Posts by Don

Taking a quick trip through some columns in the book tonight and wanted to share one line from column 47, ll.1340-1350:

(Paraphrase) To be sure, people in general honor or believe in something divine like a god who is benevolent, kindly, propitious, etc.; whereas we Epicureans all regard our doctrines as the true cause of our own tranquility (αταραξιας ataraxia)."

I liked the sound of this, but there's actually a lot going on here in the original Greek. I'll post a little more tomorrow.

****

From column 62A,

"And in his [Epicurus's] Symposium concerning the rites (he says) 'Let us celebrate the festivals' (τας εορτας [συναγω]μεν tas heortas synagomen) and 'Make auspicious sacrifices to a god' (θεώ[ι καλλι]θυτειν ειλ[.... ...] theōi kallithytein)"

προσευχεσθαι γαρ εν τωι Περί [Βιων] οικείον είναι [ημεί]ν φησίν.

I promised something on prayer yesterday, so to fulfill my self-imposed obligation , here's what Epicurus said about prayer according to column 26 of On Piety. The original is above and is mostly intact in the papyrus.

For he says in the On Ways of Life, προσευχεσθαι is οικείον for us.

προσευχεσθαι [proseukhesthai] means "prayer", specifically to offer prayers or vows; offer prayers or worship. The word can be broken down into pros- "toward" + eukhesthai "to pray"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ry=proseu/xomai

This is, in fact, the word used to mean "pray" in the New Testament as well as previously in classical Greek. I'm looking forward to reading more about the manner of this praying.

And Epicurus says prayer is οικείον [oikeion] meaning "fitting, suitable, proper."

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=oi)kei=os (see definition IV)

So it would seem worship of the gods held some kind of benefit for Epicurus even if that benefit did not come from the gods themselves.

I'll dig into columns 26+ in the next few days and keep all posted. I'm intrigued.

1:31:00 ~ 1:34:00ish in that episode sounds to me even more like the creation of prolepses in infants and small children! Dr Barrett even talks both about abstract concepts like emotions and concrete concepts. I'd say like justice and Socrates to use Epicurean examples.

Quote from Cassius

I will download and listen. Don are you talking about episode 129?? https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6L…DM2MTA3Mw?ep=14

Yes. 129.I

Listening to the podcast in entry above RE: TED talk: Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett

on way to work today.

Around 1:19:00, she talks about the formation of concepts (a scientific term, not colloquially), and it struck me that her explanation could be describing prolepses.

Interested to hear if anyone has a similar reaction.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

. And I can't make heads or tails of this first section on the arguments for the existence of the gods.

Don do you have a sense of how much of the confusion is due to the material itself being difficult vs how much is due to it being fragmentary?

A little of both. The papyrus is in bad shape in a lot of places; however, there's enough continuous text to confidently reconstruct a substantial portion of the author's work.

One issue is that there's a lot of technical, philosophical jargon in the original text. With the fragmentary nature of the papyrus, there's a lack of context for these terms. If we had the whole papyrus and a larger body of Epicurean texts there wouldn't be any question what is meant by similarities, "unitary entities," etc. As it is, it's like reading a textbook through Swiss cheese. Or trying to read a book with a strobe light for a desk lamp. Consider something like...

Quote

The unanimous Declar[----]n ... thirteen ... ... America, When in the Course........ events, it becomes necessary for........... dissolve ....... bands................ with another, and to assume a[ ]g the ..... of the earth, the separate and equal .,................. Laws of Nature and of Nature's God......... a decent respect to the opinions of m[ ]kind requires................. declare the causes ...... impel them to the s......... W[ ] hold these truths to be self-evi[ ]t, that................ equal, that they are endowed.............. Creator with certain unalien[. ] Rights........... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Hap[ ]ess.

Okay, so I literally have Obbink's work of On Piety right in front of me, reading through text and commentary up through Column 26 tonight... And I can't make heads or tails of this first section on the arguments for the existence of the gods. I'm getting the impression that even Obbink doesn't fully understand but uses literal translations and other means to obfuscate that fact.

I'm being a little hyperbolic, but not much.

