Posts by Don

Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. [Saint-Andre translation; Also VS22, by the way]

Unlimited time and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason. [Hicks]

See also:

Thread

VS22 - Source in Vat.gr.1950

Same as PD19 (supposedly)...

PD19 (Saint-Andre translation):

Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning.

ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος ἴσην ἔχει τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ ὁ πεπερασμένος, ἐάν τις αὐτῆς τὰ πέρατα καταμετρήσῃ τῷ λογισμῷ.

VS22 from manuscript: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1950.pt.2/0256

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3965/

(Big red capital omicron) ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος καὶ ὁ πεπερασμένος…

Don

July 15, 2023 at 4:32 PM

I don't necessarily like "joy" instead of pleasure. The word is ἡδονὴν and I feel it's important to show it is one of the feelings: pleasure and pain, which led Joshua (I believe) to ask the insightful question that he did.

I also think it's important to disregard the PD numbers. They weren't in the original. And I believe we need to read the full text on this topic in context:

As soon as the pain produced by the lack of something is removed, pleasure in the flesh is not increased but only embellished. Yet the limit of enjoyment in the mind is produced by thinking through these very things and similar things, which once provoked the greatest fears in the mind. Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy (pleasure), if its limits are measured out through reasoning. The flesh assumes that the limits of joy (pleasure) are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time; yet the mind does not flee from joy, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the best life. One who perceives the limits of life knows how easy it is to expel the pain produced by a lack of something and to make one's entire life complete; so that there is no need for the things that are achieved through struggle.

Now, if we would switch pleasure and pain, how does that affect the meaning of this section? Can we even do it? From the first line:

As soon as the pain produced by the lack of something is removed...

There is no "pleasure produced by the lack of something" unless it is the pleasure of the lack of pain. So, it seems to me that the "the same amount of joy (pleasure)" can't be substituted for "the same amount of pain" because pain seems, by definition, to be produced by a lack of something? So while the question can be asked semantically, it can't really be asked due to the parameters being set out. The question is a sensible question on its face, but it can't really be asked or answered in reality. I think??

I guess we'd have to ask what is the limit of pain? The complete lack of pleasure, I suppose? If we do try that experiment:

As soon as the pleasure produced by the lack of something is removed, pain in the flesh is not increased but only embellished. Yet the limit of pain in the mind is produced by thinking through these very things and similar things, which once provoked the greatest joy in the mind. Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of pain, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. The flesh assumes that the limits of pain are infinite, and that infinite pain can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time; yet the mind does not flee from pain, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the worst life. One who perceives the limits of life knows how easy it is to expel the pleasure produced by a lack of something and to make one's entire life complete; so that there is no need for the things that are achieved through struggle.

LOL It's getting late... so I'll leave this as a writing prompt if nothing else. Look forward to others' thoughts!

In commemoration of tonight's anniversary:

Apollo 11 - NASA

The primary objective of Apollo 11 was to complete a national goal set by President John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961: perform a crewed lunar landing and return…

www.nasa.gov

The Apollo 11 moon landing, in photos | CNN

www.cnn.com

(and to answer Cassius question during tonight's conversation: The photographs from the Moon were in color, the video feed was B&W)

Glad I could join the conversation this evening. Blessed Twentieth. Η ΜΑΚΑΡΙΑΣ ΕΙΚΑΣ !

ἄξομεν ἐκ λιτῆς εἰκάδα πιοτέρην.

"From simple fare, we will richly celebrate the Twentieth."

That's my take on the paraphrase of the last line of Philodemus' epigram. I don't particularly like the usual "instead of simply." I think the "out of.." gets at enjoying friends and food without needing a banquet.

Happy Twentieth y'all!

Mentions of ἄπειρόν (infinity) in Principal Doctrines: These are a little more hidden by translations that the Herodotus references. The etymology of the word is important to point out: From ἀ- (a-, “not”) +‎ πεῖραρ (peîrar), πέρας (péras, “end, limit”).

