Posts by Don

Your comments were very helpful here!! I think I see the synopsis vs detail approach now. Maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself on that one. I'll definitely be sticking with DeWitt and am looking forward to forging ahead.

I mentioned in a thread on Chapter 2 that I had concerns with DeWitt's penchant for making assertions with no context or citations or context. Here are several that I noted as I read Chapter 2.

Quote

P. 45 Quote: "[Epicureanism] attracted men like Lucretius, Horace, and Virgil. At a later time the Christians Arnobius and Lactantius knew their Epicureanism better than their Bibles. St. Augustine was tempted to award it the palm."

The phrase "knew their Epicureanism better than their Bibles" makes it sound - whether DeWitt meant it that way or not - like Arnobius and Lactantius had Epicurean affinities, but that is not the case. Arnobius appears to have been familiar with Epicureanism but was also a critic of the philosophy.

Lactantius' De ira Dei ("On the Wrath of God" or "On the Anger of God") was directed specifically against both Stoics and Epicureans. See also the New Advent Encyclopedia: Chapter 4.— Of God and His Affections, and the Censure of Epicurus.

Quote

The treatise on The Anger of God is directed mainly against the tenets of the Epicureans and Stoics, who maintained that the deeds of men could produce no emotions of pleasure or anger in the Deity. Lactantius holds that the love of the good necessarily implies the hatred of evil; and that the tenets of these philosophers, as tending to overthrow the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, are subversive of the principles of true religion.

And while Augustine of Hippo wrote in his Confessions (Book VI, Chapter XVI):

Quote

Thine be the praise; unto thee be the glory, O Fountain of mercies. I became more wretched and thou didst come nearer. Thy right hand was ever ready to pluck me out of the mire and to cleanse me, but I did not know it. Nor did anything call me back from a still deeper plunge into carnal pleasure except the fear of death and of thy future judgment, which, amid all the waverings of my opinions, never faded from my breast. And I discussed with my friends, Alypius and Nebridius, the nature of good and evil, maintaining that, in my judgment, Epicurus would have carried off the palm if I had not believed what Epicurus would not believe: that after death there remains a life for the soul, and places of recompense. And I demanded of them: “Suppose we are immortal and live in the enjoyment of perpetual bodily pleasure, and that without any fear of losing it--why, then, should we not be happy, or why should we search for anything else?” I did not know that this was in fact the root of my misery: that I was so fallen and blinded that I could not discern the light of virtue and of beauty which must be embraced for its own sake, which the eye of flesh cannot see, and only the inner vision can see. Nor did I, alas, consider the reason why I found delight in discussing these very perplexities, shameful as they were, with my friends. For I could not be happy without friends, even according to the notions of happiness I had then, and no matter how rich the store of my carnal pleasures might be. Yet of a truth I loved my friends for their own sakes, and felt that they in turn loved me for my own sake.

Augustine appears to be saying *in his youth* he thought "Epicurus would have carried off the palm" if he had believed in an afterlife. In fact, he appears to say that this kind of palm-worthy Epicureanism "was in fact the root of my misery." In other works, Augustine firmly rejects both Stoicism and Epicureanism, but DeWitt - from my reading - implies that Augustine was almost an Epicurean.

Quote

P. 50 Quote: "...Epicurus taught men to defy, and with commendation of the Epicurean prayer for 'a sound mind in a sound body.'"

This is another of DeWitt's assertions that he doesn't seem to back up with any citation. "A sound mind in a sound body" is NOT an Epicurean prayer from any research I can see. That specific phrase is from the Satire X of Juvenal in the last stanza:

Quote

"Is there nothing then for which men shall pray? If you ask my counsel, you will leave it to the gods themselves to provide what is good for us, and what will be serviceable for our state; for, in place of what is pleasing, they will give us what is best, Man is dearer to them than he is to himself. Impelled by strong and blind desire, we ask for wife and offspring; but the gods know of what sort the sons, of what sort the wife, will be. Nevertheless that you may have something to pray for, and be able to offer to the shrines entrails and presaging sausages from a white porker, you should pray for a sound mind in a sound body; for a stout heart that has no fear of death, and deems length of days the least of Nature's gifts; that can endure any kind of toil; that knows neither wrath or desire and thinks that the woes and hard labours of Hercules are better than the loves and the banquets and the down cushions of Sardanapalus. What I commend to you, you can give to yourself; for it is assuredly through virtue that lies the one and only road to a life of peace. Thou wouldst have no divinity, O Fortune, if we had but wisdom; it is we that make a goddess of thee, and place thee, in the skies."

