Posts by Don

I would have to check the sources, but my feeling is that after Epicurus, the Epicurean school became much more decentralized. During Epicurus's lifetime, he talks about far-flung students sending money to him (which I'm going to assume he used for the upkeep and running of his household and school). After his death, did students support the school and succeeding scholarchs in the same way? Or did they concentrate on their own local Epicurean efforts? For example, Diogenes didn't commission a stoa wall in Athens; he built one in his own hometown of Oenoanda. Philodemus, while he did study in Athens at THE Garden with THE scholarch, was active in Herculaneum not Athens. The Garden in Athens wasn't a Vatican. Maybe the decentralizion was both a strength and a weakness in the end, allowing the school to spread but not having a central "authority" by which to "impose its will" throughout, say, an Empire... Like certain later organizations.

These are great, TauPhi !! Well done and THANKS!!

To circle back to Bryan 's question: Both of those document χᾰρῐέστε[ρο]ς...

I've been looking for an image of P.Oxy.II 215 online for us to make up our own minds, but I've been unsuccessful thus far.

The Oxyrhynchus papyri : Grenfell, Bernard P. (Bernard Pyne), 1869-1926 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

26 35 43

archive.org

Grenfell has χαριέστερον.

χαρίεις - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Comparative
χᾰρῐέστερος

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, χα^ρίεις

First:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

This would be the modern walking route from the Hill of the Nymphs in the ancient district of Melite to one of the potential points in the Garden outside the city walls in the ancient Kerameikos district. Even today, with the twisting streets, its an easy 26 min. walk. Tantalizing! I have to dig more into the Hill of the Nymphs possible location for Epicurus' house.

Now:

Quote from Cassius

the reference to Epicurus' house being in ruins at the time of Memmius raises questions as to whether the successor leaders of the Epicurean school failed to make proper use of their inheritance from Epicurus, or whether perhaps the house was destroyed in a war, or whatever led to it (and/or the garden property) not being maintained over that period.

To me, there's every indication that The Garden (Ho Kepos) was maintained from Epicurus's time as leader of the school in Athens (306-270 BCE) right through the time of Cicero (1st c BCE) and into the reign of Hadrian (late 1st c CE-early 2nd c CE) and beyond. That's 400+ years! There aren't many institutions that can boast that kind of track record!

As I maintain in my paper, The Garden was large enough to easily house a number of residences and other buildings within it. Over time, there may not have been, other than for sentimental reasons, to maintain the house and small household garden (hortulus), within the city walls. Maybe the scholarch stayed in The Garden itself in a residence? The Garden was *the* school, not the former residence of the "Master-builder of Happiness." There's also this in Wikipedia on the History of Athens:

In 88–85 BC, most Athenian fortifications and homes were leveled by the Roman general Sulla after the Siege of Athens and Piraeus, although many civic buildings and monuments were left intact. (See also the article on the Siege of Athens and  Piraeus)

Melite residence = "homes"; The Garden = "civic buildings and monuments"??

Quote from Cassius

One of the subtexts that anyone who is interested in a revitalized Epicurean school, as opposed to simply personal self-help, is the question of whether the organization of the ancient Epicurean school failed in some way

Failed?? If the Epicurean school had a consistent lineage of scholarchs for over four centuries from the death of Epicurus (270 BCE) up to and past the time of Pompeia Plotina and Emperior Hadrian (120s CE) and was still enough of a force to be denounced by early Christian writers, I would call it wildly successful! The school had adherents/students from Gaul to Asia Minor to Egypt! The United States is only coming up on 2-1/2 centuries. Any human institution is going to have a lifespan... but the fact that we're here discussing Epicurus's ideas 2,300+ years later bodes well for the "Epicurean school," in my opinion.

Thanks, Little Rocker !!!

I had not seen the Hill of the Nymphs references before! Maybe time for a revision of that paper of mine

As an aside, I'm a big fan of Dan McClellan 's Data Over Dogma podcast.

My take is the Christians ran with Plato's " matter was a crude and illusory imitation of form".

Dan McClellan does a good quick intro to the mistaken idea of a god creating the universe ex nihilo...

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.

Here's my take on that word "dogmatize" in relation to the Epicureans:

Quote from waterholic

To be fair, in the same section Philodemus justifies the small sun theory (I just had to make that disclosure).

On the size of the sun, check out Gellar-Goad's chapter in "Epicurus in Rome" (open access)

Lucretius on the Size of the Sun (Chapter 10) - Epicurus in Rome

Epicurus in Rome - February 2023

www.cambridge.org

Oh, and apologies for inadvertently hijacking this thread... You can now return to your previously scheduled programming.

Quote from Cassius

What I think you're talking about is in my mind mainly a tone issue and I agree with your perspective that let's call it "human exceptionaiism" is not at all valid.

Bingo.

Quote from Cassius

our goal should be to dodge every last one of those meteorites for as long as we can do so pleasurably.

Agreed! Duck and cover!

