We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
I am conscious that many people probably read my exchanges with Don on this and think we are arguing with each other for no reason other than stubbornness.
On the contrary, I think it is not really an "argument" but an exploration of the details, and the discussion is highly useful because it is going to lead to a lot of beneficial results. If we weren't having this back and forth it would be highly tempting just to drop the subject before the implications are fully brought out.
Okay, here's VS42 in the manuscript:
starting with the big red Ο. It's just one line. There's a lot of abbreviation and ligatures going on in that last pivotal word! It's almost like the scribe didn't know what to copy either
απολ... is uncontroversial. That's right there.
The loopy "Nike swoosh" after that also has a dot above it. It looks like an exaggerated upsilon υ, but why exaggerate it? Idiosyncratic handwriting? Have to think more about that, but there's your data.
And there is NO <τοῦ κακοῦ>! That doesn't appear in the manuscript. So whatever interpretation one does, it shouldn't involve that addition.
Torquatus does not seem to be as clear and successful in explaining Chrysippus' hand or the equation of pleasure as the absence of pain in a way that Cicero finds persuasive
Remember, "Torquatus" is simply Cicero's Epicurean mouthpiece. Cicero isn't taking dictation. "Torquatus" is a character created by Cicero loosely based on a real person who is dead at the time of the composition. Cicero can conveniently pick and choose exactly what he wants "Torquatus" to say.
I am also very interested in your comment on whether Vatican Collection 42 is being emended by translators. We may have covered it already but I don't recall.
For reference, this is VS42 from Saint-Andre:
42. At the very same time, the greatest good is created and the greatest evil is removed.
ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολύσεως <τοῦ κακοῦ>.
I would have to check the manuscripts, but the brackets around <τοῦ κακοῦ> leads me to believe that's added. In fact, Bailey had "XLII. The greatest blessing is created and enjoyed at the same moment." So he doesn't amend. Here's his comment:
I think the manuscripts have απόλαυσεως instead of ἀπολύσεως which completely changes the import of the saying and eliminates the need for <τοῦ κακοῦ> "the evil" to be added.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀπό-λαυσις
This is also directly related to the word used in the letter to Menoikeus in verse 132 when talking about "enjoying."
So, I think Bailey has the upper hand on this one.
Life isn't the "greatest good", but...
Having stated that...
Live is everything to us because life
I think you and I will have to disagree on that one. When I say something is "everything" to me i pretty much mean to myself that it is the most important thing that I have, and I have no issues with thinking that the most important thing i have is my "greatest good."
I'm using "greatest good" in the strict literal sense of a translation of "summum bonum."
My take is that there is nothing apart from life.
I've been down this road before, ad nauseum, so apologies to those who have had to suffer though this polemic of mine previously.
As I understand it, in philosophical discourse, the summum bonum "the greatest good" is that to which everything points, that which answers "Why do you do what you do?" For Epicurus, that is pleasure. We do everything for the sake of pleasure, to move toward a more pleasurable existence. And I like Epicurus's expansive, all-encompassing definition of pleasure. But, one can't answer the question "Why do you do what you do?" by saying "Life" or "I do everything because I'm alive." Well, of course you do! You don't exist after you die! There's no alternative. Saying "life is the greatest good" doesn't really say anything to me ... as opposed to what? Death? Death is nothing to us. "We do everything for the sake of life" doesn't seem to me to make any sense either. Yes, we protect our life, but, as Metrodorus says, when it's time to go, go out singing and celebrating. Dewitt's shot himself in the foot on this argument when he tries to make hay out of "Latin doesn't have a definite article." But more than that, calling living, existing, being alive, "the greatest good" doesn't get us anywhere. "Life is everything" in contrast gets at the fact that your life that you're living right here and right now is literally the totality of what you will experience ever in the expanse of the universe.
And, let me state for the record - ad nauseum at this point - that I find Dewitt's formulation that "life is the greatest good" to be worded nonsensically. I did not, do not, and don't plan to accept his argument in his "summum bonum fallacy" paper. I don't think his argument holds up. He's trying to make a point but making it in a convoluted and erroneous way in my opinion. Life isn't the "greatest good", but...
Having stated that...
Live is everything to us because life, right now, here, is the only way of experiencing pleasure (and pain). Feeling has no meaning as a word, as a concept, as a thing, apart from a living being. Death is literally nothing to us. No feeling. No existence. Nothing. When someone dies, we cannot say "She is dead." She doesn't exist after she dies. There is no "she" apart from the memories others have of her. That's why experiencing life right here and now is so important. It's not a dress rehearsal for something else!! It's not a proving ground to show your worthiness for something else! This is it.
Good catch, Joshua...
when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it,
I'd offer the following: The key phrase in that translation isn't the spitting on life, it's the "when it is time for us to go." I don't think VS47 has anything to do with having the option to "exit the stage" if we're in pain as above where Cassius implies (and states that outright).
