrigued! I'll admit that I never made that connection, and possibly both animals were seen as unclean... But the juxtaposition of dogs and swine is too juicy to pass up digging into a little.

The phrase comes from Matthew 7:6: μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων μήποτε καταπατήσουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (NRSVue)

χοῖρος, χοιρου, ὁ, from Homer down, a swine: plural, Matthew 7:6; Matthew 8:30,(31),32; Mark 5:11-13, 14 Rec.,(16); Luke 8:32; Luke 15:15f. (Not found in the O. T.)

So, the only other uses of χοιρος are Jesus casting demons into swine and the prodigal son eating what swine eat when he was starving from the famine.

But that juxtaposition in "Jesus'" words in Matthew does intrigue me, could it be Cynics and Epicureans?? The part about tearing you to pieces reminds me of Acts 17.

Acts 17 :: King James Version (KJV)

Acts 17 - Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth…

www.blueletterbible.org

Act 17:18 - Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection....

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

Questions for me:

Did the Jesus Seminar vote that Jesus said Matthew 7:6?

Were the Cynics and Epicureans active when and where Matthew was written?

What word did Horace use for "a pig in Epicurus' sty" in Latin? Is that the one in the Vulgate?

Have any scholars gone this route with Matthew 7:6?

Great question, Al-Hakiim von Grof !

Thanks for the kind comments on my presentation as well as the thought-provoking commentary in your post. Food for thought (pun fully intended )

And for January/Gamelion 20, new discoveries in Pompeii... Or as I like to think of it, that city beside Herculaneum...

BBC Two - Pompeii: The New Dig, House of Treasures

At the biggest dig in a generation, archaeologists strike gold in a lavish Pompeiian home.

www.bbc.co.uk