Posts by Don

Quote from Julia

The key of VS71 is in the grammar more than the words: "is accomplished", not "is being accomplished"! VS71 places my point of view after (the completion of) the action, not during (the process of) the action.

It does appear you're correct. To use Saint-Andre's translation as a starting point:

VS71. Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?
πρὸς πάσας τὰς ἐπιθυμίας προσακτέον τὸ ἐπερώτημα τοῦτο· τί μοι γενήσεται ἂν τελεσθῇ τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἐπιζητούμενον; καὶ τί ἐὰν μὴ τελεσθῇ;
NOTE: Literally, τὸ κατὰ ἐπιθυμίαν ἐπιζητούμενον means something like "what is sought because of this desire" (cf. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics 1098b22); however "the object of desire" is more readable in modern English.

A more literal translation (sacrificing eloquence) would be:

Concerning all the desires, this question must be applied: What will happen to me if what is sought because of this desire should be fulfilled? and what if it is not fulfilled?

τελεσθῇ is a 3rd person Singular Aorist Subjunctive Passive verb. One page I found explains the aorist subjunctive as " if the subjunctive mood is used in a purpose or result clause, then the action should not be thought of as a possible result, but should be viewed as a definite outcome that will happen as a result of another stated action." That seems to apply here, since applying the accomplishment of the desire is a result of asking the question. It is also doing the action and asking "what will happen to me" if this action is completed. It seems to be the person is:

1. Recognizing a desire in themselves
2. Trying to imagine themselves in the future as having accomplished the action that fulfills the desire
3. Imagining what will happen to them after that desire is fulfilled: Did the action fulfilling the desire bring pleasure or bring pain?
4. Then acting in accordance with that future self's feeling of pleasure or pain.

Quote from Titus

The point is not to ask what's in my power and what is beyond my capabilities and to examine everything that comes to my mind according to this procedure. The key is to actually focus on what's important in life, what does have priority and what is established by nature as the foundation of life.

I would agree that for the most part; however, the Stoics have no monopoly on what is usually ascribed to them:

Quote from Epicurus, letter to Menoikeus

whom do you consider is better or more powerful than one who holds pious beliefs concerning the gods; one who has absolutely no fears concerning death; one who has rationally determined the τέλος of one's natural state; and the one who grasps that, on the one hand, good things (namely pleasures) are both easily attained and easily secured, and, on the other hand, evil things (or pains) are either short in time or brief in suffering; someone who laughs at Fate which is introduced onto the stage of life by many as the mistress of all things? For that person, even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, for although necessity is beyond our control, they see that chance is unstable and there is no other master beyond themselves, so that praise and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves.

Quote from Godfrey

Re post #12 graphic: also include PDs 15, 21, 26 and 29, in addition to 30.

FYI:

15. Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire, but the riches incited by groundless opinion have no end. ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ὥρισται καὶ εὐπόριστός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν (kenōn < emptiness, void) δοξῶν εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτει.

ἄπειρον = infinity "no-limit"

Limited in this PD is ὥρισται which includes the connotation of "limit (one thing according to another)"

"Easy to acquire" reminds me of the 3rd line of the tetrapharmakos.

I like the connotation of ὁ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτει. Those based on empty beliefs εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτει. ἐκπίπτει has a meaning "to fall out, fall down" but also to be cast ashore or suffer shipwreck, to be driven out or banished, etc. εἰς ἄπειρον "into infinity." So, to me, this has the underlying meaning of having an empty desire for limitless wealth is like being banished to search for satisfaction in your wealth into the infinite void with no end in sight forever.

Quote from Joshua

The rules of pig-Latin;

https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~morelanj/RAO/prepare2.html

Wikipedia has a surprisingly extensive article on Pig Latin:

Pig Latin - Wikipedia

Quote from Don

πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν

VS79 has a form of this word:

He who is as peace within himself also causes no trouble for others. ὁ ἀτάραχος ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἑτέρῳ ἀόχλητος. (Ho atarakhos heautō kai heterō aokhlētos)

I didn't address Godfrey 's original thesis!

