Posts by Don

I fully realize I should maybe change my username here on the forum to something like Hygrorhegos or
Hygregos or even Rhegygros, the best I can come up with using Ancient Greek ῥῆγος ὑγρός "wet blanket."

Here's what we appear to be dealing with:

DCLP/Trismegistos 59761 = LDAB 865

column 23
P.Herc. 1431 col. 16
Engraved 1861-1864 by Salvatore Ventrella

ἀ[να]γκαῖον αὐταῖς
ὑπάρχειν κατὰ τὰς
πρὸ[ς] ἀλλήλας κρού-
σεις, ὡς ἐν τῆι̣ πρώ-
τηι̣ γραφῆι εἴρη-
ται̣, οὐθὲν ἧττον
παρὰ τὰς [ἐξ] ἡ̣μ̣ῶ[ν]
τ[ις] σ̣[υμ]μ̣ετρ[ία] α̣ὐ-
τ̣[αῖ]ς γίγνε[σθαι]
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]μ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]νε[ ̣ ̣ ̣]

While the engraving like like this ...

There's a lot of interpolation and additions in that transcription. I would be hard pressed to accept any meaningful translation from that fragment other than a few words here and there. The fact that the preposition [εξ] itself in the transliteration is surmised gives me pause. Why not [εν]?

There's an intriguing bibliography for PHerc1431 on this site, but only a few ntries are accessible online:

Chartes - Dettaglio Papiro

For those who want to check which libraries near them have the print book

Heroes : the Greek myths reimagined | WorldCat.org

In this continuation of "Mythos," Stephen Fry recounts the stories of the human heroes found in Greek mythology, with illustrations of classical art inspired…

search.worldcat.org

I tried to read (briefly, admittedly quick reviews of PDF papers and Wikipedia) about the "naturalistic fallacy," but I am failing to see how it is a "fallacy." I get the idea, I think. For example, from the first line of the Wikipedia article:

In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that it is possible to define good in terms of natural entities, or properties such as pleasant or desirable. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.

From my perspective, the only real meaning of "good" is in relation to "feeling positive" either physically or psychologically. I'll call that "good/positive feeling" "pleasant" or say that it is "pleasurable" for lack of any better term. If someone wants to go off on morals, that's up to them. The moral sense of good, The Good, etc., ultimately, it seems to me to have no other referent than that positive feeling. To remove it from that original sense is painting oneself into a corner, being trapped in a puzzle of one's own making.

Diogenes Laertius says that "[Epicurean] ethics (ἠθικὸν)... deals with things to be chosen and rejected (αἱρετῶν καὶ φευκτῶν haireton & pheukton), with the manner of living a human life (βίων bion), and with the end-goal. (τέλους telous.)" Ethics then applies how to actualize that positive feeling in one's life. That's it. Walking around, talking about "the good" in an abstract way is pointless. Ethics, it seems to me, in the Epicurean sense is simply how to make one's actions align with arriving at that positive physical and psychological feeling.

I listened and found it to be fine. A VERY short introduction

I just discovered there's a Very Short Introductions podcast. Here's the Epicurean episode (13 min)

Epicureanism - The Very Short Introductions Podcast - Episode 48 - The Very Short Introductions Podcast

In this episode, Catherine Wilson introduces Epicureanism, a school of thought based on the teachings of Epicurus, that promotes modest pleasure and a simple…

pca.st

Full disclosure, I have not listened to it yet.

PS... Listened. Fine as far as it goes. No major issues with it. Just not especially noteworthy.

I can understand Cassius 's urge to keep the subtopics under control.

My hesitation is that you might get more top-level divisions with some only having two or three subheadings.

This is truly an on-going Herculean task! Thanks to Cassius and Kalosyni for undertaking it!

I found this interview of Dr. Emily Wilson talking about her translation of the Iliad. It's a little long, but I found it quite enjoyable, hearing about the nitty gritty of translation choices and the process of word and metaphor choices. If you have *any* interest at all in translation, this is a fun listen/watch. And read Dr. Wilson's Iliad and Odyssey!

Quote from Godfrey

Your choice of rejection is growing on me...

That gives me pleasure.

My reason, for those who haven't encountered my affinity for "rejection" over "avoidance," the Greek word used in those phrases literally means "to flee, run off, go a certain direction with haste (often with prepositions); to flee, escape, avoid, get away from (danger or trouble)." But "avoid" conveys to me something like "stepping around a puddle." The original word conveys, again, to me, something much stronger than that idea. To my ear, rejection implies more agency than simply avoidance.

Quote from Joshua

When we say that some pleasures should be chosen and some avoided, what we are really saying is that the actions we take to pursue the intrinsic good of pleasure are sometimes more likely to produce the intrinsic bad of pain. And the reverse is true is well; choosing to endure for a time the intrinsic bad of pain can often lead to greater pleasure.

Well said, Joshua !! Expanding on your post, I'd say it's our learning to choose or reject "the actions we take to pursue" the desire for certain pleasurable feelings that lead to more pain than pleasure that is important.

Quote from Godfrey

Alycia LaGuardia-LoBianco and Paul Bloomfeld appear to be the authors, not Pigliucci.

