Posts by Don

εἰ τὰ ποιητικὰ τῶν περὶ τοὺς ἀσώτους ἡδονῶν ἔλυε τοὺς φόβους τῆς διανοίας τούς τε περὶ μετεώρων καὶ θανάτου καὶ ἀλγηδόνων, ἔτι τε τὸ πέρας τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν <καὶ τῶν ἀλγηδόνων> ἐδίδασκεν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε εἴχομεν ὅ τι μεμψαίμεθα αὐτοῖς πανταχόθεν ἐκπληρουμένοις τῶν ἡδονῶν καὶ οὐδαμόθεν οὔτε τὸ ἀλγοῦν οὔτε τὸ λυπούμενον ἔχουσιν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ κακόν.

A big "if." If this is the case, we have no argument against the profligate. But...
The word translated as just "profligate" here is ἀσώτους which literally means "those having no hope of safety, the abandoned, the profligate, Latin. perditus." And the Latin word then conveys "the destroyed, the ruined; the wasted, the squandered; the lost."

From these connotations, we can easily see that Epicurus does not hold out the prospect here that the ἀσώτοι have a chance of resolving all their fears of death, suffering, etc., through their wanton "pleasures" ἡδονῶν. That is why Epicurus does indeed have complaints against them. They have no hope of safety - they literally need to be saved as if they're still at sea and drowning - and Epicurus is out to save them from themselves.

Fair points, Cassius Allow me to rephrase my thoughts.

By using "wanting" I wanted to convey that if you're envious, you want something. You're lacking something you want, something you feel that you deserve. From my perspective, Lucretius is saying our vision is jealous in the sense that it "wants" to see all of Nature's secrets, greedy to see everything hidden from view... but it can't. But our vision just isn't capable of seeing atoms, so Lucretius is telling us how we can perceive them by analogy and by using our other senses (including our mental sense).

As to the barred doors of Nature, I have thoughts. (Hard to believe, I know ) From my perspective, this is nothing more than Lucretius exercising his poetic muscles. This language is simply describing, in a poetic manner, the idea that Epicurus was the first to reveal the secrets of nature that no one else could figure out. Before Epicurus, nature's processes were accepted as being under the control of the gods or other supernatural forces. The processes behind "the nature of things" were hidden behind "the close-set bolts upon the doors of nature" to simply use poetic language. That's so much better than just saying "Epicurus figured things out that no one else figured out before him because he was really smart." There is no one or no thing standing guard at actual or figurative doors. It's simply poetry: the honey on the rim of the cup of wormwood.

I was listening to Episode 9 in my car on my way to work this morning and found myself desperately wanting to chime in as you all were discussing the jealous/envious aspect of vision.

My take on that line was that it is our faculty of vision itself that is greedy, envious, that is wanting, etc. There's no outside agency that's jealous.

Inanother sense, it is we, through our sight, who feel we are entitled to see everything! Nothing should be hidden from us. Who is nature to hide something from our vision?!

I also got this corroborated somewhat in a book I found via Google Books which gives a translation as "The grudging nature of our vision had shut is off from proof as to which atoms have left at a given time."

Great episode!

An eloquent piece of writing! Thank you for sharing!

Quote from Nico Lab

I am most definitely human. Singularity has not affected me yet.

As you can tell, I'm not a scholar of Epicurus, I originally trained and worked in Psychology, but simply wish to increase my understanding of his readings and how this can benefit my understanding and practice of herbal medicine and the concept of health and what we are 'told' it means and what it meant to Epicurus.

Many thanks, Nicola.

Welcome! With all the bots online, I'm sure Cassius was just being cautious. I'm new here myself and have found the forum welcoming, intellectually stimulating, good-humored, and fun! Rest assured, I don't believe any of us are "scholars" here but amateurs in the literal sense. Epicurus himself claimed to be self-taught so we're following in his (big) footsteps. Your background and training should prove helpful and interesting.

Hope your stay here is a pleasurable one!

τῶν πλείστων ἀνθρώπων τὸ μὲν ἡσυχάζον ναρκᾷ, τὸ δὲ κινούμενον λυττᾷ.