Quote from Cassius

But since we are good Epicureans, we think along the line of Epicurus in providing for the school and for Metrodorus' children after his death, and of Diogenes of Oinoanda in instructing future generations currently unborn, right?

Sure! We take pleasure in planning for the future of our family, of our world, of successive generations, all of that. We know we don't control anything after we die, but there's pleasure to be had in knowing we did all we could do while alive.

That said...

(I get the feeling this is one of those conversations that would be over quick were we to be talking in-person )

My bone of contention is that we should not think humans are somehow exempt from the fate of other species or that we're somehow going to be around to see the "heat death" of the universe or the creation of a new bubble universe (or whatever the fate of our corner of the cosmos will be). Sure, humans are probably going to be around for millennia more or maybe even millions of years in one form or another. Maybe we'll harness the technology to have humans explore into the solar system. But no matter how long we're around, we should not think we have some "special" place in the Divine Plan of the Universe or something. We are living beings like every other living being. Our species will have a lifespan. Our species is mortal, like our Sun. And, I think, we need to be okay with that. The eventual, inevitable death of our species is nothing to us. Carpe the diem here and now.

Quote from Cassius

Paul accusing the "pagans" of being "slaves to the weak and beggarly elements."

I've seen that conincingly interpreted as being slaves to every little jot and tittle - every element - of the biblical Law.

Quote from Cassius

I do not think that humans will be limited to this planet much longer, and after that the solar system, and eventually the galaxy, will be left behind. And it will be entirely reasonable to leave our Sun behind when it eventually seems likely to terminate in some way.

Sure. I'm happy to give you all that, and I have zero opposition to the aspiration of space travel. I'm a Star Trek fan, too. However, after a recent Clear + Vivid episode, I don't expect colonies on the Moon or Mars in my lifetime:

Kelly and Zach Weinersmith: A Second Home on Mars? - Clear+Vivid with Alan Alda

Learn to connect better with others in every area of your life. Immerse yourself in spirited conversations with people who know how hard it is, and yet how…

pca.st

Quote from Cassius

I don't see that viewpoint as any different from the actions of Nature / Venus / Pleasure cited in the opening of book one of Lucretius in spurring all living things on to continue their species. Nature calls us to pursue pleasure as long as we are able, and life is necessary for pleasure.

Yep, I'll agree to that.

I've read your responses rapidly, and I'll post over in the other thread, too. But I'll cut to the chase for me now.

In the scale of the universe or even our cosmos, humans aren't special. Thousands, millions, of species have gone extinct. Eventually, our species will - no doubt - go extinct as well. That's the way things are. Species evolve, exist, then are gone. We were not, we are, we will be no longer... Do we make decisions to protect our individual lives? Of course! Should we make collective decisions to not hasten our species demise? Absolutely! But to imagine our species as somehow able to leap frog the fate of every other species and the eventual far-dstant demise of Earth or the Sun or other suns and other planets strikes me as misplaced . I find it hard to articulate, but the insidious idea that humans can transcend the eventual end of every other thing, strikes me as somehow corrosive to our taking pleasure in this life, this existence, this time.

How merited is that adopted name
Of earth- "The Mother!"- since from out the earth
Are all begotten.

- Lucretius, On The Nature of Things, Book 5

🌍🌎

Quote from Cassius

I do suggest at some future point that Epicureans consider getting together to produce an escape plan when the final end of the earth appears imminent (as Lucretius discusses will occur at some point) but unless some of us are extremely well positioned in a space program, we probably are just as well off leaving that for another day as well.

For some reason, this (I'm assuming) tongue-in-cheek closing paragraph has gnawed at me since I read it. Indulge me in some stream-of-consciousness to work through my nagging unease at Cassius 's light-hearted digression.

One section where Lucretius brings up the end of our world-system is in Book 5:

Quote

For, verily, those things of which we see
The parts and members to have birth in time
And perishable shapes, those same we mark
To be invariably born in time
And born to die. And therefore when I see
The mightiest members and the parts of this
Our world consumed and begot again,
'Tis mine to know that also sky above
And earth beneath began of old in time
And shall in time go under to disaster.

Display More

The "world" again here is mundus, translating the Greek kosmos, which encompasses our world but also our world-system as encompassing the heavens and the whole little ordered shebang of our little corner of The All, To Pan, the universus.

Cassius suggestion that we "consider getting together to produce an escape plan when the final end of the earth appears imminent" maybe makes me uneasy as it seems like human hubris (in that we feel we could somehow escape the inevitable end of our mortal corner of the cosmos) but, I think, it wrankles me since it strikes me as yearning for immortality... maybe not personal but for our species. Everything in our infinite universe is mortal - okay, maybe not the "gods" but we'll leave that for another day. To think that we humans would be spared that mortality as a species goes against the grain of my Epicurean understanding... I think.

In any case, again, I fully realize (I think) that Cassius was reacting to the survival theme of this thread in a light-hearted way, but I felt the necessity (LOL, pun intended... see VS09) to get my unease off my chest.

Definitely nothing at 10pm