I would argue that Epicurus expects his students to apply his philosophical methods in both good times and bad, in times of upheaval and in times of jubilation.

The questions you pose are intriguing and would serve as a good starting point for planning ahead in those times of upheaval that inevitably arise in our lives. They also seem to get at those aspects of our lives over which we have control and those which are subject to chance. Making the most of those parts of our lives that we do have control over - that we have agency over - seems to me a big part of Epicurus's philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

I perceive that in some minds, this statement of only two criteria sounds like Epicurus was referring to "the pleasures of the moment" and "the pains of the moment." ... etc...

Fully agree with all this in your number 2 paragraph. Well stated, Cassius. My understanding is that the "pleasures/pains of the moment" considerations are more inline with the Cyrenaic position.

Quote from Cassius

All the discussion of "natural" and "necessary" is *contextual*, and cannot be reduced to universals that apply to all people at all times and all places. Even breathing can be postponed if by holding your breath to swim out of a cave you save your life. As Torquatus said, the classification has a principle, that things which are most natural and most necessary are generally going to be the easiest to obtain, and therefore can generally be obtained with the least resulting pain, but that is **not** a general statement that nature universally demands that you eat bread and drink water and live in a cave. It is only a general consideration that can serve as a guide when you don't have enough information to be confident that what you can do will be achievable, but over time you learn to know what is and is not possible, so you move out of the cave and you start eating more than bread and drinking more than water, unless circumstances demand it.

I don't think "natural" and "necessary" are as contextual as you're trying to make out. The literal translation of the pertinent Menoikeus section (127-128) is:

Quote from Epicurus - Letter to Menoikeus, 127-8

Furthermore, on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.' And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which are only natural; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself. [128] The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life.

The 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones' uses ΚΕΝΑΙ which is a form of the same exact word Epicurus uses for the void in "atoms & void."

My reading is:

1. Natural Desires

A. Natural *and* Necessary Desires

i. Necessary for Eudaimonia

ii. Necessary for "Freedom from Disturbance in the Body" (πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν)

iii. Necessary for Living Itself (πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν)

B. Only Natural Desires (αἱ φυσικαὶ μόνον)

2. Empty, Fruitless "Void" Desires

I find that "the ones which are only natural" interesting. I'm not sure how to interpret that, honestly.

To get back to Cassius' commentary, specifically: "All the discussion of "natural" and "necessary" is *contextual*, and cannot be reduced to universals that apply to all people at all times and all places. Even breathing can be postponed if by holding your breath to swim out of a cave you save your life."

A distinction has to be made between natural/necessary behaviors and "desires." It is a universal that we mammals find breathing, eating, sleeping, and shelter necessary to continue living. Of course, we'll postpone breathing when swimming out of a cave because we can't breathe water and we desire to continue living if at all possible. I don't see that as an example of a contextual desire.

"things which are most natural and most necessary are generally going to be the easiest to obtain, and therefore can generally be obtained with the least resulting pain, but that is **not** a general statement that nature universally demands that you eat bread and drink water and live in a cave."

Your water/cave metaphor seems to be a bit of a non sequitur here. If you're living in a cave, it is going to require quite a bit of effort to obtain bread and make sure you have sufficient water stored away... unless you're living directly beside a spring and have bread delivered to you... in which case you'll need a baker who's willing to trek up the mountain... but then you'll need... and so on.

My understanding is that nature provides sufficient amounts of what we need to live - if we were to be in dire straits - which is why Epicurus, from time to time, limited his food and drink to see how much he could live on and still be satisfied. Then, after his fasting experiment, went back to living "normally" until his next experiment.

Quote from Cassius

I laughed because I am supposed to but I am not sure I get it ? I can see the "pig" double-meaning, but why put the "vay" at the end?

