Posts by Don

That's part of it.

My surprise came more at the ambiguous nature of the word ζώον which is usually just translated animal or being. That second option seems to play right into the "idealist" perspective of the nature of a god/divinity.

Okay, so here's the first draft of my notes on the section of Menoikeus to which I was referring. I apologize for the length! 123 refers to Diogenes's Book X:123.:

123b. πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη,

μὲν can stand in its own, as here, in which case it might mean "so, whereas, and so" but it can also be left untranslated.

The passage begins, appropriately enough, with πρῶτον = prōton "first."

The verb comes last - νομίζων = nomizōn - which means "believe, hold, consider." What are we to believe? That τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον.

τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον = ton theon zōon aphtharton kai makarion

τὸν θεὸν is singular, but, singular or plural, this *could* refer to a god, the gods, the divine. However, Sedley in "Epicurus' theological innatism" places some significance on the singular construction. So, where the word is singular, I will translate it as such as to not obscure the semantics.

τὸν θεὸν ζῷον "a god (is a) ζῷον. But what is a ζῷον?

LSJ gives two primary definitions:

• living being, animal
• in art, figure, image, not necessarily of animals (or a sign of the Zodiac)

So, unfortunately, at this point in the Letter we can't necessarily resolve the question of what the nature of the gods were according to Epicurus. Some scholars think Epicurus believed the gods were material beings ("living being, animal"). Some think Epicurus believed the gods were mental representions or personifications of the concepts of blessedness ("figure, image, sign").

The Letter goes on to describe what kind of ζῷον the god is: ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον

These are the exact words used in the first Principal Doctrine (Κυριαι Δοξαι): Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον = To makarion kai aphtharton "One who is blessed and imperishable." (Note, this is again singular.) The words held primary place in the Principal Doctrines, and Epicurus chooses this as the first element of which to remind Menoikeus. Epicurus obviously placed a great deal of importance on this topic so it may behoove us to study it in-depth or to engage in some μελέτα.

μακάριον = makarion

The meaning of this word is "blessed, fortunate, wealthy, 'well-off.'" There appears to be no certain etymology of the root [makar] or the longer form [makarios/on]. It appears to possibly have something to do with being wealthy, either literally or figuratively. Taking Ancient Mythology Economically

By Morris Silver had a very interesting section on the origins of the word. See https://books.google.com/books?id=sPCww…ymology&f=false . This is yet another example of the inadequacy of using one word to translate from one language to another.

ἄφθαρτον = aphtharton

LSJ gives the definition of "incorruptible, eternal, immortal, uncorrupted, undecaying" and gives references to Epicurus, Philodemus, and Diogenes of Oenoanda. At its root, the word is α- "not" + Φθαρτον "destructible, perishable." LSJ states Φθαρτον is the opposite of ἀίδιος = aidios "everlasting, eternal" (related to ἀεί "ever, always") which poses an interesting question: Why did Epicurus choose to use ἄφθαρτον instead of ἀίδιος or ἀθάνατος? Φθαρτον is related to θνητός = thnētos "liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος [athanatos]" (LSJ) Φθαρτον is connected to the verb φθείρω = phtheirō "destroy, pass away, cease to be, perish." It seems that Epicurus didn't want to evoke that the gods were simply immortal or eternal but that he wanted to impress upon us the sense that they would not pass away or cease to be. This is in contrast to everything else composed of atoms and void. Everything else is subject to be Φθαρτον; only the gods are ἄφθαρτον! How can this be? Could it be that they are ἄφθαρτον precisely because they are mental perceptions, because we do have a Prolepsis of them (More on this difficult term later!) For now, let's move on to see if there are more clues.

123b.ii: ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη,... = hōs hē koinē tou theou noēsis hypegraphē,...

ὡς introduces similes or qualifies statements and so a good translation is something like "like, as, such as, so far as."

ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις = hē koinē "the common, the general understanding of the god" Note that this is also why we speak of the later evolution of the Greek language as "koine Greek" "the common Greek, the Greek spoken by a wide population across the Greek-speaking world." Is Epicurus talking here about the general understanding of Greeks among the general population? Or is he talking about the common understanding of the god among Epicureans? He does specifically talk about the wrong understanding of the "hoi polloi'" below. Epicurus is writing to a fellow Epicurean. So, if he's referring to just ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις among Epicureans, how are we then to take that word ζωον?

