Posts by Don

I don't think that's off topic at all! By the way, well done here...

Quote

In other words, focusing on either feeling to the exclusion of the other leads to an unbalanced diet.

I liked that!

It's always struck me that Epicureanism is a philosophy of personal responsibility. You are responsible for your choices and rejections. You are responsible for assessing the consequences of those actions. You are responsible for deciding what gives you pleasure and what gives you pain without harming others or letting them harm you. And so on. It's not an easy path but is one that provides for a lot of variation. We're not going to proscribe how to live your life. We can provide a framework and foundation around which you can build a life.

Thanks for the comments, Cassius . And I don't see any major differences of opinion here

On the cookbook idea, my favorite most inviting cookbooks include the following:

- Step by step directions of recipes

- Nice full color pictures to show you what the dish is supposed to look like

- Interesting prose interspersed to share background of the dishes, cultural history, or personal experiences of where the dishes came from.

A cookbook that can be browsed, simply read for enjoyment, and used in the kitchen is a winner in my book (pun intended)

Now, how this translates into an "Epicurean Cookbook for Life" is another conversation. Hmm...

- Summaries of philosophy in bite sized chunks (recipes)?

- Artwork that exemplifies Epicurean tenets?

- Short background readings of biographies, real-like applications of EP, the Tetrapharmakos, etc.

Just off the top of my head here.

Just some general thoughts on the topic. An interesting one! Thanks for getting this thread going, Cassius and Godfrey.

I see what you mean by one size not fitting all, but it seems to me that Epicurus and classical Epicureans were apparently big into supplying epitomes and summaries, both large and small (They were also fans of multi-volume behemoths), for ease in memorizing and really embedding the doctrines in one's mind for easy retrieval in any situation. So the idea of "cookbooks" within the philosophy has a fine pedigree.

What's *in* those "cookbooks" is a whole other on-going conversation

As for PD10 and the Letter to Menoikos, we've had an in-depth discussion on that over in that thread on the forum. I've never seen a contradiction between those two. My take is as follows:

1. Pleasure is pleasure.

2. All pleasures are good.

3. BUT. we choose and reject pleasures with an eye to their consequences.

4. There's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying a drink, sex, etc., See 1.

5. BUT the "profligate" try to overindulge those pleasures... Filling the cup after it's already full.

6. Thus leading to pain. See 3.

7. We don't judge the profligates' pleasure but we are within bounds to critique their choices and rejections if they're objectively resulting in pain in their lives.

8. Epicurus offers a way out of those unwise choices and rejections of the profligate.

I don't want to hijack this thread into a PD10 discussion but felt it was ok to weigh in since it came up.

Looking forward to seeing where this thread goes.

The Epicurus Wiki has an interesting commentary on KD9.

Quote from Godfrey

Laurie Anderson has a lyric to the effect that when her father died, it was if a whole library burned down.

That is so poignant, and I know exactly what you/she are talking about. I've also worked on my family history and been grateful (Isn't showing gratitude an Epicurean trait?) for the work of others. I have an unbroken chain of photos back in one line 7 generations starting with my children to my 3rd-great-grandparents born in the 1810s. I often wonder what my ancestors would think of my philosophical leanings. One of my ancestors was the first Lutheran pastor in Pennsylvania.

I haven't read much of Montaigne but I'm intrigued by what I've read about him. I sent looking for the essay when Godfrey mentioned that the remainder of it was "a meditation on death". Wikisource has all of his essays and I went looking for Book I.XIX. That to study philosophy is to learn to die.

I found all the Lucretius references interesting and the section that begins:

Quote

Young and old die upon the same terms; no one departs out of life otherwise than if he had but just before entered into it; neither is any man so old and decrepit, who, having heard of Methuselah, does not think he has yet twenty good years to come. Fool that thou art! who has assured unto thee the term of life?

reminded me of De Rerum Natura III.1026-1052 that begins talking about Ancus the Good dying.

Thanks for the reminder about Montaigne. Color me intrigued.

