Posts by Don

I wanted to add my two cents on the "self-generated" images. As soon as I heard that, I immediately thought of the idealist view of the gods. And I agree with Cassius that these "images" would spontaneously occur from particles at random. And these would arguably be so fine that they would only be perceived by the mind not the physical senses. I don't agree that he's talking about pictures we see in clouds. (*See addendum below)

I also think that Epicurus via Lucretius is adamant about receiving particles *from* bodies to contrast with other philosophers that said vision was possible by something coming from the viewer (like a flashlight).

Addendum: Finished the full episode: Now I'm not so sure about the self-begotten. On second hearing and doing some reading, it seems he might be talking about the images we see in clouds and how we may *see* giants et al but there aren't giants shedding their images for us to see. We are perceiving giants where none exist. This whole thing is more subtle than my perfunctory post let on. But I think it may still have wider implications. I'm going to delve into the Latin a little although I am woefully ill-equipped to say anything about that. Full disclosure there

Addendum 2: Checked Stallings, and, yeah, she does a good job of clearing up the ambiguity in the other translations. It's the faces in clouds. But in Loeb, it also references the section on centaurs and other mythological creatures. So there's more going on with the eidola/simulacra/images/idols here. Looks like an interesting ride coming up in DRN!

For various reasons, I'm reluctant to commit to any group projects in the near future. However, I am more than happy to share any progress on personal projects (On Piety, Letter to Menoikeus, Epicurean practices experiments, etc.).

Quote from Cassius

Thanks for reminding us of the upcoming birthday! Every year we go through this same issue. Let's make a new thread for this and talk about how to commemorate it.

I also posted this at facebook to see if the Greeks who check that page come up with a different calculation.

It looks like Takis and the Hellenion calendars corroborate each other.

So, January's 20th actually coincides with Epicurus's birthday on the 7th of Gamelion! That seems to be a significant coincidence (not cosmically but at least an interesting one).

Here's a corrected link for the Numachi site: http://www.numachi.com/~ccount/hmepa/calendars/699.html

[ADMIN EDIT: I will update this first post in this thread for what we conclude. I see Don calculates Jan 24, but last year Takis calculated January 20th, so it's not clear to me yet as I type this what the correct date should be.}

I went back and looked at a previous thread on Epicurus's birthday calculations and found this was the best source for Ancient > Modern calendar calculations:

http://www.hellenion.org/calendar/

So, Epicurus's birthday (7 Gamelion) "falls on" Thurs., Jan. 21 this year.

I realize trying to line up Ancient calendars with modern ones is a tricky business and involves some guesswork, but this one seems to use the best current scholarship (even though it's a neo pagan organization). I also found this particular calendar interesting in light of my recent delving into On Piety with its commentary on Epicurus's participation in all the festivals... which are noted on this calendar.

Even if only used for entertainment, enjoy!

*So, Takis and this calendar coincide:

Quote

7 Gamelion is "afternoon of 20 January until next afternoon 21 January."

Καλή χρονιά!! Happy New Year!

Carpe annum!

Quote from Godfrey

This is most interesting for me the bigger the time gap: a way to imagine how much information Diogenes of O or Diogenes L may have had regarding Epicurus. Some sense can be had based on what we know of Columbus, etc. Of course there are lots of differences but it's a nice visualization tool.

Exactly. It's easier to visualize how far away some people were to each other without the bother of the negative BCE dates then moving into CE dates. And we can more intuitively understand how far away they're from each other.

This idea grows out of those factoids like "The Egyptian Pyramids were as old to the Romans as the Romans are to us."

Quote from Cassius

So it simply says "be cheerful' or "in good cheer' and does NOT say "live your life"?

Right, as far as I can tell.

I also just realized that that's one of the "kinetic" pleasures along with χαρά:

Quote

ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται.

Quote from JJElbert

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2016/04/skeleton-mosaic-turkey/

Scrolling down that same page, I saw a link to this other interesting article!

That's great!

FYI the word at the skeleton's head is εὐφρόσυνος which translates literally as "In good cheer!"

Here's another link about the mural https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-fo…pic.php?t=64949

I've recently been intrigued by online timelines that translate historical dates into more relatable contemporary chronologies to get a better handle on context of historical figures. So, my little project today was putting some Epicurean history into our own timeline.

Since I'm more familiar with American history, I picked 1492 CE as Epicurus's birthdate and put everything in reference to that. So, for example, in 2020, Diogenes Laertius just turned 7 or 8 years old. It'll be awhile until her writes his Lives. I plan to expand this with more dates and people but thought I'd share the work in progress:

If Epicurus was born the year that Christopher Columbus "discovered" North America, then...