This is an interesting fragment. It's import, at least for me, was not initially apparent. Then I read the other thread in this topic and became intrigued. If we dive into the original Greek, we find some interesting things. To take the first phrase:

τῶν πλείστων ἀνθρώπων

simply means "the greatest number of people" or "the majority of people." So, what we're going to be discussing are most people, not a select few, i.e., not sages, not Epicureans, but the hoi polloi.

μὲν and δὲ simply connect phrases and can in some senses be translated something like "On the one hand… on the other hand…" or just "but." It sets up a contrast. So, let's take the other two phrases without them.

τὸ ἡσυχάζον ναρκᾷ

"Being still, being at rest, being quiet is 'ναρκᾷ'" which means "numbness, deadness, to be in a stupor." Consider that ναρκᾷ narka is related to English "narcotic" and "narcolepsy."

τὸ κινούμενον λυττᾷ.

Consider the meanings of κινούμενον, the participle form of the verb κῑνέω:

• to set in motion, move, remove
• (grammar) to inflect
• to meddle
• to change, innovate
• to begin, cause
• to urge on, stir on
• to arouse, exasperate, anger, taunt, abuse
• (passive) to be moved, to stir, to move

So "being in motion, moving (contrasting with τὸ ἡσυχάζον) is 'λυττᾷ'" which connotes "rage, fury; mania, raging madness; fanaticism" or even "rabies (of dogs)!" Again, this sets up a contrast with ναρκᾷ.

So, an alternative translation could be:

For the majority of people, being at rest is to be in a stupor and numb; but being active is to be raving like a rabid dog.

It seems to me to be saying that there needs to be a balance in rest and activity or that stillness isn't seen to be important by most people. Implying that stillness and rest *are* important for the Epicureans. "Most people" think being still is like being under the effect of a narcotic (to put a modern twist on it). Additionally, when "most people" are active, they're just running around raving in a mania to be just simply doing something, they can't be alone with their own thoughts, they can't be still and taking pleasure in rest. Likewise, they can't take pleasure in activity either. They're just raging around manically like they have an advanced case of rabies!

The Epicurus Wiki also has a good commentary on this saying.

Quote from elli

Another example is here : «Κενός ἐκείνου φιλοσόφου λόγος, ὑφ’ οὗ μηδέν πάθος ἀνθρώπου θεραπεύεται· ὥσπερ γάρ ἰατρικής οὐδεν ὄφελος μή τάς νόσους τῶν σωμάτων ἐκβαλλούσης, οὔτως οὐδέ φιλοσοφίας, εἰ μή τό τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκβάλλει πάθος».

"A philosopher's words are empty (or vain) if they do not heal the suffering of man. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul". (Emphasis added)

I think Elli and Cassius 's points here perfectly illustrate the Epicurean relative perspective. Something isn't "empty" or "vain" in an absolute sense. There are no Platonic "empty desires" for example. It is the results of something by which something is judged empty or not:

Which words of the Philosopher are empty?

Those that do not heal the suffering of man.

Thank you, Elli for spelling this out initially above!

Elli , am I correct in understanding that here:

ὥσπερ γάρ ἰατρικής οὐδεν ὄφελος μή τάς νόσους τῶν σωμάτων ἐκβαλλούσης, οὔτως οὐδέ φιλοσοφίας, εἰ μή τό τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκβάλλει πάθος»

that οὐδεν means something like "nothing/no/none" so those lines could be translated something like:

"... For just as medicine means nothing (has no benefit (ὄφελος)) if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy means nothing if it does not remove suffering from the soul".

I'm asking because the juxtaposition of both empty and nothing/no/none seems possibly significant to me.

Good old Pan the goat-god! Now THERE was a pleasure seeker! The video did evoke ancient Greece. Thanks for sharing!

I was wondering whether Pan the god and pan "the whole" were cognate. It looks like they may not actually be connected surprisingly.

