Posts by Don

Chartes - Papiri

I believe reason that the Epicureans emphasized both physical and mental pleasures was to clearly differentiate themselves from the Cyrenaics who, as I understand, didn't put any value on mental pleasures.

Epicurus: Fragments - translation

This link gives the fragments available at the time from the books of On Nature.

Hiram also laid out the Books as outlined in Les Epicuriens

And there's always Sedley's The Transformation of Greek Wisdom for the topics covered in each Book. I can't remember whether there are excerpts or not off-hand.

A big one

Epicurus, On nature, book 28

Epicurus, On nature, book 28

www.academia.edu

On Nature, Book 28

"Do Animals Have Freewill? Epicurus, On Nature XXV, 20 B and 20j Long–Sedley”,

The view of P. Huby and D. N. Sedley that animals according to Epicurus have freewill is discussed and rejected

www.academia.edu

Do Animals Have Free Will: On Nature, Book 25 excerpts

If we could get our hands on issues of the Cronache Ercolanesi (Herculaneum Chronicle)! https://cispe.org/cronache-ercolanesi/

Just read this today. Thought it might be applicable here:

Use the '20-5-3' Rule To Make Yourself Happier and Stronger

Americans spend 92 percent of their time indoors, and their physical and mental health are suffering. This three-number formula for how much time to spend in…

menshealth.com

Quote from Cassius

The implications of the different positions are not nearly as significant as would be divergences on more core issues, because none of us think that these gods are supernatural or intervene in human affairs or reward or punish either during life or thereafter, and those are the "big" issues.

Quote from Cassius

(1) Epicurus was very clear that gods are physical beings and that the type of beings he is discussing really exist;

Well, Sedley would disagree with you there as I understand his position.

Quote from Cassius

I realize that there are a lot of people, including some here, who think that Epicurean gods are simply mental constructs and that the don't really exist. That is not my position, because I think Epicurus was serious about what he wrote.

That would be me for one and I also think Epicurus was serious about what he wrote.

I'm getting these excerpts from my 80-page exploration of the letter to Menoikeus. It's almost ready to release as a *first draft* but I'll respond to the questions here since they're being asked:

123b begins the review of those elements of living nobly, beautifully, and virtuously.

123b. πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη,

• μὲν can stand on its own, as here, in which case it can mean "so, whereas, and so" but it can also be left untranslated.
• The passage begins, appropriately enough, with πρῶτον (prōton) which literally means "first" but can also carry the idea of "primarily, foremost, most prominently, etc." So, Epicurus isn't just saying, "Okay, number one…" numerically but rather "This is important so I'm telling you this *first*!"
• The verb, νομίζων, comes last and means "believe, hold, consider." What are we to believe? We are to hold that: τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον. So, what does that mean? Let's break it down.
• θεὸν is transliterated theon and is where English gets theology and atheist. τὸν θεὸν is singular, but, singular or plural, this can refer to a god, the gods, or the divine in general. However, David Sedley in his paper "Epicurus' Theological Innatism" https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/11365772 places significance on the singular construction. Sedley proposed each person creates their own "god" which is why he stressed the importance of the singular form. Sedley's paper is recommended reading. So, where the word is singular, I will try to translate it as such as to not obscure the semantics.

τὸν θεὸν ζῷον "a god (is a) ζῷον. But what is a ζῷον?

ζῷον (zōon) is where English zoology comes from.

LSJ gives two primary definitions:

• living being, animal
• in art, figure, image, not necessarily of animals (or a sign of the Zodiac)

So, unfortunately, at this point in the Letter we can't necessarily resolve the question of what the nature of the gods (or of a god) is according to Epicurus. Some scholars think Epicurus believed the gods were material beings ("living being, animal") somehow living between the various world-systems (cosmos) in the universe. Some think Epicurus believed the gods were mental representations or personifications of the concepts of blessedness ("figure, image, sign").

The Letter goes on to describe what kind of ζῷον a god is: ἄφθαρτον and μακάριον

The word Epicurus uses is εναργής.