As I understand the text, the primary goal here is not to lay out a systematic argument but to state specific examples from the authoritative texts of Epicurus (On Holiness, On Nature, On Lifecourses), Metrodorus (On Change, On Gods), Hermarchus (Against Empedocles), and Polyaenus to refute those who would accuse the Epicureans of atheism or impiety.

At some points, the gods (per the Epicureans) are material beings it seems.

But in others, they are described as being made up of similar or identical atoms making them "unitary beings" not subject to being corruptible. In other spots, they are made up of images (eidola) and the analogy given by Obbink is that of a waterfall (the constant flowing) or the flickering images of a motion picture that provide us the mental picture or idea of movement or a static image. The gods are compounds of this sort... Which sounds to me like Sedley's idealist view.

In some ways, this section strikes me as the kind of argument about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." And I find nothing that dissuades me so far to see the gods as helpful exemplars of the goal of the Epicurean path. I'm still exploring. This section runs from column 1 to 25/26 so I've made it through once. I'm more interested in the next section, cols26-36, that talk about the Epicureans participation in rituals and rites.

I did find some good lines though:

"Therefore I think it is especially necessary to despise those who transgress or mock other observance as they do the traditional rites." ll. 720-730., col. 25-26

"Metrodorus reproaches even Socrates himself for saying, if indeed he did this, to Plato's Euthyphro: 'what is holy?' (τι οσιον εστι;)" ll.700-710, col. 25

"And if they have conducted themselves in a blameworthy fashion, with the result that they also aroused suspicion [ ], let the accusers formally charge those who have conducted themselves in this way." ll.680-690, col. 24.

"It is time to describe all men as impious, inasmuch as no one had been prolific in finding convincing demonstrations for the existence of gods; nevertheless all men, with the exception of some madmen, worship them, as do we..." ll. 650-60, col. 23

"Likewise Hermarchus in the final book of his Against Empedocles also cites this passage, adding: 'Concerning metaphor he (Empedocles) made use in human fashion of the connection with the divine entity for which worship and verbal attendance in cult take place'; and in Epicurus's case (or writings) this is shown by his eagerness for sharing in the mysteries at Athens..." ll.540-70, cols. 19-20

I'm also sharing a screenshot of column 26 since that is the start of the ritual participation section. I find the prayer quote interesting. I'm going to track down the Greek word for that... Tomorrow.

In this one she's talking about being aware of your mood or 'affect' which is basically just pleasure/pain//calm/aroused and using that to make choices (and, I might add, rejections)

https://www.tedxcambridge.com/talk/cultivati…-power-of-mood/

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Dr. Barrett is Epicurean. And I'm not saying Epicurus was prescient and knew this research. But I am saying I find it surprising that Epicurus seemed to intuit this line of inquiry, especially in the importance of understanding your pleasure and pain reactions or as Dr Barrett calls it, your affect.

That's sort of my take as well. Honestly, I'm just learning myself, having literally just discovered her work when I couldn't get back to sleep last night

I was listening to a podcast today with her that struck me as Epicurean as well.

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6…sode=NDM2MTA3Mw

Episode #129 at about timestamp 31:36

She's talking there about the importance of sense data etc.

Quote from Godfrey

I might be missing something but I don't see a link to the Ted talk. Is this it? talk? https://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_fel…hem?language=en

Also there's this really short youtube video:

I haven't watched these yet but the subject sounds fascinating.

LOL. A link would be helpful wouldn't it.

https://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_fel…es_them/up-next

I also recommend taking a look at the 5min animated summary of Dr. Barrett's research here https://lisafeldmanbarrett.com/multimedia/ I could see parallels between what she calls "affect" and the pathē.

I just started reading Dr. Barrett's book How Emotions Are Made (2017) and find it fascinating. I just finished the first chapter, so, in looking for something to listen to on the treadmill this morning, found her TED talk.

I see implications and applications to Epicurean philosophy (I think). She talks about the basic experiences all humans have from birth like pleasure and displeasure (I'm calling that pain). Overlaid on these basic sensations are the emotions our brains build from contextual clues and predictions from past experience.

This seems to me to be akin to the pathē being foundational to how we should react to any given situation and how we should decide our choices and rejections.

