New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
I note you used the term "naturally-occurring phenomenon" rather than "pleasure" - but do we agree that "pleasure" or "the feeling of pleasure" is the ultimate meaning of the reference?
Yes, The "feeling of pleasure" *is* the "naturally-occurring phenomenon." Living things feel pleasure. I'll try to get to your other questions soon.
“That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about {a jibe at the Peripatetics}, prating meaninglessly about the good.”
So right there, Epicurus defines "good" as "that which produces a jubilation" (I would like to see some alternative translations there.).Simple, straightforward, pegged to a naturally-occurring phenomenon. He's chastising the "strollers" for adding on unnecessary complications on what should be a straightforward definition. Epicurus seems to have always gone for the most basic definition of words.
Also, here (emphasis added):
67. I do not think I could conceive of the good without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω τἀγαθὸν ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονάς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀφροδισίων, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀκροαμάτῶν, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφῆς κατʼ ὄψιν [those by way of shapes and along with vision] ἡδείας κινήσεις [pleasing motion].
τἀγαθὸν "the good" is the same word used in the Tetrapharmakos.
I think that's what Epicurus was pointing to and those who insist on pegging a single abstract concept as "the good" are going to forever be at war with Nature and with Epicurus.
Hmmm. Epicurus equated pleasure (or living a pleasurable life) with the "good", ex., 3rd line in the Tetrapharmakos. Lucretius's summum bonum is just the "greatest good." The "good" is just that to which everything else points (again, using an English word for an ancient concept). The difference is the experience of pleasure isn't an abstract concept... Even though the word "pleasure" attempts to capture that lightning in a bottle. The problem isn't that other philosophies point to a "good" (they all do that, including Epicurus) it's that other philosophies ground their goal or "good" in something other than Nature. Virtue is the "good" of the Stoics, but Epicurus says they strive for their "good" just because "being virtuous" brings them pleasure. Aristotelians find their "greatest good" in the philosophical, contemplative life... Because it gives them pleasure.
Or are we saying the same thing different ways, Cassius ?
One of the issues, from my perspective, that the article doesn't address is the simple fact that "happiness" is an English word. They almost start to address it with the Danish hygge but then rapidly move one. If you ask people whose first language is not English to map their non-English subjective experience to the lexical field of English, you have problems. They're going to pick a "feeling" for which they might use a specific word in their language and then agree to use the English word "happiness" to describe it. I bet that if you asked those Japanese respondents what Japanese word they'd use to describe their "happiness" you'd find a much different semantic field covered than an English speaker saying they were "happy."
Which brings me back to my soapbox of translation (C'mon! Y'all knew that was coming 
). Epicurus didn't use the word "happiness" but ευδαιμονία (eudaimonia). That's why I think it's so important to understand what he meant when he used that word - what semantic field was covered by the Ancient Greek term ευδαιμονία. To say it maps one to one to happiness or well-being or flourishing... Well, you can see right there that there are three English candidates.
Great find! There's another book to add to my infinite list 
This dovetails with Lisa Feldman Barrett's work, too (from my perspective)
This is impressive, Eikadistes !
I'll admit I was initially skeptical of the medieval and modern Epicureans, but, upon further consideration, they/we are part of the continuum.
I find it disappointing that we can't have an "apostolic" succession stretching back to antiquity. However, although the flame of the Epicurean tradition was *almost* snuffed out by the Triumph of Christianity, an ember smoldered long enough for a fire to be rekindled.
Thank you for this outstanding compilation of the history of the philosophy! Nice work!
Don is there a graphic in that first post in this thread that is referenced as "this is what we're up against"? Maybe it's just me who is not seeing it some reason but that would be strange if true. Could we try reposting it?
I was nearly disturbed to have come across the following anecdote:
a contemporary Epicurean would enjoin the truth-seeker to Be Here Now and Pay Attention.” (Mills, Epicurean Simplicity 22)
"Epicurean" has meant so many things to so many people
I don't have a major problem with the idea that an Epicurean practice could include "mindfulness" or other exercise to get us to "pay attention" to our lives. That could make us better choosers and avoiders...
BUT to equate that to the woo of Ram Dass or other Eastern philosophies writ large, that goes down the syncretism road and is not helpful.
quare religio pedibus subiecta vicissim
opteritur, nos exaequat victoria caelo.
My take is that Epicurus's "victory" is he is the first person (per Lucretius) to show how the superstitious fear of the gods is unnecessary and life-denying. Religion keeps us in bondage. By his victory, religion is trod underfoot and ground away (opteritur). His victory frees us from the shackles of religion, giving us the ability to be level with the heavens just as Epicurus cast his thoughts to the heavens and beyond to gain a wider perspective on the way things are
And so Religion, which we feared before, by him subdued, we tread upon in turn
That's an interesting turn there I hadn't noticed. That is saying Epicurus subdued religion, then we tread upon it in turn. Hmmm. Not sure if that's supported in the Latin but interesting nonetheless.
