Posts by Don

First, I'd suggest this one for current calculations:

http://www.numachi.com/~ccount/hmepa/

For the date in 341 BCE, I'd be skeptical of any exact date. Trying to align the Olympiads and the lunar cycles of any Ancient calendar is fraught with complications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_calendar?wprov= Gamelion, the month of his birth according to Laertius, falls in January to February:

"And he was born as we are told by Apollodorus, in his Chronicles, in the third year of the hundred and ninth Olympiad, in the archonship of Sosigenes [342/1 B.C.], on the seventh day of the month Gamelion [January/February], seven years after the death of Plato.

Mea culpae! I misstated a couple things in this episode. Let me correct:

The Theban War that Lucretius refers to appears to be NOT the Spartan/Theban War I referenced. Since he talks about the Trojan War and the Theban War the latter would be the "Seven Against Thebes" conflict referred to in the Iliad and in the cycle of Greek plays on Oedipus and his children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Against_Thebes This makes sense since that was would be in the heroic past just like the Trojan War.

#2: I said Phoebus referred to Apollo when we discussed Phaeton and the chariot of the Sun. That wasn't quite right either. Phoebus was an epithet of Apollo (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios?wprov=sfla1 ) but also "Helios is sometimes identified with Apollo: "Different names may refer to the same being," Walter Burkert observes, "or else they may be consciously equated, as in the case of Apollo and Helios." So, I wasn't entirely wrong, but I thought this clarification was important.

That is a beautiful book, Joshua !

I sincerely wish you all the best in your efforts to not pick up smoking again.

This one posits (political) reasons

https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/Lette…cember_21,_1857

but that appears to be as much conjecture as the title to P Herc 1005 (ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ....)

That quote's in a letter from Marx to LaSalle evidently.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2709662?seq=1

For anyone not familiar with Aldus, here's a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldus_Manutius?wprov=sfla1

Quote from Cassius

A likely guess is that they consider that when they include the Stoics they're implicitly including Epicurus, since "every knows" Epicurus was basically an ascetic like the Stoics (and the rest of the Greeks), but with a flair for using words in creative ways!

I wish it was that. I suspect no one has written a popular enough Epicurean self help book for her to invite on to the podcast.

https://www.happinesslab.fm/happiness-less…isode-9-lao-tzu

I'm posting this for two reasons:
1) I found the mention of Daoist "belly wisdom" striking in its similarity to Epicurus's emphasis on the belly/stomach. Not saying it's equivalent, but intriguing in similar terminology. Overall, an interesting podcast.
2) I was disappointed that Dr. Santos' mini series included Aristotle and the Stoics as representatives of ancient Greece with no mention of Epicurus. Although, maybe that's for the best. No mention is better than ascetism mentions.

https://www.resources.soundstrue.com/transcript/sol…e-tao-te-ching/ I haven't listened to this but saw in the description: "We talked about belly knowing versus intellectual knowing." That sounds Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

Don you are actually or effectively a professional researcher. Do you have experience with Zotero?

Unfortunately, I don't have any personal experience with Zotero, although I've known people that speak highly of it.

I save all my PDFs of articles in Google Drive. That way they're synced across my computer or smart phone. Admittedly, I do most of my reading of Academia articles or other PDFs on my Google Pixel 2.

You know I'm going to post the original Greek for all these at some point, right?

https://herculaneum.uk/Villa%20dei%20…apiri%20p07.htm

Looks like the Herculaneum Villa Epicurus bust with his name was dug up in 1753 according to this catalog of the sculptures found there.

Quote from JJElbert

So is this saying there was no identifiable portrait of Epicurus in the "modern" era before 1742? Or at least between the end of antiquity (400/500 CE?) and 1742?

Quote from Cassius

So what are you thinking was in the mind of the sculptors as to the purpose of this herm in particular

Quote from JJElbert

In other statues the twin figures are an old man and a youth; the key feature in all of these artistic expressions is the curious interplay of limitation and continuity.

Metrodorus, who would certainly have succeeded Epicurus had he survived him, represented continuity–the master/student relationship, the succession of the scholarchs, etc.

I like that interpretation.

That's great, Joshua ! Thanks for that summary. I just saw online that those sockets on the sides of herms were for attaching arms. Those holes have confused me for a long time.

Quote from Cassius

And I think that "IF" is the key. It's not necessary; Epicurus knows it's not necessary; we know it's not necessary; everyone knows it's not necessary -- so why say something that everyone knows to the point of the observation being trite?

If we find ourselves in a situation where we were to only have just enough food to satisfy our hunger, we can still find pleasure. I don't think it's trite at all to make that observation. It's not necessary to be an ascetic. Firmly agree with that. But we don't need opulence to find pleasure. If we have access to opulence, that's great! Enjoy!! Saying "everyone knows" doesn't mean everyone acknowledges or practices what they know as "common sense." It is one of the jobs of the philosopher - especially one as dedicated to making the lives of everyone more pleasurable as Epicurus did - to hold up a mirror to people to get them to examine how they are living their lives.

