Posts by Don

So, you have the alphabet memorized now? Where do you start learning the language?

I'm going to stick with ancient Greek and/or Koine, but some of these have good Latin content as well.

I can't say enough nice things about Luke Ranieri and his Scorpio Martianus and Polymathy channels on YouTube:

ScorpioMartianus

Spoken Latin, Ancient Greek, and Ancient Egyptian videos by Luke Amadeus Ranieri. 🤠🦂 Topics & tags: Latin Language Lessons for beginners, Latin Language,…

www.youtube.com

polýMATHY

Polymathy is the study of many things. On my videos I want to share with you what I find interesting about science, technology, languages, geopolitics, and…

www.youtube.com

Feel free to look around, but a good place to start is his Ancient Greek in Action series:

He uses his reconstructed Lucian Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in the videos, but there are other videos that talk about other reconstructed ancient pronunciation. (I'm gravitating to his reconstructed Pompeiian pronunciation, but I am still liking Sidney Allen's reconstruction from Vox Graeca).

If you want an IN-DEPTH discussion on the best ways to learn Ancient Greek or Latin on your own, may I suggest (and one of these includes Carla Hunt of Found in Antiquity:

If you want a VERY traditional way to learn Ancient Greek, there's the 118-video series from the Center for Hellenic Studies with Prof. Leonard Muellner (Professor Emeritus of Classical Studies at Brandeis University) and Belisi Gillespi, his teaching assistant:

The most important thing is just... start somewhere! Explore! See what works!

Quote from Bryan

On one hand we have outlined the likely possibilities, and should probably suspend judgment.

But just for fun:

My sentiments exactly ...

Quote from Bryan

In this case we are looking for something specifically that is not perceptible "by the 5 senses" as the text says (οὐδὲν αἰσθητόν) but is perceptible by the mind.

I'm still not entirely sure/convinced of the syntax of that sentence, whether:

πάλιν τε οὐδὲν διφυὲς αἰσθητόν.

or

πάλιν τε οὐδὲν διαφανές αἰσθητόν.

I'm going to talk some of this out in real time, so I hope you all will indulge me.

διφυὲς and διαφανές are both neuter nominative/accusative singular adjectives.

διφυὲς is the "two natures; of double nature or form, generally, twofold, double"

διαφανές is translucent, transparent; but can also be metaphorically "manifest, distinct, distinctly seen, conspicuous"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, διαφαν-ής

But we know adjectives can be used as substantives so one/both of these could be "that which is X"

αἰσθητόν "sensible, perceptible; able to be perceived by the senses" can also be nominative/accusative singular. Same here: Either an adjective or "a sensible/perceptible thing."

To get back to Bryan 's comment above:

Quote from Bryan

In this case we are looking for something specifically that is not perceptible "by the 5 senses" as the text says (οὐδὲν αἰσθητόν) but is perceptible by the mind. Although translucent things may not be visible by a focus of the senses (ἡ ἐπιβολή τῶν αἰσθήσεων) they must be visible by a focus with the mind (ἡ ἐπιβολή τῇ διανοίᾳ) - because we can get a mental image of "a translucent object" whereas we cannot of "something simultaneously having both greater and lesser density within a defined space" - which is equivalent to imagining two atoms at the same point at the same time.

Why does the topic of the sentence have to be "perceptible by the mind"? Is the import of the sentence talking about things that are being ruled out as being imperceptible by *all* the senses (physical and mental)? Saying in effect, the gods cannot exist in this "two-natured" state, so Demetrius is ruling it out?

That pesky οὐδὲν "nothing" in there seems to be saying that "Once again, nothing (which is) X (διφυὲς/διαφανές) is able to be perceived by the senses (5 physical senses + the mind)" or to look at adverbially, "Once again, in no way is "an X-thing" (διφυὲς/διαφανές) able to be perceived by the senses (5 physical senses + the mind)."

And that pesky "once again" seems to be referring back to something previously discussed in the text. But what??

Revisiting the memorization and "method of loci" idea...

Relativizing Unfinishedness: Lucretian Textuality and Epicurean Therapy, in J. Fabre-Serris, M. Formisano, and S. Frangoulidis (eds.), Labor imperfectus: Unfinished, Incomplete, Partial Texts in Classical Antiquity (Trends in Classics Series),

Over the past few centuries, scholars have often regarded Lucretius’ DRN as a fascinating example of artistic non-finito, mirroring the untimely death of a…

www.academia.edu

I found the section 2, Recursive argumentation: Lucretius’ spiritual exercises, very interesting. I haven't had a chance to review the whole paper yet, but the authors take on the repetition in Lucretius was novel and compelling from what I read. The method of loci came to mind with:

Lucretius: "keep atomic laws under seal (obsignatum habere) and to “retain it in the depository of one’s memory” (memori mandatum mente tenere).