It has two primary definitions:

1. visible, palpable, in bodily shape, properly of gods appearing in their own forms (in Homer); so of a dream or vision; ex., ἐναργὴς ταῦρος "in visible form a bull, a very bull"
2. manifest to the mind's eye, distinct

He can't mean the first since he's fairly adamant that the gods don't interact with humans. But the second definition coincides with his contention (and the idea of the prolepseis) that the gods are apprehended by the mind only. That also sets up a nice contrast with the first definition's use by Homer in describing the Olympian gods appearing "in visible form." Homer's gods were εναργής in one sense of the word; Epicurus's in the other sense.

The inscripion

Quote

I shall discuss folly shortly, the virtues and pleasure now. If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point. Suppose, then, someone were to ask someone, though it is a naive question, «who is it whom these virtues benefit?», obviously the answer will be «man.» The virtues certainly do not make provision for these birds flying past, enabling them to fly well, or for each of the other animals: they do not desert the nature with which they live and by which they have been engendered; rather it is for the sake of this nature that the virtues do everything and exist. Each (virtue?) therefore ............... means of (?) ... just as if a mother for whatever reasons sees that the possessing nature has been summoned there, it then being necessary to allow the court to asked what each (virtue?) is doing and for whom .................................... [We must show] both which of the desires are natural and which are not; and in general all things that [are included] in the [former category are easily attained] .....

Quote from ayraj

My goal is to learn more from the primary writings, to read posts from others, and to learn to be an Epicurean. Because I've left a faith tradition, I'm also interested in any rituals or "best practices" anyone has for making Epicureanism a part of everyday life - kind of like how Christians pray, Buddhists meditate, or there are holidays to commemorate important holy days, etc., or even something simple like a home altar to reflect at. Not sure how much is in the purview of the Classical Epicurean perspective, but I truly am interested in being a student of Epicurus, Epicureanism, and in becoming a "devout" so-to-speak Epicurean.

Greetings, ayraj ! Thank you for sharing your background. I, too, find it an interesting exercise to look for "any rituals or "best practices" anyone has for making Epicureanism a part of everyday life." I need to go back and re-read (it's been awhile) The Ethics of Philodemus by Dr. Voula Tsouna, but there are some interesting practices that she talks about including "setting-before-the-eyes" to counteract or address one's anger (or other negative or harmful emotions). To me, the practice sounds like a vivid visualization in one's mind to really "see" the results of that emotion before one engages in it. That's a Cliffs Notes version.

The closest I've come to any daily or regular practice is to recite the Tetrapharmakos in ancient Greek to myself to try to keep the "basics" in mind. And made myself a keychain with SFOTSE (Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus) which is (from Seneca's letters XXV.5) and means "Do all things as if Epicurus were watching." Sort of an Epicurean "WWJD: What would Jesus do."

As far as a home "altar," there is every precedent for having a bust of Epicurus. The are numerous files online for printing a small 3-D bust. I keep meaning to do this. Or maybe just a picture.

So, welcome to this little corner of the Epicurean internet! I look forward to reading any discoveries you make and questions you might have.

Well said!

Thanks, Eikadistes . That's a fascinating article.

How would you line up that with prolepseis or concepts? Epicurus certainly wouldn't have had instruments or observations at the 100ms scale, but I do think he got some things intuitively correct. Just curious about your take on the article.

I also think this intersects with Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's research. The idea of the brain needing to predict our actions is intriguing, makes sense when explained, and provides interesting parallels to Epicurus's philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

I hope I don't sound tedious on this point

Hey, as they say, "the Devil's in the details." All good points.

I agree there's a big difference between innate faculties and innate concepts. We are not born with innate concepts of house, human, horse, justice or οίκος, άνθρωπος, 'ιππος, δίκαιος and then map reality to those innate concepts. Research doesn't support that. Epicurus doesn't seem to me to support that.

