For me, Luke Ranieri is still the go-to guy online for Ancient Greek and Latin. For example, a recent video goes deep into vowel length:
Posts by Don
Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
-
-
Great article find (at least from that excerpt you shared), Pacatus ! I'm looking forward to reading the whole thing.
The author seems to commit the same “higher pleasure” error mentioned by Cassius above – but does seem to succeed in arguing against the notion that a state of katastematic pleasure somehow obviates the natural, healthy desire for varying kinetic pleasures – on the contrary. And pleasure is pleasure.
I find their use of "highest" unfortunate, but I don't see them making the usual "highest pleasure" mistake many authors do. I personally would agree with the author. One can enjoy every other pleasure more if one's mind isn't troubled and one's body is in (reasonably) good working order. That's my general perspective: we need to find that state of equilibrium and good working order (katastematic) as a ground from which to enjoy the stimulative (kinetic) pleasures of life. Even the kinetic pleasure of good memories generally happens easier if we're not anxious or worried or unhealthy.
-
That is an impressive piece of writing! Thank you very much for sharing the story of your personal path.
-
Great thought-provoking post, Martin. Thank you!
In a quick search, I see there's been some academic papers on the topic... Most beyond me in a brief scan of the content
so, turning to Wikipedia:"Interpreting causation as a deterministic relation means that if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. In this sense, war does not cause deaths, nor does smoking cause cancer. As a result, many turn to a notion of probabilistic causation. Informally, A probabilistically causes B if A's occurrence increases the probability of B. This is sometimes interpreted to reflect the imperfect knowledge of a deterministic system but other times interpreted to mean that the causal system under study has an inherently indeterministic nature." (PS. I just realized that article mentions Epicureanism!)
I like where that is headed and would have been (at least consciously) unaware of it without Martin 's post.
Such a computer ... would be like a 1:1 scale map of everything
I would go beyond that and offer that you might need multiple universes to compute the outcomes in one universe... It's "conceivable" (ie, I just conceived it
) but completely impractical and maybe useless IF indeterminacy is the way things are. -
Wow! There is so much wrong in that chart! -
Great first post! Welcome aboard our little boat!
-
Oh, I didn't mean in any language proficiency way or idiosyncratic way! Sorry if I implied that.
I was thinking literally as in "predictable" in a theoretical way or "predictable" in a practical way.
If - in a given conversation - someone wants to say, theoretically, that in the future some far-advanced hyper-super-quantum computing machine is able to plot the current state of all matter in the universe at every given microsecond... then, yes, theoretically, all future states are "predictable" due to the laws of physics; and the three-body-problem and all other issues raised with chaos theory go away.
If - in another conversation - someone wants to say that "practically-speaking", chaos theory makes it "practically impossible" to predict future states of a given phenomenon outside a given predictability horizon, then it seems it turns into a matter of predictability in a "we'll never be able to predict this 'in our lifetime'" or "we can't predict this" scenario.
So, given all that...
For this reason, whether we live in a deterministic universe under the illusion of free will or we truly have free will is indistinguishable to us - at least for now.
I would tend to agree with your assessment in your quote there...at least right now as I type this in this conversation
-
It also doesn't mean we DON'T live in a fully predictable universe.
I guess it depends on one's definition of "predictable" in any given conversation.
-
Just watched the above video from Kyle Hill, and it struck me ... Physics (modern physics) does seem to say we live in a deterministic universe due to physical laws. However, that doesn't mean we live in a fully predictable universe per chaos theory. I felt this had an echo of Epicurean philosophy.
Take a look at the video. Curious to hear thoughts.
-
For those coming across this thread later, here a link to my article about the size and location of the Kepos and a talk I gave at a 20th online gathering:
Where was the Garden of Epicurus? The Evidence from the Ancient Sources and Archaeology - Epicureanfriends.comWhile we will probably never know the exact location of Epicurus’s Garden in ancient Athens, we can take a number of educated guesses.www.epicureanfriends.com -
A word of introduction on this one: Not a moment is devoted to the discussion of "idealist" vs "realist" perspectives.