The lines seem almost Stoic, not Epicurean, to me. And the sentiment if much older than Epicurus anyway with similar thoughts written by Thales:

"What man is happy?" "He who has a healthy body, a resourceful mind and a docile nature."

Quote

Pg. 53 Quote: For instance, one of the teachings of Epicurus was the following: "Human nature is not to be coerced but persuaded."

DeWitt is quoting an excerpt from VS 21 which doesn't appear to say anything about "Human nature" but rather "Nature." The text of VS 21 reads:

Quote

"Nature must be persuaded, not forced. And we will persuade nature by fulfilling the necessary desires, and the natural desires too if they cause no harm, but sharply rejecting the harmful desires. οὐ βιαστέον τὴν φύσιν ἀλλὰ πειστέον· πείσομεν δὲ τὰς ἀναγκαίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐκπληροῦντες, τάς τε φυσικὰς ἂν μὴ βλάπτωσι, τὰς δὲ βλαβερὰς πικρῶς ἐλέγχοντες."

Another translation reads:

Quote

XXI. We must not violate nature, but obey her; and we shall obey her if we fulfil the necessary desires and also the physical, if they bring no harm to us, but sternly reject the harmful.

The "nature" here is φύσιν which appears in other texts as well including:

Fr. 548. Happiness and bliss are produced not by great riches nor vast possessions nor exalted occupations nor positions of power, but rather by peace of mind, freedom from pain, and a disposition of the soul that sets its limits in accordance with nature. τὸ εὔδαιμον καὶ μακάριον [happiness and blessedness] οὐ χρημάτων πλῆθος οὐδὲ πραγμάτων ὄγκος οὐδʼ ἀρχαί τινες ἔχουσιν οὐδὲ δυνάμεις, ἀλλʼ ἀλυπία καὶ πραότης παθῶν καὶ διάθεσις ψυχῆς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὁρίζουσα.

And also PD 6:

As far as concerns protection from other men, any means of procuring this was a natural good [φύσιν ἀγαθόν]. Ἕνεκα τοῦ θαρρεῖν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἦν κατὰ φύσιν ἀγαθόν, ἐξ ὧν ἄν ποτε τοῦτο οἷός τ’ ᾖ παρασκευάζεσθαι.

And also PD 30:

Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind. Ἐν αἷς τῶν φυσικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, μὴ ἐπ’ ἀλγοῦν δὲ ἐπαναγουσῶν ἐὰν μὴ συντελεσθῶσιν, ὑπάρχει ἡ σπουδὴ σύντονος, παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν αὗται γίνονται, καὶ οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν οὐ διαχέονται ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κενοδοξίαν.

This is my second reading through DeWitt, but, admittedly, the first was several years ago and I did not have a firm recollection. I'm currently through Chapter 2 on this reading.

It is valuable that DeWitt has undertaken a comprehensive look at Epicureanism, both in synopsis and in detail. Additionally, his scholarship is obviously deep, and he taught in a number of schools in North America. I also find it interesting that he uses the terms Epicureanism and Epicurean philosophy somewhat interchangeably. I will say that I like his line "the most revered and the most reviled of all founders of thought in the Graeco-Roman world." This is actually a good line and some clever wordplay on DeWitt's part.

However, I find DeWitt has the habit of often asserting certain things with no context or citations which, with a little digging, turn up to be much less definitive or under debate or to be taken out of context. The items I've found just through Chapter 2 give me pause and make me feel that I can't quite take what he writes at face value.