One thing I think we have to keep in mind when taking about Cicero is that On Ends doesn't offer us a transcription of an actual Epicurean speaking to Cicero. As I understand it, Cicero is using "Torquatus" as a character in his work to explain Epicureanism. I have no doubt Cicero was generally accurate (he had living Epicureans to call "foul!" if he went too astray) but I'm also sure her was very deliberate in his word choices for the Epicurean's "contribution" to the "conversation." Cicero was no fan of Epicureanism and if he could provide a shade of meaning he preferred to steer the interpretation his way, I have no doubt he did. So, there's that problem of seeing Epicureanism "through a glass darkly" or at least through Cicero's "glasses."

Quote from Godfrey

Thanks Eugenios!

I've actually begun learning the Greek alphabet: you've got me inspired! Baby steps though

You're welcome. That was fun!

I learned the Greek alphabet in junior high school and would take notes in them (using them more like a code than a language). Eventually, I thought I better learn some of the language they were used to write .

Here are the sections translated as "seeds" in the Letter to Herodotus (numbers are to sections in Diogenes Laertius). Perseus Digital Library uses the "Lives of Eminent Philosophers." Diogenes Laertius. R.D. Hicks. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1972 (First published 1925).

Section 38 in that translation has "germs" but uses the same Greek word: σπέρμα (sperma) and each of the sections just uses a different declension. It literally means "seed." Below are the sections for context. Here is a link to the Perseus Digital Library's Greek Word Study Tool that has links to LSJ, Middle Liddell, Slater, and Autenrieth. I *love* that Greek Word Study Tool! Also like Wiktionary for the declensions.

[38] ... For in that case anything would have arisen out of anything, standing as it would in no need of its proper germs.
πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι οὐδὲν γίνεται ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. πᾶν γὰρ ἐκ παντὸς ἐγίνετ᾽ ἂν σπερμά των γε οὐθὲν προσδεόμενον

This section uses σπέρματα (another declension)

[74] "And further, we must not suppose that the worlds have necessarily one and the same shape. [On the contrary, in the twelfth book "On Nature" he himself says that the shapes of the worlds differ, some being spherical, some oval, others again of shapes different from these. They do not, however, admit of every shape. Nor are they living beings which have been separated from the infinite.] For nobody can prove that in one sort of world there might not be contained, whereas in another sort of world there could not possibly be, the seeds out of which animals and plants arise and all the rest of the things we see. [And the same holds good for their nurture in a world after they have arisen. And so too we must think it happens upon the earth also.]

[74] "Ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς κόσμους οὔτε ἐξ ἀνάγκης δεῖ νομίζειν ἕνα σχηματισμὸν ἔχοντας : : [ἀλλὰ καὶ διαφόρους αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ιβ᾽ Περὶ φύσεως αὐτός φησιν: οὓς μὲν γὰρ σφαιροειδεῖς, καὶ ᾠοειδεῖς ἄλλους, καὶ ἀλλοιοσχήμονας ἑτέρους: οὐ μέντοι πᾶν σχῆμα ἔχειν. οὐδὲ ζῷα εἶναι ἀποκριθέντα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου.] οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν ἀποδείξειεν οὐδείς, ὡς <ἐν> μὲν τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐμπεριελήφθη τὰ τοιαῦτα σπέρματα, ἐξ ὧν ζῷά τε καὶ φυτὰ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα <τὰ> θεωρούμενα συνίσταται, ἐν δὲ τῷ τοιούτῳ οὐκ ἂν ἐδυνήθη. [ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐντραφῆναι. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς νομιστέον.]

In the Letter to Pythocles, we find σπερμάτων:

[89] "That there is an infinite number of such worlds can be perceived, and that such a world may arise in a world or in one of the intermundia (by which term we mean the spaces between worlds) in a tolerably empty space and not, as some maintain, in a vast space perfectly clear and void.116 It arises when certain suitable seeds rush in from a single world or intermundium, or from several, and undergo gradual additions or articulations or changes of place, it may be, and waterings from appropriate sources, until they are matured and firmly settled in so far as the foundations laid can receive them.

