Posts by Don

Good questions. I'll have to cogitate on those.

To throw another curve: the specific phrase τὸ μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν "the greatest good" is what Epicurus calls phronesis "practical wisdom" in the letter to Menoikeus.

Often, ταγαθος (tagathos) "the greatest good" is used when referring to pleasure specifically, although I believe τὸ μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν is used, too, I think.

Do I think it refers to phronesis and not pleasure? Probably not, but it's worth at least entertaining other possibilities.

It also fascinates me that ONE LETTER can completely change the meaning of a sentence: ἀπολαύσεως, ἀπολύσεως

I happened to tackle this exact saying here: RE: If Death Is Nothing To Us, Then Life Is Everything to Us

First, we return to the manuscript:

DigiVatLib

Here's what I see in the manuscript itself:

Ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολύσεως.

The pivotal last word is:

From what I see it's α'π^ολύσε(ως).

That last swoopy letter is a ligature substantiated in the literature: pasted-from-clipboard.png

So, what were the scholars' transcriptions:

Transcription 1: Usener, Bailey, Long and Sedley, Marcovich (UBLS)

Ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολαύσεως.

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

Transcription 2: Bignone, Arrighetti and Enrique Álvarez (BAA)

Ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολύσεως <τοῦ κακοῦ>.

"The production of the greatest good and (the) release from evil (happens at) [the same time]." [Epicurus Wiki]

"The same time corresponds to the birth of the greatest good and the dissolution of evil." (Enrique Alvarez, translated)

Now, I have issues with each alternative transcription/translation. UBLS "corrects" the text, which I always have issues with. However, ἀπόλαυσις is used in VS27 as the text has noted, so *maybe* they have *some* justification for their correction. BAA adds in the parenthetical <τοῦ κακοῦ> which I would leave out since it is not extant in the manuscript.

If I go with the manuscript, as written, I would offer:

There's a lot of genitive cases in that construction:

γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ

ἀπολύσεως

The καὶ...καὶ... typically can be translated both...and...

So, I would get something like...

(At) the same time, there is both a generation/creation and a releasing/letting go of the greatest good.

The greatest good most likely means pleasure itself.

Now, what the saying mean? That's a very good question. Maybe a commentary on the fleeting nature of feeling pleasure?

In fact, if I would accept the ἀπολαύσεως "correction" by UBLS, I could support their "The greatest blessing is created and enjoyed at the same moment." However, I have that nagging inclination to go with what the text actually has!

Is this what you're referring to? (with Richard Dawkins?)

Just to clarify: As I understand it, there really isn't ever "something from nothing." See:

70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing

In our common experience, you can't get something for nothing. In the quantum realm, something really can emerge from nothing.

bigthink.com

Quote

If you take all of [the elementary particles] away, however, the “empty space” that remains isn’t quite empty in many physical senses.

For one, even in the absence of particles, quantum fields remain. Just as we cannot take the laws of physics away from the Universe, we cannot take the quantum fields that permeate the Universe away from it.

It's referenced in the article, but here also is a direct link to the animation of what "empty" space is actually doing:

Derek Leinweber

Does my keychain I made count?

Post

RE: Participants' Epicurean Book and Artifact Collections

I've posted this before but figured this was appropriate here, too. These are my two Epicurean keychains: 1 with 4 wooden beads for the Tetrapharmakos; one with SFOTSE (Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus "Do all things as if Epicurus were watching") with three beads for both physics, canon, and ethics or sensations, pathē, and prolepseis (take your pick )

Don

January 17, 2022 at 10:06 PM

Suda - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Suda, 10th century Byzantine encyclopedia

The Suda is a 10th century Byzantine encyclopedia compiled from medieval sources and older material. I added a comment on the Suda to the thread of new Epicurean timeline that Joshua created (KUDOS to him!!!), but I've moved the non-timeline portion of that comment to here. The entries below on Epicurus are doozies!!

The second entry for Epicurus:

https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/epsilon/2405

WOW! Give THAT one a read!!! WOW!!

This one's kind of a doozy, too:

https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/epsilon/2406

PS. One last Suda entry on the greetings of letters which I find interesting because the letters in Diogenes use χαιρειν:

https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/chi/166

Headword: Χαίρειν

Adler number: chi,166

Translated headword: greetings

Vetting Status: high

Translation:

Kleon headed [his letters] thus, but Plato [preferred] 'do/fare well', and Epicurus 'live well'.