I also remember reading elsewhere that some translators dismiss the repetitions in Lucretius as evidence of a work in progress. I like this scholar's take on it as an alternative perspective.

PS. I'm not overly fond of Pierre Hadot's specific term "spiritual exercise," however, I don't really have a problem with his general ideas (as far as I understand them).

Bryan & Joshua , thanks for engaging in this exercise!!

With both your ideas in mind (pun intended?), I'm wondering if the "two natures" being mentioned "again" refer back to column 21:

21. Greater density and lesser density areas differ to the extent that the [greater density] is composed of more atoms, the [lesser density] of fewer atoms. As a consequence of this, that which is denser and capable of generating sensation, produces it – and conversely, that which is less dense and does not produce sensation, cannot set it into motion.

You can't have something that has both lesser and greater density? Only something with enough density is perceptible? This *could* possibly maybe lead to a sentence like "Once more, in no way (πάλιν τε οὐδὲν) is that which has two natures perceptible by the senses."

PS. Because, according to the Epicureans, the gods are perceptible, just perceptible by the mind. Using diaphanous there would imply to me that the gods are not perceptible.

πάλιν τε οὐδὲν διφυὲς αἰσθητόν.

I come back to my hang-up of sticking to what's in the manuscript itself if at all possible.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=difue%5Cs&la=greek&can=difue%5Cs0&prior=kai\&d=Perseus:text:2008.01.0258:section=3&i=1#lexicon

The sketch and etching from the early 1800s give διφυὲς as the reading in the manuscript. So what could it mean? As Bryan says (and I can certainly see) there is a definite attraction of "correcting" the manuscript to διαφανές from διφυὲς. But ... that's one additional letter and the change of another. And there just aren't enough manuscripts to do textual criticism.

There's no explicit verb, so that definitely means a copula is needed (ie, a form of "to be"). But where to put it? αἰσθητόν is accusative, so that would make sense as the predicate.

τε can be generally disregarded as "so..." or a weak "and...".

πάλιν οὐδὲν διφυὲς αἰσθητόν would literally be something like... What?

διφυές is the neuter plural of διφυῆ with the additional point that it can refer to Dionysus's dual male/female nature...

Diphÿís - (Diphues; Gr. Διφῠής, ΔΙΦΥΗΣ) name of Diónysos, of two natures. Orph.H.30.2.- Lexicon entry: διφῠής, ές: neut. pl. διφυῆ, also διφυᾶ:—of double nature or form.

So the word has the general meaning "of two natures." But also generally, twofold, double. Using Bryan 's masterful, original translation as a starting point:

22. We should not exclude the things excluded from sight – because nothing perceptible is immortal. The density (of visible things) opposes this, receiving strong blows. Once more, in no way, (πάλιν τε οὐδὲν) is that which has two natures perceptible. Since that which produces large counterforces with great weight for what is perceptible...

Granted, I'm grasping at straws here. What would the "two natures" be? Mortal and immortal? What is the "once more" or "and again" referring back to? My only objective in this exercise is to *try* to figure out a way to justify the existing textual evidence.

From PHerc 1005, sentence in question:

... πάλιν τε οὐδὲν

*διφυὲς* αἰσθητόν. ...

Thanks!

For ease of reference:

123 "Epicurus is making fun of us, though he is not so much a humorist as a loose and careless writer. For how can holiness exist if the gods pay no heed to man's affairs? Yet what is the meaning of an animate being that pays no heed to anything?

"It is doubtless therefore truer to say, as the good friend of us all, Posidonius, argued in the fifth book of his On the Nature of the Gods, that Epicurus does not really believe in the gods at all, and that he said what he did about the immortal gods only for the sake of deprecating popular odium. Indeed he could not have been so senseless as really to imagine god to be like a feeble human being, but resembling him only in outline and surface, not in solid substance, and possessing all man's limbs but entirely incapable of using them, an emaciated and transparent being, showing no kindness or beneficence to anybody, p121 caring for nothing and doing nothing at all. In the first place, a being of this nature is an absolute impossibility, and Epicurus was aware of this, and so actually abolishes the gods, although professedly retaining them."

That's great, Bryan !!

What is the "DND 1.123" citation you mention for your choice of" translucent (διαφανές)"?

I've mentioned Podium Arts narrated by Ioannis Stratakis. Here's the link:

Podium-Arts

Spoken Ancient Greek; texts in reconstructed pronunciation. For learning or enjoyment. Samples of audiobooks (most of which are for sale on www.ancientgreek.eu…

youtube.com

FYI...