According to the Wikipedia article for Pan (god) (yeah, it is Wikipedia so follow up with its sources!):

Many modern scholars consider Pan to be derived from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European god *Péh₂usōn, whom these scholars believe to have been an important pastoral deity^[5] (*Péh₂usōn shares an origin with the modern English word "pasture").^[6] The Rigvedic god Pushan is believed to be a cognate of Pan. The connection between Pan and Pushan was first identified in 1924 by the German scholar Hermann Collitz.^[7][8] The familiar form of the name Pan is contracted from earlier Παων, derived from the root *peh2 (guard, watch over).^[9] According to Edwin L. Brown, the name Pan is probably a cognate with the Greek word ὀπάων "companion".^[10]

And according to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

pan-

word-forming element meaning "all, every, whole, all-inclusive," from Greek pan-, combining form of pas (neuter pan, masculine and neuter genitive pantos) "all," from PIE *pant- "all" (with derivatives found only in Greek and Tocharian).

So two different Proto-Indo-Eurpoean roots entirely: *peh2 "guard, watch over" led to Pan the god and *pant- "all" led to το παν "the universe"! That surprised me.

Quote from Charles

Whether or not we choose to label Epicurean Philosophy as hedonistic is another debate, but what is shared between Epicureans and Hedonists/Libertines/Utilitarian Ethics is both; our recognition of pleasure as *good* and choosing actions that result in pleasure for ourselves and sometimes our close ones if it benefits us. This is ultimately where the title of the thread becomes relevant as no matter what those who critique us & pleasure will group us in with other pleasure seekers or isolate us and then choose to attack, with issues of morality being a formidable argument according to the attacker's perception. But what does everyone here think? How exactly do we hold each other accountable, including pleasure seekers who wouldn’t label themselves Epicurean and aren’t familiar with our concepts of frankness and justice, but otherwise share many of our values?

I will admit that my first reaction was "It's not my responsibility to answer for all those who call themselves 'Hedonists/Libertines/Utilitarians' If people lump us all in together!"

But, upon further reflection, it doesn't do us any good to get painted with the broad brush of prejudice and not defend ourselves. We need to have a proper reaction at the ready. I don't know what that is, but let's ponder it together.

I do think it's very important the way you phrased it: "according to the attacker's perception." They're the ones who need correcting. They're the ones with whom we have to engage. What do we need to get through to them and how?

Additionally, I don't think we can hold Hedonists/Libertines/Utilitarians accountable. We are not all part of a big tent. They don't need to listen to us and vice versa.

BUT we do need to distinguish ourselves from other "pleasure seekers" because that's just not what we are. We believe (*I think*) that pleasure is the summum bonum since pleasure is what stands alone. Pleasure is not a means to an end. Pleasure is! Virtue is only a means to pleasure. Why do we try to practice wisdom, to be moral, and to be just? Because we believe KD 5: "It is not possible to live a joyous life without the traits of wisdom, morality, and justice; and it is impossible to live with wisdom, morality, and justice without living joyously. When one of these is lacking, it is impossible to live a joyous life." Virtue is a means to an end: living pleasurably. Morality is a means to an end: living pleasurably. Pleasure is the end to which we're heading!

The reason that we're not libertines and decadents is that that lifestyle is not sustainable. It does not lead to living pleasurably. Sure, I can enjoy a few beers. Sure, I can enjoy a fine meal. But I don't want to stay drunk continuously and gorge myself on fine food every day. That's a recipe for pain.

The argument against Epicureans that murderers find murder pleasurable isn't necessarily easy to overcome. Murderers may truly believe that they find sadistic pleasure in their crime, and I'm not entirely convinced by that specious Epicurean argument that they will be troubled by knowledge that they cannot be sure they will go undetected. It sounds good but some people are sociopaths. BUT does it REALLY lead to a murderer living pleasurably. We REALLY have to define what we mean by "living pleasurably" I think. Almost by definition, someone who derives "pleasure" - and I deliberately put that in quotes - from their heinous crimes isn't living pleasurably by almost any rational societal understanding - prolepsis, if you will - of what "living pleasurably" means. That's another thing I believe that sets us Epicureans apart, knowing that "living pleasurably" has to be sustainable. We work towards maximizing sustained pleasure, not having momentary jolts of kinetic pleasures. That's what we work towards not just aponia but also ataraxia.