If y'all do decide to wade into that, let me know, and I'll gird my loins (and refresh my memory on the sources) and show up ready to... talk -
-
Thank you for asking Twentier and you now have that trophy.
Hey! Over here!
-
-
From a quick search at Perseus:
Diogenes Laertius, Lives 4.6.41
Arcesilaus
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK IV, Chapter 6. ARCESILAUS (c. 318-242 B.C.)
The most virulent attacks were made upon [Arcesilaus] in the circle of Hieronymus the Peripatetic, whenever he collected his friends to keep the birthday of Halcyoneus, son of Antigonus, an occasion for which Antigonus used to send large sums of money to be spent in merrymaking.Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.8.101
Menippus
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK VI, Chapter 8. MENIPPUS
However, the writings of Menippus the Cynic are thirteen in number : [including]
A book about the birth of Epicurus ; and The School's reverence for the twentieth day.Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales 8.1
Question I. CONCERNING THOSE DAYS IN WHICH SOME FAMOUS MEN WERE BORN
Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales, Book 8., chapter 1
ON the sixth day of May we celebrated Socrates's birthday, and on the seventh Plato's; and that first prompted us to such discourse as was suitable to the meeting... -
Posting for discussion, but I felt this piece on CBS Sunday Morning hit some valuable Epicurean themes. The worship of productivity and the virtue signaling of unceasing activity are opposed to an Epicurean attitude of rest and activity, at least from my perspective.
-
So apparently feasting and sacrifices were part of birthday celebrations for Plato and Socrates.
Evidently....
Their custom was to celebrate the birthday of Socrates on the sixth day of the month Thargelion, which by their reckoning coincided with his death day. And they celebrated by engaging in Socratic dialogue, which for them was the logos that was resurrected every time people engage in Socratic dialogue.
Gregory Nagy is an authoritative source, too. The Center has some great resources.
PS. And I'm going to do a little horn-tooting and put a link to my paper on Epicurus's birthday:
Epicurus’s Birthday: The 7th, 10th, or 20th of Gamelion - Mystery Solved
This paper outlines the reasons to accept that Epicurus was born on the 20th day of the month of Gamelion.
-
Ya'll have been active while I was asleep
Some great posts.practices that may seem cultish today may have served functions of which we are completely unaware.
Completely agree. Without the everyday cultural context, it's almost impossible to put ourselves fully in the mindset of an ancient person. As one example, what did Epicurus feel and think when he was participating in the city festivals (other than gaining pleasure from it)? And the "funeral offerings to my father, mother, and brothers" are specifically called ἐνάγισμα (enagisma) which one source describes as "enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are particular to hero-cults and the cult of the dead." (Lots of interesting info in that source for sacrifice and ritual. I may have referenced it in the past.)
I was somewhat interested to learn, after reading Cicero's condemnation on this point, that Plotinus--the founder of Neoplatonism in the 3rd century AD--was adamant that his birthday not be celebrated, and that his portrait not be carved or painted
Wow! THAT is a great find, Joshua ! That information is completely new to me and certainly does shed an interesting light on Epicurus's decision to celebrate his birthday, both during his life and in perpetuity after his death!
I think it is important (for me at least) to be clear that the areas where he would change his mind involve relatively insignificant speculations on operations of nature which he knew were open to revision. On the "more philosophical" matters of ethics and epistemology I don't think he would have any reason to revise much at all.
Agreed. My point was "If Epicurus learned modern atomic theory and related findings..." Epicurus's atomic theory and the modern Standard Model BOTH posit a material, non-supernatural universe. To me, Epicurus's ethics and epistemology rest on his physics (AND I have you, Cassius , to thank for that understanding!) which set out the general view that we live in that kind of universe. Even if the details of the physics are different, both Epicurus and modern scientists would agree - from my perspective - that we do indeed live in a world uncreated by gods, governed by understandable principles, and composed of matter and/or energy (depending on what level you want to concentrate).
