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
At first I was thinking that taking the original seemed a little overboard, but I suppose in that day they were actually doing the owner a favor by giving them a newer version that might last longer?
Oh no, just the opposite. The copy would be more prone to scribal errors. especially since they were probably hastily copied.
The owners would not have been happy, but what were they going to do about it.
Crosspost; thank you Don!
You used a primary source though, so this point goes to you!
Oh, it actually happened. Here's the section getting the Wikipedia article and the article has multiple references. I've always enjoyed the idea of library agents stomping onboard a ship:
According to the Greek medical writer Galen, under the decree of Ptolemy II, any books found on ships that came into port were taken to the library, where they were copied by official scribes. The original texts were kept in the library, and the copies delivered to the owners. The Library particularly focused on acquiring manuscripts of the Homeric poems, which were the foundation of Greek education and revered above all other poems. The Library therefore acquired many different manuscripts of these poems, tagging each copy with a label to indicate where it had come from.
(For a gross example, attempts to study claims of "ESP" or "gravity waves" or "cosmic rays"
I would not under any circumstances include ESP with gravity waves and cosmic rays.
ESP is repeatedly debunked, including failure of anyone to win the $1,000,000 prize from the Randi Foundation. If you're using this as shorthand for intuition, then maybe. But not ESP as a parapsychology phenomenon.
Gravity waves and cosmic rays are verifiable and verified physical phenomena. In fact, cosmic rays can be viewed in a homemade cloud chamber.
I recently finished reading "The Significance of Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans" by George Depue Hadzsits. (Was it you who recommended that to me?? If not, have you read it?) It definitely takes things a little farther in suggesting that the pious can achieve a certain familiarity with the divine... I will go through it again and select some edifying excerpts for the Divinity forum.
It wasn't me. I just finished reading the Hadzsits article. Very intriguing. He does seem to provide more concrete motivations for the ancient Epicureans to take part in the standard rituals and prayers of the time. I think I'll have to read it again to get all the information from it. I get the impression that the gods - Venus, Athena, etc - could literally embody individual qualities of the Epicurean gods and so be an object of prayer and worship. That would lead one to emulate and embody those qualities oneself on a deeper personal level. No benefit flowed from the gods, but that didn't preclude gaining benefit from the practice. Is that part of what you got? Or am I misunderstanding?
I would agree awe is more complex. Looking at the babies in studies, their rapt attention certainly appears like awe from the outside. But the sustained nature of it makes it appear to me more than an emotion. I was going to say just an emotion. But my jury is out on awe.
I also think we have to distinguish among feeling (for which I personally am reserving only pleasure or pain and equating to reaction for purposes of Epicureanism) and emotion and prolepses. I think some or all 3 are connected but they're not equivalent. I personally equate "feeling" as in our other thread on "facts don't care..." with emotions. I "feel" emotions are more cognitive as in "I feel angry" "I feel sad" etc. and we can think about how we "feel." Whereas the pathē "feelings" of pleasure and pain are immediate. We don't get to "feel" whether we react with pleasure or pain. We react! It's immediate. There are no mitigating factors. Nothing between us and the reaction. We are repelled or attracted. We sense pleasure or pain. No in between.
I keep going back to those experiments with infants and toddlers on fair play, "justice", etc. We humans seem too have an innate sense of justice and fair play as well as awe and amazement. That's where my analysis of the prolepses starts.
While others may be aware of this, I just discovered this week (listening to the Natalie Haynes Stands Up for the Classics podcast) that an alternate story of Helen of Troy has her living out the war in Egypt while an image or είδωλον is sent by a god to Troy. After the city falls, the Helen είδωλον simply fades away in the wind.
I find it fascinating that this is the same word Epicurus uses for "images". Granted, words can evolve in meaning but I thought that was an interesting etymological trivia.
I apologize, Don. I didn’t mean to suggest that I was the only one with a desire to have Epicurean practices. I was thinking of things like practicing piety, worship, meditating on the gods, receiving “images” of them, and trying to emulate them.
Oh! No apologies necessary! I didn't want you to feel alone I continue to find your topics you mentioned there very interesting especially "meditating on the gods" and "trying to emulate them" and to tease out exactly what Epicurus, Philodemus, Lucretius, et al had to say in this area.
