Posts by Don

Quote from Matt

There may have been more division of societal classes that Caesar did not observe.

Do I remember the scholarly class having Bards, Ovates, and Druids?

Quote from Matt

I’ve always found the Druids fascinating.

For even Julius Caesar to give them grudging respect means they must have been badass! It certainly appears their knowledge was vast.

Quote from Cassius

So Michele modern Italian poetry is now like English in being based to some extent on rhyme rather than so much on "meter"? Probably my question is naive but I don't perceive the structure of the Latin verse to be at all similar to modern poetry - at least English.

Greek and Latin poetry was ALL about the meter/rhythm: da da DUM da da DUM da da DUM. That's one of the reasons you get phrases like "the wine dark sea" and "divine Achilles" and "the sons of Atreus" ( all in Greek, of course!) It gave the poet or rhapsode a huge stock of standard phrases he could plug into his lines when he needed a specific meter maintained. If you needed five feet when Achilles came up and not three (A-chil-les)* you stuck in divine. Same with Odysseus, he could be crafty, devious, many-faceted, depending on the meter you needed.

Rhyme didn't play a roll. In Anglo-Saxon poetry we get great alliteration plus meter but I don't think the Greeks or Romans used alliteration but I could be mistaken in that.

*Just to be clear, I realize we're talking Αχιλλεύς/Αχιληος here. I was going the easy route and just using his English name

Bryan , I suspected Ranieri's recitation was technically almost perfect. He's very enthusiastic on his channel about vowel length and elision being so important to the meter of of poetry. I think one of the reasons this is somewhat "robotic" is because it was meant to demonstrate the consistent meter of the poem for the https://www.paideiainstitute.org/ as a teaching tool. He has several pop songs, Disney tunes, and others translated into Latin on his channel that are a hoot

Quote from Matt

for by such doctrine alone, they say, which robs death of all its terrors, can the highest form of human courage be developed.

It's not Epicurean by any means (you mention "Pythagorean" in fact), but it's their way of saying "Death is nothing to us!" For a people that were known to have gone into battle naked with slicked-back spiky hair accompanied by the bellowing sounds of the carnyx war-horns, they had to convince themselves that death held no sting. I've always had a soft spot for the Celts and the druids and thought it a shame we had to rely on Roman and Greek textual sources. But as I understand the druids were distrustful of writing and demanded their students memorize their vast corpus of oral texts. Not unlike Epicurus encouraging his students to memorize texts to have them close at hand when needed.

For those who want to hear the original Latin, here is Luke Ranieri (Scorpio Martianus) reading from Book 3.

I find myself using the word "materialistic" several times in the podcast. I want to be clear that I mean "material" in the sense of not supernatural. I don't mean anything like "materialistic" in the sense of acquiring possessions, etc. Just wanted to be sure everyone knows I'm using this sense:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialistic (def. 2)

Quote from JJElbert

Fascinating! Abiqur is, apparently, the Arabization of 'Epicurus'.

Looks like you are correct:

https://archive.org/details/Arabic…ge/n15/mode/2up

Quote from Don

But I highly encourage you to listen to the end.

Oh, I just wanted to add, Cassius , that when I said the above, I meant "I highly encourage y'all" so I didn't want you to think I was ordering you around!

Quote from Cassius

Thank you I will listen to that ....

Also, I think this is the appropriate time to restate what I think ought to be implicit, but maybe not:

I think when Epicurus argues that "justice" does not exist in the air, he is not saying that the issues involved aren't of vital importance to the people involved, or that we should hold back from taking forceful, even "extreme," action to try to stop or resolve circumstances that we find painful. He's not saying that the red-heads should not defend themselves, or that we who presumably would be pained by their elimination (for whatever reason - they're our friends, they are us, or we just don't like the idea of eliminating anybody) should not take strong action to defend them.

He's simply saying that when we act to defend the red-heads, we should be clear that we are doing so because we ourselves are impelled to do so by our "feelings" (or however we want to describe that). What we're NOT doing is because we are impelled to by some force of "natural justice" that was instituted by the gods, or which exists as somewhere as a platonic or aristotelian absolute.

I think it's necessary to make this point regularly because we would not be being "heartless" to follow these last ten PD's to their logical conclusion, we would just be being "clear-sighted" when we realize that it's up to US to vindicate our viewpoints.

And to me, that has a much more forceful value than thinking that there is some kind of universal "justice" that can somehow defend itself, or that somehow motivates every human being if we just somehow can find a way to bring it to the surface. As I read it, Epicurus is emphasizing that those things DON'T exist, and that if we want to truly respect our feelings and follow them, then we'll ourselves take action, to the best of our ability, to see that the red-heads (this example) are protected.

Display More

Agreed... Although that doesn't mean I'm not still grappling with the implications.

Lisa Feldman Barrett hits these exact points at the end of that episode, too.

Quote from Cassius

Oops I need to ask this Don -- skip how many minutes?

