Posts by Don

Fragment 551 famously reads λάθε βιώσας and is usually translated as "Live unknown." It could also be translated as "Live hidden," "Live unnoticed," or "Live while escaping notice."

But how do we square this coming from Epicurus who is known two thousand years after he died. Did he live by this maxim? We can't say Epicurus was even unknown during his life. So how are we to understand láthe biōsas as it pertains to him and ourselves?

Epicurus encouraged people to shun the world of politics and the public life. Attracting notice to yourself in politics or in pursuit of power was a dangerous path and didn't lead to pleasure, nor aponia, nor ataraxia. This appears to have direct applicability to Epicureans in general.

"Keep your head down!" might be a more appropriate way of paraphrasing this Fragment. Or even better maybe "Don't be obtrusive" or "Don't get in people's faces."

Epicurus certainly advocated helping people find their way to ataraxia. Why else would he have written letters and epitomes, have founded the Garden, and have insisted that we cultivate friendships one-on-one. Epicurus didn't say "live unknown to all of existence." He didn't say "go live as a hermit." He was known to close friends and those who had an interest in listening to his philosophy and deciding which pleasures to choose and which to reject. He even made a point of arguing his case against his detractors and those he found espousing unsound doctrine. He didn't "live unknown." You could find him *if* you wanted to. He just didn't teach in the agora or in the stoas. You came to him. "Hey, you know where to find me. It's not hard. But I'm not going to get in your face or make you listen to me if you don't want to. But you could really use my help."

Look at Diogenes of Oenoanda. He put up a solid stone wall that's stood the test of time, albeit in a ruined state. He made Epicureanism available to the masses, but you could walk by his wall and not read it if you wanted to. He lived unknown again in the sense that "I'm going to undertake building this wall, but I can't make you read it. But you could really use my help."

We need to be *willing* to live unknown to the masses, not to go looking for celebrity, but to be available to our friends and those who may seek our advice. Don't go looking for your name in lights or your face on the cover of TIME magazine. If it *happens,* roll with it. But don't seek it out. However, you can have meaningful conversations. You can form the bonds of friendship. You can even make plans for your funerals and write your wills just as Epicurus did! Just know that there are no guarantees once you die that you'll be known… and learn to be okay with that. It's nothing to us. We can make ourselves available to the curious, but we don't need to stand on the street corner like some itinerant preacher handing out tracts and screaming at passers-by.

To get a more nuanced idea of λάθε, consider VS 7: It is easy to commit an injustice undetected, but impossible to be sure that you have escaped detection. ἀδικοῦντα λαθεῖν μὲν δύσκολον, πίστιν δὲ λαβεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαθεῖν ἀδύνατον. This "undetected" connotation sheds another light on λαθε βιωσας. It appears to be saying that we can think we're "undetected" or unnoticed, but chances are that somehow we're going to be found out sooner or later. If we take Fragment 551 and VS 7 in tandem, both can seem to inform the other. Consider if we would say "It is easy to attempt to live undetected, but impossible to be sure that you have escaped detection." I'm not saying that's entirely legitimate but indulge it as a thought experiment and it expands the meaning of both.

This is how I'm beginning to understand the meaning of λάθε βιώσας.

I'm curious to read how others interpret this well-known fragment and how they believe it may be applicable (or not) to an Epicurean practice.

Quote from Godfrey

A more pleasant practice, aside from Josh's, is semi-regular viewing of the movie Harold and Maude. I haven't watched it in a long, long time though so I'm not aware of where it falls on the philosophical spectrum.

I know of that film but never had the opportunity to watch it. I'll admit that after reading the synopsis on Wikipedia, I'm intrigued. Thanks for the recommendation!

It doesn't take much urging for me to go down the research route And so…

VS 46 τὰς φαύλας συνηθείας ὥσπερ ἄνδρας πονηροὺς πολὺν χρόνον μέγα βλάψαντες τελείως ἐκδιώκομεν.

