Posts by Don

Have not read but skimmed: talks about Epicureans and Euclid regarding mathematics:

Some Thoughts on the Epicurean Critique of Mathematics.pdf

Quote from Cassius

DeWitt is not the only commentator to take the position that there were twelve fundamentals and attempt to enumerate them - so does Diskin Clay, someone who is well recognized among mainstreatm commentators. His list is much the same, though not identical, to DeWitt's. See Clay's "Epicurus Last Will and Testament."

I feel I would me slacking if I didn't play the gadfly here and point to this thread from June of this year when it comes to the "Twelve Fundamentals." I have nothing else to add to what I said in that thread, but it feels pertinent to this current conversation:

Thread

General Notes On Fundamentals of Nature

This thread is for discussion of the list of twelve fundamentals such as suggested by DeWitt or Clay here:

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/twelve-fundamentals-of-nature/

Cassius

June 13, 2024 at 10:23 PM

130, right?

. [130] τῇ μέντοι συμμετρήσει καὶ συμφερόντων καὶ ἀσυμφόρων βλέψει ταῦτα πάντα κρίνειν καθήκει. χρώμεθα γὰρ τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῷ κατά τινας χρόνους ὡς κακῷ, τῷ δὲ κακῷ τοὔμπαλιν ὡς ἀγαθῷ.

Where was I getting my take then?! Oh, I left it out of my full translation but not the commentary. That's what I get for looking at a translation (even mine!) and not returning to the books.

Here's the line in question ..

130b. χρώμεθα γὰρ τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῷ κατά τινας χρόνους ὡς κακῷ, τῷ δὲ κακῷ τοὔμπαλιν ὡς ἀγαθῷ.

Let's start at the beginning:

χρώμεθα

This one takes some explaining, and it seems to be often passed over in translation. This verb is in the middle voice which means the subject of the verb is both the agent and experiencer. So, χρώμεθα generally means something like "we consult a god or oracle for ourselves" or "the declaration of an oracle or god." I think this is significant, because, in the context of Epicurean philosophy, there are no gods who are going to provide advice through a supernatural means via an oracle. So, what is going on here? The Epicurean consults their own faculty of weighing the consequences of their own choices.

The word is also used in several more places within this verse.

This is especially important because the next word γὰρ "because" sets up the answer to the question "Why do we 'consult the oracle' of the consequences of our actions?"

Next, we have our old friends μὲν...δὲ…. Let's look at the similarities in those two phrases:

[μὲν] τῷ ἀγαθῷ κατά τινας χρόνους ὡς κακῷ,

[δὲ] τῷ κακῷ τἄμπαλιν ὡς ἀγαθῷ.

So, Epicurus is contrasting τῷ ἀγαθῷ "the good (pleasure) with τῷ κακῷ "the bad" (pain). Let's look at the embedded phrases that modify the meaning here.

κατά τινας χρόνους "over time"

τἄμπαλιν "on the other hand, on the contrary"

So, "we consult the consequences of our actions because, on the one hand, good/pleasure over time can lead to bad/pain; on the other hand, bad/pain can lead to good/pleasure."

PS .. with κακῷ and ἀγαθῷ being in the dative, that's where I'm getting "leads to." In the sense of the means with which something is done or the cause of something. So, I don't think there's a simple A is B and B is A construction here. That said, I am more than happy for someone with more experience with ancient Greek to comment on that.

Quote

[130] Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.

We have to be very careful with phrases like "pain as good". I don't know which translation you're using there, but that's not what the letter says. My own more literal translation is:

So, all pleasure, through its nature, belongs to us as a good; however, not all are elected; and just as all pains are entirely evil by their nature, so not all are always to be shunned.

Pain is entirely evil, but we have to endure it sometimes for the pleasure that results. But pain is not "good." Pain can be instrumental to gain pleasure, but it is not "good."

Quote from Eikadistes

Quote from Cassius

I note you're calling it criticism but you're also including the positive parts?

For sure, I'm including everything I can find. Most of it is complimentary.