Yeah, I see no 1st person plural "we tread". All the verbs in those phrases appear to be 3rd person singular he/she/it.
And so Religion, which we feared before, by him subdued, we tread upon in turn
That's an interesting turn there I hadn't noticed. That is saying Epicurus subdued religion, then we tread upon it in turn. Hmmm. Not sure if that's supported in the Latin but interesting nonetheless.
Don I wonder whether you've ever seen The Browning Version? I love the 1994 production with Albert Finney. The film is set in an English boarding school (I think?) and the background of the main plot deals heavily with translation, as the title implies.
I have not!! Thanks for the tip!
Aequor would be a noun adapted by metonymy from the adjective aequus, no?
The fact that you just used metonymy in casual conversation thrills my heart btw
That looks to be a separate but related word: aequor
Aequor would be a noun adapted by metonymy from the adjective aequus, no? And aequo the same word as a verb.
That's my take. All related but distinct words with their own connotations. Sorry. I love digging in the weeds of language!
In the Hymn to Venus "Aequora Ponti" is usually translated "waves [i.e. surface] of the sea
That looks to be a separate but related word: aequor http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…Aentry%3Daequor
Esp., the even surface of the sea in its quiet state, the calm. smooth sea (“aequor mare appellatum, quod aequatum, cum commotum vento non est,” Varr. L. L. 7, § 23 Müll.: quid tam planum videtur quam mare? ex quo etiam aequor illud poëtae vocant, Cic. Ac. Fragm. ap. Non. 65, 2 (cf. πόντου πλάξ, Pind. P. 1, 24).— Also, in gen., the sea, even when agitated by storms, Lucr. 1, 719: “turbantibus aequora ventis,”
And since Lucretius puts nos first, maybe the emphasis should be on us, accusative or not. My understanding is that the first word is used to denote emphasis.
Exaequat is an interesting verb and had some intriguing connotations.
Perseus parses it as a "verb 3rd sg pres ind act" which would be "it X's"
Nos can be nominative (subject) or accusative (direct object), so we or us. Since the verb is 3rd person singular, it almost has to be "us" here, doesn't it? Wouldn't "we are raised/equal" be "nos exaequamus"?
The verb had the basic definition of "To make even or level or equal with any thing"
So, I'm getting (with my literal rudimentary Latin):
"By (the) victory, it makes us level to/with the sky." ?
Aequo = level, equal
PS:
If my parsing is right, I'm slightly annoyed by translators changing the active to a passive construction. It seems to take the importance or agency away from the victory of trampling religion underfoot. Consider the different feeling of:
It makes us equal...
We are made equal...
The second takes the emphasis away from the trampling; however, should the emphasis be on the trampling (it) or on the beneficiary of the trampling (us)? Maybe it's just poetic license as to what the translator wants to highlight? Does it make a significant difference in interpretation in English?
As for the line numbers i will probably go to my grave never being happy with a numbering system. I've taken lately to using the Loeb numbers and I kept all this designated at under line 62 because Loeb doesn't give another line number until 80.
I hear you! And I didn't mean to be pedantic Just in case someone was looking at their own copy and thinking "Hmm, why don't I see that on line 62???"
vicissim seems to be just "on that other hand, in turn, etc" http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…:entry=vicissim
opteritur appears to be "wear away, to tread upon, etc." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…%3Aentry%3Dtero
I see no terror or fear in those specific lines. That seems to be editorializing. Understandable editorializing, but not in the Latin.
You're right, Cassius , that is a good line!
FYI: I noticed in the Perseus Latin edition, it's line 78-79.
I fully agree with your take on religion vs superstition.
Those translations of various permutations of "we are raised to heaven by victory" or, worse, "His conquest makes us equal to the Gods" bother me. It smacks of the supernatural. Lucretius's "caelo" is just the dative of caelum which is the "the sky, heaven, the heavens, the vault of heaven (in Lucr alone more than 150 times)."
I don't think it can be anything to do with the Gods because the Epicurean gods "reside" in the Intermundia, not the heavens. They are beyond the "vault of the heavens." The "vault of heaven" is just the sphere/bowl that surrounds/covers the Earth that has the stars, planets, etc.
Leonard's translation at Perseus reads:
Wherefore Religion now is under foot,
And us his victory now exalts to heaven.
If you exalt someone to "high heaven" it's just a metaphor for "raising the roof" as it were. Those translation seem to imply a supernatural connotation. I think Lucretius is just saying "Let the bells rings out and the banners fly! Woohoo!! We are victorious! Religion has no power over us!!"