Latin: Veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered)

"Old School" Pig Latin: eni-vay,...

English: Pigs can fly. > Igs-pay an-cay y-flay.

Seen on Facebook.... Made me chuckle...

Joshua : I'm definitely intrigued by the direction you're going. Sedley makes distinctions between singular and plural, but I don't believe in the way you're proposing. I do think some translators gloss over the singular/plural in those sections. I'd be curious to dig into the Greek in those and quantify singulars and plurals.

Thanks for a thought-provoking proposal!

For what it's worth, here is a relevant section from my Menoikeus commentary and translation:

τὸν θεὸν ζῷον "a god (is a) ζῷον. But what is a ζῷον?

ζῷον (zōon) is where English zoology comes from.

LSJ gives two primary definitions:

• living being, animal
• in art, figure, image, not necessarily of animals (or a sign of the Zodiac)

So, unfortunately, at this point in the Letter we can't necessarily resolve the question of what the nature of the gods (or of a god) is according to Epicurus. Some scholars think Epicurus believed the gods were material beings ("living being, animal") somehow living between the various world-systems (cosmos) in the universe. Some think Epicurus believed the gods were mental representations or personifications of the concepts ("figure, image, sign") of blessedness.

...

θεοὶ εἰσιν. "Gods exist." "There are gods."

The implications of those two words have had entire essays written about them. We looked at this a little in 123b with ζώον. But Epicurus is not equivocating here: Gods exist. What he means by this we simply have to discover from his extant works and fragments. Again, if we take Sedley's position, each person has their own personal concept of a god. Many people, many individual gods. Those gods exist.

123f. ἐναργὴς γαρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις.

• Here's our δέ "on the other hand."
• ἐναργὴς [δέ] ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις

"And the knowledge (ἡ γνῶσις (gnōsis)) of them (θεοί "gods", note the plural here) is ἐναργὴς." But what does ἐναργὴς mean?

LSJ provides two primary definitions:

• visible, palpable, in bodily shape, properly of gods appearing in their own forms (in Homer); so of a dream or vision; ex., ἐναργὴς ταῦρος "in visible form a bull, a very bull"
• manifest to the mind's eye, distinct

Epicurus can't mean the first meaning since he's adamant that the gods don't interact with humans. But the second definition coincides with his contention (and the idea of the prolepsis of the gods) that the gods are apprehended by the mind only. In first Principal Doctrine's scholia (i.e., a note added to the text by a later author), we read τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς "the gods are conceived of through contemplation by reasoning." We don't - can't! - see the Epicurean gods with our physical eyes as Homer describes seeing the Olympian gods "in visible form." Homer's gods were εναργής in one sense of the word; Epicurus's in the other sense. The truth of the gods' existence in Epicurus's philosophy takes place entirely in our minds by reasoning through their existence by means of contemplation. But through that contemplation, Epicurus asserts that their existence is εναργής "clearly discernible to us / manifest to us in our minds."

This emphasis on contemplation is interesting in light of the characteristic of the Epicurean sage in Diogenes Laertius Book X.30: μᾶλλόν τε εὐφρανθήσεσθαι τῶν ἄλλων ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις. I continue to maintain that "in contemplation" is the best translation of ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις for this characteristic of the sage: "The sage will also enjoy themselves more than others in contemplation, speculation, and theorizing." Many translators see this as referring to state festivals and spectacles. I've explored the use of the word elsewhere in Diogenes Laertius' work as well as in Aristotle online. https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…tion?authuser=0 If the gods are "manifest" in contemplation, this seems consistent with that characteristic of an Epicurean sage.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to resolve our problem with puzzling out how a god is a ζώον. Are they physically-existent material beings? Are they existing only as mental perceptions manifest merely to the mind's eye? The ambiguous nature of εναργής doesn't necessarily help us fully. It does, however, set up some of Epicurus's clever wordplay contrasting his view with Homer's.