-
Despite the school encouraged the study of nature, which is as 'scientific' approach as it possibly could be at the time, the same school attracted people with unscientific, pious, almost cult like behaviour towards Epicurus and his teachings putting him in a weird position of some kind of a saviour, god or something like that. I called it a concealed ideology as I suspect something I don't know, or understand, was going on behind the scenes. On top of that, what was completely on display, also leaves me scratching my head sometimes. (yes, I'm thinking 'the real gods' in intermundia, for example). Materialistic school with pious students? Eternal gods made of matter? I guess you can cook a duck and duck a cook at the same time but it's kinda weird
I'm not trying to belittle Epicureanism in any way, I simply try to understand what ancient Epicureanism was really like.
I think you raise some interesting and valid points, TauPhi . I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts and to give anyone interested a chance to add to the discussion.
My first thought as I read your post was: Although we can see "scientific" precursors in ancient Greek philosophy, they weren't *really* doing science. To me, science as a discipline has specific techniques and ways of experimenting and collecting data. The University of California Berkeley hosts a website, Understanding Science 101, which says: "all science relies on testing ideas by figuring out what expectations are generated by an idea and making observations to find out whether those expectations hold true. Accepted scientific ideas are reliable because they have been subjected to rigorous testing. But, as new evidence is acquired and new perspectives emerge, these ideas can be revised." They also have a nice diagram that shows the nonlinear "process of science"
Neither Democritus nor Epicurus nor Aristotle nor any other ancient Greek or Roman really followed a scientific process. I think they contributed to the lineage that would eventually lead to science as a discipline, but they didn't "do science." They tried their best to make sense of the natural world around them (Exploration and Discovery in the diagram?). However, they didn't try to get feedback or analysis. They maybe tested their ideas in a rudimentary way but certainly didn't run experiments. They gathered the facts as best they could and, through introspection, "thought experiments," and elimination of possible causes (in their limited understanding) came up with the best explanation. Now, that said, i think Epicurus came up with some of the best explanations for his time. His intuition and personal introspective analysis was closer to right than wrong more often than not... that's why we're here discussing Epicurean philosophy 2,300+ years later. We feel it still has value millennia later. But he still got a number of things wildly incorrect when measured against modern scientific understanding.
Do I think Epicurus would change his mind about some of his ideas given a chance to learn modern explanations? Sure. He can be applauded for getting it right, but that "getting it right" is relative to all the other explanations out there at the time. He was a novel thinker, and maybe he was closer to right more often than not because everyone else had come up with bad ideas (to which he was responding) and with which Epicurus didn't agree. He wanted a better solution, and it just so happens that his alternative solutions were closer (certainly not exact) to how we understand the world now... by virtue of being opposed to the common knowledge of his day. That doesn't take anything away from the value of his writings nor does it make light of his contribution to helping others - well past his lifetime - live a more productive and happy life.
Okay, so that's Epicurus getting his study of nature right even though he wasn't doing science as we think of it... his approach was at least science-adjacent or pre-scientific.
Did Epicurus structure the Garden as a cult to himself? Well... He did institute the celebration of his birthday during his lifetime. He did institute the 20th celebration each month as a celebration of himself and Metrodorus... like the other monthly celebrations of the gods like Apollo, Aphrodite, etc. The question would have to be asked if he instituted those celebrations at the request of his students or did his student request to celebrate him and he provided a structure for them. From the texts, especially the fragments (and larger sections) of On Nature, Epicurus was definitely THE LEADER of his school and the one who wrote a 37-volume lecture course with HIM as the lecturer. There's also "Honoring a wise one is itself a great good to the one who honors." (ὁ τοῦ σοφοῦ σεβασμὸς ἀγαθὸν μέγα τῷ σεβομένῳ ἐστί.) The word used there means "to be moved by awe, fear, or respect for others or for their opinions;" and can also be used in a religious sense as honoring a god; to revere; to worship. Epicurus didn't seem to discourage this kind of respect, awe, etc.; however, he also reciprocated from time to time (IF I remember correctly). He also practiced this reverencing/honoring in relation to the gods himself in his participation in the rites and festivals, both in the Garden and in the city. It was a natural result of this "honoring the wise one" that he was basically deified after his death... he wasn't around to stop his students from doing it ("Do all things as if Epicurus were watching.") But I think Cassius made a good observation in an earlier post that the Epicurean gods didn't interfere in human affairs. It's metaphor at least. And "true piety" is showing respect/awe for the correct reasons as opposed to showing respect/awe out of fear for divine punishment or desire for divine gifts.