As stated elsewhere on this forum, he also seems to have an agenda in seeing Epicureanism around every Christian corner. His book on Paul delved deeper into that (and I need to re-read that one as well), but he seems to go out of his way to show Epicurus and his philosophy as being incorporated into Christianity albeit hidden until he came along to shine a light on these hidden threads. He reminds me of Gassendi in some respects that way.

Again, I realize I'm only through Chapter 2 and hope these concerns recede into the background, but, right now when they pop up, they serve as barriers to my reading DeWitt with an entirely open mind. The following are illustrative examples from Chapter 1. I'll post other assertions that concern me in the Chapter 2 thread.

Quote

P. 8 Quote: "The mistake is to overlook the terminology and ideology of Epicureanism in the New Testament and to think of its founder as an enemy of religion."

On the idea that Epicurus was not an "enemy of religion," it does seem that Epicurus allowed - even encouraged - participation in the festivals of pagan Greece. He did not want to be seen as an atheist. But to see Epicurean philosophy as not an "enemy of religion," I'd just point to Lucretius' "Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."

Quote

P. 28: Quote: "As a missionary enterprise the activity of Epicureanism was not confined to the school premises. Every convert everywhere became a missionary. In the view of Epicurus philosophy should begin at home and be disseminated from the home. It was his injunction to his disciples "to apply it in their own households, to take advantage of all other intimacies and under no circumstances to slacken in proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy." This feature of the creed possessed the advantage of rendering it independent of schools and tutors; it was able to infiltrate itself into small towns and villages where no schools existed and even into rural areas. It was capable also of winning adherents in social groups untouched by more strictly intellectual systems."

DeWitt is quoting VS 41, but the saying, from my perspective, doesn't seem to sound entirely like what DeWitt says it does:

Quote

VS 41. One must laugh and seek wisdom and tend to one's home life and use one's other goods, and always recount the pronouncements of true philosophy. (γελᾶν ἅμα [simultaneously, together with, at the same time] δεῖ [one must] καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ οἰκονομεῖν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς οἰκειώμασι χρῆσθαι καὶ μηδαμῇ λήγειν τὰς ἐκ τῆς ὀρθῆς φιλοσοφίας φωνὰς ἀφιέντας.)

To me, the saying appears to be instructing us to "to love wisdom" (philosophize) while we do everything in our daily lives. Don't let up! Do all these things simultaneously (ἅμα). Note that several of the alternative translations below put philosophize first when the first word in the original Greek is actually γελᾶν, the infinitive of γελάω "laugh." So the emphasis first in the phrase is on the laughing. The translations should really be something like: "One must laugh and - at the same time - pursue the love of wisdom, administer the rest of one's household affairs, etc." Additionally, I interpret the "never ceasing to proclaim the words of true philosophy" in the sense of "walking the talk." Let others see the true philosophy living through your actions. Proclaim it through the conduct of your life. I don't think this necessarily means you don't also share it verbally with people, but it seemed to me that DeWitt was making more of the "proclaim" part than is necessary. I realize this witnessing theme is *my* interpretation and certainly open to criticism.

Alternative Translations of VS 41:

Quote

Translation 1: At one and the same time we must philosophize, laugh, and manage our household and other business, while never ceasing to proclaim the words of true philosophy.

Translation 2: One must philosophize and at the same time laugh and take care of one’s household and use the rest of our personal goods, and never stop proclaiming the utterances of correct philosophy.

Translation 3: We must laugh and philosophize at the same time and do our household duties and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.

DeWitt also has this to say about Stoicism:

Quote

P. 29: "The battle is not always to the strong. Inherent in Epicureanism was a quiet crusading spirit which quickly extended it over the contemporary world and endowed it with a tenacity unequaled by rival creeds; it flourished for almost seven centuries. The vogue of Stoicism as a militant creed lasted a mere two centuries."

This is one of the assertions just thrown in with no context with which I have problems. I'm no fan of the Stoics but saying they lasted "a mere two centuries" is specious at best. Zeno taught around the 300s BCE, and Marcus Aurelius was a firm adherent of Stoic philosophy in the mid-2nd century CE. That's at least four centuries right there. Additionally, Stoicism may possibly have even influenced the concept of Christ as the Logos in the Gospel of John.