Greek Original: Χαίρειν: οὕτως ἐπέγραφε Κλέων, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων εὐ̂ πράττειν, ὁ δὲ ̓Επίκουρος εὐ̂ διάγειν.

Note: From Diogenes Laertius 3.61. For discussion (and more cross-references) see epsilon 3664; cf. also chi 162, chi 164.

Keywords: biography; daily life; dialects, grammar, and etymology; philosophy; politics; rhetoric

Translated by: Marcelo Boeri on 28 October 2003@13:19:53.

Headword: Εὐ̂ πράττειν

Adler number: epsilon,3664

Translated headword: do well, fare well

Translation: The heading of the Letters of Plato [is] thus. He wrote 13 Letters. They are of the moral kind. 'Live well': Epicurus headed [his Letters] thus; but Cleon headed [his with] 'greetings'.

Greek Original: Εὐ̂ πράττειν: οὕτως ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τω̂ν ἐπιστολω̂ν Πλάτωνος. ἔγραψε δὲ ἐπιστολὰς ιγ#. εἰσὶ δὲ του̂ ἠθικου̂ εἴδους. εὐ̂ διάγειν: οὕτως ̓Επίκουρος ἐπέγραφε: χαίρειν δὲ ἐπέγραφε Κλέων.

I'm not sure if this has been cited, but here's Epicurus's entry in the the Suda:

https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/epsilon/2404

The most pertinent section for the purposes of the timeline include:

His school continued until the first Caesar, for 227 years. In these [years] there were 14 successors.

Now, we now the Epicurean school lasted longer than "the first Caesar" because Popillius Theotimus was in charge of the Garden in 121 CE when Trajan was emperor.

But it appears the Suda is saying there were 14 "successors" to Epicurus between Epicurus's death and "the first Caesar." It looks like we still have the names of 10 of them.

The Suda was composed/compiled in the 900s CE.

Of interest, too, in the online Suda is : Translated by: Marcelo Boeri on 22 October 2003@15:29:13.

Early AD 121 – Plotina writes to Hadrian on behalf of the Epicurean school in Athens (#Hadrian1900) FOLLOWING HADRIAN

In the early year of AD 121, Pompeia Plotina, the greatly respected widow of the emperor Trajan, sent Hadrian a letter asking him to help the Epicurean school…

followinghadrian.com

Popillius Theotimus

Wasn't there a scholarch with a Roman name? Source amnesia on that one.

Quote from Joshua

https://wiki.epicurism.info/Epicurean_Scholarchs/

I see also this list, which cites a scholar named T. Dorandi as having developed the authoritative list.

That list appears to be the most comprehensive.

I found Dorandi's book on Google Books, and p.75 has the scholarchs... but that page isn't part of the preview! Table of contents: "4. Successione degli scolarchi"

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK X, EPICURUS (341-271 B.C.)

Next came Polyaenus,37 son of Athenodorus, a citizen of Lampsacus, a just and kindly man, as Philodemus and his pupils affirm. Next came Epicurus's successor Hermarchus, son of Agemortus, a citizen of Mitylene, the son of a poor man and at the outset a student of rhetoric.

All these were distinguished, and with them

Polystratus, the successor of Hermarchus

he was succeeded by Dionysius

he by Basilides.

Apollodorus, known as the tyrant of the garden, who wrote over four hundred books, is also famous ;

(and the two Ptolemaei of Alexandria, the one black and the other white ; I'm assuming these were no scholarchs!)

and Zeno39 of Sidon, the pupil of Apollodorus, a voluminous author ; [26] and Demetrius,40 who was called the Laconian ; and Diogenes of Tarsus, who compiled the select lectures ; and Orion, and others whom the genuine Epicureans call Sophists.

Quote from Cassius

Actually, regardless of whether he's right or wrong to pull back from it, I think it's a point worth discussiing. Does (or can) imagining "hypothetical what-might-have-beens" lead to healing?

You raise some interesting points. To add a little more context, I was specifically referring to thinking things like "If only X were alive, they would be graduating from high school and going off to college. X wanted to be a doctor when they were [pick an age when few people really know what they'll do]. I know they would have been a great doctor...etc." That kind of thinking is a rabbit hole of despair. *Maybe* something more healthy would be "X always loved to pretend they were a doctor. I remember them hitting my knee with their little plastic hammer and listening to my heart with the toy stethoscope...etc." Remembering things that actually happened rather than torturng oneself with regrets and prognostications that can never be. If those regrets and prognostications bring pain to the one doing the regretting and making up "little X would be doing ABC IF they were alive...", those things are "bad" by virtue of the pain they bring. If, on the other hand, the living person uses X's possible path to medicine to create a foundation to send other children to medical school and takes pleasure in that endeavor, it could be positive to imagine "what might have been." It all comes round to context.

