Posts by Don

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.

Quote from Namcisumeht

Thanks. I find that Epicureanism resonates the most with modern theories of human behavior and the science of happiness(e.g. Daniel Gilbert).

Welcome!

i would agree that positive psychology and the modern science of happiness have echoes of Epicureanism especially when it comes to the importance of social interactions and friendship. I find some of the books and research by Gilbert, Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, and others very interesting. I've even tried making my way through the free Coursera Science of Happiness course from Yale.

However, I read an article not long ago that made me realize that Epicureanism is NOT identical with positive psychology in its popularized forms:

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/…gion-secularism

"Seligman’s inclusion of material achievement in the components of happiness has also raised eyebrows. He has theorized that people who have not achieved some degree of mastery and success in the world can’t be said to be flourishing. He once described a “thirty-two-year-old Harvard University summa in mathematics who is fluent in Russian and Japanese and runs her own hedge fund” as a “poster child for positive psychology.” But this can make well-being seem exclusive and out of reach, since accomplishment of this kind is not possible to all, or even most."

Whether that's a correct interpretation of Seligman's work is up for debate. If it is, that all sounds very Aristotelian or Peripatetic to me. Epicurus wanted eudaimonia to be accessible to everyone! I think we can learn from a variety of sources - and the more people explore what it takes to truly be happy, the better - but we just have to be ready to read and learn with critical eyes.

I am not on Facebook so I missed this earlier discussion so if y'all would indulge me, I'd like to share a few thoughts.

I was a fan of Alan Watts (waay) back in high school and college. He was a pivotal author in the process of widening my perspectives. However, I grew out of him when I began looking at and reading his sources, but his importance to my early development (and *eventual* arrival at Epicureanism) make me feel obliged to "defend" his work… at least a little.

With that as context, let me first say that I fully agree that there are some VERY un-Epicurean parts to the lecture/video. I would NOT recommend this as an Introduction to Epicureanism in any way. The latter part on listening to the Godhead is WAY to deistic and supernatural for my tastes now and are completely incompatible with Epicurus. No question on that. That all grows out of Watts' Buddhist and Hindu proclivities which, in his idiosyncratic and syncretic style, wants us to listen to the Godhead, Buddha-nature, Brahman, etc., within ourselves. We are all One in the Great Ocean of Being. You are a unique manifestation of a way of the Universe (capital U) knowing itself. NOT Epicurean in any way, shape, or form. Plus, the "amor fati"-sounding portions do sound Stoic.

BUT there are some Epicurean-sounding *pieces* in that video. The metaphor of the education system as churning out cookie cutter results echoes Epicurus' indictment of παιδεία, the educational system and culture in his time, as indoctrination. One of my favorite fragments of Epicurus is:

"Flee from all indoctrination [παιδείαν], O blessed one, and hoist the sail of your own boat."

Another Epicurean bit is Watts' exposition of the limits of pleasure. In the lecture, he talks about the unsatisfactory nature of just accumulating wealth, power, sex, etc. That sounds a lot like Epicurus' indictment of the Cyrenaics and the decadent:

KD 10: If the things that produced the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind’s fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that’s what is bad).

Watts appears to me to be talking about this very thing. I would also say that I interpret his "We don't know what will give us pleasure" or "We don't know what we desire" as springing from this same context. When Elayne says she thinks she's a good judge of what will give her pleasure, I have no doubt that is true as she is mature in her ability to discern the limits of pleasure and what she feels is natural and necessary for her. Watts is referring to people who are indoctrinated by society and culture to think they NEED as much power as possible, as much money as possible, as much (full in the blank) as possible, to be happy and fulfilled. Watts is saying we need to break out of that conditioning to understand the real "necessary and natural desires" to put Epicurean words in Watts' mouth. It's just that Watts believes what is "necessary and natural" is to listen to the Godhead inside you to free yourself.

Now, in the end, does he arrive at the same overall conclusions I would now or that I think are Epicurean? Oh, absolutely not!! I could see Epicurus engaging him in some frank speech and correction! However, I could also envision the two of them sitting in the Garden heatedly discussing philosophy and sharing some spring water (or tea if Watts brought some along) and cheese and Epicurus waving over Themista to the table saying, "You have to come over and listen to this gentleman. I've been trying to correct him all afternoon. He has glimmers of correct doctrine but way too many crazy gymnosophist ideas… but he is entertaining to listen to."

Welcome, @Callisto !

It's nice not to be the newest member now!

The forum has been welcoming! Looking forward to your joining in.

This is a great list! It has been some time since I've had access to DeWitt, so this is a nice refresher. I don't know why, but it's a little thrill to know that the actual word "Epicurean" appears in the Bible.

Being me, I had to take one of these and trace backwards to see if the original Greek words were the same in the Bible and in Epicurus. I chose Galatians 4:3 to check out for curiosity's sake. The key phrase is τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (ta stoikheia tou kosmou (< "cosmos")) "the basic principles of the world". My question was: Does Epicurus refer to τὰ στοιχεῖα in his extant works? The answer: Yes!

In the Letter to Menoikos we find:

Do and practice, then, the things I have always recommended to you, holding them to be the stairway to a beautiful life.

This is where translations can trip you up! The phrase translated as "stairway to a beautiful life" is στοιχεῖα τοῦ καλῶς ζῆν which I personally would render something more like "the elements of living beautifully and nobly."

We also find the elements in the Letter to Pythocles which one translation gives as:

"the ultimate elements of things are indivisible" ἢ ὅτι ἄτομα <τὰ> στοιχεῖα

While I realize στοιχεῖα is a fine word that doesn't always have Epicurean implications, it's still interesting to see it used in such disparate texts.

Curiosity assuaged… for now.