Posts by Don

The last few interviews I've seen with him, I thought he was looking rough. That is sad news. I found his ideas thought-provoking and continue to wrestle with his views on free will. I found him compelling, common sensical, approachable, and down to earth. His voice will be missed, but his writings and videos will remain.

Well lived, Dr. Dennett.

τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου the whole/entirety of life

μακαριότητα makariotēta "most, highest blessedness" - the superlative of the same word used in PD1 to describe the gods

See also

DCLP/Trismegistos 63149 = LDAB 4353

Just started listening... Thanks, Joshua , for the kind words regarding my guest appearance and the commentary. Much appreciated.

... Seen on Instagram

a start...

Corpus Papyrorum Hermopolitanorum

books.google.com

Welcome aboard!

The anguish on Cassandra's face and her hand holding her head as if she has a migraine from Apollo's curse of foresight (that no one will believe) is heartbreaking!

PS. Natalie Haynes did an amazing job of portraying Cassandra's plight in the novel A Thousand Ships.

The frescoes also illustrate scenes from the Trojan War, so that's another clue:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5p7Q-VryJB/

Quote from Cassius

I wonder sometimes how much these descriptions can be trusted . It would be interesting to know how they come up with these conclusions.

Typically the gods and other mythological characters have set attributes, so they're clearly identifiable. That's why a statue can be identified if they only have one hand, etc. If that hand is holding an item clearly connected to one character.. That's it. Apollo is associated with lyre, so maybe that's why he's being identified here. I'm not sure if Cassandra's attributes off hand.

Quote from Bryan

I have noticed that Perseus has been slow again lately, I wanted to recommend this site, which I just started using.

Great! Thanks... and to that resource: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BC%80%CE%B…%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9

More notes:

Did Epicurus hold that Pain is properly thought of as the ultimate or Chief Evil, and how do we make sense of that statement?

I'm my opinion, Cicero is trying to use Epicurus’s (correct!) contention that pleasure is the summum bonum to say evil is the summum malum.

What is the relation to pleasure and pain?

Here's the way Cicero put it:

XXXII. But to return to our theme (for we were speaking about pain when we drifted into the consideration of this letter) we may now thus sum up the whole matter: he who is subject to the greatest possible evil (summo malo) is not happy (beatus) so long as he remains subject to it, whereas the wise man always is happy (beatus), though he is at times subject to pain (dolore); pain therefore is not the greatest possible evil (summum malum dolor).

Using Google Translate: “He who is in the highest evil, while he is in it, is not happy. but the wise man is always happy and is sometimes in pain; therefore pain is not the greatest evil.” THIS is a much preferable way of looking at it.

Some may bring up Vatican Saying 42 which Saint-Andre translates as:

[42] At the very same time, the greatest good is created and the greatest evil is removed.

BUT on VS42, see Versions of Vatican Saying 42

THAT’S NOT WHAT’S in the manuscript!! There is NO τοῦ κακοῦ (“evil”) in the manuscript! That’s an addition…

BUT the other “correction” by Bailey and others reads:

Ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολαύσεως.

"The greatest blessing is created and enjoyed at the same moment" [Bailey]

SO… there is no consensus on the *correct* reading of VS 42. I wouldn’t use that for support one way or the other because of the difficulties in the manuscript.

I think Cicero is trying to use the opposite of “summum bonum” which is just the Latin for telos or greatest good… THAT TO WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE POINTS - OUR ULTIMATE REASON FOR DOING ANYTHING… which, according to Epicurus (correctly in my opinion) is PLEASURE.

Cicero takes “summum malum” uses that to refer to PAIN. MAYBE pain COULD be called the “summum malum” but I don’t think that characterization works. Avoiding pain is that to which everything “points away from”?... BUT an Epicurean is STILL going to voluntarily take on some pain if a greater pleasure can ensue later.

In Epicurus’s philosophy, there is ultimately ONLY PAIN and PLEASURE.

Here are some of my notes from my preparation for the episode. The first cache:

Why do I keep harping on the inadequacy on the word "happy"?