Quote from Godfrey

They no longer exist and so aren't missing out on any hypothetical pleasures. The pains that they may suffer before dying are a different discussion, and those pains may be heartbreaking

Well said.

Quote from Godfrey

The only sense in which the child being dead is bad is in the pain it brings to those still living.

Agreed, however, I'd rephrase that to say:

The only sense in which the child's current nonexistence is bad is in the pain that thinking what could possibly have been brings to those still living. Actual memories that can be remembered with joy are good. Imagining hypothetical what might have beens, while probably a natural outgrowth of grief, does not lead to healing.

I want to add that I have no clue as to how I would react in this scenario, nor do I even really want to entertain the notion. It brings pain. But Epicurus did encourage his students to meditate on death, to dig into it, to internalize the fact that "death is nothing." We all have wrestle with our own mortality as well as every person's we know and love. This is tough stuff everybody, but necessary.

For ease of reference:

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/user/311-don/#wall/comment425

Quote from Blank_Emu43

I can't wait to read your reply! I've read a lot of your posts and I always learn something new.

That is very kind of you to say. The others jumped right into the deep end of this discussion, so I'll try to add some complementary thoughts to theirs.

Admittedly with brief moments of backsliding due to my religious acculturation (I'm working on it), I believe Epicurus was absolutely correct to hammer on the fact that death is truly non-existence for the one that dies. After a person dies, they do not exist. It's even hard to say the sentence "they do not exist" is factual because it implies the subject "they" experiences some kind of action of the predicate "do not exist." We definitely cannot say "So-and-so is dead"! There is no "state of being dead" unless we acknowledge that it is simply a metaphorical way of saying not existing. Death is the end of consciousness, sensation, cognition, and everything. "Death is no thing to us" conveys A LOT in a short sentence.

But I'm dodging the question, aren't I?

Quote from : original question

If a child dies young, would you pity him/her (or at least feel remorseful that the child couldn't live longer)?

The question presupposes a particular life the child would have led. Had they lived, what if the child had a terrible accident and fell into an irreversible coma if they lived a year after they died? What if five years after they died, they were visiting the Grand Canyon and had an accident and fell to their death? You get the idea. The question presupposes a good long life where the child experienced all the good things life has to offer, and none of us are guaranteed that. Some of our life is by chance. Epicurus was also not a fan of predicting the future, so prognosticating what the non-existent potential life not lived is not a fruitful pursuit. Would I share this line of thought with grieving parents or family? No, I probably would not. This may be how I would process the tragedy.

Which moves into how one may try to process this. Epicureanism acknowledges that the death of a friend or loved one or family member is going to "bite." There is nothing wrong with feeling grief, unlike the Stoics who teach that losing a child should no more affect one than breaking a tea cup. There is nothing wrong with deeply feeling the loss and sadness. But... Epicureans should not let grief overwhelm them. That isn't healthy. We need to turn to the memories that bring us both joy for the experience and sadness that the person is gone.

Philodemus's On Death appears to have discussed this general topic in the lost and fragmentary early portion of his book, but here is a taste of that:

It talks about the teenage Pythocles, but the hammers home the idea that one is never too young to learn to live well.

So, to paraphrase Epicurus, I've prattled on long enough. Suffice to say that I don't think one should pity the potential life that isn't going to exist. There's no way to prognosticate what good or bad might have been. But feel the sting of grief and loss *for the living* and cherish memories.

That's my belated off the cuff remarks. As Cassius says, I reserve the right to revise or extend my remarks later.

Fabulous episode everyone! Very much enjoyed listening to this one.

I wanted to share something I've noted before, but it's appropriate to revisit here.

Various English words are used to describe the person in the texts referenced in this episode: profligate and prodigal and sybarite.

• Ex: Cicero: VIII. What propriety then is there in saying: I should find nothing to blame, if they kept their passions within bounds ? This is as much as to say: I should not blame profligates, if they were not profligates. (Reid)
• Ex. Epicurus: Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the goal," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal and those stuck in delighting in pleasures arising from circumstances outside of ourselves like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind. (My translation)

But...What's the Latin and Greek word used for profligate?