[89] "Ὅτι δὲ καὶ τοιοῦτοι κόσμοι εἰσὶν ἄπειροι τὸ πλῆθος ἔστι καταλαβεῖν, καὶ ὅτι καὶ ὁ τοιοῦτος δύναται κόσμος γίνεσθαι καὶ ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ μετακοσμίῳ, ὃ λέγομεν μεταξὺ κόσμων διάστημα, ἐν πολυκένῳ τόπῳ καὶ οὐκ ἐν μεγάλῳ εἰλικρινεῖ καὶ κενῷ, καθάπερ τινές φασιν, ἐπιτηδείων τινῶν σπερμάτων ῥυέντων ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς κόσμου ἢ μετακοσμίου ἢ καὶ ἀπὸ πλειόνων κατὰ μικρὸν προσθέσεις τε καὶ διαρθρώσεις καὶ μεταστάσεις ποιούντων ἐπ᾽ ἄλλον τόπον, ἐὰν οὕτω τύχῃ, καὶ ἐπαρδεύσεις ἐκ τῶν ἐχόντων ἐπιτηδείως ἕως τελειώσεως καὶ διαμονῆς ἐφ᾽ ὅσον τὰ ὑποβληθέντα θεμέλια τὴν προσδοχὴν δύναται ποιεῖσθαι.

This section uses the same word, different declension: σπερμάτων

Quote from Charles

The issue we're facing is that for the rest of philosophy: free will is a matter of ontology, but for us its a matter of physics, coming from the swerve.

I'll admit I'm still "iffy" on the swerve (in relation to modern physics), but free will being a "matter of physics" for us caught my eye. I agree. In light of that, I thought this Scientific American blog post was interesting. Of course , other posts said physics disproved free will, but I like Charles characterization here in any case.

Wondering: Is the practice of "choice and avoidance" predicated on the fact that we are able to exercise our free will? Sometimes we choose wisely, sometimes we choose poorly in our desire to achieve pleasure. But it's up to us to make those choices?

Welcome, and Happy Twentieth!

Quote from Godfrey

Happy 20th!

Attached is an image of Epicurus which works well as wallpaper for a phone. It came from the BBC podcast with Catherine Wilson, David Sedley et al. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ww3cszjv4)

I hope all are well!

Happy Twentieth!

Home screen on my phone set! Thanks for the image

Yes!!

Now I'm getting why you all have the affinity you do for DeWitt's work! The statement in this paper that stood out for me was:

Quote

I think it best to print the Greek text, which is undisputed, and to build up a version piecemeal

THIS is what I've been waiting for in Epicurus and His Philosophy (EaHP)!

Unfortunately, he seems to, for the most part, avoid this "building up" in that work. I realize EaHP is geared toward a more "popular" audience so in-depth erudite step by step arguments seem to have been put aside in favor of mere assertion on some points. Plus, he adulterated that work with the "Epicureanism in Christianity" stuff which seems superfluous to me but which Cassius had good arguments for DeWitt's inclusion that make sense to me. I don't necessarily accept DeWitt's assertions on those, but I get why he probably put them in (in addition to his obviously believing they're in the New Testament).

But these papers of DeWitt's are great! I have greatly enjoyed reading them! He is definitely striking a blow for Epicurus!

Now THIS is what I'm talking about!! This is DeWitt's full erudition and scholarship on display. He makes claims and then backs them up FULLY with citations, original text excerpts, and step-by-step reasoning. I enjoyed reading this VERY much.

My only initial hesitation was his claim that Lucretius mistranslated a certain term or concept. Uh oh, I thought. Lucretius WAS an Epicurean who understood both Greek and Latin (the latter as a first language). He knew what he wanted to say... BUT Dewitt did an excellent job of laying out why he thought Lucretius may have used the term he did in the cultural context of his time and because he was a poet.

Now, I'm still going to hold Dewitt accountable for unsubstantiated claims he makes in EaHP, but this essay was a welcome eye-opener on the professor's ability!

Thanks, Cassius , for posting!

I was just making dinner and was listening to a RadioLab episode entitled The Cataclysm Sentence. Here's the blurb:

One day in 1961, the famous physicist Richard Feynman stepped in front of a Caltech lecture hall and posed this question to a group of undergraduate students: “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence was passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words?” Now, Feynman had an answer to his own question - a good one.