This is a fascinating and important thread to discuss. I hope I've added some food for thought and look forward to reading more from everyone.

I also found this at the Online Etymology Dictionary:

prudence (n.)

mid-14c. (c. 1200 as a surname), mid-14c., "intelligence; discretion, foresight; wisdom to see what is suitable or profitable;" also one of the four cardinal virtues, "wisdom to see what is virtuous;" from Old French prudence (13c.) and directly from Latin prudentia "a foreseeing, foresight, sagacity, practical judgment," contraction of providentia "foresight" (see providence). Secondary sense of "wisdom" (late 14c.) is preserved in jurisprudence.

I just came across this article online and wanted to get it linked before I lost it:

Julie Annas. Epicurean Emotions. University of Arizona, 1989.

I have not had a chance to read it yet except for the first paragraph or so.

Actually, the equivalent Latin (and English!) term would be "universe". From the Elementary Lewis Latin Dictionary:

ūniversus adj.

unus+versus, all together, all in one, whole, entire, collective (opp. singuli): provincia: civitas: mundus: triduum, three days together , T.: de universis generibus rerum dicere: ut eadem sit utilitas unius cuiusque et universorum: in illum tela universi coniciunt, Cs.—Plur m . as subst, the whole body, all men, the mass, everybody : universi in omnibus fori partibus: si universi videre optimum possent, nemo delectos principes quaereret.—Sing n . as subst, the whole world, universe : in eodem universo (i. e. in universitate rerum): universi corpus.— Relating to all, general, universal : odium: oratoris vis: dimicatio, a general engagement , L.—As subst n ., in the phrase, in universum, as a whole, in general, generally : non nominatim, sed in universum, L., Ta.

I was just reading the Letter to Herodotus in working on my personal Epicurean outline and realized I had forgotten how much I love the word Epicurus (and other ancient Greeks) used for the universe:

τὸ πᾶν

Transliterated, this is:

tò pãn or simply "to pan"

This is the same "pan" as in "panhellenic" or "pantheism."

I've seen it translated as:

• the sum of all things
• the sum total of all things
• the universe as a whole
• the whole of being

... among others, sometimes using several of these in the same text for the same word: τὸ πᾶν. It takes all those English letters for 5 Greek ones.

I think one of the reasons it brings me so much pleasure is its simplicity. A definite article: τὸ, and a simple 3-letter word: πᾶν. I'm tempted to capitalize it, as in To Pan. Let the trumpets sound!

At its simplest, it could be translated The All or The Whole. It could also be translated as The Everything Everywhere. The word really encapsulates for me the elegance and succinct nature of the original classical Greek.

Sometimes it's the little joys that are the best

Just had to share.

Quote from JJElbert

It's simple: he failed to refer each pleasure back to his philosophical control network. This is the meaning of choice and avoidance; if he had remembered the Principle Doctrines, it might have prevented some mistakes!

Well put, Joshua . I think that's a great analogy and demonstrates why it's important to decide on a philosophy of life. That way, you have a "North Star" so to speak to guide you. Having a proven, consistent philosophy (say... Epicureanism? ) provides objective criteria against which to weigh your choices and rejections. We don't follow every pleasure willy-nilly! That's where these people who denigrate Epicureanism go wrong.

Quote from Cassius

I would be very careful there. Fame is one thing, but "public life" is a broad term,...

Now that you put it that way, I would agree. Epicurus was arguably a public figure in the sense that he was a known figure. Did he seek out the publicity/fame? Arguably not, but he didn't shrink from a public fight in his works that were circulated. And we know people tried to malign him during and after his life.

To paraphrase: Some people seek fame; others have fame thrust upon them. It's also a matter of what they do with that fame once it is there.

KD 17 Ὁ δίκαιος ἀταρακτότατος, ὁ δ’ ἄδικος πλείστης ταραχῆς γέμων.