[χιιι.] Οὐθὲν ὄφελος ἦν τὴν κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους ἀσφάλειαν κατασκευάζεσθαι τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑπόπτων καθεστώτων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ γῆς καὶ ἁπλῶς τῶν *ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ.*
13. It is useless to be safe from other people while retaining suspicions about what is above and below the earth and in general *about the infinite unknown*. (Saint-Andre)
13. There would be no advantage in providing security against our fellow-men, so long as we were alarmed by occurrences over our heads or beneath the earth or in general by whatever happens *in the boundless universe* (ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ). (Hicks)

[χϝ.] Ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ὥρισται καὶ εὐπόριστός ἐστιν: ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν *εἰς ἄπειρον* ἐκπίπτει.
15. Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire, but the riches incited by groundless opinion *have no end.* (Saint-Andre)
15. Nature's wealth at once has its bounds and is easy to procure ; but the wealth of vain fancies recedes *to an infinite distance*. (Hicks)

[χιχ.] Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος ἴσην ἔχει τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ ὁ πεπερασμένος, ἐάν τις αὐτῆς τὰ πέρατα καταμετρήσῃ τῷ λογισμῷ.
19. Finite time and infinite time (Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος) contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. (Saint-Andre)
19. Unlimited time (Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος) and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason. (Hicks)

[χχ.] Ἡ μὲν σὰρξ ἀπέλαβε τὰ πέρατα τῆς ἡδονῆς ἄπειρα, καὶ ἄπειρος αὐτὴν χρόνος παρεσκεύασεν. ἡ δὲ διάνοια τοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς τέλους καὶ πέρατος λαβοῦσα τὸν ἐπιλογισμὸν καὶ τοὺς ὑπὲρ τοῦ αἰῶνος φόβους ἐκλύσασα τὸν παντελῆ βίον παρεσκεύασεν, καὶ οὐθὲν ἔτι τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνου προσεδεήθη: <οὐ> μὴν ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ἔφυγε τὴν ἡδονήν, οὐθ᾽ ἡνίκα τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν ἐκ τοῦ ζῆν τὰ πράγματα παρεσκεύαζεν, ὡς ἐλλείπουσά τι τοῦ ἀρίστου βίου κατέστρεφεν.
20. The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite (τῆς ἡδονῆς ἄπειρα), and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite (ἄπειρος) time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time (τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνου); yet the mind does not flee from joy, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the best life. (Saint-Andre)
20. The flesh receives as unlimited (ἄπειρα) the limits of pleasure ; and to provide it requires unlimited (ἄπειρος) time. But the mind, grasping in thought what the end and limit of the flesh is, and banishing the terrors of futurity, procures a complete and perfect life, and has no longer any need of unlimited time (τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνου). Nevertheless it does not shun pleasure, and even in the hour of death, when ushered out of existence by circumstances, the mind does not lack enjoyment of the best life. (Hicks)

Okay, as promised, here's a start to Epicurus's mention of "infinity, infinite" specifically using the term απειρον / απειρος. Below are only the mentions in the Letter to Herodotus with both Greek and English for comparison. One idiosyncrasy I noticed is that the translator likes to use "ad infinitum" where Epicurus uses εἰς ἄπειρον "to infinity". Granted, the Latin means the same as the Greek but it obscures Epicurus's use of the word he says we need to study:

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus
37
Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα τοῖς φθόγγοις, ὦ Ἡρόδοτε, δεῖ εἰληφέναι, ὅπως ἂν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἢ ζητούμενα ἢ ἀπορούμενα ἔχωμεν εἰς ταῦτα ἀνάγοντες ἐπικρίνειν, καὶ μὴ ἄκριτα πάντα ἡμῖν <ἴῃ>42 εἰς ἄπειρον ἀποδεικνύουσιν ἢ κενοὺς φθόγγους ἔχωμεν.
"In the first place, Herodotus, you must understand what it is that words denote, in order that by reference to this we may be in a position to test opinions, inquiries, or problems, so that our proofs may not run on untested ad infinitum, nor the terms we use be empty of meaning.

41-43
"Ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρόν ἐστι. τὸ γὰρ πεπερασμένον ἄκρον ἔχει: τὸ δὲ ἄκρον παρ᾽ ἕτερόν τι θεωρεῖται: <τὸ δὲ πᾶν οὐ παρ᾽ ἕτερόν τι θεωρεῖται:>51 ὥστε οὐκ ἔχον ἄκρον πέρας οὐκ ἔχει: πέρας δὲ οὐκ ἔχον ἄπειρον ἂν εἴη καὶ οὐ πεπερασμένον.