I think you'll find Feynman's answer* satisfying from an Epicurean perspective (if you don't know it already). Just had to share. Enjoy.

*His answer had to do with passing on the atomic theory and I immediately thought of Lucretius and his "passing on" the atomic theory to the Renaissance.

Cassius , thank you SO much for your comments!! I can definitely see where you're coming from in explaining DeWitt's "Epicureanism in Christianity" directions and think you make some very valid conjectures and provide hearty food for thought. I especially liked your...

Quote

...hard to resist a significant degree of evangelical spirit.

Amen!

I certainly appreciate your perspectives. Thank you for taking the time to share them! I concur that it's important to not get hung up on details and miss the "big picture." I also freely admit that this may as well be my first reading of DeWitt as I only vaguely remember passages from my first reading as I'm reading this time. And I haven't even gotten to the meat of the philosophy chapters yet. You all have had years with DeWitt and so have a much broader perspective on his work. I hope you'll be patient with me as I dig into the rest of EAHP.

I also fully agree that a syncretic, cafeteria-style philosophy isn't worth much. Either a philosophy or "art of life" stands on its own or not. I apologize if I gave the impression I was going down that road. That is not my intention.

All that being said, I do not wish to be a DeWittean Epicurean, a Baileyan Epicurean, a Gassendian Epicurean, a Jeffersonian Epicurean, a Stoic Epicurean, but an Epicurean. I want to understand what Epicurus, Metrodorus, Philodemus, Lucretius, et al. taught and wrote to the best of my ability, using all the best scholarship available from multiple sources and using the example of Epicurus to question accepted wisdom and "culture" and to come to my own conclusions.

So, personally, I am withholding my judgement of DeWitt's claim of understanding Epicurus' philosophy better than any others. I definitely agree that academic consensus doesn't necessarily equate with "Truth." I also don't necessarily think the maverick freethinking scholar is always right either. DeWitt's agenda to find Epicureanism hidden in Christianity at every turn raises red flags for me. I fear he may try to make connections where none actually exist or are tenuous at best or have multiple valid explanations (like explanations for meterological events in Lucretius). However, I *am* looking forward to digging into his anti-Platonic arguments. Epicurus was definitely no fan of the prevailing educational system of his day and it makes sense that he would work to counter that.

This is why I firmly believe, no matter the difficulty, that it is so important to look at the original works (on digitised manuscripts if possible), to compare numerous translations, and to consult authoritative dictionaries and other reference works. Is it a long involved process? Sure! Lifelong maybe. But I want to understand *why* translators and scholars chose the words they did. Because the words of Epicurus and Lucretius and Philodemus et al. - extant and buried in their critics - are the only connection we have to them. I'm reluctant to accept any one person's filter (other than Epicurus' ) through which to see this philosophy. If I'm going to make decisions about how to live my life using this philosophy, I'm going to base them on the words of Epicurus (and the other classical Epicureans) as I can reasonably come to understand them. I will gladly and enthusiastically accept the help of fellow aspiring Epicureans online. I will gladly and enthusiastically accept the help of scholars in the field - DeWitt included, of course! - but I'm going to check footnotes and citations and hold their feet to the proverbial fire to see if their conclusions are confirmed by the words in the original texts that they cite. If they're adding attributes that aren't there or making broad assumptions or trying to make tenuous connections to disparate facts, I'm going to be skeptical of other claims they make that aren't so easily questioned.

And I'm looking forward to taking pleasure in the journey!

Thanks, Cassius , for the articles. I'm looking forward to reading them.

While I have respect for DeWitt's credentials as a classical scholar and translator, I admit I'm somewhat skeptical of his proclivity for saying, in effect "everyone has been mistranslating [fill in the blank] and I'm the only one who really figured out what it means." Especially if the novel translation also fits with an unorthodox or idiosyncratic interpretation. I'm not saying that's always the case with him, but that is the kind of thing that give me pause.

Glad to hear your power is back! Hope that was the extent of your inconvenience! Welcome back.