• Socrates (1363-1434)
  Democritus (b.1373)
• Plato (1405-1485)
  Aristotle (1449-1511)
  Pyrrho (1472-1562)
  Chrysippus (1483-1556)
  Epicurus (1492-1562)
  Zeno of Citium (1499-1571)
• Metrodorus of Lampsacus (1502-1556)
  Hermarchus (1508-1583)
• Apollodorus fl. mid-1600s (succeeded by Zeno as Scholarch of the Athenian Garden)
  Zeno of Sidon (1683-1758)
• Philodemus (1723-1798)
  Marcus Tullius Cicero (1727-1790)
  Titus Lucretius Carus (b. 1739-)
  Quintus Horatius Flaccus ("Horace") (1768-1825)
• Epictetus (1888-1968)
• Diogenes of Oenoanda (wall dated 1950 to 1990)
  Marcus Aurelius (1954-2013)
  Lucian of Samosata (1958-after 2013)
• Diogenes Laërtius (b. 2013) would now be around 8 years old. He will begin writing his famous Lives within the next 20-30 years.

And, just theorizing here, if there are an innumerable number of worlds in the cosmos with an innumerable number of beings that means there would potentially be an innumerable number of "blessed and incorruptible gods" "existing", potentially one for each being (if all the beings were Epicureans, of course).

I think Sedley's idea is that the gods are incorruptible since they're created out of mental images which can't be destroyed (until, of course, I'd say when the person holding that view of a god had died).

Quote from Godfrey

Don that Sedley sounds worth reading! Any idea what it's titled or where to find it?

I've seen it elsewhere, but it's explicitly in here on pp.51-2, last paragraph on 51. You can search "singular" to find it, too.

Matt is absolutely correct that the singular θεός (accusative sing. θεόν) http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…057:entry=qeo/s is used in a number of places in classical Epicurean texts just as the plural is used in other places. The singular should in no way make people think Epicurus or other writers were endorsing a monotheistic theology like Christianity, Judaism, etc. The capitalized God in translations is misleading.

The singular can also refer to "gods" in general or the concept of divinity.

One interesting idea in a Sedley essay (I *think*) I've read is that the singular was used to refer to each individual Epicurean's image of the divine. Each person creates their individual concept of a blessed and incorruptible "god" for themselves from the "images" available to him or her in their mind.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l…y=ei)/dwlon&i=1

Here's the Perseus entry (with links to LSJ and other dictionaries) for the original Greek term for Epicurus's "images".

I find it interesting that the term came to be used for "idols" of gods in the New Testament. They sound the same-ish: idol/eidōlon, but also that idols are "images" of the gods or reflections of them.

Matt , thank you for posting that! I was unaware of the terms apophatic and cataphatic. You raise some very interesting points and important personal anecdotes.

Obbink's notes on Matro

The following are excerpts and notes from columns 27-36 of Obbink's Philodemus On Piety which outline the participation of Epicurus himself and the early Epicureans in religious festivals and other rites and practices. Obbink also shared more detailed notes in his book, so I may try and share some of those pages in later posts. For now, the material below has proved quite interesting...

Quoted in col. 27, On Piety: Epicurus, On Gods (Περί θεών): as being both the greatest thing and that which excels in sovereignty possesses everything; for every wise man holds pure and holy beliefs (καθαράς και 'αγιους δόξας) about the divine (του θείου) and had understood that this nature [or 'this entity'] is great and august (και μεγάλην τε και σεμνην). And it is particularly at festivals (εορτή) that he, progressing to an understanding of it [ i.e. divine nature], through having its name the whole time on his lips, embraces it with conviction more seriously..."

Notes

σεμνός (< σεμνην)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…7:entry=semno/s

revered, august, holy

Col. 28/9: Epicurus wrote to Phyrson during the archonship of Aristonymus (289/8 BCE) about Physon's countryman from Colophon, Theodotus, Epicurus says that he (Epicurus) shared in all the festivals... Epicurus celebrated the festival of the Choes and the urban mysteries and the other festivals at a meagre dinner, and that it was necessary for him (prob. Theodotus) to celebrate this feast of the Twentieth for distinguished revelers, while those in the house decorated it most piously ('ολως) and after making invitations to host a feast for all of them.

Notes

For festivals, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthesteria

The Choes were part of this festival dedicated to Dionysus

The "urban mysteries" refer to the Attic Dionysia, either the Lenaea (in the month of Gamelion, Epicurus's birth month) or Lesser Mysteries during 20-6 Anthesteria, both in honor of Dionysus.

I find it interesting that the festivals mentioned were dedicated to Dionysus. It could just be coincidence that those are mentioned; or Athens had a lot of Dionysian festivals; or Epicurus had an affinity for Dionysian festivals or the god. No way to tell from what I've read so far.

