Display MoreDisplay Moreαὔριον εἰς λιτήν σε καλιάδα, φίλτατε Πείσων,
ἐξ ἐνάτης ἕλκει μουσοφιλὴς ἕταρος,
εἰκάδα δειπνίζων ἐνιαύσιον: εἰ δ᾽ ἀπολείψεις
οὔθατα καὶ Βρομίου χιογενῆ πρόποσιν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἑτάρους ὄψει παναληθέας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπακούσῃ
Φαιήκων γαίης πουλὺ μελιχρότερα:
ἢν δέ ποτε στρέψῃς καὶ ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα, Πείσων,
ἄξομεν ἐκ λιτῆς εἰκάδα πιοτέρην.Translation?
Hope to see you next time!
It's just Philodemus' poem/invitation to Piso for the Twentieth. 
Philodemus: Epigrams - translation
(11.44)
A joyous Twentieth to all!
(I was out doing yard work this morning and time got away from me. I came in all sweaty and unpresenable at precisely 12:30!!)
αὔριον εἰς λιτήν σε καλιάδα, φίλτατε Πείσων,
ἐξ ἐνάτης ἕλκει μουσοφιλὴς ἕταρος,
εἰκάδα δειπνίζων ἐνιαύσιον: εἰ δ᾽ ἀπολείψεις
οὔθατα καὶ Βρομίου χιογενῆ πρόποσιν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἑτάρους ὄψει παναληθέας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπακούσῃ
Φαιήκων γαίης πουλὺ μελιχρότερα:
ἢν δέ ποτε στρέψῃς καὶ ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα, Πείσων,
ἄξομεν ἐκ λιτῆς εἰκάδα πιοτέρην.
In looking closer, that phrase can't be (in the manuscript) μετά καλού...(bottom line above). What we (writ large) have been using as μετά has no ε in it but looks like a η. Also, that letter above the line doesn't appear to be a τ. The same shape, down to the line to the right is also in VS2, which is PD1, where the word below is ουδεν .
So, on a cursory glance that word looks less like μετά and something like μηνα? μήνα being maybe genitive/accusative singular of μήνας "month"?? Then maybe καλη?? The feminine nominative singular of καλος?
Admittedly, I'm looking at words in isolation out of context. That said, I personally like to try to stick to the manuscript text if at all possible, especially when it's as well preserved like the Vatican Sayings are and not filled with lacunae like the P.Herc's.
This is all blue-skying it right now. Doing my usual muddying the waters.
And if you go back to our discussion at the start of this thread: remember that παιωνος "triumph song" doesn't appear in the manuscript. It's πλειονος.
Comments please.
I've come across the following post questioning the attribution of VS 47 to Epicurus himself: VS 47" I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well."
Right. It's attributed to Metrodorus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrodoru…%29?wprov=sfla1
I am wondering if it literally says "spitting contempt on life" or what exactly it said?
Yes. I believe προσπτυσαντες conveys literally spitting upon.
Another curiosity of this VS is that it's Metrodorus writing and not Epicurus.
Fwiw...
136] [Epicurus] differs from the Cyrenaics with regard to pleasure. They do not include under the term the pleasure which is a state of rest (καταστηματικὴν katastematiken), but only that which consists in motion (ἐν κινήσει en kinesei). Epicurus admits both ; also pleasure of mind as well as of body (ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος), as [Epicurus] states:
why a basic formulation such as "...we call pleasure the beginning and end of the happy life) might occur in the letter to Menoeceus
From my Menoikeus paper:
A short digression is now in order to examine that phrase ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος "the foundation and fulfillment, the beginning and end." Often, this is simply translated as "the beginning and the end" as if there's a starting line and a finish line. This is much deeper than that, although the running of a race could be one metaphor that could used. Let's first look at the word ἀρχὴν (accusative of ἀρχή).
ἀρχή (arkhē)
English archeology "study of beginnings/origins" but also the -archy in monarchy, patriarchy, etc.