I just took that in the sense of "literary criticism". That site is an impressive anthology of resources!

See also

Related to Chapter 10?

British School at Athens : Voula Tsouna, “Issues in Epicurean philosophy of mind and science 2: The method of multiple explanations in Epicureanism”

Voula Tsouna, “Issues in Epicurean philosophy of mind and science 2: The method of multiple explanations in Epicureanism” Professor Voula Tsouna (University of…

www.bsa.ac.uk

Welcome aboard, jason !

Quote from jason

The more I learned, the more I realized that many Epicurean ideas resonate with beliefs I’ve developed over the years through my own intellectual explorations.

You'll find that sentiment echoed by a number of forum members

FYI...

DCLP/Trismegistos 62661 = LDAB 3847

Fwiw, here's a review of a critical edition of Polystratus' work (again, Google translate from the French)

Polistrato, Sul disprezzo irrazionale delle opinioni popolari. Edizione, traduzione e commento a cura di Giovanni Indelli - Persée

This work by Giovanni Indelli, which appears in a new collection of texts from the School of Epicurus contained in the Herculaneum papyri, is worthy of attention and interest for several reasons.

First of all, it gives us a global and nuanced overview of the identity, work and role of Polystratus within the School of Epicurus, most of whose texts have been lost, at least as far as the earliest period is concerned.

Then we have here a very careful critical edition, carried out using the most reliable techniques, and accompanied by a clear and faithful Italian translation, a documented introduction and a commentary written in an authentically philological and philosophical spirit.

Finally, the very content of Polystrate's text has an undeniable historical interest, and shows well, as Mr. Indelli emphasizes, the state of the discussions between the different post-Aristotelian schools. The Περί ἀλόγου καταφρονήσεως "is addressed to those who, while they despise popular opinions, nevertheless defend opinions even less acceptable, because they are not based on λόγος" (p. 28). The disciple of Epicurus, for his part, has no weakness for the ideas of the masses, but his criticism of their errors and superstitions is based on a knowledge of nature finalized by practical life. Indeed, to free oneself from the unhappiness that ignorance and prejudice cause and to lead a happy life, one must refer to the φρόνησις and the ὀρθὴ φυσιολογία which are taught to us by the doctrine of Epicurus and which allow us to attain perfect pleasure.

In this context Polystratus develops an articulate critique of a skeptical objection to the fundamental principles of the Garden: his opponents are suspicious of the effective existence of ethical concepts, whose validity is clearly changeable among individuals and peoples. Polystratus' solution to this problem, which Epicurus had not dealt with explicitly, is based on the difference between "relative" and "absolute" concepts. Even "relative" concepts, such as those of δυνάμεις and πράξεις, nevertheless have an effective validity and existence. On the other hand, a critique of popular opinions based on obscure principles and obvious falsehoods, such as that developed by his opponents, has no value, becomes dangerous and dishonest and, ultimately, is irrational.

Fabio CIARAMELLI.

Quote from Cassius

We all end at the same point - I think - that whatever is the truth, the universe is "natural" and doesn't have a supernatural overlay above it. So frequently the details are not necessarily important to reconcile, UNLESS they point to a major conclusion about the supernatural or life after death or something that would call into question whether the truth is natural or supernatural, or would call into question key issues about the "knowability" of any truth at all. Definitely when anything like that arises it does need to be made to synchronize at least at the conclusion level.

We basically agree. I would reword your initial sentence as: The truth is that the universe is "natural" and doesn't have a supernatural overlay above it.

Anything that contradicts that, much like seeing Alexander the Oracle Monger's snake, we should be one "whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by scepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility."

Quote from Cassius

I'll likely never accept that in philosophical discussion there is a necessity of mapping into modern paradigms that are regularly changing and within which the experts don't even agree among themselves. I'll let those who want to try do to that pursue that, and I do understand that some want to do that.

Quote from Bryan

Cosmos connects well with a galaxy, To Pan with the universe. If we want other cosmoi, I'd think we only have to accept multiple galaxies. As we know, Epíkouros uses Cosmos in the plural, but not To Pan.