ὑπεγράφη "has been outlined, traced"

Epicurus is using the image of outlining or tracing an image to be filled in by another. The image of letters indicated by a teacher by an outline or tracing for the student to then follow. So the idea that the gods are imperishable and blessed is, basically, how the gods are commonly understood to be -- that is the general indication of the nature of the gods. Whether that is the general indication among just Epicureans or the general public remains a question.

123c. μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε:

After μηθὲν = mēthen "one, not even one, nobody", we find another μήτε... μήτε…:

μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον

μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον

τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον = tēs aphtharsias allotrion

μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον "neither the incorruption or immortality (is) foreign or strange"

μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον = mēte tēs makariotētos anoikeion "nor (is) the 'blessedness' foreign to or incongruous with"

ἀνοίκειον literally means "not of the family" or "not of the household" where οἶκος is the house or domestic sphere. Related to 123b.ii and the "common" understanding, ἀνοίκειον *could* refer to the "house/family" of Epicurus.

This line then finishes with αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε: = autō "(dative) to itself"

prosapte "You attribute to! You attach to, You fasten upon." (Imperative)

123c. μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε:

"Do not attribute anything foreign to the incorruptibility or incongruous with the blessedness of the gods!"

Through my work on the Letter to Menoikeus, I'm not convinced that the idealist perspective isn't plausible due to the ambiguity of some of the Greek.

Was also just browsing ebooks in library catalog and came across this one. Just checked it out, so no review but seemed relevant:

In Awe: Rediscover Your Childlike Wonder to Unleash Inspiration, Meaning, and Joy

by John O'Leary

There once was a time when we joyfully raised our hands to answer questions, connected easily with others, believed that anything was possible, and fearlessly jumped into new experiences. A time when we viewed each day not as something to endure, but as a marvelous gift to explore and savor—when we danced through our lives in awe of the ordinary moments and eager for the promise of tomorrow.
Unfortunately, that's far from our experience today. Instead, we feel disconnected and jaded. Social media reminds us that we don't measure up, and the mainstream media barrages us with constant negativity. Many of us find ourselves caught in a life of dogged responsibility and mind-numbing repetition. The daily struggle to earn a living has caused us to lose the sense of wonder with which we once greeted every day.
In his new book, bestselling author John O'Leary invites us to consider that it is possible to once again navigate the world as a child does. Identifying five senses children innately possess and that we've lost touch with as we age, O'Leary shares emotional, humorous, and inspirational stories intertwined with fascinating new research showing how each of us can reclaim our childlike joy, and why doing so will change how we interact with the world.
In Awe reveals how we can regain that ability to see fresh insights, reach for new solutions, and live our best lives.

Oops! I don't find a link after your "here" above, Cassius .

That's an interesting take, Godfrey , and one I think I'm in agreement with for the most part... with a couple caveats and addenda:

• Unfortunately, I think you'll still find some people imagining their God anthropomorphically.
• I'd like to read more about the generative force from you. Can you extend those remarks? Are you saying we could call that generative force Venus then like Lucretius?
• Are you also saying we could adapt other religions' practices to our needs by changing the mental content? Epicurus only had the Greek cultural practices and rituals. We're aware of more cultures now and were maybe born into other religions (not me - mainstream evangelicalism here).

Just came across this and didn't know if it would be helpful. Posting here for reference:

https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/157/

I'll claim ignorance here, but was Aristotle also one who amassed evidence before attempting to come to any conclusion? I see articles claiming Aristotle as originator of the/a "scientific method." Or is that because Aristotle was more palatable to the Christians and was allowed to have his writings survive?

@Susan Hill : Are you aware of Academia.edu? https://www.academia.edu/ I know they have some of Konstan's papers there for download. Not sure if it's accessible in Canada but worth a try.

I just checked and we have that volume in the library. I'll be checking it out today. Right now, I fall into the Sedley camp (if I remember his position correctly), but I'm looking forward to re-reading his chapter and Konstan's.

Quote from Cassius

I should have figured Don would like PAIAN ANAX

Ok so what does that mean?

That's Epicurus's favorite "expletive" using the name of the gods. See Thoughts on DeWitt, Chapter 5

I vote for "divinity" since θεός theos can have that connotation in addition to "god."

Check out the length of this dictionary entry for λόγος:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ntry%3Dlo%2Fgos

I'm still slightly uneasy about the word spirituality, but I like the closing "Paian Anax"

However, if we're using spirituality in the sense of "spiritual practice" that seems to be a big tent. I'll be frank that the Stoic "Logos" is what turned me away from the Stoics and toward Epicurus. Too much Christian baggage with The Word/Logos. But I'm not against exploring what Hadot would broadly call "spiritual exercises."