"Καὶ μὴν καὶ τῷ πλήθει τῶν σωμάτων ἄπειρόν ἐστι τὸ πᾶν καὶ τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ κενοῦ. [42] εἴ τε γὰρ ἦν τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον, τὰ δὲ σώματα ὡρισμένα, οὐθαμοῦ ἂν ἔμενε τὰ σώματα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφέρετο κατὰ τὸ ἄπειρον κενὸν διεσπαρμένα, οὐκ ἔχοντα τὰ ὑπερείδοντα καὶ στέλλοντα κατὰ τὰς ἀνακοπάς: εἴ τε τὸ κενὸν ἦν ὡρισμένον, οὐκ ἂν εἶχε τὰ ἄπειρα σώματα ὅπου ἐνέστη.

"Πρός τε τούτοις τὰ ἄτομα τῶν σωμάτων καὶ μεστά, ἐξ ὧν καὶ αἱ συγκρίσεις γίνονται καὶ εἰς ἃ διαλύονται, ἀπερίληπτά ἐστι ταῖς διαφοραῖς τῶν σχημάτων: οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν γενέσθαι τὰς τοσαύτας διαφορὰς ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν σχημάτων περιειλημμένων. καὶ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην δὲ σχημάτισιν ἁπλῶς ἄπειροί εἰσιν αἱ ὅμοιαι, ταῖς δὲ διαφοραῖς οὐχ ἁπλῶς 53 [43] ἄπειροι ἀλλὰ μόνον ἀπερίληπτοι, [οὐδὲ γάρ φησιν ἐνδοτέρω εἰς ἄπειρον τὴν τομὴν τυγχάνειν. λέγει δέ, ἐπειδὴ αἱ ποιότητες μεταβάλλονται, εἰ μέλλει τις μὴ καὶ τοῖς μεγέθεσιν ἁπλῶς εἰς ἄπειρον αὐτὰς ἐκβάλλειν].

"Again, the sum of things (The All, τὸ πᾶν) is infinite (ἄπειρόν). For what is finite has an extremity, and the extremity of anything is discerned only by comparison with something else. (Now the sum of things is not discerned by comparison with anything else :64) hence, since it has no extremity, it has no limit ; and, since it has no limit, it must be unlimited or infinite (ἄπειρον).

"Moreover, the sum of things (The All, τὸ πᾶν) is unlimited (ἄπειρόν) both by reason of the multitude of the atoms and the extent of the void. [42] For if the void were infinite (ἄπειρον) and bodies finite, the bodies would not have stayed anywhere but would have been dispersed in their course through the infinite (ἄπειρον) void, not having any supports or counter- checks to send them back on their upward rebound. Again, if the void were finite, the infinity (ἄπειρα) of bodies would not have anywhere to be.

"Furthermore, the atoms, which have no void in them--out of which composite bodies arise and into which they are dissolved--vary indefinitely in their shapes ; for so many varieties of things as we see could never have arisen out of a recurrence of a definite number of the same shapes. The like atoms of each shape are absolutely infinite (ἄπειροί); but the variety of shapes, though indefinitely large, is not absolutely infinite. [43] [For neither does the divisibility go on "ad infinitum," he says below; but he adds, since the qualities change, unless one is prepared to keep enlarging their magnitudes also simply "ad infinitum." (ἄπειρον)]

45
"Ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ κόσμοι ἄπειροί εἰσιν, οἵ θ᾽ ὅμοιοι τούτῳ καὶ ἀνόμοιοι. αἵ τε γὰρ ἄτομοι ἄπειροι οὖσαι, ὡς ἄρτι ἀπεδείχθη, φέρονται καὶ πορρωτάτω. οὐ γὰρ κατανήλωνται αἱ τοιαῦται ἄτομοι, ἐξ ὧν ἂν γένοιτο κόσμος ἢ ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἂν ποιηθείη, οὔτ᾽ εἰς ἕνα οὔτ᾽ εἰς πεπερασμένους, οὔθ᾽ ὅσοι τοιοῦτοι οὔθ᾽ ὅσοι διάφοροι τούτοις. ὥστε οὐδὲν τὸ ἐμποδοστατῆσόν ἐστι πρὸς τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων.