LOL... Point well taken on DRN! I am working through DeWitt and hopefully will be able to share some comments/thoughts soon on Chapt 1 & 2.

I would agree with you on the Buddhist path leading to a more Stoic outlook, at least in my rudimentary understanding of both. I could also see the Buddhist saying it's not "acceptance or resignation" but transcendence of both of those positions... release from samsara and the cycle of rebirth and all that.

Luckily, we have no cycle to be released from as Epicureans! Carpe diem! Death is nothing to us!

Just finished listening to the episode and enjoyed the discussion. I did want to respond to the brief mention of Buddhism and Emptiness and Dependent Arising. From my perspective - or should I say from my subjective perception - I don't think Epicurean philosophy and Buddhist philosophy are that far apart in this regard. They quickly diverge but on these I find echoes in each other.

The idea that entities do not have independent existence (Buddh.), I believe, echoes the idea that the only things that truly exists are atoms and void (Epic.). Buddhists assert the doctrine of the Two Truths: one truth is that the conventional reality of our everyday perceptions *does* exist and this is how we interact with our world on a day-to-day basis; however, the underlying truth is that everything is dependent on everything else and is ultimately empty of its own inherent existence. The examples I've heard are that there's nothing you can point to in a "table" that is the essence of its table-ness. It relies on its component parts to function as a table. Or consider the Greek story of the ship of Theseus. Additionally, I've also heard dependent arising being described as "the universe in a cup of tea": the tea in my cup is dependent on the tea grown in the fields, on the people who pick the leaves, on the sun that shines to make the tea grow, on the parents and grand-parents who gave birth to the people working in the fields, on the clouds that rain on the fields, on the lay of the land that makes the clouds form, on the Earth itself that contains that land, on the solar system, etc., etc., etc. Everything is dependent on everything else.

I find echoes then of this in Epicurean philosophy. Conventional reality exists, that's how we perceive the world. However, ultimately, we are all aggregates of atoms and void and everything reverts to atoms and void and is re-configured into other entities eventually. This is one of the reasons that "death is nothing to us." If our atoms were re-assembled into something that looked like us, it wouldn't be us. We don't ultimately exist (we are atoms and void) although we do conventionally exist and can perceive the world through the Canon and make choices and rejections and have free will (although, I would say, our choices and rejections are predicated on previous choices we've made and our choices are not infinite)... but that might be for another future post.

Keep up the great work. I do hear a much more casual, conversational tone as the group continues the podcasts... and you've made me want to get back to studying De Rerum Natura. Thanks!

I tried taking it again to see which questions I good wrong, and then hit the wrong button to see my individual scores Oops!

The only feedback I would give is that "Which of these is NOT X" questions are sometimes tricky. Maybe more T/F questions? Or can you do select all that apply kinds of questions?

I agree with you that we're not very far apart at all. It sounds to me like it's a matter of emphasis. In fact, I think we agree completely on the idea of the "goal." I think the "pursuit" is the "goal". Happiness, a joyous life, eudaimonia is not really a literal goal - an end-point - but a process. The *goal* is to *lead* a pleasant life.

As to the use of the word "eudaimonia," I'm truly ambivalent.

On the one hand, I fully agree that we need to understand the philosophy in our own language. It doesn't do anybody any good to use words one doesn't understand. It would be like saying "We should pursue удовольствие" if I don't speak Russian (which I don't... I used Google Translate ). That is why good translations are so crucial.

On the other hand, I feel strongly that that's why we should not rely solely on translations and need to return again and again to the actual original Greek or Latin. What did Epicurus, Lucretius, Philodemus and all the others actually write? If there's a discrepancy among translations, what are they translating? Eudaimonia is one of those "untranslatable" words (not really, but bear with me) that pack a lot of meaning into one Greek word but should really be translated as a phrase or several words in English. Eudaimonia is not some cosmic, mysterious, ethereal concept. It's a fine word and meant something concrete to ancient Greeks using it. But when it gets translated simply as "happiness" or "fulfilment" in English those words bring along their own connotations with them, obscuring what ευδαιμονία actually meant when Epicurus decided to use it in his own works. I gladly use Sedley, DeWitt, Tsouna, Nussbaum, Bailey, and many others to inform my understanding of the original texts, but I'll always try to puzzle out from the original and work forward. Translations are sometimes barriers instead of gates.