The Data Over Dogma guys did a whole episode debunking the Christian doctrine (not articulated until the 2nd c CE) of creation ex nihilo. It also seems important to note that ex nihilo creation was *not* the general consensus in the ancient world. Although a young Epicurus turned to philosophy when his "schoolmasters ... could not tell him the meaning of "chaos" in Hesiod," he substituted the eternally-existent atoms to explain "where" the universe came from. The pre-existing Chaos provided the building blocks for the cosmos/world-system in Greek mythology even if the elementary school teachers couldn't explain where that came from or what it was to little Epicurus. Schoolmaster there is γραμματιστής or one who literally teaches how to write the letters of the alphabet and other elementary-school level material.

I found the episode fascinating:

Okay, so this is about as close as I could find of κόσμος = modern cosmology. There's even some "fiery ramparts"...

CIRCULAR MAP OF THE UNIVERSE ALL VERSIONS - Pablo Carlos Budassi

other languages / other versions

pablocarlosbudassi.com

See also: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-…-view-universe/

Quote from Bryan

(As we know, Epicurus uses "atomos" and translating that as "atom" means we use the word that is not the same as modern science. But, I think you would agree, not using "atom" when translating him certainly gives up too much ground. We can use "atom" in our school, and use in its proper and true meaning. )

Oh, I fully agree with using "atom" to translate atomos is fine. Even though they aren't completely analogous from ancient to modern ideas, they are closer, in my opinion, than world and kosmos. Both atomos and atom get at minute particles of matter that make up compound bodies and, for us, molecules. Yeah, I'm not getting on a soapbox over those. (Is that a collective sigh of relief I hear?)

I know I've brought this up ad nauseum at this point and in this thread already, but Lucretius' talk about Epicurus going beyond the "fiery ramparts" of the "mundus" ("world") tells me their concept of the structure of their "world-system" included a fiery "shell or dome" through which Epicurus was able to think beyond and to imagine other such world-systems throughout The All, the entirety of the whole universe. There really is no applicable analogy in modern cosmology unless, in my opinion, one wants to go down the "bubble universe" track. We can assert that "other worlds" is like Star Trek's "strange new worlds" in other solar systems, but I don't believe that was Epicurus's or Lucretius's image of a κοσμος/mundus. Now, could the ancient Epicureans be made to understand the modern concept of solar system, galaxy, etc.? Sure. Given enough evidence, they could probably accept or at least entertain the ideas that modern cosmology provides. But trying to map κοσμος/mundus onto modern concepts is going to be fraught with complications and requiring an ancient culture to adhere to our modern ideas. I think that does a disservice to them and us.

IF we want to think of "other kosmoi" as other planets in other solar systems, that's fine IF we're honest and acknowledge that's most likely not how Epicurus nor Lucretius nor Diogenes of Oenoanda nor the other ancient Epicureans conceived of it.

Quote from Bryan

" is correct, but I do wish for a more elegant solution.

LOL Completely agree, although to quote the philosopher Mick Jagger "You can't always get what you want..."

Quote from Bryan

I agree we should not "update" or add ideas when translating -- but do we have any good arguments or objections to using "galaxies" for "kosmoi"? (We all know the difficulty with the English "world," which now means only one planet).

I agree "world" is problematic, but using "galaxy" obscures the ancient Greek understanding of what a kosmos was. I prefer "world-system" or something like that. Kosmos is not directly translated into a modern idiom.

Quote from Martin

Quote

10. Epicurus includes something that looks a lot like the “Dichotomy of Control” clearly showing they didn’t come up with it but gave it a catchy title.

It seems, "Stoics" or "Stoicism" should be included in this item from Session 4, e.g.

"10. Epicurus includes something that looks a lot like the “Dichotomy of Control” of the Stoics clearly showing they didn’t come up with it but gave it a catchy title."

Agreed! And added. Thanks!

It does have a new intro. I thought it was a good opportunity for anyone who missed the first time around (like new forum members).