To me, "happy" implies "tra-la-la, skipping through the daisies, fizzy, effervescent feelings." There's nothing wrong with feeling happy!! "Happy" to me is a fleeting of-the-moment feeling. "Happy" gets used for sooooo many words in Greek and Latin that, to me, it obscures what is actually going on. Translators just seem to go "We'll throw that in the 'happy' basket. Done!" Even the "Call no man "happy"" episode with Croesus recounted by Herodotus used ὀλβιώτατος (olbiotatos) and ὄλβιος (olbios) - not eudaimonia, not khara, not makarios - a whole new word! But in the famous quote usually translated as "Call no man happy until he's dead, it doesn't refer to the kind of feeling I get when I hear "happy" (Herodotus 1.32.7 )

Quote

Quote

[7] If besides all this he ends his life well, then he is the one whom you seek, the one worthy to be called fortunate. But refrain from calling him fortunate before he dies; call him lucky.

‘ [7] εἰ δὲ πρὸς τούτοισι ἔτι τελευτήσῃ τὸν βίον εὖ, οὗτος ἐκεῖνος τὸν σὺ ζητέεις, ὁ ὄλβιος κεκλῆσθαι ἄξιος ἐστί: πρὶν δ᾽ ἂν τελευτήσῃ, ἐπισχεῖν, μηδὲ καλέειν κω ὄλβιον ἀλλ᾽ εὐτυχέα. ’

olbios and olbiotatos (the superlative form) " is defined in Liddell & Scott as "happy, blessed, blest; (of things) rich, prosperous" which reminds me more of makarios (the description of the happiness of the gods and the "blessed life") than English "happy." The words come from olbos "wealth, prosperity, riches; happiness, bliss, fortune."

Which to me also echoes eudaimonia. The Stanford philosophy site gave an explanation of eudaimonia as “The term is perhaps best understood in connection with the success or good fortune a person would enjoy when under the protection of a guardian angel." To me, the concept is better understood as "fortunate, having an inner sense of well-being, resilient, "rich" in the metaphorical sense, confident in one's self-reliance, content (BUT not milquetoast doormat-y contentment), able to appreciate "the little things" and so on. To me, "happy" doesn't fit that semantic hole neatly. Maybe "happiness" or a "sense of happiness." If we can agree that *that* is what "happy" means, I can use the word... but I won't be "happy" about it

So, Epicurus was not "happy happy skipping through daisies" on his last day. He was content with the way his life had gone. He was satisfied that he had lived a "good" life. He took enjoyment in recollecting the path he had taken, in the friends he had made, and in the pleasures he had experienced. In his letter to Idomeneus, Epicurus calls his last day "blessed" (makarion). And "But the cheerfulness (χαῖρον khairon) of my mind, which arises from the recollection of all our philosophical contemplations, counterbalances all these afflictions." (Yonge's translation with amending "our" instead of "my philosopical...") khairon is a form of the word used for the kinetic pleasure of "joy" khara. And Epicurus doesn't say the "joy" outweighs or conquers the pain of his condition. The word used is Ἀντιπαρατάσσομαι (antiparatassomai) which conveys "holding one's ground against, and in drawing up troops in battle order, side by side, ready to do battle against an enemy." He can do battle with the physical pain with the kinetic "joy" he can experience. I don't want to do down a kinetic/katastematic rabbit hole but there you go.

That's part of the reason I dislike saying things like "Epicurus was 'happy' on his last day" or "Call no many 'happy' until he dies." It glosses over too much and paints a skewed picture of what is actually being conveyed by the texts.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/10/1230604997/a-team-of-students-deciphered-a-2000-year-old-papyrus-scroll-with-some-help-from

LUKE FARRITOR: (Reading) They have nothing to say about pleasure, either in general or in the particular, when it is a question of definition.

For me, it's the Tetrapharmakos in ancient Greek.

LOL! So.... This is going to be a four-hour episode? Looking forward to participating!

Welcome aboard our little boat!

You may want to check out this thread:

Quote from Bryan

but of some mollusc (τινος πλεύμονος) or some other shell-fish like the oyster.

Note "Πλεύμων" which is the term Epicurus used for Nausiphanes.

As soon as I read that πλεύμονος, I was like "Hey! Nausiphanes!" and then Bryan did not disappoint.

PS: *THAT* has to be where Epicurus got that nickname for Nausiphanes. That excerpt from Philebus to me aligns with this snippet from the WP article below: "Furthermore, Nausiphanes was an adherent of Democritus's sceptical side and deemed human judgment as being no more than a realignment of atoms in the mind."

Nausiphanes - Wikipedia