Quote from Don

To be clear about my perspective: when Epicurus says κόσμος cosmos "world" I think the evidence is that he means a planet (Earth) and all its accompanying sky and stars. Another "world" or κόσμος is this same system elsewhere. The universe, Το Παν (To Pan) "The All" is the entirety of existence that contains ALL these cosmoi.

Honestly, I think that trying to map ΚΟΣΜΟΣ "kosmos", ΚΟΣΜΟΙ "kosmoi", and ΤΟ ΠΑΝ "The All" onto modern concepts, especially concepts and theories that are evolving, is a fool's errand. Epicurus' conceptions of kosmoi and The All were fundamentally different than our own. My understanding is that kosmoi were islands of order in The All. Kosmos literally means "order" (actually related to English cosmetic, bringing order to one's face or appearance). Our word "planet" to the Greeks was simply a wandering star, πλανήτης, against the fixed stars in the sky. Epicurus didn't speak of beings on another πλανήτης but beings in/on/inhabiting other κόσμοι. Earth, to him as best I can ascertain, was where we lived in our κόσμος.

That's why discussions like this about theology or cosmology are often talking past each other. When the ancients were talking about an intermundia "between worlds" or ΜΕΤΑΚΟΣΜΟΣ they didn't imagine planets or worlds or galaxies or multiverses. They had their ideas, . We have our ideas, informed by science and observation. I need to accept that Epicurus and the ancient Greek cosmological concepts have no necessity to equate with my modern ideas. They may overlap slightly, but they cannot be made to synchronize.

Look forward to reading your efforts and seeing your translation decisions.

Quote from Cassius

... And that's exactly what I mean too when I say "the universe is all that exists." Any kind of terminology such as world systems or multiverses or anything else falls within "the universe is all that exists. " If it exists anywhere using any adjective, it's part of the "universe."

Oh, I completely agree that "the universe is all that exists" just to be clear. The only complication on that is possibly a differing view on what we mean by "world" and "universe." To be clear about my perspective: when Epicurus says κόσμος cosmos "world" I think the evidence is that he means a planet (Earth) and all its accompanying sky and stars. Another "world" or κόσμος is this same system elsewhere. The universe, Το Παν (To Pan) "The All" is the entirety of existence that contains ALL these cosmoi. The planets were find orbiting other stars are part of our cosmos. If we want other cosmoi, we have to accept the multiverse, ie, other universes. All the universes together in modern cosmology make up The Universe, THE All. If one is trying to map Epicurean cosmology onto a modern paradigm, I contend that that's the only way to do it.

That doesn't in any way go against Epicurus' primary tenet that we live in a natural, material universe.

Quote from Cassius

I'd say your suggestions there are possibilities, but not really compelled at all by the texts. I would expect Epicurus thought of the universe as "all that exists."

Epicurus posited many world-systems in an infinite All (universe). That's exactly what the texts provide.

Quote from Cassius

I'd wager we are me no more than a couple of hundred years from that ability ourselves, at the outside.

By what means? Not being argumentative, just curious.

If I temporarily take the physical gods perspective...

If you want to go down the physics route translated into a modern paradigm, I'm going to posit that the intermundia refers to another dimension or another universe in the multiplicity of universes out in The All. Gods are material and natural, but reside outside our universe under a different physics than our own. We cannot see them with our eyes, because our universe doesn't overlap with theirs. They are not aliens living on planets in our universe. That's just an assertion on my part, granted. But that's the only way I could right now "accept" a corporeal divinity in an Epicurean theological context.