Seneca says that Epicurus "used to observe stated intervals" where he would sparingly eat to test how much was necessary to satiate his hunger **as an experiment**. This is most likely the genesis of the whole bread and water "myth."

Pointing out "childish" common sense strategies doesn't rule out the opportunity to declare and defend profound philosophical truths. Epicurus was fighting on two fronts: arguing against the Platonists etc al one the one hand, and providing practical guidance for everyday life to common people on the other.

The Letter to Menoikeus isn't meant to be a philosophical treatise arguing against Plato but a practical summary of ethical teachings to his student. I agree it's not meant as a step-by-step "to-do list" but it's not meant to be deciphered like some sort of philosophical code either. Epicurus's straightforward, clear writing style is meant to say what he meant. I agree people try to extrapolate principles into absolutes, and I don't think Epicurus was saying live in a cave. But I do think he encouraged people to examine how they were living their lives and if what they were doing actually brought pleasure. The categories were a helpful shorthand to jump start that examination.

Quote from Dewitt

Another catchword of Epicurus is "fullness." It was part of his teaching that a limit to the desires had been set by Nature; thus a normal appetite could easily be satisfied to the full. The consequence was that fullness of pleasure was attainable. In the aggregate it meant that the fullness of all wholesome pleasures was feasible within the limits of mortal life.

It seems like we're talking about two different things here in relation to this ill-conceived video. I agree that the bread and water visuals and commentary are way overdone. But Epicurus did say that, if it was necessary, he could get pleasure from a simple meal of bread and water. I do not think that he meant he lived on that alone at all times. But he was saying his hunger could be satisfied and he could find pleasure in that meal. Would he attend a banquet and drink wine? Of course! If the opportunity presented itself! But I believe he would still listen to his body's natural limit and not eat to the point of pain. A life's "fullness of pleasure" is related to this but not the exact same thing. As in Dewitt's quote above, There's both the natural limit of appetites before pain sets in and, "in the aggregate" a pleasurable life could contain the limit of pleasures.

I get the impression that the video uses the "incorrect portrait" of Epicurus from Raphael's The School of Athens at the beginning precisely because it portrays him as pudgy and indulgent, knowing full well that this is an incorrect view. They're talking there about the incorrect view of his philosophy, and so use that picture.

Quote from Cassius

It ought to be obvious (and would be if someone were aware of the Philebus argument) that the point of the limit is a LIFETIME limit, and not an "of the moment" limit. I dare say that "for the moment" anyone could be satisfied with greed or power or fame or any other of the clearly "unnecessary" pleasures, just like they can be satisfied with one hamburger "for the moment." But what about tomorrow, and the next day? More hamburgers! Same with water, or air, or bread!

OMG, people who wrote this video, don't you think Epicurus could see that too? The "satisfied for the moment" argument has no part in what Epicurus was teaching. The limit that is relevant and important is not "of the moment" but a "lifetime" limit, and the reason it is important is that it answers Plato's argument that pleasure has no limit, not that it drives us to a life of asceticism!

I think the video overemphasizes some things and misrepresents other things, but I'm not sure I completely disagree with the "in the moment" argument you're having such a visceral reaction to. The natural limit of hunger is when one is satiated. The natural limit of thirst is when you're hydrated. Indulging after those natural limits are reached will lead to pain: indigestion, nausea, etc.

On the other hand, there is no natural limit to "greed or power or fame." They are made-up concepts that have no natural limit. There is no level of satisfaction connected with those, therefore one can never find a natural limit. There is no such thing. That's why those desires are κενός "empty, vain, fruitless." By definition, they cannot be satisfied.

I fully agree that one's lifetime of pleasure needs to be taken into account, and that this involves making decisions to achieve living the most pleasurable life. However, there's something to also recognizing the natural limits in relation to pleasures in which you indulge. There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating caviar (if you like it!) and drinking champagne if the opportunity arises! Epicurus teaches this. But again if you overindulge - if you don't listen to your body and its natural limit - you're going to experience pain.

I admit I need to read Philebus but right now I'm not experiencing the degree of pain you're obviously experiencing from this video.

Which would seem to poke a hole in the Platonic or Stoic balloon...

Quote from Godfrey

gues that rationality is somewhat of an illusion since so much of the process occurs subconsciously through predictions, simulations, affect, etc.

Quote from Godfrey

I was going to make exactly that point. "Pre-rational concepts" are what I would consider to be the faculty as well as the "etchings."

Exactly! Thanks for that! That's what I was trying to get across.