But the hoi polloi, on the one hand, flee from death as if it is the greatest evil, then, on the other hand, on the other hand, they desire for themselves an ending of the evil (pain) in living. [126] So then, the wise one neither begs nor craves for living nor fears not living: Neither to set oneself against living, nor to imagine that it is evil to not live. Just as the most food is not chosen but that which brings the greatest pleasure; choose as well not the longest time but that in which one enjoys the fruits of that which bring the greatest pleasure.

the Letter to Menoeceus • Epicurus • spoken AncientGreek.eu

Yes!! Just saw this announced on Instagram!!

Snippet is well with a listen! Ioannis Stratakis voice is great!!

Here's the YouTube snippet

Quote from Cassius

It's been a good year and lot to be thankful for and not the least of which is the participation and contributions here on the forum of Don!

You're too kind.

I'm grateful for finding this little corner of the Internet, so thanks to Cassius for establishing this virtual Garden and all *his* projects!

Today, we celebrate Thanksgiving in the United States (although there are similar festivals around the world).

I contend that Thanksgiving is the most Epicurean of modern holidays given Epicurus's emphasis on gratitude.

So, a Happy Thanksgiving to all. Take a chance to remember the good things you have and those you can look forward to.

Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for. οὐ δεῖ λυμαίνεσθαι τὰ παρόντα τῶν ἀπόντων ἐπιθυμίᾳ, ἀλλʼ ἐπιλογίζεσθαι ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα τῶν εὐκταίων ἦν.

Misfortune must be cured through gratitude for what has been lost and the knowledge that it is impossible to change what has happened.

θεραπευτέον τὰς συμφορὰς τῇ τῶν ἀπολλυμένων χάριτι καὶ τῷ γινώσκειν ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄπρακτον ποιῆσαι τὸ γεγονός.

Therefore, both the young and old must love and pursue wisdom. On the one hand, the old can be young by means of gratitude for the pleasures which have happened; on the other hand, the young can be as if they are old in years by means of the fearlessness of facing what is intended to be done or what is to come.

In light of learning the "method of loci" is from ancient Greece, I read these excerpts below in a different light. I'm curious what the Greek is.

DL 10.12:

Among the early philosophers, says Diocles, his favourite was Anaxagoras, although he occasionally disagreed with him, and Archelaus the teacher of Socrates. Diocles adds that [Epicurus] used to train his friends in committing his treatises to memory.

DL 10.35+

(Epicurus to Herodotus, greeting.)

[35] "For those who are unable to study carefully all my physical writings or to go into the longer treatises at all, I have myself prepared an epitome of the whole system, Herodotus, to preserve in the memory enough of the principal doctrines,57 to the end that on every occasion they may be able to aid themselves on the most important points, so far as they take up the study of Physics. Those who have made some advance in the survey of the entire system ought to fix in their minds under the principal headings an elementary outline of the whole treatment of the subject. For a comprehensive view is often required, the details but seldom.

[36] "To the former, then--the main heads--we must continually return, and must memorize them so far as to get a valid conception of the facts, as well as the means of discovering all the details exactly when once the general outlines are rightly understood and remembered ; since it is the privilege of the mature student to make a ready use of his conceptions by referring every one of them to elementary facts and simple terms. For it is impossible to gather up the results of continuous diligent study of the entirety of things, unless we can embrace in short formulas and hold in mind all that might have been accurately expressed even to the minutest detail.

DL 10.84+

(Epicurus to Pythocles, greeting.)

[84] "In your letter to me, of which Cleon was the bearer, you continue to show me affection which I have merited by my devotion to you, and you try, not without success, to recall the considerations which make for a happy life. To aid your memory you ask me for a clear and concise statement respecting celestial phenomena ; for what we have written on this subject elsewhere is, you tell me, hard to remember, although you have my books constantly with you. I was glad to receive your request and am full of pleasant expectations.

We mentioned this at the 20th:

Method of loci - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I bring it up here as something that isn't mentioned explicitly in Epicurus's writings (as far as I know) but would have been in the cultural mix. That is, Epicurus would have been aware of the technique (it dates back to 5th c BCE), and he encouraged memorization of texts. Why wouldn't he use the tools available? But it was also taught in rhetoric and he wasn't fond of rhetoric. But the technique could be used for purposes other than rhetoric. But ...

And so on.

This brought to my mind the following question:

How much did Epicurus "borrow" from the existing cultural and philosophical environment and "adapt" into his philosophy?

We know Epicurus didn't blink into existence and seal himself inside a hermetically tight Garden. What ideas did he pick up from simply growing up and developing his ideas in Samos, Ionia, Asia Minor, and Athens? How did he take existing ideas and use and adapt them? There have to be some.

Quote from Kalosyni

I would blame the "enjoying cheese" aspect on the small "e" epicurean food movement.

Yes, that and the whole "Epicurus only at bread and water with the occasional 'pot of cheese.'"

I interpret the saying as:

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

they will not give into an urge but will carefully use their practical reason to weigh whether having sex will amount to more pleasure or pain?

Yep. That's all my own stuff.