"Moreover, there is an infinite number of worlds (κόσμοι ἄπειροί kosmoi apeiroi), some like this world, others unlike it. For the atoms being infinite (ἄτομοι ἄπειροι) in number, as has just been proved, are borne ever further in their course. For the atoms out of which a world might arise, or by which a world might be formed, have not all been expended on one world or a finite number of worlds, whether like or unlike this one. Hence there will be nothing to hinder an infinity of worlds (τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων).

47
[47] "Οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἅμα κατὰ τοὺς διὰ λόγου θεωρητοὺς χρόνους αὐτὸ τὸ φερόμενον σῶμα ἐπὶ τοὺς πλείους τόπους ἀφικνεῖται -- ἀδιανόητον γάρ,-- καὶ τοῦτο συναφικνούμενον ἐν αἰσθητῷ χρόνῳ ὅθεν δήποθεν τοῦ ἀπείρου οὐκ ἐξ οὗ ἂν περιλάβωμεν τὴν φορὰν τόπου ἔσται ἀφιστάμενον: ἀντικοπῇ γὰρ ὅμοιον ἔσται, κἂν μέχρι τοσούτου τὸ τάχος τῆς φορᾶς μὴ ἀντικόπτον καταλίπωμεν. χρήσιμον δὴ καὶ τοῦτο κατασχεῖν τὸ στοιχεῖον. εἶθ᾽ ὅτι τὰ εἴδωλα ταῖς λεπτότησιν ἀνυπερβλήτοις κέχρηται, οὐθὲν ἀντιμαρτυρεῖ τῶν φαινομένων: ὅθεν καὶ τάχη ἀνυπέρβλητα ἔχει, πάντα πόρον σύμμετρον ἔχοντα πρὸς τῷ <τῷ>61 ἀπείρῳ αὐτῶν μηθὲν ἀντικόπτειν ἢ ὀλίγα ἀντικόπτειν, πολλαῖς δὲ καὶ ἀπείροις εὐθὺς ἀντικόπτειν τι.

[47] "Not that, if we consider the minute times perceptible by reason alone,69 the moving body itself arrives at more than one place simultaneously (for this too is inconceivable), although in time perceptible to sense it does arrive simultaneously, however different the point of departure from that conceived by us (...from the infinite). For if it changed its direction, that would be equivalent to its meeting with resistance, even if up to that point we allow nothing to impede the rate of its flight. This is an elementary fact which in itself is well worth bearing in mind. In the next place the exceeding thinness of the images is contradicted by none of the facts under our observation. Hence also their velocities are enormous, since they always find a void passage to fit them. Besides, their incessant (ἀπείρῳ) effluence meets with no resistance, or very little, although many atoms, not to say an unlimited number (ἀπείροις) , do at once encounter resistance.

56-57
"Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οὐ δεῖ νομίζειν ἐν τῷ ὡρισμένῳ σώματι ἀπείρους ὄγκους εἶναι οὐδ᾽ ὁπηλίκους οὖν. ὥστε οὐ μόνον τὴν εἰς ἄπειρον τομὴν ἐπὶ τοὔλαττον ἀναιρετέον, ἵνα μὴ πάντα ἀσθενῆ ποιῶμεν κἀν ταῖς περιλήψεσι τῶν ἀθρόων εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν ἀναγκαζώμεθα τὰ ὄντα θλίβοντες καταναλίσκειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν μετάβασιν μὴ νομιστέον γίνεσθαι ἐν τοῖς ὡρισμένοις εἰς ἄπειρον μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοὔλαττον.