I would agree that VS 46 encourages us to take our choices seriously. The key words are τελείως ἐκδιώκομεν. I've seen them translated various ways:

• We utterly eliminate
• ...let us utterly drive from us.
• We cast off…
• Let us completely banish…

These do get at the general connotation of the words, but we must remember to never be satisfied with one translation for each brings a shade of meaning and dig into dictionaries to see how the original classical Greek was used:

τελείως means "absolutely, completely"

ἐκδιώκομεν means "We chase away, we banish"

So we are encouraged not simply to "get rid of" or "eliminate" something (what we'll get to in one moment) but to banish it completely so it will never return; chase it away absolutely, so far away it won't ever come back.

What are we chasing away? τὰς φαύλας συνηθείας St-Andre translates this as "common customs." I prefer "trivial, worthless habits" to make it more personal. I interpret these to be those habits that you don't even think of but that are harming your ability to pursue pleasure and are of no positive value. VS 46 describes these habits as being akin to "worthless, no-good people" that have been harming you for a long time. Too long! Drive them away from you completely, so far they'll never return!

This gets at the same immediacy and energy with which we should make our choices and rejections.

Quote from JJElbert

Another good practice, which I have occasionally employed; try to visualize the field of void and matter that stretches away from you in every direction as you stand, for example, in a quiet wood, or a crowded and busy intersection.

I like that! I can see how it would put things into perspective.

Powerful posts, Joshua . Thank you very much for those insights, especially the Auden quote.

One of my incentives for posting this thread was to get a conversation going on what it means for an Epicurean to "meditare mortem" as Epicurus urged us (via Seneca at least), and I've been pleased with everyone's passion and insights.

I fully agree that Buddhists and Epicureans come at this from two diametrically opposed sides, and you did an excellent job in summarizing that difference. Your brief notes on the Buddhist view of a human existence was spot on! It's merely the best vehicle for getting out of the cycle of rebirth. That isn't even in the same realm as Epicurus!

And an Epicurean meditation, reflection, or practice (choose your translation of meditatio or μελετά) of death would not necessarily include the visualizations of dead bodies, one's own or others, but it could. That's nature! There's nothing intrinsically morbid about it - only culturally. I would recommend anyone look into the "death positive" and "green burial" movement especially Caitlin Doughty's work. I've found it fascinating and eye-opening recently.

From my perspective then, what should I get from engaging in "Meditare mortem" as an Epicurean?

• By meditating on my own death, I should come to an unshakeable understanding of the briefness of my life and the necessity of pursuing pleasure now and remembering past pleasures while I can.
• By meditating on the death and eventual decomposition of my body, I should come to a visceral understanding that I am not separate from these arrangements of atoms and, when I die, that arrangement goes away. I no longer exist and therefore death is nothing to me.
• By meditating on the death of friends and loved ones, I should firmly grasp the reality that everyone's life is brief and we get only one chance to show those closest to us how we love and appreciate them. We have no assurance that when we part from someone (as in going to work or leaving the house) we will see them again, we should be mindful of leaving pleasantly.

That last one contrasts starkly with the Stoic reflection on death which has the potential to engender a detachment... Although it doesn't need to. I've seen Stoic articles reflect similar sentiments to the one above, but I didn't really but it entirely from them.

None of this is necessarily easy and in some respects may be painful at first. But, from my perspective, it falls into the "experiencing a pain now for long-term pleasure in the future" practice.

Powerful posts, Joshua . Thank you very much for those insights, especially the Auden quote.

One of my incentives for posting this thread was to get a conversation going on what it means for an Epicurean to "meditare mortem" as Epicurus urged us (via Seneca at least), and I've been pleased with everyone's passion and insights.

I fully agree that Buddhists and Epicureans come at this from two diametrically opposed sides, and you did an excellent job in summarizing that difference. Your brief notes on the Buddhist view of a human existence was spot on! It's merely the best vehicle for getting out of the cycle of rebirth. That isn't even in the same realm as Epicurus!

And an Epicurean meditation, reflection, or practice (choose your translation of meditatio or μελετά) of death would not necessarily include the visualizations of dead bodies, one's own or others, but it could. That's nature! There's nothing intrinsically morbid about it - only culturally. I would recommend anyone look into the "death positive" and "green burial" movement especially Caitlin Doughty's work. I've found it fascinating and eye-opening recently.

From my perspective then, what should I get from engaging in "Meditare mortem" as an Epicurean?