Her primary thesis, backed up by extensive research, is that our emotions are NOT hardwired. Those basic experiences are (pleasure, displeasure) but not what we call emotions (anger, fear, etc.) People experience the same physical reactions as different emotions in different contexts. This also speaks to me in light of my unease over talking about "feelings" as opposed to "reactions" of pleasure and pain.

I'll be interested to read what anyone thinks if they watch this or read about her research.

Quote from Cassius

Of course I would consider that to be a partial paraphrase of doctrines one through four, much more accurately stated than the tetrapharmakon version, while leaving out the reference to the gods.

Oh, the gods are there and it even references not fearing them:

Quote

he has a true conception, untainted by fear, of the Divine nature

That Obbink footnote also references Cicero's De Finibus, I.62, as another instance where the Tetrapharmakos is restated or paraphrased (emphasis mine):

Quote

The conclusion is that no foolish man can be happy, nor any wise man fail to be happy. This is a truth that we establish far more conclusively than do the Stoics. For they maintain that nothing is good save that vague phantom which they entitle Moral Worth, a title more splendid than substantial; and say that Virtue resting on this Moral Worth has no need of pleasure, but is herself her own sufficient happiness. 62 "At the same time this Stoic doctrine can be stated in a form which we do not object to, and indeed ourselves endorse. For Epicurus thus presents his Wise Man who is always happy: his desires are kept within bounds; death he disregards; he has a true conception, untainted by fear, of the Divine nature; he does not hesitate to depart from life, if that would better his condition. Thus equipped he enjoys perpetual pleasure, for there is no moment when the pleasures he experiences do not outbalance the pains; since he remembers the past with gratitude, grasps the present with a full realization of its pleasantness, and does not rely upon the future; he looks forward to it, but finds his true enjoyment in the present. Also he is entirely free from the vices that I instanced a few moments ago, and he derives no inconsiderable pleasure from comparing his own existence with the life of the foolish. More, any pains that the Wise Man may encounter are never so severe but that he has more cause for gladness than for sorrow.

In a footnote in Obbink's Philodemus On Piety, Obbink mentions the Tetrapharmakos' restatement/paraphrase in PHerc 1251 Col 4. I haven't had a chance to attack a translation yet but wanted to get this here while it was fresh. PHerc 1251 is Philodemus's On Choices and Avoidances (to give it the traditional title). I've italicized a few words that appear common to the original in PHerc 1005:

http://papyri.info/dclp/62463

Philodemus , De electionibus et fugis

Content: Philodemus; peri haireseon kai phygon (on choices and rejections), with end title

P.Herc. 1251 col. 4

Engraved 1840-1844 by Raffaele Biondi

καὶ [τὸ κ]ακ̣ὸ[ν οὐ] μό̣νο[ν ἔ-]

χον̣ ὅ̣[ρ]ους [κατ]ὰ̣ τὸ μέγε̣θ̣ος

καὶ κατὰ [τὸν] χρόνον, ἀλλὰ

καὶ εὐεκκα[ρτ]ακ(*)ητον, ἐπει-

5 δήπερ οὐδ[ὲ]ν̣ ὄφελος ὡ[ρίσθ]αι

μέν, ἡμῖν δ̣' [ἄκ]τητον ἢ δ[ύσ-]

κτητον ε[ἶναι] τἀγαθόν, ἢ [πε-]

περάνθα[ι μέ]ν, ἀνεγκαρτέ-

ρητον δ' [εἶν]αι διὰ τὴ[ν πο-]

10 λυχρονιότ[ητ]α τὸ κακόν· πε-

ριγίνεται γὰρ ἐκ τῶν γνώσε-

ων τούτων τό τε μηθὲν δι-

ώκειν ὃ μὴ πέφυκεν ἀλγη-

δόνα περιαιρεῖν, οἷα τὰ πλεῖσ-

15τα τῶν κατεσπουδασμέν[ων]

ἐστὶν παρ' ἀνθρώποις, μή[τε]

φεύγειν ὃ μὴ κωλύει τ[ὴν ἡ-]

δονὴν ἔχειν, οἷ(*)α τὰ πλεῖσ[τ]α

τῶν ἐν προκοπῆι δεῖ ν[οῆσαι·]