[57] "Οὔτε γὰρ ὅπως, ἐπειδὰν ἅπαξ τις εἴπῃ ὅτι ἄπειροι ὄγκοι ἔν τινι ὑπάρχουσιν ἢ ὁπηλίκοι οὖν, ἔστι νοῆσαι ὅπως78 ἂν ἔτι τοῦτο πεπερασμένον εἴη τὸ μέγεθος. πηλίκοι γάρ τινες δῆλον ὡς οἱ ἄπειροί εἰσιν ὄγκοι: καὶ οὗτοι ὁπηλίκοι ἄν ποτε ὦσιν, ἄπειρον ἂν ἦν καὶ τὸ μέγεθος. ἄκρον τε ἔχοντος τοῦ πεπερασμένου διαληπτόν, εἰ μὴ καὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ θεωρητόν, οὐκ ἔστι μὴ οὐ καὶ τὸ ἑξῆς τούτου τοιοῦτον νοεῖν καὶ οὕτω κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν βαδίζοντα εἰς τὸ ἄπειρον ὑπάρχειν καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀφικνεῖσθαι τῇ ἐννοίᾳ.

"Besides, you must not suppose that there are parts unlimited (ἀπείρους) in number, be they ever so small, in any finite body. Hence not only must we reject as impossible subdivision ad infinitum (εἰς ἄπειρον) into smaller and smaller parts, lest we make all things too weak and, in our conceptions of the aggregates, be driven to pulverize the things that exist, i.e. the atoms, and annihilate87 them ; but in dealing with finite things we must also reject as impossible the progression ad infinitum (εἰς ἄπειρον) by less and less increments.

[57] "For when once we have said that an infinite (ἄπειροι) number of particles, however small, are contained in anything, it is not possible to conceive how it could any longer be limited or finite in size. For clearly our infinite (οἱ ἄπειροί) number of particles must have some size ; and then, of whatever size they were, the aggregate they made would be infinite (ἄπειρον). And, in the next place, since what is finite has an extremity which is distinguishable, even if it is not by itself observable, it is not possible to avoid thinking of another such extremity next to this. Nor can we help thinking that in this way, by proceeding forward from one to the next in order, it is possible by such a progression to arrive in thought at infinity (εἰς τὸ ἄπειρον).

60
[60] "Καὶ84 μὴν καὶ τοῦ ἀπείρου ὡς μὲν ἀνωτάτω καὶ κατώτατω οὐ δεῖ κατηγορεῖν τὸ ἄνω ἢ κάτω. ἴσμεν μέντοι τὸ ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς, ὅθεν ἂν στῶμεν, εἰς ἄπειρον ἄγειν ὄν, μηδέποτε φανεῖσθαι τοῦτο ἡμῖν, ἢ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ νοηθέντος εἰς ἄπειρον, ἅμα ἄνω τε εἶναι καὶ κάτω πρὸς τὸ αὐτό: τοῦτο γὰρ ἀδύνατον διανοηθῆναι. ὥστε ἔστι μίαν λαβεῖν φορὰν τὴν ἄνω νοουμένην εἰς ἄπειρον καὶ μίαν τὴν κάτω, ἂν καὶ μυριάκις πρὸς τοὺς πόδας τῶν ἐπάνω τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν φερόμενον εἰς τοὺς ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς ἡμῶν τόπους ἀφικνῆται ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τῶν ὑποκάτω τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν κάτω φερόμενον: ἡ γὰρ ὅλη φορὰ οὐθὲν ἧττον ἑκατέρα ἑκατέρᾳ ἀντικειμένη ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον νοεῖται.

[60] "Further, we must not assert `up' or `down' of that which is unlimited (ἀπείρου), as if there were a zenith or nadir. As to the space overhead, however, if it be possible to draw a line to infinity (εἰς ἄπειρον) from the point where we stand, we know that never will this space --or, for that matter, the space below the supposed standpoint if produced to infinity (εἰς ἄπειρον) --appear to us to be at the same time `up' and `down' with reference to the same point ; for this is inconceivable. Hence it is possible to assume one direction of motion, which we conceive as extending upwards ad infinitum (εἰς ἄπειρον), and another downwards, even if it should happen ten thousand times that what moves from us to the spaces above our heads reaches the feet of those above us, or that which moves downwards from us the heads of those below us. None the less is it true that the whole of the motion in the respective cases is conceived as extending in opposite directions ad infinitum (εἰς ἄπειρον).