One who is just, moral, and virtuous has peace of mind; but one who is unjust and amoral is overflowing with agitation, confusion, and uncertainty. (Translation is my own)(ταραχῆς, i.e., the opposite of αταραξία).

This Principal Doctrine just makes sense. If you are just in your dealings with other people, moral in your actions, and do your best to display fair behavior, you have no need to be troubled. You've done your best. Don't get me wrong. Bad things will happen to you, and some people still won't like you. But you don't control that. Your mind can be at peace. On the other hand, if you treat people poorly, display amoral behavior, and are basically an objectively poor excuse for a human being, you have reason to be troubled! People will be out to get you. If you're the latter, you need to have some frank speech with yourself and get on the right track.

To quote (Wil) Wheaton's Law: "Don't be a dick!"* If you take his advice, you and all of us who interact with you will be the better for it.

Wheaton's Law: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law

(Updated 7/15/23)

Exactly! I hadn't thought of that, but I would agree with you. That makes sense!

And what are left with from most people?

Λάθε βιώσας = (In a stuffy, stereotypical academic accent) "Oh, yes. From these two words taken out of context, we can *clearly* see that Epicurus advocated being a hermit." LOL

Quote

"Now for my part I have long been firmly convinced that Epicurus was mistaken in that view of his, but whether it be proper to urge into public life any and every man, both him who lacks natural abilities and him who is not yet completely equipped, is a point that deserves the most careful consideration." Julian

I hear you! Julian was the last gasp of pagan learning, but he wasn't an Epicurean advocate for sure. That emphasis I added above to his quote is what's making me think that Epicurus was just talking about "urg[ing] into public life any and every man." Romans were VERY big into getting involved in politics, so any suggestion that this wasn't laudatory would have been jumped on.

I did find another source for this from the Emperor Julian in his letter to Themistius the Philosopher. From this, it appears Julian is saying the context of Epicurus' láthe biōsas was simply "Don't get involved in politics" plain and simple. Julian was writing 200+ years after Plutarch but could still easily have had access to far more primary Epicurean sources than we do. If that's the case, it would seem Plutarch was purposefully mischaracterizing the saying and taking it out of context, blowing it all out of proportion to its original intent. I know... Hard to believe he'd do that!

EXCELLENT points, Cassius ! Fragments are just that: fragments devoid of context, tantalizing though they may be. And I firmly agree we shouldn't get too hung up on them. They're so tempting, though, since we have so little of Epicurus' texts to dig into. Alas!

I had also forgotten before writing this that the source for this fragment is Plutarch's diatribe against this very Fragment itself. So, already in that respect, we're at a disadvantage! The very source of the (let's say) "infamous" saying of Epicurus is a polemic against that very "infamous" saying of Epicurus taken out of context to attack him! That's a vicious circle if I ever saw one.

And these lines from Plutarch lead me to believe I *may* be on the right track (or I have enough to cover myself), emphasis added:

And in fine, to what purpose, Epicurus, did you keep a public table? Why that concourse of friends, that resort of fair young men, at your doors? Why so many thousand lines so elaborately composed and writ upon Metrodorus, Aristobulus, and Chaeredemus, that death itself might not rob us of them; if virtue must be doomed to oblivion, art to idleness and inactivity, philosophy to silence, and all a man's happiness must be forgotten?

Again, I freely admit we do not have Epicurus' context, merely the disgruntled ramblings of a fierce critic. But from my perspective as an aspiring Epicurean, I see that Epicurus invited people in to his public table. He greeted people at his door. He wrote but didn't see the need to pontificate in the agora. One may say he lived, let's say at most, unobtrusively but was NOT disengaged from society, his friends, and those that sought him out. He most likely said/wrote the words láthe biōsas since Plutarch is so worked up about it in ancient times, but we have no surviving text of his. Plutarch simply takes láthe biōsas out of context and runs with it... And HE gets to be the last word on it for posterity! That's aggravating.

[Note: I've also found Attalus' website helpful for the sources, U551 in our current case here.]