Quote from Cassius

There are so many details of the philosophy to drill down to verify. Is the Epicurean goal properly described as "eudaimonia?" Would they have maintained that their goal, whatever the term used to describe it, was achievable by everyone?

I am not sure either of those statements apply to either the Stoics or Epicureans....

Sorry it's taken so long to respond to your comments. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to read that talk (warts and all).

There's a lot I would change in this talk, but I think I'll stand by this statement, at least in principle. I'll answer with my understanding from my readings in reverse order:

1. Would they have maintained that their goal, whatever the term used to describe it, was achievable by everyone?

I would say fairly strongly, Yes. Even DeWitt uses the term evangelical to describe there philosophy. There would have been no need to evangelize if the philosophy wasn't applicable to the world. Both the Stoics and Epicureans made their philosophy available to - and attracted to their respective schools of thought - all kinds of people: citizen, slave; Greek, non-Greek; men, women (at least in the case of the Epicureans). The Garden was open to all who sought it out. The philosophy of both schools was taught, as far as I can see, as a way of life open to all. I don't think either school would say *everyone* who tried to live the Stoic or Epicurean life would do it successfully. However, the teachings themselves were made available to all who were curious and asked for instruction. The Academy and Lyceum, on the other hand, were more of exclusive clubs. The Stoic and Epicurean ways of life were achievable by all in the sense that the philosophies were taught for the good of all people and, as far as Epicurus was concerned, the goal of living a pleasurable life was achievable for those who applied his teachings steadfastly.

2. Is the Epicurean goal properly described as "eudaimonia?"

Again, I would say, Yes. Eudaimonia is simply, from my reading, another term for living joyously or pleasantly. "Happiness" is such a watered-down definition. Wikipedia seems to do half decent job of getting at the nuance of the term.

PD 20 and 21 talk about the "the life complete and perfect" (τὸ ... βίον παντελῆ) and PD 5 about the joyous/pleasant life (ἡδέως ζῆν). Eudaimonia is spoken of in similar terms in several places in Epicurus' own works.

The Letter to Menoikos talks several times specifically about eudaimonia:

Quote

Someone who says that the time to love and practice wisdom has not yet come or has passed is like someone who says that the time for happiness [eudaimonia] has not yet come or has passed.

ὁ δὲ λέγων ἢ μήπω τοῦ φιλοσοφεῖν ὑπάρχειν ὥραν ἢ παρεληλυθέναι τὴν ὥραν, ὅμοιός ἐστιν τῷ λέγοντι πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ἢ μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν ὥραν ἢ μηκέτι εἶναι.

Quote

Reflect on what brings happiness [eudaimonia], because if you have that you have everything, but if not you will do everything to attain it.

μελετᾶν οὖν χρὴ τὰ ποιοῦντα τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν [happiness], εἴπερ παρούσης μὲν αὐτῆς πάντα ἔχομεν, ἀπούσης δέ πάντα πράττομεν εἰς τὸ ταύτην ἔχειν.

Quote

Third, keep in mind that some desires are natural whereas others are groundless; that among the natural desires some are natural and necessary whereas others are merely natural; and that among the necessary desires some are necessary for happiness [eudaimonia], some for physical health, and some for life itself.

ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί, καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον· τῶν δὲ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.

The Letter to Pythocles also stresses the importance of eudaimonia:

Quote

For such folly as this would not possess the most ordinary being if ever so little enlightened, much less one who enjoys perfect felicity [eudaimonia].

"All this, Pythocles, you should keep in mind...

οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ζῷον, κἂν <εἰ> μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη, ἡ τοιαύτη μωρία ἐμπέσοι, μὴ ὅτι εἰς παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν [translated as "perfect felicity" above] κεκτημένον.