I find it much easier to think of the gods as what an ideal life would be like without the limits on mortal, corruptible bodies. The best I can do is to live "like a god". That doesn't mean identical to a god or equivalent to a god. It's a metaphorical divine existence.

column 24
P.Herc. 1148 col. 24
Sketched 1803-1803 by Carlo Orazi

[ἀ-]
γ̣απητ[ὸν] καὶ τοῦτ[ο], τὸ
δὴ πάντα τὸν συνε̣[χό]με-
νον̣ [ταῖς] τοιαύταις περι-
εργ[ε]ίαις ἔχειν οἱονὶ φάρ-
μακ̣ον δι' οὗ κα̣τα̣στάσεις
ἁ̣πλ[ᾶς ἔστι]ν ἐν τῆι περὶ φύ-
σε[ως θεωρί]αι ἀπαλλαγή-
σε[σθαι τῆς σ]υμφύτου ἑαυ-
τα̣[ῖς ταραχ]ῆς ἣ καὶ ὕσ̣τε-
10ρον̣ [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ η̣πο ̣ ̣ σιτ ̣ ̣
γε [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ὥστε ̣ ̣ ̣ υ̣ ̣
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τοιού̣[τοι]ς ̣ ̣
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ον̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩]

I just came across this quickly-escalating conversation and have thoughts.

I find myself aligned with TauPhi 's direction here as I read it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but paraphrasing his stance as I understand it (and Epicurean theology) with some of my own perspective mixed in:

The gods (whether thought constructs or physical beings) are not above or outside nature; they have no concerns for humans and do not bestow blessings or rain down punishment. Those seem to be the points of paramount importance to Epicurus. We have nothing to fear from gods (no matter how they exist).

The gods do not interfere with humans, have no need of humans, live in bliss, and are incorruptible.

Going from TauPhi's points with my own direction: The gods have no concern for humans; however, if humans were to try to contact gods or come into physical contact with them... the gods would necessarily be troubled by humans. This seems to me to be counter to Epicurean theology. If we wish to be "god-like" in an Epicurean sense, we should not bother the gods: "That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others, so that it is not affected by anger or gratitude (for all such things come about through weakness)." If we trouble or annoy the gods by going around poking them, prodding them, trying to contact them, by definition, we not acting as an Epicurean god. Leave them be, and admire their blessedness within our minds, contemplate their blessedness and incorruptibility.

On the Gods as Aliens...

I have no problem whatsoever thining that Epicurus would be interested to learn his idea of the universe was not as he had envisioned it. Knowing how the universe was put together and seeing other stars and worlds around those stars would further solidify his resolve that there was nothing to fear outside of the universe and that natural laws governed the universe and not a supernatural intelligence. He might even have been curious to entertain the multiverse/bubble universe concepts. If aliens contacted Earth, he would probably shrug and say, "I knew it would happen eventually." But those aliens are NEVER going to be Epicurean gods. By definition, if they concern themselves with humans, they aren't gods. "That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others."

For anyone curious about my general stance on Epicurean theology, listen to our recent podcast episode on the idealist vs realist god stances, or think of it as "thought-construct" vs "physical being" debate. I don't think the gods have a corporeal form, visible to the eye, able to be touched. I think they are mental constructions of the ideal existence put into a form by the mind to be able to comprehend and think about a blessed and incorruptible state.

I don't think astrobiology has anything to say about Epicurean theology.

I do think astrobiology has everything to do with Epicurus' theory that multiple worlds exist and that other beings exist on those other worlds. I do not think that Epicurus would say those other beings on other worlds are gods. Go ahead and contact the other beings, by all means. Teach them about Epicurus and learn from their "Epicurus." There could very well be an alien "Epicurus" since I could easily see "pleasure-seeking" a universal trait of life. But they're not gods.

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Don

Case in point: I'll disagree with people who don't see the need for the Oxford comma!

Uh oh!

LOL! Bring it on!

I won't derail this thread any more, but one example: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/09/us/…trnd/index.html

Another paper:

And look at that, a different WP article!

Tetrapharmacum - Wikipedia

Not quite. Philodemus calls it the tetrapharmakos:

right there starting at the end of the first line in this clip: ΤΕΤΡΑΦΑΡ ΜΑ / ΚΟC (tetraphar ma / kos).

It appears to me that the idea of a four part mixture that resulted in something greater than its parts was a common idea in ancient Greece. The Epicurean one is simply the school's response to this idea.