Col. 29: Epicurus advised them to retain asservations made by means of these and similar expressions, and above all to preserve those made by Zeus himself (maintain the practice of swearing by Zeus by name νή Δία!)... Not merely "it must be so!"

Notes

So, Epicureans, feel free to pepper your writing and conversation with νή Δία! "By Zeus!"

Col. 30: during the archonship of Charinus (291/0 BCE) and that of Diotimus (285/4 BCE), Epicurus wrote letters warning against violating the covenant of the sacred festival table.

Notes

Much of these lines is reconstructed. Extant:

δε Χάρι...

Διοτίμ....

την κα[θ' ιεράς τρα-

πεζης [συνθήκην μη

παραβαί[νειν· καί

Col.31: Epicurus, in a letter to Polyaenus, writes: "(It is necessary for us) to conceive of their nature as accurately constituting the notion of benefit according to the epistemological standard (kriterion). Let us sacrifice to that gods devoutly and fittingly on that proper days, and let us fittingly perform all the acts of worship in accordance with the laws, in no way disturbing ourselves with opinions on matters concerning the most excellent and august of beings. Moreover, let us sacrifice justly, on the view that I was giving. For in this way it is possible for mortal nature, by Zeus, to live like Zeus, as it seems. And concerning obeisance (προσκυνήσεις) in [Epicurus's] On Lifecourses [Περί βίων]"

Notes

- devoutly and fittingly 'οσιως και καλως

- "in accordance with the laws (νόμους)" can also be translated as in accordance to custom" http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=no%2Fmos2

- obeisance (προσκυνήσεις) refers to "the custom of kneeling, prostration, or throwing kisses before statues of them gods or as marks of honor to important humans." Obbink recounts in the notes the story of Colotes embracing Epicurus's knees during a teaching session when Colotes was overcome with reverence toward his teacher.

Col. 32: Philodemus writes "statues of the gods Epicurus says that he reveres... ... he says that he employs observance in every natural conception of god taking up [one word missing] divinely [one word] to speak auspiciously."

Notes

- reveres = σέβομαι "to feel awe or fear before God, especially when about to do something disgraceful; to feel shame, religious awe"

- observance

- "natural conception of god" (της του δαιμονος επινοιας) Note we're using daimonos instead of theos here. Not sure why.

Col.33: Epicurus in a letter to Herodotus: "Even if there should be war, it would not be terrible, if the gods are propitious.

In a letter to Polyaenus: [Epicurus says he] has "lived and would continue to live a pure life with Matro himself, if the gods are propitious (same word as above)

Epicurus's brother and advanced student, Neocles, is quoted as saying: "it's is necessary to distribute piously assistance from our money for the gods" in writing to Phyrson (Phyrson decould be "a man second to none in political affairs.").

Notes

propitious (ἵλεων < ἵλαος propitious, gracious, merciful; kind, mild, gentle)

Matro: "i.e., Epicurus said that, if the gods were propitious, he would continue to live a pure life, Matro and all" Obbink has an extensive note on Matro. He was a παιδαγωγός paidagogos a slave-chaperone for students.

Neocles is literally said to have "achieved miraculous or marvelous (δαιμόνιον) advancement in his (Epicurus's) teachings") δαιμόνιον is the divine power, Deity, or in-dwelling spirit that also gives us the word eudaimonia and kakodaimonia. See also above in Column 32.

Columns 34 and 35 are very fragmentary, and I've commented on col. 36 previously.

Quote from Elayne

Whenever people start talking about piety, I feel a strong desire to goose them in the ribs. I feel like they are missing the point somehow. Metaphorically, they need a dose of a trickster god. Reality has too much of a ... playful feeling, maybe... for me to adopt piety as a goal. Imo there is enough humorousness in Epicurus' own words that I think he completely got that. Philodemus... I'm not so sure.

I generally agree with what you've posted, Elayne . I did want to say again (ad nauseum, mea culpa) that I think "piety" is SUCH a loaded word to use for ευσέβειας (eusebeia), the word the author (let's say Philodemus) of On Piety (let's call it ) uses in the text. Eusebeias is the "proper observation of tradition in relation to the gods." And Philodemus's text is an apologia of Epicurus's and the founders' eusebeias to counter those who would accuse them of acting otherwise. This was deadly business back then, so Philodemus is deadly serious.

I've read excerpts from some of Philodemus's other works (especially in Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus) and see echoes of Epicurus's style there. Likewise, some of Epicurus's quotes on On Piety sound like he took his eusebeias seriously, too, so context is important in these things, too.