20 κ̣αὶ πάλ̣ιν πρὸς μηδεο̣[ ̣ ̣]ς

The book is searchable here. I suggest trying "easily" and "Col. IV" as here "good" and "attain" which will give a snippet of translation of Col. IV:

"It is just as well that we know that the good is not only limited in magnitude but also is easy to attain) and that the bad not only had limits in magnitude and time, but also is easy to bear; for otherwise it would be of no use that the good should be limited but impossible or difficult for us to attain, or ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=yDI_A…involume&q=good

This doesn't affect the content of the treatise but looking through the introductory material I came across this:

The author and title in the physical scroll are designated at the end only by:

Φ---

Π---

That's it. Just the first letters are left.

The title is taken to be Π[ΕΡΙ ΕΥΣΈΒΕΙΑΣ] since the extant line right before the title and author lines describes the treatise as a ΛΟΓΟΣ logos (treatise) on ΕΥΣΈΒΕΙΑ (piety).

BUT!

Obbink says it's just as likely that the author of On Piety is Φ[ΑΙΔΡΟΥ] Phaedrus as it is Φ[ΙΛΟΔΕΜΟΥ] Philodemus!! Obbink says he uses "Philodemus" throughout his work as a convention only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedrus_…ean?wprov=sfla1 I wonder if this could be Phaedrus's On the Gods that Cicero requested or at least a related treatise

That authorship mystery took me completely by surprise so I had to share.

(Note: I'm going to start just using Σ and σ/ς for sigma (Latin letter S s) instead of the C c that I was using earlier because it's easier to type on the keyboard I'm using. C c is a later Greek/Hellenistic letterform for sigma, Σ σ/ς are the older and traditional forms. C c is used in the scroll. Just wanted to be sure to have full disclosure.)

I think it's also important to look at the actual word that Philodemus uses in his title:

ΕΥCΕΒΕΙΑ (eusebeia)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ntry=eu)se/beia

Yes, the convenient single word English translation is "piety" but LSJ also gives the fuller "reverence towards the gods or parents, piety or filial respect."

Related to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=eu)sebh/s

I get the sense that it implies an obligation (providing what is due to someone, e.g., taxes to the emperor)

I don't want to get into the trap that we get fixated on the English without examining what word Philodemus uses... AND when that word is extant, or lightly missing a letter or two but easily read, or completely missing and added in by scholars from context (and makes sense) or added in by scholars blue-skying it. When we have the ancient words, it behooves us to dig into those. THAT'S what Philodemus said, and to quote Dr Seuss, we have to assume he said what he meant and meant what he said.

I've seen it simply referred to as either the papyrus no. "P.Herc 1005" or the partial title in Greek "Pros Tous..." The thing about the Greek ΠΡΟC (pros) is that it can mean either "against x" or "(addressed) to x" when followed by the accusative case (which is the case that the plural article ΤΟΥC "the" is in) See Section C in this definition from LSJ for all the potential accusative meanings:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…057:entry=pro/s

Skimming through on a Friday night. Reading the actual text translations and a little commentary. First impressions:

Fascinating but fragmentary.

Still enough continuous text to be understandable in parts.

Jury still out on idealist vs realist debate; have to dig in on that

Overall organization of Philodemus's On Piety:

1. Arguments for the gods

2. Observance of cult and ritual (This section was especially interesting and unexpected)

3. Harms and benefits from the gods

4. The origin of atheism and justice

There followed criticism of poets and mythographers and then Philosophers representations of the gods.

This isn't easy going. Dense and footnote-filled. But a pleasurable experience so far! More to come...

Quote from JJElbert

Book XI - Convivial and Satirical Epigrams

No. 50 - Automedon

Quote

"Blest is he first who owes naught to anyone, next he who never married, and thirdly he who is childless. But if a man be mad enough to marry, it is a blessing for him if he buries his wife at once after getting a handsome dowry. Knowing this, be wise, and leave Epicurus to enquire in vain where is the void and what are the atoms."

Translated W. R. Paton

Display More

While I don't endorse the overall sentiment in any way (for the record), I find it interesting that "blest" is used to translate the first word Ευδαίμων Eudaimōn (i.e., Eudaimonia).