Posts by Don

I'm looking forward to looking through that paper at the link.

Talk of ancient human brains or minds being qualitatively different from later human brains/minds always makes me a little uneasy. I'm skeptical of them being qualitatively different but rather merely being lacking in the quantity of information available to them. I may be misremembering, but I think Gilgamesh was moved by the death of Enkidu and the subsequent thinking about his own mortality that drove him to seek out the secret to immortality.

But I am curious how the paper ran its analysis and came to their conclusions.

Fascinating topic!

At the risk of going further down the rabbit hole, I would say discussions about "consciousness" depend on how the term itself is defined in the discussion.

It seems to me "consciousness" is on a continuum among all living beings. I'll draw the line at "inanimate" objects having "consciousness."

By defining "consciousness" narrowly or broadly, two speakers using the same word can talk right past each other.

I'll admit that I hadn't heard the term "bicameral mind" before TauPhi 's post above. In looking at the Wikipedia articles (I know - deep research ) it strikes me as similar to the "Ancient Greeks couldn't see 'blue'" arguments because they wrote things like "wine-dark sea" (or that's how οἶνοψ πόντος has been traditionally translated; it has been convincingly stated that it doesn't refer to hue but rather to light/dark differentiation or other qualities). It also strikes me as similar to the discredited idea of the "triune brain" (reptile/mammal/human) that Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett (among others) has done such a good job debunking.

We use Temi for doing transcripts of our podcast at work. It's fairly accurate, but we still have to go through and correct names and other words. And it's not free, of course.

This is exactly why I'm in the "idealist" camp when it comes to this topic.

I find it hard to fathom that Epicurus really posited atomic beings existing outside his kosmos, between world-systems. Remember, the stars we see are part of our kosmos. The "intermundia" has no world, no stars, no moons. It is, as far as I can determine, an undefined soup of random atoms that haven't coalesced into an orderly kosmos. I see no way an atomic material being would even have a place to stand in such a region of the Universe!

Epicurus did posit "alien" life elsewhere in the Universe, but they lived in their own cosmos. Those other beings weren't the gods.

My understanding of the "idealist" position is that each person can have their own conception of the best blessed life possible, and that is *their* "god." That, to me, is part of the significance of those singular "god"'s in Menoikeus. That kind of "god" is deathless because you can't kill an idea. It goes on, being reconceived again and again

That's where my head is at currently on this topic.

Quote from Kalosyni

this could be part of a rhetorical ploy by Cicero

That would be my vote.

The mice are "ingesting" that malicious philosophy of pleasure! Time to clutch your pearls!

I take it as:

• The mice eat Epicurus's work on Pleasure.
• The mice become obsessed with the pleasure of the belly.
• The mice eat up all the grain in the market.
• Grain is scarce.
• The price goes up.

Well, if I remember, the Borg were finally defeated sort of, so maybe not a perfect analogy... but I knew my Star Trek analogy would get a reaction from Cassius . Mission accomplished. (I'll point out that Kirk changed the parameters of the Kobayashi Maru test, so he didn't really beat it as it was presented... He held the philosophical position that there were no un-winnable scenarios. For those non-Trekkies, Look it up )

Quote from Cassius

No it won't be recreated exactly - but it can be recreated in spirit and in new and even better ways if capable and dedicated people come along to work hard enough. All the primary elements survive and they provide the keys to reconstruct the rest

To take the attitude that failure is inevitable would be to give in to a fatalistic determinism that Epicurus was right in rejecting.

On a slightly more serious note: When this conversation bubbles up, I have to ask: What reconstruction or recreation are you envisioning or anticipating? To be perfectly clear, I'm not being snarky or sarcastic. I genuinely am not sure what we're talking about when this topic comes up? Here are some scenarios that everyone is welcome to respond to:

1. Are you (writ large , not referring to Cassius here) wanting a central authority to lay down Epicurean doctrine and practice? An institutional recreation?
2. Are you wanting a more widespread acknowledgement of Epicurean philosophy in the wider culture or popular mindset a la "Stoicism"?
3. Are you wanting local autonomous groups that live together in some kind of Epicurean "community" like the Amish do?
4. Are you wanting Epicurean as a checkbox on census forms or Epicurean "chaplains" in the armed forces? Social and official political recognition?