73
"Ἐπί τε τοῖς προειρημένοις τοὺς κόσμους δεῖ καὶ πᾶσαν σύγκρισιν πεπερασμένην τὸ ὁμοειδὲς τοῖς θεωρουμένοις πυκνῶς ἔχουσαν νομίζειν γεγονέναι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου,

"After the foregoing we have next to consider that the worlds and every finite aggregate which bears a strong resemblance to things we commonly see have arisen out of the infinite (ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου).

74 in a scholia
[ἀλλὰ καὶ διαφόρους αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ιβ᾽ Περὶ φύσεως αὐτός φησιν: οὓς μὲν γὰρ σφαιροειδεῖς, καὶ ᾠοειδεῖς ἄλλους, καὶ ἀλλοιοσχήμονας ἑτέρους: οὐ μέντοι πᾶν σχῆμα ἔχειν. οὐδὲ ζῷα εἶναι ἀποκριθέντα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου.]
[On the contrary, in the twelfth book "On Nature" he himself says that the shapes of the worlds differ, some being spherical, some oval, others again of shapes different from these. They do not, however, admit of every shape. Nor are they living beings which have been separated from the infinite (ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου).]

I found the quote from the letter to Pythocles very interesting. "But above all give yourself up to the study of first principles (τὴν τῶν ἀρχῶν) and of infinity (ἀπειρίας)..."

Άπειρος in its various forms appears around 40 times in Diogenes Laertius book 10, with many in Epicurus's writings.

Αρχή about two dozen times.

My little project will be to list those out when I get a chance to see how Άπειρος gets used and translated... Since Epicurus appears to call us to study these ideas.

I find it interesting that αρχή is a limit, the beginnings or foundations, and άπειρος is something without limits.

Quote from Cassius

I am not sure you can square that with the "javelin" example in Lucretius, Don. Can you?

Sure. The javelin leaves our world and keeps going out into the infinite void, which is what Lucretius seems to be saying. I'd have to look closely at what words are being translated "world", "universe" etc.

For reference:

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, BOOK I, line 951

For my purposes, a more illustrative example is:

Therefore the living force of his soul gained the day: on he passed far beyond the flaming walls of the world and traversed throughout in mind and spirit the immeasurable universe; whence he returns a conqueror to tell us what can, what cannot come into being; in short on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deep-set boundary mark.

"flammantia moenia mundi" mundi (mundus) is just Latin for Greek cosmos. The flaming ramparts, the fiery sphere/dome of the stars and sun of our world-system, our cosmos.

"omne immensum" immeasurable All, ie, the totality of everything , the whole universe, The All, ΤΟ ΠΑΝ

I'm going to wade into this fray with a possibly tangential, possibly relevant topic. Y'all be the judge.
I am convinced that the "infinite worlds" that the ancient Epicureans - from the founder to the Romans to the Oenoandans - were envisioning were not of the same structure that we think of in modern cosmology. The cosmos the ancients were envisioning was (let's call it) a "bubble" of Order (literal meaning of "cosmos") surrounded by the primordial Chaos.
Now, the Epicureans did not accept Chaos as an idea or substance, but I do think they substituted (in a manner of speaking) the "infinity" of atoms falling in the void.
However, the cosmos they lived in was composed of the earth they stood on (plate or globe) surmounted by a vault/dome or, alternatively, surrounded by a sphere, that contained the fixed stars, wandering stars (planets), etc. That world-system was a coherent, ordered pocket floating (for lack of a better word) in the *infinite* void. Epicurus posited other pockets of order - other "gatherings of matter" - out there in the vast infinity that would have no contact with his world-system but would nonetheless exist with their own "diverse races of men and tribes of wild beasts." The All - To Pan ΤΟ ΠΑΝ - contained this infinity of cosmoi.
When we talk of "strange new worlds", we're talking about other planets orbiting distant stars in our galaxy or other galaxies. Maybe we're talking in other universes, but usually we're thinking in our observable universe. This structure , by and large, would have been incoherent to the ancients. Were there some who thought the stars were other Suns with their own Earths? Maybe. But I don't think that was a common view, and I don't think that was Epicurus's view from what I've read.
For me, the big takeaway from Epicurus's teachings on "infinity" and "gods" for my "modern Epicurean" perspective is:
The universe - however it's defined - is physical - either bounded or unbounded, jury is still out - and exists without the aid, support, or creation of any beings - natural or supernatural.
Whether the universe (observable) came into existence out of a larger infinite universe through quantum fluctuations or other physical processes is up for debate, but that doesn't shake my conclusion that all that did exist, exists, or will exist is governed by natural, eventually understandable processes.