Quote from CassiusHowever to bring this back to base I think a large part of what Epicurus was thinking about was the benefit of contemplating what "the best life" might entail, as a means of inspiration and aspiration and motivation, all of which are necessary at least to some degrees for some people to ward off the ultimate evil of "nihilism."
I think you're onto something there. Epicurus does say we can live a life worthy of the gods (or was that Lucretius?), so the gods serve a purpose just not a favor-seeking, punishment-dealing purpose.
I heard my name
The "clear vision" translates enargēs εναργής in the Greek. Here's an excerpt from my rough draft on that section of the letter. Enargēs is in verse 123f:
123d. πᾶν δὲ τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον τὴν μετ᾽ ἀφθαρσίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτοῦ δόξαζε.
Remember δὲ "and, so" comes second in Greek but first in English.
The imperative verb comes last again: δόξαζε πᾶν = doxaze pan "You think, believe, imagine everything!" Believe what about everything?
τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον τὴν μετ᾽ ἀφθαρσίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτοῦ = to phylattein autou dynamenon tēn met' aphtharsias makariotēta peri autou
φυλάττειν = to phylattein "to guard, maintain, preserve, etc." δυνάμενον = "being able, capable, strong enough to do, can"
Bringing all 123d back together: "Being able to preserve its own imperishability and blessedness for itself"
"(You, Menoikeus,) Believe everything about which a god is able to preserve its own imperishability and blessedness for itself."
123e. θεοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν. θεοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν. = theoi men gar eisin.
If we take out the μὲν (and look for the inevitable δε in the next phrase) and move γάρ "because, for" out of the way, we can pare this down to:
θεοὶ εἰσιν. "Gods exist." "There are gods."
The implications of those two words have had entire essays (if not books) written about them. We looked at this a little in 123b with ζώον. But Epicurus is not equivocating here: Gods exist. What he means by this we simply have to discover from his extant works and fragments.
123f. ἐναργὴς δέ ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις: Here's our δέ "on the other hand."
ἐναργὴς [δέ] ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις: = enargēs estin autōn hē gnōsis. "And the knowledge (ἡ γνῶσις) of them (θεοί "gods") is ἐναργὴς." But what does ἐναργὴς mean? It has two primary definitions:
- visible, palpable, in bodily shape, properly of gods appearing in their own forms (in Homer); so of a dream or vision; ex., ἐναργὴς ταῦρος "in visible form a bull, a very bull"
- manifest to the mind's eye, distinct
This fits right in with our problem with puzzling out how the gods are ζώον. Are they physically-existent material beings? Are they existing only as mental perceptions manifest merely to the mind's eye? We still don't have a clear idea of Epicurus's meaning!
123g. οἵους δ᾽ αὐτοὺς <οἱ> πολλοὶ νομίζουσιν, οὐκ εἰσίν: = hoious d' autous <hoi> polloi nomizousin, ouk eisin.
LSJ has this to say about οἵους: "Especially in Attic often stands for ὅτι τοῖος, τοία, τοῖον, so that the relative introduces the reason for the preceding statement… "if it is to be intimated that the reason is self-evident, and the assertion is beyond doubt, then δή is added…" (Note: Which it is here! δ' is ellided but is actually δή.) <οἱ> πολλοὶ is exactly what it means in English: "hoi polloi" the common people, the masses. It literally translates as "the many." Paraphrase: "The gods 'do not exist' (οὐκ εἰσίν) in the way that the 'hoi polloi' believe them (i.e., the gods) to."
pleasure's so bright I have to wear shades
FYI here's my new background on my work computer
Any comments on what you found effective in Stoic World?
I’m afraid I’m not much help there, Cassius. The thing that kept me most motivated in Stoicism was its excellent literature: Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, and then some good modern writers. In comparison, Lucretius is a slow slog for me... I’m in a bind with my pleasure being found mainly in the theology side of things. I’ve found some excellent essays, but am running out of reading material, and seem to be the sole would-be “practitioner”. Maybe Brett has some ideas.