She starts at 2:36

I'm not sure if I agree with all your conclusions but don't have any strong arguments at this time.

I wanted to share the most recent podcast I listened to with Lisa Feldman Barrett:

https://www.tenpercent.com/podcast-episod…man-barrett-336

It's a Buddhist podcast, so skip the first could minutes if you like... But I highly encourage you to listen to the end. I think it connects directly to our discussion here.

She and the host talk about parallels with her research and Buddhist Abhidharma. But I still contend there are strong parallels between her research and Epicurean philosophy.

Enjoy if you get the chance to listen and post if you see parallels too especially in the social aspect they discuss at the end.

That brings up a question: Is there a "natural" agreement among humans to neither harm nor be harmed, or does that have to be mutually agreed upon?

I'm thinking if a culture/society/community made a law that it was legal to kill people with red hair, would that law then be just for that society? It would be legal, but would it be just for members of that society?

My answer would be "no, it is not just" because a red-haired person would constantly live in fear of harm. That's what I'd say Epicurus meant by justice is the same for all people ... But what does he mean when he says if circumstances change. We're back to mutual benefit then. The red-hair murder law does not mutually benefit those with red hair in that society.

I'm not saying any of this is easy, but I do think Epicurus gave us a framework and some basic criteria to decide if acts were just. Why else would he bother to talk about living justly etc. if there was no way to know what that meant.

Quote from Bryan

justice must be created, it does not just float around and therefore without us fabricating it by mutual agreement it will not be around at all.

I like the way you wordsmithed that!

Quote from Cassius

Maybe that last part is the key point. Is Epicurus talking about justice using his own terminology? As with gods, how much of the outside terminology is he accepting?

I think like gods, he's boiling down the definition to its most basic essence. Gods = blessed and uncorruptible ones; justice = neither harm nor be harmed. People may embellish those definitions but almost everyone could agree on those boiled down definitions.

Are the gods blessed and uncorruptible beings?

Yes, but they're also...

Wait, wait! Not so fast! That's enough.

Is it just to not harm nor be harmed.

Yes, but it's also...

Wait! Wait! That'll do.

Quote from Cassius

ok but suppose the two people involved in rhd murder hypothetical were on a desert island totally isolated from all organized communities or other people entirely? Would self defense then still be a matter of "justice"? Now clearly it is desirable / proper under Epicurean texts, but the question is must Epicurean justice be a matter of "society"?

Epicurean justice or civilized behavior appears to me to be entirely contextual between human beings existing in a community of any size.

Have the two castaways agreed on any ground rules? Or are they bound by the laws of the society from which they sailed? Those are the questions that would need answering.

You can have a "community" (what you call "society") of two people I'd say as long as they've agreed on an agreement on how to coexist on the island. If they cannot agree or decide not to agree, then maybe "civilized behavior" isn't an appropriate frame for their interaction.

Quote from Cassius

Ok maybe where I am going is back in the direction of "examples.". Is protecting oneself from a murderer something that comes under the heading of " justice " at all?

Quote from Cassius

I think most pple today would say that it does. Are you saying Epicurus would not (say that self-protection involving harm to the aggressor) because that does not fall under the category of justice?

To the first question:

Yes.

You are protecting yourself from being harmed. I believe Epicurus would say, if possible, make decisions that don't put yourself in a situation in which you can be harmed. But, if chance does put you there, it is natural for you to not want to be harmed.

Eschewing the word "justice", I would fall back on δίκαιος's sense of "civilized behavior." Self-defense is justified under "Neither βλάπτειν nor βλάπτεσθαι."

I guess that also sort of addresses question #2.

I think it's also significant that Epicurus does not use to wilful wrong (ἀδικεῖν)

In your scenario, the burglar has initiated an unjust act in going against the laws of the community (I'm assuming there are laws against burglary and murder in this hypothetical society especially if it's our own). The potential victim is protecting themselves from harm.

As for definitions of harm let's let Epicurus speak for himself. He says specifically in several KDs:

μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι.

Neither βλάπτειν nor βλάπτεσθαι.

βλάπτειν

Infinitive of βλάπτω

to disable,to hinder

to harm, to hurt, to damage

βλάπτεσθαι

middle/passive infinitive of βλάπτω

which refers the action/benefit back to oneself

That's where the "don't be harmed" comes from.

Here's the LSJ for βλάπτω for full context:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…7:entry=bla/ptw And http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…8:entry=bla/ptw

Mea culpa on the Atticus

I agree generally with your post; however, I think Epicurus's "don't harm; don't be harmed" is a "general rule" BUT only meaningful in context. It's not an absolute or Platonic ideal but it is a criteria against which to decide "just" actions for society... just like the Canon is a criteria against which to decide actions for the individual. As he says injustice is not bad itself but its effects are what are used to decide. Breaking society's agreement - at its most basic "don't harm; don't be harmed" - upsets the individual's ability to live pleasurably and upsets the community's ability to provide for an environment conducive to living pleasurably.