Great find, TauPhi . There are some great lines in there. I especially like the last line:

dum vivam, dominus temporis ipse mei.

While I live, I am the master of my time.

(... The master of time is myself)

For your isonomia discussion:

Theories Concerning Epicurean Theology and Metaphysics
John Masson
The Classical Review 16 (9), 453-459, 1902
IN a-long chapter, entitled'The Epicurean Gods and the doctrine of Isonomia,'Giussani discusses the doctrine of'Isonomia,'that is to say of the'Balance of Forces in the universe'as bearing upon Epicurus's theology. A singular theory has been propounded on this subject by Scott which Giussani adopts and develops farther. Both scholars find a'very essential connection between the two doctrines. (Direct link to PDF below)

https://scholar.archive.org/work/y26knim64zc25iweopu4w664aq/access/ia_file/crossref-pre-1909-scholarly-works/10.1017%252Fs0009840x00204435.zip/10.1017%252Fs0009840x0020694x.pdf

cock-eyed Canons = διεστραμμενους Κανονας

διεστραμμενους < διαστρέφω ¨turn different ways, twist about, τὰ σώματα, as in the dance; also of persons, to have one's eyes distorted, or to have one's neck twisted; metaph., distort, pervert"

I'm going jump into this fray by saying I lean toward TauPhi 's position on this thread's topic. First, I will state that there are - let's call them - "similarities" between Epicurean/Democritean physics and their mechanism of sensation via eidola and modern physics and modern neuroscience. Those similarities are what attracted me to investigate Epicurean philosophy in the first place.

However...

Those similarities do not translate - for me - into Epicurus or Democritus being prescient about particle physics or electromagnetic energy/waves or RFID or radio/television transmission. And, for me, their paradigms don't have to be prescient to still be impressive For the times they lived in, they were revolutionary! For the times they lived in, they figured out a lot from mere thought-experiments and working through problems in their heads. For me, their huge contributions toward a more scientific world-view included:

1. The world is physical without the need for gods to step in to create or to fine-tune.
2. Everything in the cosmos is composed of innumerable arrangements of tiny "uncuttable" (a-tomos) particles which we can't see.
   1. In fact, we could never see (Thanks to TauPhifor bringing up the 2-atom idea. Even more so, an "atom" couldn't give off eidola).
3. Our eyes do not give off beams like a lantern that perceive things in our environment. Our eyes - and other senses - are impacted by stimuli (eidola) streaming from material things.
   1. Superficially, light bouncing off something and then interacting with our eyes could seem like "That's just like eidola" but not if we honestly assess the paradigm Epicurus was working under as in "The bodies themselves give off films."

And so on...

Some of those things have superficial analogies in our modern understanding (like the light example above), but once the details are worked out and the underlying paradigms are applied, I don't believe the idea that "They were onto something" holds up. It seems more like cases of parallel or convergent evolution of ideas; however, I will fully agree that later "natural philosophers" and scientists built on Epicurus (sounds mostly like via Lucretius) ideas of atoms and the rest.

I respect Epicurus's ingenuity and deeply respect the direction he set scientific thought. However, I don't think we need to shoehorn his φυσικός (physikos) into modern physics to appreciate that ingenuity.

All that said, I am more than open to additional ideas on this or citations and references to texts that provide additional details to consider! That's one thing I deeply appreciate about this forum is the free and open exchange of ideas on Epicurean philosophy. What's the saying "Iron sharpens iron"? (Oh, no! That turns out to be Biblical although it appears from that link that Horace and Euripides had similar sayings)!