ᾰ̓ρχή carries the meaning of beginning, origin, foundation, the farthest point. It even took on the meaning of "the corners of a sheet" by the time the New Testament was being written (Acts 10:11). It also had the connotation of the "beginning of power" residing in a ruler, the "most important person" in a kingdom. It carries the idea of a foundational element or first principle. The alpha (first letter of the Greek alphabet) to τέλος's omega (the last letter of the Greek alphabet) which is how Hicks translated them.
τέλος (telos) carries the meaning of endings, the goal, completion, maturity, result, fulfillment, consummation. Where αρχή is the foundation, τέλος is the highest point. The definition of τέλος in LSJ is extensive!
Αρχή is not quite as long but gives the nuance we're working with.
Therefore, to translate ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος as "beginning and end" (every other translation I've seen except Hicks) misses a lot of deeper meaning. This phrase is one that I highly recommend giving more attention to in one's personal translation or at least being aware of when reading. We miss so much by not examining Epicurus's words. Always go back to the texts!
Thanks for the thoughtful opening post. Welcome aboard!
If you're interested in a deep dive into the letter to Menoikeus (my transliteration of his Greek name), I'll offer my translation and commentary available here: Epicurus's Letter to Menoikeus - A New Translation with Commentary
"Invisible atoms and their wakes" sounds more like Heraclitus' flux than Epicurus' atomism.
Bryan : Are you referring to dark matter?
As far as "seeing" atoms, it depends on your definition of "see":
And
Photographing a Single Atom | David Nadlinger
But
Before getting into the details of the science behind all this, one particular misconception that has cropped up in the search for sensationalist headlines should be addressed:
Is this an advance in science? Have single atoms been photographed before?
In short: Not in the least; and yes, probably even before I was born.
No argument there! Plenty of rabbit holes.
Welcome aboard and thank you for the fascinating initial post!
I looked at Brene Brown's "87 Emotions & Experiences" chart, and found it to be overly complicated, and would personally use different labels for things, and would classify things differently. But everyone finds things that resonate depending on their own framing.
I personally would recommend sticking with a smaller number of words and focusing on levels of intensity rather than trying to find fancy words for things.
Just for the record I'm not a Brene Brown groupie or fan; however, I did find her idea (well, not her idea but the one she talked about) of emotional granularity interesting. This is another chart for honing in on emotional granularity - I would characterize it as identifying more precisely what one is feeling:
I certainly see where you're coming from with "sticking with a smaller number of words and focusing on levels of intensity," but I can see how having a word for a specific feeling could be helpful. It sounds like you would advocate for maybe the 10 categories at the top of those boxes and then decide how intense they're being felt which would then lead to more focused appropriate reactions to those feelings. Anything that gets us to be more aware of what our feelings are (starting, of course, with pleasure and pain) can't be a bad thing in the end.
Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's work on "constructed emotion" may be applicable to bring up here as well:
FWIW Brene Brown's Atlas of the Heart provides a look at emotional granularity:
Our ability to accurately recognize and label emotions is often referred to as emotional granularity. In the words of Harvard psychologist Susan David, “Learning to label emotions with a more nuanced vocabulary can be absolutely transformative.”
Remember, it's specifically stated in the letter to Herodotus by Epicurus:
"To begin with, nothing comes into being out of what is non-existent." πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι οὐδὲν γίνεται ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος
Whether it's atoms or quantum fields, those are still existent things. Things don't spring up out nothing by the will of the gods.
The current dominant interpretation in theoretical physics is far closer to Heraclitus’ flux
Fascinating! Does this mean that we as Epicureans would be wise to align ourselves with modern scientific understanding, adopt this view as the most probable explanation, and ditch the Epicurean view on static atoms and void?
Both are true. Neither don't necessarily adequately fully describe our lived experience.
There certainly appear to be such things as atoms and subatomic particles.
There certainly appear to be such things as quantum fluctuations in quantum fields.
My take on the "Epicurean perspective" has always been simply: We live in a physical, natural, material universe governed by knowable laws (well, eventually knowable!) that needs no supernatural intervention to come into being or to function.
Whether one focuses on the quantum level or the atomic level or the biochemical level, the Epicurean perspective holds.