"Ταῦτα δὴ πάντα, Πυθόκλεις, μνημόνευσον:

παντελῆ is the word meaning "complete and perfect" in PD 20/21. So, here eudaimonia is getting the same modifier: complete and perfect eudaimonia.

Likewise, in VS 33, we read:

Quote

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 [eudaimonia].

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> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο.

Also in Fragment 548, Epicurus writes:

Quote

Happiness [eudaimon] and bliss are not produced by great riches nor vast possessions nor exalted occupations nor positions of power, but rather by peace of mind, freedom from pain, and a disposition of the soul that sets its limits in accordance with nature.

τὸ εὔδαιμον καὶ μακάριον [happiness and blessedness] οὐ χρημάτων πλῆθος οὐδὲ πραγμάτων ὄγκος οὐδʼ ἀρχαί τινες ἔχουσιν οὐδὲ δυνάμεις, ἀλλʼ ἀλυπία καὶ πραότης παθῶν καὶ διάθεσις ψυχῆς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὁρίζουσα.

Diogenes Laertius also uses the word eudaimonia when discussing Epicurus' philosophy in Book X:

[121] Two sorts of happiness [eudaimonia] can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures.

We must now proceed to his letter.

[121] Τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν διχῆ νοεῖσθαι, τήν τε ἀκροτάτην, οἵα ἐστὶ περὶ τὸν θεόν, ἐπίτασιν οὐκ ἔχουσαν: καὶ τὴν <κατὰ τὴν> προσθήκην καὶ ἀφαίρεσιν ἡδονῶν.

Μετιτέον δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐπιστολήν.

And in the paragraph directly before he introduces the Principal Doctrines:

Come, then, let me set the seal, so to say, on my entire work as well as on this philosopher's life by citing his Sovran Maxims,138 therewith bringing the whole work to a close and making the end of it to coincide with the beginning of happiness (eudaimonia).

Καὶ φέρε οὖν δὴ νῦν τὸν κολοφῶνα, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, ἐπιθῶμεν τοῦ παντὸς συγγράμματος καὶ τοῦ βίου τοῦ φιλοσόφου, τὰς Κυρίας αὐτοῦ δόξας παραθέμενοι καὶ ταύταις τὸ πᾶν σύγγραμμα κατακλείσαντες, τέλει χρησάμενοι τῇ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ἀρχῇ.

These demonstrate to me that Epicurus saw eudaimonia as equivalent to leading a joyous, pleasant, and complete life, the goal of following the path laid out by Epicurean philosophy

Very good episode. I wanted to thank Julie in particular for sharing her background as I was also someone initially drawn just to the Ethics of the philosophy. That was the bread and butter as far as I was concerned. "How do I live an Epicurean practice?" Initially, I was similar to how Elayne described some people's reaction with the Physics: It's just science, duh! (to paraphrase). But the more I investigate I can begin to understand how Epicurus built the whole structure to stand on each successive step. I want to delve a little deeper into the Letter to Herodotus now with a different perspective.

And thank you, Julie, for standing up for the Letter to Menoikos

Thank you all for the work you're doing on these!

Quote from Cassius

Thanks for posting this! I am in the middle of something else but will come back with more comments. Did you record yourself?

Thanks. No recording but it was well received by attendees. Several asked me personally for copies then PDF was posted to the conference site for download.

At the risk of inviting some frank speech, I thought I'd share the 10-minute talk I gave last October at our state's library conference to several hundred people as part of a "lightning round" of four talks on topics of interest to librarians and other library staff. The title was:

Epicurean Librarians and Stoics in the Stacks (click link for PDF)

...and here's the description as it appeared in the conference program: Epicurean Librarians and Stoics in the Stacks. Can we learn anything from ancient philosophy about working in a 21st-century library? This LIBChat will offer food for thought on how to engage your patrons and approach your work from a 2000-year-old perspective. Core Competency: Customer Service

Reading back over it before I posted, I can see multiple things I'd change or revise. I noticed right away my use of "Epicureanism" and have read heated discussions on this forum about the use of that word as opposed to "Epicurean philosophy". I probably would also have limited my quotations to Epicurean ones, but, at the time thought I'd hit a wider audience including Stoics since more people appear to be familiar with Stoics and I could use that as an doorway to ancient Greek philosophy. Oh, and I did actually read the ancient Greek at the end during the talk before giving the translation.