Oh, I would include myself in the class of "looking for an Epicurean practice." I find myself reciting the Tetrapharmakos to myself to time hand washing, waiting in an elevator, etc. I also think mindfulness has a place in Epicureanism. What better way to practice paying attention to the present moment. I've been trying to compile an Epicurean Book of Days with 366 (to take into account keep years) sayings or excerpts with commentary. Not there yet... Or even close 
but a goal. Still working on the Menoikeus letter too!
As for the Stoics: marketing! They beat us to they punch!
I'll admit my understanding of Aristotle is sketchy. One thing that attracts me to him is his penchant for assembling information and research from as many sources as possible. From what I know, he invented entire fields of science, especially biology. That appeals to me: the research-oriented aspect of Aristotle. He based a lot of his "science" work on observation. Later philosophers and theologians would take Aristotle's work as dogma and forget to observe nature themselves.
That being said, I think his idea that eudaimonia is largely dependent on luck and one's station in life is elitist and not much help to society at large. His focus on virtue and fulfilling your telos seems ill-suited to people finding his philosophy useful.
Maybe I'm weighing Epicureanism against a general humanism or secularism, but I feel (there's that word) I need a comprehensive philosophy. Something to study and practice.
What attracted me initially to Epicurus?
His was the only ancient Greek school to admit - even welcome - women. He didn't need any gods. Pleasure as the goal made sense: carpe diem "pluck the day" was attractive. It seemed like a down to earth philosophy but also had depth.
As a librarian, I have to see objective reality (Earth is round) honored, so I struggle with that word feeling. That's why I've been so adamant about translating pathē as reaction. I still think sometimes in absolutes like "human rights" etc. But I'm coming around to the social contract and contextual nature of all "rights." I find George Carlin's quote intriguing:
Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges.
That seems to be the same thing Epicurus was saying sort of. We need to agree on what justice is then work to uphold that agreement.
Sorry. This went a little afield. I hope in sheds a little light on my current predicament.
This is all very helpful. Your explanation of the "I feel the earth is flat" was helpful in particular. So, we would need to know if it was an opinion or a reaction for them. And even if a pleasurable reaction, what was it about the "earth being flat" that aroused pleasure. Maybe it's not the false "fact" that the "earth is flat" but some other component of thinking about the earth being flat that elicited the reaction of pleasure. The Earth is *not* flat. But if someone "feels" liked it is, they need to look at their other faculties to understand why they feel that way. BUT someone else's "feeling" that the earth is flat shouldn't cause me pain... Unless they try to impel me to embrace their false opinion. Then "si falsum est, accingere contra!"
I do sincerely appreciate your sticking with me on this!!
The quotes have been helpful as well.
I think your distinction between an opinion and a "feeling"/reaction is important. That's the ambiguity of the word "feeling" that I'm struggling with. I cannot endorse "truthiness" or "going with your gut." But from what I'm reading from you and Godfrey is that we use our initial reaction as *one* criteria in concert with others + reason to bring it all together.
Am I getting closer?
Thanks for taking the time to engage me on this.
So, Epicurus says it's alright to use reason, right? We shouldn't rely on it to rationalize and come up with "ideal" absolutes, but we can use it to assimilate the information from our canonical senses.
Exactly! Reason is a tool, but it's not reliable without reference to the faculties of the canon.
Light bulb!
So, we don't rely on reason alone. We use it but we use it as a tool as an adjunct or complement to the Canonical senses once we've taken in available information or evidence from them.
If someone says "I feel the earth is flat. That feels true to me" that doesn't mean anything. What do your senses tell you? If the concept of a flat earth brings you Pleasure, what do your senses tell you including what scientific senses tell us through telescopes and discs travel. What do our mental senses tell us? What does our understanding of the universe tell us?
How does that sound?
I think this is helping. Cassius , your pointing out about the faculties complementing each other is helpful. Godfrey , bringing up the bent oar in this context. That helps too!
So, Epicurus says it's alright to use reason, right? We shouldn't rely on it to rationalize and come up with "ideal" absolutes, but we can use it to assimilate the information from our canonical senses.
Am I getting this right? I may be *slowly* leaving the Aristotelian ledge and coming in through the Epicurean window.
Any additional insights are welcomed!!