Calling Epicurus a "savior" or "god" as Lucretius does, honestly, doesn't really bother me... as long as I interpret it metaphorically. Epicurus "literally" "saved" people from ignorance and fear. That makes him, by definition, a savior.
As for the gods... I'm still not convinced that Epicurus believed there were giant humanoids living between world-systems, replenishing their atoms continuously.
All that is another reason I don't think we'll ever recreate the Garden as the Garden was during Epicurus's time or during it's existence into the Roman era. We do NOT know nor can we know (without some wondrous trove of semi-complete papyri coming out of the new Herculaneum scroll-reading technology!) how the life of the Garden functioned and how students were recruited, taught, housed, etc. We have NO real idea what ceremonies were involved in the 20th celebrations. We have no idea how demanding Epicurus was in showing him (and Metrodorus and Hermarchus and Polyaenus) "reverence and awe." We really don't know how the practice of parrhesia (frank criticism) was carried out, although Philodemus (writing a century-and-a-half after Epicurus) does provide an invaluable text on that. There is too much we don't know.
What we do know - and what we have - is a systematic way of looking at the world and of living one's life to the fullest in pursuit of eudaimonia. I still think the substance of Epicurus's philosophy has something to say in the modern world. In some ways, I see our attempt at applying a 2-1/2 millennia old philosophy to our own lives as akin to the efforts by some "secular Buddhists" to rid that philosophy of its supernatural and religious accretions and apply it to their lives. With all respect to Cassius (and I know why he says it! and kudos for that), we're all in some ways "neo-Epicureans." There's no way we can really be "classical Epicureans" in every sense of that phrase. For me, we're trying to stay true to the "spirit" of Epicurean philosophy without being beholden to the "letter" of Epicurean philosophy.
I am an eclectic (and an Epicurean friend at the same time) and it works for me.
And if it works, that's what's important. You're getting pleasure from your search and your path.
Who knows? I may end up walking the path of the eclectic in the future again. It's certainly been a long and winding road to get to the Garden Path: Christian Mystic, "Druid," Buddhist, etc... I've had various descriptions of the path I was on before I got here. So far... I like the view from the Garden and plan to put my feet up and enjoy a cold beverage for awhile.I'll end by saying I enjoy your company here and appreciate your willingness to engage in friendly discussion and to challenge from time to time. That opportunity to think through some issues is very helpful.
PS. Oh my! That ended up way longer than I intended. Mea culpa.
-
Maybe Epicureanism was not intended as a guide for people trying to come up with their own recipes for their lives. Maybe Epicureanism was designed as yet another concealed ideology for people who are perfectly fine with buying a cookbook and never stray from its content.
Epicurus started teaching philosophy because he thought he had a system superior to all the others that were teaching during his time. He no doubt felt he had 'figured it out." I get the impression that one didn't join a school - did not seek out a school - to then "come up with their own recipes for their lives." To continue the metaphor, you liked the menu of the school. That's why you joined the school. You ate the food, learned the recipes, you tried to recreate the food at home, you got feedback from the chefs, repeat.
I don't think the "ideology" was concealed. I think the ideology - I'd say the teaching and tenets of the school - was completely on display, like a menu posted at the door of a restaurant. That's why people joined.
I want to state explicitly that there's nothing wrong with charting one's own course, taking a cafeteria approach to a life philosophy (to stay with the metaphor). Choosing dishes that work for the person. I took that approach myself in the past. However, I feel that starting with an established philosophy or religion or lifestyle gets you further down the road. It's not necessarily nefarious to want to use the cookbook from someone who appears to know how to cook.
Unread Threads
-
- Title
- Replies
- Last Reply
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 6.8k
-
July 8, 2025 at 7:33 AM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 353
-
July 6, 2025 at 9:47 PM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 974
-
July 1, 2025 at 1:59 PM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 900
-
June 23, 2025 at 12:36 AM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 2.2k
-