• By meditating on my own death, I should come to an unshakeable understanding of the briefness of my life and the necessity of pursuing pleasure now and remembering past pleasures while I can.
• By meditating on the death and eventual decomposition of my body, I should come to a visceral understanding that I am not separate from these arrangements of atoms and, when I die, that arrangement goes away. I no longer exist and therefore death is nothing to me.
• By meditating on the death of friends and loved ones, I should firmly grasp the reality that everyone's life is brief and we get only one chance to show those closest to us how we love and appreciate them. We have no assurance that when we part from someone (as in going to work or leaving the house) we will see them again, we should be mindful of leaving pleasantly.

That last one contrasts starkly with the Stoic reflection on death which has the potential to engender a detachment... Although it doesn't need to. I've seen Stoic articles reflect similar sentiments to the one above, but I didn't really but it entirely from them.

None of this is necessarily easy and in some respects may be painful at first. But, from my perspective, it falls into the "experiencing a pain now for long-term pleasure in the future" practice.

I'm not sure this counts as a daily practice but I'm sharing an image of my keychain I carry every day. I made both the SFOTSE ring (Sic Fac Omnia Tamquam Spectet Epicurus) to remind me of my Epicurean practice and the ring with the 4 wooden beads behind it to remind me of the Tetrapharmakos. I will find myself "rosary-ing" the 4 beads in the elevator of my parking garage at the end of the day sometimes silently reciting the Tetrapharmakos (in ancient Greek, of course ).

Quote from elli

So, the main point of Epicurean Philosophy is to liberate us from those fears that are produced with empty beliefs and the opinions by the many which say that there is god's providence that a god created the Universe, so here comes and the lust of immortality and the worse here comes the necessity.

Well said, Elli !

This has been a pleasurable intellectual exercise (and one I'll plan on exploring on my own for awhile) but, for the time being, I can't think of a better way to tie up this particular thread. Thanks!

Okay, after reading DeWitt I remain intrigued by this possibility of the gods' mental "incorruptibility". It sounds like the gods' "imperishability" isn't a given according to DeWitt (if I'm reading him and his ancient sources correctly); the gods have to work at it. Physically, they are animals composed of atoms and void, just like us. But it could be that their disposition or mental faculties are "eternally" unchanged - if they maintain control.

And so we are urged to consider living a life worthy of the gods in Epicurean writings, something that would at least theoretically be achievable if we look at it in this sense.

Okay, I need to dig a little more in the sources. I fully realize I could be WAAAY off base here... But I am finding pleasure in doing the research and in entertaining the ideas!

Quote from Cassius

Eugenious I am not sure I understand your comment. As far as getting hung up, the original point, was it not, was whether an Epicurean god is "immortal" or not by nature? And your secondary point was that you were concerned that "immortal" might mean that this attribute was irrelevant to humans, since humans are not immortal? And perhaps an even more subtle point was whether DeWitt was correct in not using "immortal" in his translation?

I think ultimately Dewitt is indicating his value by pointing us in the direction that you are looking, which is not what "immortal" conveys. DeWitt's view is at least in part that like humans, gods too must act to sustain their lives and happiness; they are not mystically immortal.

Sorry on two counts:

1) I haven't had a chance to read all the DeWitts you graciously posted. Mea culpa on that. That's next on my list.

2) My initial hang up was indeed not being able to get past the idea that the "gods" (blessed beings) were said to be ἄφθαρτον which I took to mean "immortal" as that was my initial understanding of the word. How could that work, I wanted to know.

BUT now, with Elli 's post I find myself very fascinated by the idea that ἄφθαρτον could mean "immortal" in the sense of "unchanging" when confronted by external circumstances. Blessed beings remain unchanged ("eternally" the same) whether they are confronted by anger or gratitude, making the second part of KD 1 directly enhancing the meaning of the first part. Neither anger nor gratitude matters to them. They are self-sufficient, they are not buffeted by the waves of Chance, they remain unperturbed and choose to not concern themselves with the worries of the world. THAT is an intriguing concept to me. It's not a PHYSICAL "imperishability" but a MENTAL one! And that would be of direct applicability to our own existence. One that could serve as an exemplar to us mortals.