Matt I think I see where you're coming from, but I had to react to your quote here:

Quote from Matt

In my opinion, a person accepting Epicurus and his theology is someone who is no longer seeking mysticism and is entirely comfortable with not really discussing the gods in any meaningful way.

I would probably agree with the first part. We aren't asked to become one with the Divine as in some forms of mysticism, but Epicurus and other texts do call us to emulate or even "imitate" (e.g., in On Piety) the gods. I'm still not sure what to do with that, although it seems I should continue to understand its significance. Which brings me to your second point.

The "not really discussing the gods in any meaningful way" point though strikes me as missing an opportunity in Epicurus's thought. The gods/divinity/theos was obviously a paramount concern of Epicurus. It's in the first Principal Truth. It's right at the start of the Letter to Menoikeus. Epicurus, the founders, Philodemus (or possibly Phaedrus) who wrote On Piety, etc., all wrote entire treatises on the right relation to and conception of the gods. The gods or divinity or "that which is blessed and imperishable" were obviously of grave concern to the classical Epicureans, and I maintain it behooves us to understand why. As modern people with a secular, scientific mindset, many of us (myself included) often disregard religious "superstition" or "mysticism", and Lucretius certainly lambasted religio as a source of evil. But, if we "sweep" the gods under the rug within Epicureanism, we run the risk of becoming cafeteria Epicureans, picking and choosing the tasty morsels only without understanding the work that went into the meal. Okay, I admit that I belabored that analogy to the breaking point And some may say "I'm just choosing and avoiding." But I think we run the risk of the modern Stoics when they sweep the quasi-religious Logos under the rug as almost an embarrassment. When someone brings it up, they obfuscate and rationalize and re-interpret the Logos away. I am coming to believe that Epicurus and the founders had a much more nuanced, complex, and sophisticated notion of the "divine" than the Stoics or other contemporaries had. A notion that wouldn't necessarily have to be shut up in a drawer or swept under the rug. That's "coming to believe" btw; I'm not there yet.

All that being said, I wasn't around when you were active before, and I welcome your perspective and participation! It's a pleasure to virtually meet you

Quote from Susan Hill

I’m afraid I have to essentially agree with Matt at this point. I have not found anything further that makes Epicurus’ theology more robust, integral, or informative to human life. He does not seem to have developed much by way of a praxis, so any further development would require comparison with other, possibly complementary theologies, or innovation. Epicureanism is missing the kind of in-depth philosophy of mind and consciousness that eastern schools have, so I do see anything like transcendence, moksha, or enlightenment being part of this package. I really think a mystic must look elsewhere..

Hi, @Susan Hill . It's good to see your posting. I would encourage you to take a look at some of the posts I've been making on Obbink's Philodemus On Piety if you're interested. There's more there than I expected. But I do hear what you're saying when you write "anything further that makes Epicurus’ theology more robust, integral, or informative to human life." A huge problem is that we have SO many texts missing. If we had all 30+ volumes of On Nature and Philodemus's library and... But *if*. And we don't.

I also concur with your desire for praxis. I believe we can infer some things. We know Epicurus encouraged memorization. And there are ways to memorize texts by study, recitation, copying/writing. I think all these would be acceptable Epicurean praxis. There's also keeping a Gratitude journal given the importance of gratitude in Epicureanism. I also don't see a contradiction in some mindfulness practices and Epicureanism. I think getting a better handle on your mind would increase one's ability to discern the proper path to pleasure and make better choices and rejections. It should also allow one to enjoy pleasure in the moment: carpe diem! The places in On Piety that talk about forming correct views/notions/convictions of the gods may have some praxis-related options whether we decide they physically exist or not.

Quote

I do [not] see anything like transcendence, moksha, or enlightenment being part of this package.

I'm assuming you left out a "not" in there, and I would agree. But I would say the reason there is no "transcendence, moksha, or enlightenment" is because there's nothing to transcend, nothing to be enlightened of. If anything, we need to unlearn our acculturation, see the physical cosmos as that which only exists, and make our choices and rejections wisely in the full recognition that we only have one life.

One of my favorite sayings is (to paraphrase): "Flee from all indoctrination, and set sail on your own little boat."

I also had mystic tendencies for a time, investigating Christian mysticism (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing , etc.), Buddhism (especially Zen and Tibetan varieties), and others. It all came down to the theology that I couldn't believe. Rebirth and karma seemed viable for a time to me, but I became disenchanted. That's also one of the things that turned me off from Stoicism and how I eventually discovered Epicurus. I'm not saying I'm 100% sold on the Epicurean Garden path, but I've found it fruitful both from a philosophy of life perspective and as an academic hobby.

I hope you continue to engage in the discussion whether or not you decide to think of yourself as an "Epicurean." I think you have an interesting and valuable perspective.