In any case, here's my recent attempt at spreading the word about Epicurus and his philosophy.

I know next to nothing about 3D printing but am definitely curious. We have several printers in our library's Maker Space. I know what I'll be experimenting with now after we're back in-person. Thanks everyone for all this info and these files!

My only offer a the link to the Wikipedia article on STL file format (with See Also links to the other 3d formats)

παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν, μακάριε, φεῦγε τἀκάτιον ἀράμενος.

I really like this one! My own translation is "Flee from all indoctrination, O blessed one, and hoist the sail of your own little boat."

The "flee" φεῦγε is the same word that Epicurus uses as the title of his work commonly called "On Choices and Avoidances," and I've shared my thoughts on that word elsewhere in the forum.

μακάριε "blessed (one)" is the same word used in PD 1.

I've chosen "indoctrination" here for παιδείαν since that is what Epicurus seems to consider the prevailing system of education in his time to be, nothing more than indoctrination. I also like the image of the τ(ο) ἀκάτιον, "a small boat or skiff with a single sail." That's why I chose "little boat" instead of ship, for example, but didn't choose a specific kind of boat because who (other than one who sails) knows the difference among skiff, dinghy, skow, etc. It's just a small craft. My perspective is that this encapsulates the Epicurean concept of self-reliance perfectly! However, it doesn't include the idea of friendship. So, maybe we need to find our own path, our own art of living; but, once we've embarked, we'll find like minded individuals with whom to walk the path with us - to join our small flotilla to keep the metaphor of this saying. The journey comes first. We find companions along the way.

NOTE: DeWitt seems to back me up in Chapter 2 of his book: There is extant a saying of Epicurus which may be rendered: "To sea with your swift ship, blessed boy, and flee from all education (paideia}." To Epicurus this meant the Platonic curriculum of education then in vogue, that is, geometry, rhetoric, and dialectic.

This is a clever bit of writing from Epicurus. The original Greek reads "κακὸν ἀνάγκη, ἀλλʼ οὐδεμία ἀνάγκη ζῆν μετὰ ἀνάγκης." Note those three occurrences of ἀνάγκη/ἀνάγκης. The word itself means force, constraint, or necessity; so a literal translation would be something like "An evil, necessity (is); but (there is) no necessity to live in the midst of necessity." This retains the clever wordplay but is honestly a little clunky in English. To get the import of the statement, a paraphrase may be better. Consider what he is saying. Being constrained in your choices is an evil. If you have only one choice - or feel you only have one choice - that is an evil. However, we have free will, so we are not required to live having our choices curtailed and constrained. Even if we make choices we don't want to make, we are exercising our free will. "I don't want to go to work today, but I have to." No, you don't. You could quit. But are you ready to face the consequences of quitting your job? You can consciously decide today is not the day I quit. I make the decision to get up and do the work. Likewise, maybe getting a new job is the right decision. Weigh your options. Exercise your faculty of choice and rejection. You are not forced to be forced to do something. Make your choices and rejections wisely.

That's definitely Sindarin. I agree, Eikadistes , I haven't dusted off my Quenya or Sindarin in quite a while. Talk about pleasure!

Use Helge's Lexicon and my rudimentary Quenya grammar skills, here are my best guesses for some Epicurean Quenya:

• larma = "pleasure, mirth" or alasse = "joy, merriment"
• nwalma = "pain" So, "Pleasure and Pain" = Alasse ar nwalma
• cilala = "choosing" and avaquetala "refusing" (i.e., choice and aversion): Cilala ar avaquetala.
• helme = "friendship" , heldo/helde = "friend"(m/f). (Mellon is the Sindarin for "friend" spoken at the Gates of Moria.)
• Helme liltea ter i ambar! Alatulya, alasse! "Friendship dances throughout the world. Hail, Pleasure!"

Okay, I'll stop for now. That was fun.