Now, whether any of this is correct and/or orthodox and/or novel and/or academically accepted is another matter entirely.

Now, after all that, I'm off to read DeWitt's excerpts and your previous posts!!

Quote from elli

Yes, I agree totally with the word as used by DeWitt. The word in english and greek for "άφθαρτα" is "incorruptible" or "untouched" by the corruptible, and on the basis of Ethics I explained - as much as I could - the reasons why this word is the accurate one.

I may be mistaken but I think what Elli is saying is that "άφθαρτα" means "incorruptible" or "un-corruptible" in the sense of "untouchable" by anything "corrupt". Which, to me, makes perfect sense when you look at the last half of KD 1. That says "affected by neither anger nor gratitude." So what is being described is not a being that is eternal or imperishable in the sense that it lasts forever, but rather a being that is "untouched", that "remains the same" whether battered by gratitude or anger. That is very intriguing to me (if I'm understanding her correctly).

We seem to be getting hung up on what English word is used in translation. That's secondary from my perspective. Epicurus didn't speak English. We need to understand the connotations of the ancient Greek text itself and then decide the best English paraphrase, whether that's a single word or a phrase that best encapsulates the meaning of the original.

I greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion. It's truly a pleasure and also a way for me to investigate my own understanding. I'll need to read your post thoroughly before responding but am sure, in the end, there will be more that unites us as Epicureans than divides is.

Thank you. And that image is a thrill!! I was not aware it was online. I immediately went to the British Library site to view the whole digitized manuscript! I even added the website as an External Link to Diogenes' Wikipedia article. Ευχαριστώ!!

It has been some time since I read DeWitt. Does he give any textual evidence for believing that "They were never called immortal by Epicurus himself…". Both KD 1 and the Letter to Menoikos include the line concerning "blessed and imperishable beings." Are we to pick and choose which words we want to attribute to the Founder? If it's merely a matter of inconvenience (Oh, Epicurus would never say *that*!), I would be interested to see additional scholarship to support that. And DeWitt's contention that Epicurus thought that the gods could decide whether or not to be subject to dissolution starts to sound very supernatural to me. That troubles me.

To respond to your final thoughts:

Now here I would be reluctant to go so far. I think that especially in an issue like the nature of divinity, Epicurus might consider that an attribute of divinity such as deathlessness (for the gods) might have application to us as reassurance of the overall doctrine that the gods do not interfere with us, even if we as humans are never able to achieve deathlessness ourselves.

I'm interested to explore your reluctance. The reason I belabor this point is that this is literally KD Number 1, the very first of the Principal Doctrines laid out in antiquity for this philosophy I'm considering charting my life by. If I can't make reasonable sense out of this in some shape or form, what else is lurking that I can't reasonably explain?

One of my questions would be: Is this really a question of the "nature of divinity" (which sounds rather theological and religious) or is Epicurus talking about what our lives *could* be? Or explaining how our lives actually are? Perseus Project's text of Diogenes' Lives includes a scholion note to KD 1: Elsewhere he [Epicurus] 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. Long and Sedley in The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1, expand on this and give a cogent and coherent explanation of KD 1. According to their research and in light of the scholion, the Epicurean gods are "thought constructs" - the result of countless images impressing upon our minds - and so as concepts are imperishable. Second, it is up to us to endow the gods with imperishability, to preserve them by continually conceiving of them that way. L&S also posit that the Epicurean gods are paragons of the Epicurean life. As such, the Epicurean sage can serve as an imperishable example to the community. They also quote Sextus Empiricus' Against the Professors text against Epicurus which grumbles against the Epicureans who see eudaimonia as literally meaning one must have the correct conception (eu-) of the god (-daimon) to be truly happy. L&S provide a number of texts, from Epicurus, Lucretius, and others, to back up their assertions in a way I can get past KD 1.

τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει· ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται· ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.