In returning to the original texts concerning the gods:

First, I found Dewitt's quote of the gods being friends of sages:

Philodemus, On the Life of the Gods, Vol. Herc. 1, VI col. 1: ... to the gods, and he admires their nature and their condition and tries to approach them and, so to speak, yearns to touch them and to be together with them; and he calls Sages "friends of the gods" and the gods "friends of Sages."

But also, here are some Fragments and their sources from Attalus's website:

[ U385 ]

Atticus, by way of Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, XV 5 p. 800A: {And as to our deriving any benefit from them while they remain in heaven,} ... in this way, even according to Epicurus, men get help from the gods, "They say, for instance, that the better emanations from them become the causes of great blessings to those who partake of them..."

[ U386 ]

Philodemus, On Piety, Vol. Herc. 2, II.76.1 [p. 106 Gomperz] {Obbink I.27.754}: … he says that as being both the greatest thing, and that which as it were excels in sovereignty, it possesses everything: for every wise man holds pure and holy beliefs about the divine and has understood that this nature is great and august. And it is particularly at festivals that he, progressing to an understand of it, through having its name the whole time on his lips, embraces with conviction more seriously ……

Philodemus, On Music, Vol. Herc. 1, I c.4,6: Now, these very important things may still be said at the present: that the divine does not need any honor; for us, nevertheless, it’s natural to honor it, above all, with pious convictions, even through the rites of national tradition, each according to his proper part.

Philodemus, On the Life of the Gods, Vol. Herc. 1, VI col. 1: ... to the gods, and he admires their nature and their condition and tries to approach them and, so to speak, yearns to touch them and to be together with them; and he calls Sages "friends of the gods" and the gods "friends of Sages."

[ U387 ]

Philodemus, On Piety, Vol. Herc. 2, II.108.9 [p. 126 Gomperz] {Obbink I.31.880}: Again, he says, "let us sacrifice to the gods piously and well, as is appropriate, and let us do everything well according to the laws. But let us do so not disturbing them at all with our opinions on the topic of those who are best and most majestic; again, we say that it is even right to do this on the basis of the opinion which I was discussing. For in this way, by Zeus, it is possible for a mortal nature to live like Zeus, as it appears."

****

Here are some other quotes on the gods from Epicurus:

VS 33. The body cries out to not be hungry, not be thirsty, not be cold. Anyone who has these things, and who is confident of continuing to have them, can rival the gods for happiness. [note] σαρκὸς φωνὴ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγοῦν· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν [hope or expect to have] κἂν <διὶ [dative of Zeus]> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο. [contend/compete]

*****

Principle Doctrine 1. Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει, ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται: ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον. [ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς, οὓς μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ καθ᾽ ὁμοείδειαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιρρύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένωι ἀνθρωποειδῶς.]

Perseus Project translation: 1. A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being ; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness [Elsewhere he says that the gods are discernible by reason alone, some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form.]

The word translated as "discernible by reason" is θεωρητούς which carries the connotation of "(of the mind) I contemplate, consider; (abstract) I speculate, theorize."

*****

VS 65. It is foolish to ask of the gods that which we can supply for ourselves. μάταιόν ἐστι παρὰ θεῶν αἰτεῖσθαι ἅ τις ἑαυτῷ χορηγῆσθαι ἱκανός ἐστι.

*****

VS 79. He who is as peace within himself also causes no trouble for others. ὁ ἀτάραχος ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἑτέρῳ ἀόχλητος.

(NOTE - Just like a god from PD 1)

*****

Letter to Menoikeus:

First, believe that god is a blissful, immortal being, as is commonly held. Do not ascribe to god anything that is inconsistent with immortality and blissfulness; instead, believe about god everything that can support immortality and blissfulness.

.πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη, μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε· πᾶν δὲ τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον τὴν μετὰ ἀφθαρσίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτὸν δόξαζε.

For gods there are: our knowledge of them is clear.

θεοὶ μὲν γὰρ εἰσίν· ἐναργὴς γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις·

[ Knowledge of them is ἐναργής 1. visible, palpable, in bodily shape, properly of gods appearing in their own forms; so of a dream or vision; 2. manifest to the mind's eye, distinct:— adv. -γῶς, manifestly. 3. of words, etc., distinct, manifest]

Yet they are not such as most people believe; indeed most people are not even consistent in what they believe. It is not impious to deny the gods that most people believe in, but to ascribe to the gods what most people believe. The things that most people say about the gods are based on false assumptions, not a firm grasp of the facts [note], because they say that the greatest goods and the greatest harms come from the gods. For since they are at home with what is best about themselves, they accept that which is similar and consider alien that which is different.