This is not an exhaustive list of questions, but I would sincerely like us to put some flesh on the Idea of a reconstructed/reinvigorated/recreated Epicurean School. Right now, even the modern Stoic groups don't agree with each other, and there are at least 3-4 Epicurean groups (online and in-person) that don't all agree with each other on certain points. How would each of those groups describe or envision a recreated or reconstructed Garden?

Quote from Cassius

failure is inevitable

Many Epicurean ideas continued and in many ways have actually won the day (atomism, material world, etc.) for many, many people. I'm not going to get into politics about the opposition to those ideas in the present. That 500 year run of Epicurus's philosophy being influential officially and the subsequent 1,800 years of "stealth" influence on the culture doesn't strike me as failure. Maybe that is what rankles me about talk of "reconstruction of The Garden." After 2,300 years, Epicurean philosophy hasn't gone anywhere. It's still here, still relevant, and still a force to be reckoned with... Even if it goes unnoticed.

Quote from Cassius

Apparently through as late as 40 or so BC in Cicero's time, and probably later, an argument could be made that Epicureanism and organized teaching of it was still very successful.

I would offer that that period of success extended from ~300 BCE when Epicurus was founding The Garden in Athens (after a successful period in Lampsacus) to the intervention of Pompeia Plotina in the 120s CE to allow Popillius Theotimus, the acting head of the Epicurean school in Athens, to become the official head *and* to allow subsequent scholarchs of The Garden to be either Greek or Roman. (See also) That's 400 years of fairly stable (it sounds like) succession and administration of The Garden, with evidence of Epicurean appreciation extending all the way into the 3rd c CE (200s CE) at Oenoanda in Asia Minor and then Diogenes Laertius (probably also from Asia Minor) was still writing approvingly of Epicurus in the early-mid 200s CE. So, around 500 years of solid pro-Epicurean evidence, well into the "Christian" era. Clement of Alexandria in Egypt (c. 150 – c. 215 AD) was also stealing Greek philosophical ideas for Christian doctrine.

The problem with the eventual downfall of a formal Epicurean school in Athens seems to have been common to many of the philosophical schools. So, I don't think we can look to something unique to the Epicureans, since the Academy, the Lyceum, etc. all met similar fates. Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, and the Peripatetic philosophy could be incorporated into Christian doctrine, not by name, of course, but they could be co-opted to appeal to educated Greeks (and Romans). Epicurean philosophy was anathema to most Christians, so it was never incorporated with credit. Clement could define philosophy in a way that allowed for the Christians to incorporate what they wanted, cafeteria-style, and give no credit to the school: “By philosophy I do not mean the Stoic nor the Platonic, or the Epicurean and Aristotelian, but everything that has been well said by each of the schools and that teaches righteousness along with science marked by reverence; this eclectic whole I call philosophy” (Strom., i. 7. 732CD). I don't think it was a failure on the part of The Garden's scholarchs, adherents, or students or those flung across the Empire. They were all swept up in a world not of their making and hostile to their teachings. To paraphrase Star Trek's Borg "Resistance was futile."

All that said, the philosophy DID survive, underground, often unacknowledged, transmitted through the centuries, a fire then lit from a spark kept warm until the Renaissance. Dante had to include the Epicureans being punished in a book he wrote in the 1300s! They were still seen as a threat and had to be "put in their place" so to speak, inside a sealed coffin... and so we continue the story here on a digital forum in the 21st century. 2,300 years after the death of the school's founder!

Personally, I take inspiration from that story. Epicurus remains relevant after almost 2-1/2 millennia! We live in a world that seems ripe for the life-affirming message of Epicurus. I've said elsewhere that we will never reconstruct The Garden. We don't know enough to reconstruct the administration, structure, etc. nor do I think we want to. BUT we could take inspiration from the - let's call it - "Epicurean diaspora" in the ancient world.

.... And that's why it's so lucky that we have all these digitized resources available to us! For all its shortcomings, the Internet can be a wonderful thing!

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.