"The blessed and imperishable being [τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον] has no troubles itself nor causes troubles for others; as a consequence, it is affected by neither anger nor gratitude; because all this would be an indication of weakness, sickness, or lack of strength." (Translation is my own)

Being affected by anger as a sickness or weakness makes sense, but why would being affected by gratitude be a sign of weakness? One conjecture would be that it would show a lack of self-reliance / αυτάρκεια. If we needed reassurance / affirmation from others and didn't just do things because they were pleasurable, we're not truly living a blessed life. That sense of self-assurance would make one a μακάριος καὶ ἄφθαρτος. Blessed, yes. Imperishable? This echoes an idea that, once unnecessary desires are uprooted, they can't come back. But that's a Buddhist concept. Could Epicurus have really been implying that kind of Imperishability?

Some of the senses of φθαρτος, the opposite of ἄφθαρτος, are "pass away, able to be bribed, adrift." Considering the opposite of these qualities - "not pass away, not able to be bribed, not adrift" - gives a deeper sense to what a mortal life potentially filled with these senses of ἄφθαρτος would be like. We know we are mortal. Epicurus and Lucretius proclaim that. So interpreting how we mortals can be imperishable beings isn't readily apparent at first. But this doctrine - all the Principal Doctrines - have to be applicable to our lives, otherwise of what use are they to us? Epicurus was adamant that philosophy had to be practical and to improve one's life. Re-examining the connotations of ἄφθαρτος allows us to see that that idea doesn't have to be a mystical iimperishability but one rooted in the here and now.

You are correct! Someone got some calculation wrong!

I just stumbled across another calendar online for an Hellenic pagan church. That one too gives 7 Gamelion as 3 Jan 2020! But it does also look like it uses the Numachi site that Takis used. Oh, this is wonderful! Takis' previous link gave me an error so that's why I chimed in, but this is great! Disregard all my previous sites now.

I noticed that the 1st year of the 700th Olympiad begins 7/10-11/2021. Round numbers often tend to suggest big commemorations. Epicurus birthday (according to THIS resource) in the 1st year of the 700th Olympiad will be Jan. 9-10, 2022. Do we need to plan something big?

Oops, I misspoke on my previous post!

According to that calendar convertor, the 7th of Gamelion falls on:

Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 2, 2021

Jan. 9, 2022

Jan. 28, 2023

Jan. 17, 2024

Jan. 5, 2025

Technically, we should probably be celebrating the 20th on the 20th of each ancient Attic month but THAT is WAY more work than anyone wants to do!! Celebrating on the 20th of each of the months of the modern calendar is a way to keep Epicurus' memory immediate and alive.

What I like about that website is that you can see the full calendar with all the festivals, months, Olympiads, etc.

Plus, as a bit of trivia, you can put in your birth year and find your own birthday in ancient Greece. Mine happens to be the 1st of Boedromion.

It would be mind-numbingly difficult to exactly convert ancient dates to modern dates, but this one is the best and fullest option I've personally come across in English.

There is a nifty calendar convertor online for the ancient Attic Calendar .

It appears to line up with the lunar cycles etc. and I've used it to put Epicurus birthday on my calendar the last couple years, e.g., Feb. 3, 2020, for his 2,361st birthday.

I have found Saint-Andre's pages invaluable for the reason that they include the original Ancient Greek text and that they're public domain. The translations are helpful as starting points, but I've only used them as suggested translations. I'm not willing to take anything at face value. His notes are also helpful in showing why he decided on one translation over another.

In my own translation work, I've also found Wiktionary indispensable as well as the Perseus Project's Diogenes Laertius' Lives which provides both English and Greek with clickable links to Liddell & Scott's dictionary.

Quote from Godfrey

I personally discovered Epicurus while pursuing Stoicism, and for quite some time was searching for Epicurean "spiritual exercises" along the lines of some of the Stoic practices....

I, too, discovered Epicurus by way of the Stoics... basically because they've gotten WAY more publicity and promotion - both historically (since the Christians found them palatable enough to incorporate into their theology along with Plato) and in modern times. I still would be interested to see some Epicurean "spiritual exercises" which is why I've found Hadot interesting. Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus has also been interesting for this reason. But I also think your study of nature is as valid as any exercise as any.

I'm going to have to find those posts of daily practices, too!

And just to be clear: I haven't personally started an Epicurean Mindfulness of Death practice. I'm intrigued by the idea and will keep the forum updated if I do but so far I haven't tried it.