At least we're all Epicurean, Martin

To try and bring the Tolkien thread in line with our forum's purpose, I found these two links that might swerve us back in that direction - pun intended. Tolkien was by no means an Epicurean, he was a devout Catholic according to himself. But he definitely incorporated interesting ideas into his works that I'm not sure always conformed exactly with Catholic doctrine. In any case...

Beyond the Circles of the World: Death and the West in Tolkien’s Middle-earth Legendarium by Rebekah Hunt gives an interesting take on death as it's portrayed in Middle-earth. It also includes a quote from the Letter to Menoikos. In thinking about it, I find an echo (NOT deliberate!) of the Epicurean gods in Tolkien's elves: immortal, generally not concerned with the wider world outside their realms. The conversation about death and immortality between Finrod (and elf) and Andreth (a human) referred to in the paper is available here: Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth.

Enjoy.

Quote

Cassius says: Is it inherent in the scenario that the issue with the pleasure machine is lack of variety? (IE, that there are pleasures we would want that the pleasure machine would not provide?)

No, not from my perspective. My issue with the pleasure machine is that it puts itself between the person hooked up to it and Nature. The pleasure machine serves as the mediator. Whoever built the machine is putting themselves between the user and Nature. There is no way for the senses to sense *real* sensations coming *from* Nature. Therefore, there's no way for the person to apply the Canon. Therefore, there's no way to lead an Epicurean life which, at its most basic definition, is the best life to lead (PD 21) since it calls us to sustained pleasure. Ah, but "sustained pleasure" is what is provided by the Machine one might say! Okay, maybe "sustainable" is a better word. That question is harder to answer since we're dealing with a unicorn of a machine. What if the machine breaks down?

I think what we're trying to decide is if it is "right" or "just" to hook oneself up to the pleasure machine. Probably in the grand scheme, we can't make this determination FOR anyone. I would assert that we cannot hook people up without their consent. That seems to me to go against the precept of not wanting to be harmed or to be harmed. Can we stop people from hooking themselves up? No, I don't think that's just either. Do I think someone trying to live a life in accordance with Epicurus' teachings SHOULD hook themselves up. No, because it removes the ability to apply the Canon, to apply wisdom in making choices and rejections, and to allow each of the senses to do what they do without trying to have one sense override the sensations of the others.

My personal "prolepsis", if you will, of the pleasure machine is the Matrix (for those who have seen the movie): Shut off from reality, having sensations fed to you, floating in a vat of goo. And the one who wanted to be re-hooked up to the Matrix after being freed was the villain in that movie... So that may be coloring my opinion.

Additionally, I still think PD 10 is talking about applying the Canon to our pleasures so they are sustainable - not sustained or unlimited - as I tried to lay out over on that thread. It's not a matter of superior or inferior pleasures, but a matter of whether they are sustainable. The life of the profligate is not sustainable. It leads to pain. I don't think the candle-starer is leading an inferior life. Are they meeting their necessary desires? Are they experiencing both ataraxia and aponia? Are they applying the Canon? Are they living wisely, justly, and virtuously? It's sounds like it.

To bring this back to this thread: Given a choice, I would take the life of the candle-starer over the pleasure machine hands-down.

Quote from melkor

Hello everyone! I apologize for the delay in response. Yes Joshua and Eikadistes my name is in reference to Melkor from The Silmarillion I am a very big fan of Tolkien and his works and have made the effort to learn Quenya.

I promise I will NOT turn this into the Tolkienian Epicurean thread, but have you seen Helge Fauskager's Quenya Course at Ardalambion https://www.epicureanfriends.com It's a great site for Tolkienian linguistics.

Now I want to translate the Principal Doctrines into Quenya!

Could this open up the possibility that, during that time period, a ring depicting Epicurus could be given as a good-natured ironic gift to someone like the person mentioned in the journal? They're not interested in the philosophy but simply using the stereotype of Epicurus to make a joke.

OH, I see where you're going. You're going way deeper than I was!

Honestly, I interpreted "the best life (possible)" as simply an Epicurean one, one that applies the philosophy taught by Epicurus. That's the way to achieve "the best" of possible ways of living a human life.