I will say language acquisition in children is miraculous to behold! I can see how some may have come up with a theory that we "re-discover" language because it is so magical to behold. It may be interesting to note that research has discovered that babies naturally produce every phoneme that human language uses and those that are not phonemically significant for their parents first language will be weeded out. We gradually learn to see that animal as a horse and not a 'ιππος or Pferd depending if our parents are English or American or Greek or German.

We also don't have some kind of innate Platonic Horse Form against which we compare our sensory input. It's simply the baby's constant reinforcement of "That's a horsie." Points. "Orsy!" "No, that's a cat." "Orsy!" "No, that is a dog." "Horsy!" "Right, that's a horsy! Oh, pretty horsy." I find it hard to think that Epicurus endorsed an innate horse-template to "measure" our sensory input against. But, you're right, I think I've read that sort of thing as some saying that's what prolepseis are.

I need to go back and read Laertius description of the Canon and Sedley's paper on On Nature Book 28 on language.

As for the "fourth leg," my jury is still out that there's any 4th leg at all. I'm still not entirely convinced that Laertius's "Epicureans" weren't qualifying the prolepseis or expanding the explanation of prolepseis. I also need to dig back into DeWitt's paper.

The translation is:

"Now in The Canon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and preconceptions and our feelings are the standards of truth ; the Epicureans generally make perceptions of mental presentations44 to be also standards."

Note 44 in Perseus read: Such mental pictures are caused by atoms too fine to affect sense : cf.§ 64infra; Lucr. ii. 740 sqq., iv. 722 sqq. ; Cic. N.D. i. 54. On the whole subject consult Usener's Epicurea, Fr. 242-265, and, more especially, Sext. Emp. Adv. math. vii. 203-216.

Usener Fragments 242-265 are available on Attalus's site: http://www.attalus.org/translate/epicurus2.html#us2

Especially pertinent here seems to be 255-259.

This isn't a simple topic by any means, but it is an important one. I'm enjoying the digging in!

Quote from Cassius

"Would or did Epicurus himself wish to use the literary device of casting the mind or soul out into space? It seems to me that modern writers now universally seem to agree that he did so, which DeWitt points out would be contrary to one of the most fundamental physical premises of the philosophy -- that the mind/soul is absolutely connected and tied to the body and cannot be separated from it.

Oh, I have no problem with the "literary device," and there's no need to postulate some kind of "out of body" experience. For me, this simply means imagination or thought-experiments or thinking deeply about the cosmos, atoms, void, etc. out there. That's just what astrophysicists and theoretical physicists do now. Even Einstein was famous for his thought experiments. If you're saying there are commentators that put forward some kind of soul travel outside the body... Yeah, that makes no sense.

Eikadistes I think you're into something. Here's my take from a little while back on PD24:

Post

PD24 - Commentary and Translation of PD 24

Principal Doctrine 24 (PD 24) is one of the more convoluted doctrines with multiple phrases and conjunctions. I would like to provide some commentary and break the doctrine down into manageable words and phrases for everyone to get a more coherent understanding of what Epicurus was communicating. You may also want to take a look at this doctrine’s page on the Epicurus Wiki:

First the original text:

[…]

Now, let’s break it down before we put it all back together. I’ll provide a (mostly) literal…

Don

September 2, 2020 at 11:56 PM

DeWitt wrote a whole paper on this specific topic.Epicurus On Impressions of the Mind.pdf

Ex.

Post

RE: Anticipations - Justice & Divine Nature

[…]

I completely understand where you're coming from. However, the "blank slate" idea, while a popular and long-standing theory, has been well debunked. There is a lot of fascinating research on babies and toddlers.

[…]

Excellent observation! This sense - anticipation - of "justice" or "fairness" has been observed in monkeys as well. I think I've posted elsewhere on there forum on this, but the one that comes to mind is the experiment where two monkeys are given a task and rewarded with a…

Don

August 16, 2021 at 7:40 AM

I go back to babies, monkeys, chimps, etc al exhibiting displays of "fairness" (or however one describes it) as being manifestations of an innate sense or prolepseis of "justice." I don't think they can be acculturation in relation to babies. The utility of "fairness" might be learned, but the sense of fairness is innate.