The Greek in the letter to and PD10 is ἄσωτος (asotos) and Cicero's Latin uses asotus (basically just the Latin spelling for the Greek ἄσωτος). Interestingly, this is the same word (used as an adverb) used to describe the "prodigal son" in the New Testament:

Luke 15:13: “And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living. (ζῶν ἀσώτως = living prodigally, living riotously)"

It's the same sort of mode of living that Cicero rails against, over and over and over, ad nauseum, to use a Latin phrase.

However, I find the meaning of ἄσωτος interesting.

ἄσωτος = "having no hope of safety, in desperate case; in moral sense, abandoned; and so spendthrift, profligate"

It's literally ἄ + σωτος = ἄ "no, not, un-" + σωτος "save, rescue, keep safe, heal"

So, ἄσωτος literally means "un-saved, un-healed, un-rescued"

Being that it's the same word that's used in Luke 15:13, it seems to carry the potential of redemption or the ability to be saved from yourself so to speak. Someone un-healed can be healed, someone un-saved can be saved. So, they may be unwisely following pleasures that lead to more pain, but they can be saved from their "profligate" ways and shown a wiser path.

Cassius also mentioned in passing whether it was the drinking parties that were strung together or all the list of activities listed in the letter to Menoikeus. It appears that it's specifically the drinking bouts and festivals. Here's an excerpt from my translation:

Pertinent line: 132 - οὐ [γὰρ] πότοι καὶ κῶμοι συνείροντες

• πότοι is plural of πότος "drinking-bout, carousal" (from πίνω "I drink")
• I find it interesting that Epicurus uses the word πότος (potos) and not συμπόσιον (symposion) "symposium, drinking-party." He wrote a book or dialogue entitled Symposium in which he wrote "Even when drunk, the wise one will not talk nonsense or act silly." So, Epicurus didn't seem to oppose drinking wine or attending drinking-parties. There seems to be a distinction between πότος and συμπόσιον, possibly with the difference being one of emphasis on drinking versus conviviality.
• κῶμοι (kōmoi) plural of κῶμος "a village festival: a revel, carousal, merry-making, Latin: comissatio." They seem to have involved crowned revelers parading the streets, bearing torches, singing, dancing, and "playing frolics."
• οὐ συνείροντες (ou syneirontes) literally "not stringing together" (as beads on a string)
• "not an endless string of drinking parties and festivals…"
• Note that he doesn't say you can't attend drinking parties or take part in village festivals! He's saying life shouldn't be an "endless string" of them. That's going to lead to more pain than pleasure in the end.

This episode is another good place to advocate for Dr. Pamela Gordon's The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus! She does an exquisite job showing how Epicureans came to be associated with gluttony and food and such. Well worth reading!!

I also enjoyed hearing Kalosyni say, "I'm beginning to dislike Cicero more and more." I couldn't agree more!

Welcome aboard! What a great introductory post. I wanted to respond to a couple of your points.

Personally, I think Emily Austin's book is the best introduction to Epicurus's philosophy available right now. I hope you enjoy the podcast episodes. She was great fun to talk to! While Emily's book is a little light on the physics and epistemology of the philosophy, she does include enough, and she provides a solid, balanced approach and backs it all up with a conversational and approachable style. I also highly recommend her article:

Are the Modern Stoics Really Epicureans?

Are the Modern Stoics Really Epicureans? | History News Network

Quote from Novem

I also like how very close Epicureanism's scientific theories and conjectures are to modern atomic physics and evolutionary theory, and its overall materialism.

That was one of the facets that attracted me as well.

Quote from Novem

the gods are real (made of matter) and are the embodiments of Epicurean ideals who live far away from the conglomerations of matter, not hurt or pleased from human vice or virtue, and religion makes us think otherwise.

If you stick around (and I hope you will) you'll find I'm one of the one's who take a more metaphorical approach to the gods (like that espoused by Dr. David Sedley and others), not necessarily the majority view but I think there are texts to back it up. LOL! But that's probably a little far into the weeds for an introductory post.

So, feel free to ask questions, post your thoughts, and engage with the others on this path through the Garden.

Good call, burninglights

Just to confirm your suspicion, the letter begins:

Τὴν μακαρίαν... ἡμέραν

The blessed day ..

That μακαρίαν is the same word used in PD1 to describe the blessed state of the gods.

And, since we've noted pleasures of mind and body don't map directly into katastematic and kinetic; Diogenes Laertius states that, too:

Quote from Don

Epicurus admits both (pleasure which is a state of rest andconsists in motion).; ALSO pleasure of mind as well as of body,

Quote from Cassius

So BOTH the single word and the four lines appear on fragment 117?

No. Column 5. Lines 8-13.

Just go to the page and do a Ctrl+F and paste in

τετρα