Quote from Elayne

Don, one thing I always remember is that it was against the law upon pain of death to refuse to participate in worship and rituals. No doubt in those rituals, things were said which completely went against Epicurus' description of the gods, because the prevailing religions went against his framing. We don't have his explanations for his choice, but I would guess he didn't feel like being put to death over it. I'd happily chant with supernaturalists if someone said they'd kill me if I didn't.

I'm not going to go so far as to say his whole teaching about the gods was for self protection-- some have suggested it, but that doesn't seem as plausible.

I think all this is definitely worth discussing in detail.

I have source amnesia but I remember reading somewhere that while Epicurus and his followers took part in the rituals and public ceremonies (in part, I'm sure to not be executed), they used them as opportunities to contemplate the "true" nature of the gods as they understood them. So, yeah, sure, I'm pouring a libation to "Zeus" but I'm considering the libation a celebration of my ability to conceive of the gods correctly, to emulate their happiness, to... Etc. The gods don't care about my libation and are most likely unaware of it nor does it have any power... But I can gain benefit from using this as an opportunity to meditate upon - to think deeply about - the nature of the gods.

Quote from Susan Hill

I suspect I have found myself alone here in these ambitions, which is awkward. So I really think it would be appropriate for me to wrap it up now and stop forcing my agenda.

I wouldn't say that you're alone. Epicurus obviously saw the gods as important as evidenced by the Principal Doctrines, the letter to Menoikeus, etc. I think it behooves us to understand why. He took part in the community religious practices of his day. Why, if they were all based on empty opinions? How does this influence our practice as Epicureans? I find the topic quite worthy of investigation. I'm not sure we will come to the same conclusion, Susan, but I'm curious to see where this path leads.

Several references have been made to images - eidola - that Epicurus says we perceive as eminating from objects that impact our senses and mental perception. I've reinterpreted this as light - for sight at least - bouncing from the object to our eyes. Light is constantly bouncing off objects and striking our eyes. If something produces sound or odors, those too will spread out and if we're in the way we encounter a sound or smell.

Now the idea of our minds perceiving concepts or encountering eidola independent of physical physical senses gets a little trickier. Although, look at those babies again "sensing" whether something is fair, or right or wrong. They're obviously "sensing" something coming from that experience. Although it's their sight that is allowing them to assess the situation, sight is not being used to determine the justice of the situation. This is one reason I'm inclined to think the mental Perceptions and Prolepses either work hand in hand or are the same thing by different names. The Mental Perceptions sense the "pattern" (to co-opt a phrase from Elayne ) but the Prolepsis puts it into a category or paradigm.

I think this has parallels to the Prolepsis of the Divine... But I'm still working on that!

So where do I personally think this all leads... Or where it comes from?

The more I think about prolepses, the more I'm convinced they have to be inborn and then evolve as we mature. The newborn and toddler sense of right and wrong grows into our Prolepsis of Justice. So where does our Prolepsis of the Gods or maybe of Divinity come from? Take a look at the rapt look on some babies and toddlers faces when they take part in some research studies where they pay attention to puppets. Take a look at this toddler experiencing snow for the first time. Babies and toddlers obviously have the capacity to experience awe to be in wonder. Look at the baby's eyes in that last video link! That sense of wonder, I believe, can grow into a Prolepsis of the Divine.

Well said. The feeling - I might say reaction - of awe is real.

I have additional thoughts but I wanted to share a time when I can say unequivocally that I experienced awe:

On a family trip to California, we had spent the early afternoon at the giant redwoods south of Yosemite Valley. We drove north and went through one of the tunnels and pulled off to take in the view. Little did I know this was the famous Tunnel View. My first view of Yosemite Valley literally took my breath away! I literally - and I mean this - the view was so awesome (in its original sense) and expansive that I didn't feel I could get enough air into my lungs. There was just so much space to take in, I was so tiny in relation to this expanse. All I could do was stare, slack-jawed.

That remains an archetypal, visceral experience of awe for me. It was a precognitive experience. I had no words at the time describe. I remember saying at the time, "Now, I know what breathtaking actually means!"

[Edit: In rereading that, "pre-rational" mighty be better than precognitive. It was a direct sensory - proleptic? - experience that bypassed my ability at first to put it into words.]