I encourage everyone to head over to Internet Archive and the free to borrow The Hellenistic Philosophers and read Long & Sedley's commentary on the God section:

The Hellenistic philosophers : Long, A. A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

2 volumes : 24 cm

archive.org

Just register for a free account to borrow for one hour at a time.

Quote from TauPhi

I don't want to make this topic even more complicated, but I'm curious about the direction of the images' flow. Can someone confirm if the images flow from the gods or to the gods according to Epicurus?

My understanding is that the text explicitly says "to the gods." Translators said "it can't really say that, so we'll correct it" and substituted "from the gods."

Quote from Little Rocker

Unless that gamma is actually a tau, of course, then it is panta instead of pan gar.

Exactly! The difference between Γ and Τ could obviously be open to interpretation (or even a slip of the scribe's hand!) on a charred fragmentary scroll Our access to the papyri is paradoxically open and amazing but also at the same time limited and circumscribed by what was transcribed in the 19th century.

Fingers firmly crossed for more actual photos and AI technology and that the public and academics will have wide access 🤞🤞

I would be very cautious about accepting Obbink's reconstruction of Col.66 of On Piety. According to Papryi.info, the engraving of the papyrus looks like this (Engraved 1844-1852 by Ferdinando Ventrella):

τῶν καὶ πο[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]
λη[- ca.12 -]
ον· πᾶν γὰ[ρ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]
οἴεται καθάπ[ερ ὁρί-]
ζεται χρό[νος, εἶναι]
πρόληψιν· [καὶ κα-]
θάπερ κἀν̣ [τῶι δευ-]
τέρωι καὶ [τριακοσ-]
τῶι, καὶ τῶν [θεῶν ἐ-]
10ναργείαι φησ[ὶν κατα-]
λαμβάνεσθα[ι τὸ ὄν],
καίπερ ἓν τῶν [ἐν ὑπο-]
κειμένοις ὄν, [τὴν δὲ]
φύσιν διανο[ητὴν]
15[ἧ]ττον ἔχον [τῶν]
ἄλλων ὄντων [καὶ κα-]
[θόλ]ου πρὸς τὴ[ν ̣ ̣ ̣]
[7 lines missing]

That's A LOT of bracketed reconstructions. And its placement in the order of the text is a best guess, too, from my understanding.

Just because something fits in the number of letters doesn't necessarily convince me that that is the correct reconstruction. That said, the word πρόληψιν is tantalizingly right there. And I believe that the πᾶν doesn't have the usual definite article for it to refer to TO PAN "The All" "the universe." The author (again could be Philodemus or Phaedrus) could be referring to "all (somethings)" and not The All.

This exactly demonstrates my reluctance to rely too heavily on any of the Herculaneum papyri that are too heavily damaged to reliably read blocks of text and not interpolate and reconstruct what *might* have been there. There are good reliable sections of the On Piety papyri like Col. 75 for example. Unfortunately, Col. 66 isn't necessarily one of them from my perspective... even if we would REAAALLLY like to have more context for that πρόληψιν.

So, riffing off of Cassius ' posts, do we have a new T-shirt/bumper sticker?

Epicurus: The Antidote to the Absurd

That specific paper annoyed me with using words like "ratiocinative." That is some opaque academic writing! I'm still curious about Camus but that paper didn't really help.

FYI

Camus' Sisyphus Complex: Epicurus, Pindar, Valéry

In this chapter I consider the origins and philosophical significance of Camus&#39; Sisyphus, looking at how the meaning of the &quot;Sisyphus complex&quot;…

www.academia.edu

Lots of coverage of Epicurus and Lucretius starting on p7 of the paper...

Although having read it...I still can't tell if the author of the paper is saying Camus was or was not feeling positively toward Epicurus.

Oh, TauPhi , Little Rocker , and UnPaid_Landlord ... I am intrigued now! I read one of Camus' works (the Sisyphus one, of course) back in 2016 when I was looking for a philosophical direction (having given up the Buddhist direction... Although still seeing some positive notes in that btw) . I didn't really get Camus then although it helped me then ...But the video was very intriguing! I can see some Epicurean echoes... "The passion to pursue the joy of being for the sake of it..." And so on.

Well, if the video is accurate... color me absurdly curious.