Pigliucci is the author of the article pointing to the paper:

Why Epicureans and Utilitarians are wrong: on the axiology of pain and pleasure

Moral philosophers are beginning to incorporate insights from evolutionary biology

open.substack.com

I'll also add in reference to the pain/bad - pleasure/good notion that the article and paper discuss. It appears to me that Epicurus made the pain/bad - pleasure/good argument precisely on the grounds that those parameters are really the only parameters on which you can claim why something is "good" or "bad." I don't think he was necessarily making moral or ethical arguments. He was literally using the parameters of whether something led to more pain or more pleasure in the end. Living justly, nobly, and prudently is "good" because it allows is to live pleasurably, and vice versa. Living that way isn't "good" because it's decreed from On High or because it's "virtuous" from some external definition. The authors of the paper seemed to tie themselves in knots only to conclude where Epicurus starts from.

I need to read Wilson's Epicureanism: A Very Short Introduction separate from her How to be an Epicurean. Not necessarily endorsing; placing here for future reference and comment.

Human Verification

Thank you for posting this! I read up to the point where a free subscription was needed, and I looked at the PDF of the academic paper.

Pigliucci is, of course, the Stoic's Stoic (in the modernsense). In light of that, I wouldn't expect him to be any more charitable to Epicurus than Epictetus was.

My take on the general direction of the article and the paper is that Epicurus addresses many if not all) of their concerns. For example, the conclusion of the paper begins:

Quote

Consider how broad the scope of moral choice is which involves choosing between two good options, or choosing the lesser of two evils, or any consequentialist trade-offs between what is intrinsically good and bad. Now, consider how many of these choices are made while thinking that pleasures automatically count as good and pains automatically count as bad. If we started denying the goodness of pleasure per se and the badness of pain per se, if we started thinking of these merely as (un)pleasant but without intrinsic value, the effects on our choices would be enormous. If we taught ourselves the proper functions of pain, if we cease to be fooled by the supposed “intrinsic disvalue” of it, so that we do not automatically think that experiencing pain is experiencing something bad, then we would not be fooled into avoiding pains which we know are not harmful by telling ourselves that the pain itself justifies us in avoiding it.

I'm intentionally highlighting that last section because I feel that is precisely Epicurus's position.

Pigliucci makes the error in his article about Epicurus's "freedom from pain" into an all or nothing proposition:

Quote

Epicureanism still counts as a hedonistic school, though, in part because Epicurus identified lack of pain as the highest possible pleasure.

And, yes, Epicurus did... But not for the reasons you appear to be making, Massimo. We've had extensive and on-going discussions on this forum about what that "highest pleasure = absence of pain" means, and I think we're going in the right direction. It's easy to caricature; more difficult to understand.

So, in the end , my reaction is that both the article and the paper rehash old arguments in "new wineskins" so to speak. I'll be interested to read others' takes.

Quote from Bryan

Thank you Don for finding the Stobaeus quote!

It was literally my pleasure

Quote from TauPhi

DeWitt wrote his book not as a scholar but more as a fanboy of Epicurus

Quote from Cassius

i strongly disagree with this characterization of the DeWitt book...

I'm going to wade into the fray to add that I think you're both correct. To TauPhi 's assertions, I agree that Dewitt was a "fanboy" of Epicurus, but I don't see that as necessarily a negative. His "Epicurus and his Philosophy" and his "St. Paul and Epicurus" appear (from the publication dates) to be projects he put off completing until after his retirement from academia. He obviously gave them lots of thought, but it seems he didn't feel her could write them as part of his academic career. And we're all familiar with personal projects here at the forum and finding time to do them! Do I think some of Dewitt's ideas fall under "fan fiction"? Yes. Do I think it detracts from the *overall* value of his work. Only the slightest bit.

With Cassius , I'll concur that Dewitt charted his own path, and even within his career, he was fearless in advocating for the importance of studying Epicurus. It's always gratifying to see him footnted in papers! I also like his academic papers and highly recommend those to the curious student of Epicurus, but they're not for the casual reader and definitely not a starting point! And we have Dewitt to thank for this forum, per Cassius 's history.

For myself, I admit that I have never read all of "Epicurus and his Philosophy" cover to cover. That said, the podcast episodes that methodically went through the book were very helpful in reminding me of the value of Dewitt's book. It is valuable as an overview of the history, development, and tenets of the philosophy and for providing context. It will never be my go-to recommendation (looking at you, Emily Austin ), but I will always include it in any important books to read bibliography.

Quote from Cassius

a disciple of Pythagorus who asserted that the number 10 was of special significance to the geometric forms.

Decimus Sorry, bad joke.

I was under the impression that it comes directly from Pythagoras himself:

Tetractys - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well said, Julia.

So, I found the Stobaeus citation:

On Hathi Trust: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101…97768772423-302

But κύριος is not in the same spot as the other transcription. Curious. So if it's not in the manuscript, and Usener and Stobaeus (5th c CE) put it in different spots... What is the original source?? It *probably* should be in there, but it then continues to call into question the reliability of the Vatican manuscript itself! Having corroboration from that manuscript and other sources is best... But those instances are few and far between.