VS47 is attributed to Metrodorus:
And the Epicurus Wiki does a really nice job parsing the Greek:
Vatican Saying 47 - Epicurus Wiki
This saying of Metrodorus hammers home that we *are* mortal. We are going to die. When it's time - when it's necessary - to shuffle off this mortal coil - an Epicurean should acknowledge that and not cling to life as if struggling against some offense to them. I'm thinking of the saying that pneumonia used to be called "the old man's friend."
The term is attributed to William Osler, who in the first edition of his book The Principles and Practice of Medicine (1892) wrote:
In children and in healthy adults the outlook is good. In the debilitated, in drunkards and in the aged the chances are against recovery. So fatal is it in the latter class [i.e. the elderly] that it has been termed the natural end of the old man
If one has a terminal illness with no prospect of recovery or quality of life, one can, of course, take advantage of medical science but at some point all the medical intervention isn't going to change the outcome. And severe pain doesn't necessarily have to be a part of that; the body is just wearing out. The spitting in VS47 is directed at life (time to go!) BUT ALSO those who cling to it. Many have the anguish of seeing a family member hooked up to tubes and machines with no hope of regaining consciousness. Let them go. The last line is the attitude Metrodorus is advocating. When it's time to die - as it will be for everyone! - go out with a victory song!! Celebrate the life that was lived. The word in Ancient Greek is παιᾱ́ν (paiā́n, “a chant or song, especially a thanksgiving or victory hymn, to Apollo under the name Παιᾱ́ν (Paiā́n)”), from the phrase Ἰὼ Παιᾱ́ν (Iṑ Paiā́n, “O Paean!, Thanks to Paean!”). According to Homer, Paián or Paean was the name of the physician of the gods. (Source)
See also
Recognizing all non-painful feelings as pleasure is exactly right.
From my (admittedly unoriginal) perspective, that was Epicurus's innovation that set him apart from the Cyrenaics. Cicero, on the other hand, seems to want to put Epicurus back into the same box as the Cyrenaics and argue against his strawman and not deal with the complexities that Torquatis puts forward.
I also look at the work in psychology that calls this positive and negative affect. You're either feeling positive or negative affect, there is no neutral state. If you're feeling neither positive or negative affect, you're dead... Literally, not figuratively btw.
Oh, and by and large I agree with Cassius et al direction in this thread.
I am becoming more convinced that the three contiguous PDs 9, 10, 11 all express counterfactuals the way they're are grammatically structured in the ancient Greek, the way they are grouped together, and just the way PD11 reads. Each doctrine is stating an If.. statement that expresses a situation that is counterfactual, "it is not the case that..."
If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts...
But every pleasure cannot be condensed.
If the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind's fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires,...
But those things do not wash away the mind's fears.
If our suspicions about astronomical phenomena and about death were nothing to us and troubled us not at all, and if this were also the case regarding our ignorance about the limits of our pains and desires...
But we are troubled by our suspicions ...
Those "If..." statements are setting up that first segment of an argument which is resolved in the "then..." statement. To rephrase...
Every pleasure cannot be condensed, so pleasures do differ from each other.
Things that produce the delights of those who are decadent don't wash away the mind's fears, so they are not filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress.
We are troubled by our suspicions death and we are ignorant of the limits of pain and desire, so we have a need for studying what is natural.
In each of those, the second argument (then...) of switched to its opposite (negative > positive; positive > negative) in reparaphrasing the full doctrine. This is reinforced for me in looking at PD11.
For reference:
PD09 If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.
PD10 If the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind's fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that's what is bad).
PD11 If our suspicions about astronomical phenomena and about death were nothing to us and troubled us not at all, and if this were also the case regarding our ignorance about the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no need for studying what is natural.
We've been on a history of letter writing tangent on this thread; so, in an effort to get back on track, I'm copying and reformatting in the form of a list the initial questions that Peter Konstans posed in the first post. Feel free to respond to any or all of the individual questions:
- Has anybody ever experimented with the idea of Epicureanism as a formal spiritual identity capable of defining entire communities? What would Epicureanism look like if it wasn't merely a brotherhood of friends discussing philosophy but was also a sort of quasi religious worldview with its own intricate rituals, symbols and ceremonies covering every aspect of life?
- Could Epicureanism ever assume a form where it would be able to successfully compete with well-established religious traditions for the hearts and minds of huge numbers of people?
- What would a 'holy book' of Epicureanism look like and what would it contain other than the letters of Epicurus and the poem of Lucretius?
- To what extent can the views and advice of brilliant therapists or educators like John Gottman, Gigi Engle or Dan Buettner be thought of as Epicurean and admitted in some form in the 'scriptures' and literature of Epicureanism?
- How would an Epicurean society raise and educate its kids? Since school is so horrendously boring, tedious and unpleasant to children (school is also the only place other than prison where people are quite likely to be bullied and tortured) how would an Epicurean society deal with the problem of educating the new generation?
- Given that modern Western hyper-liberalism presents society and individuals with many obvious problems that are impossible to deny today what laws, customs and institutions would hypothetical Epicurean lawmakers create to avoid them?
FYI
(Full book)
I found this excerpt interesting, putting Epicurus and Paul in a wider context, noting both similarities and differences within that context:
Early literary letters were probably collected and edited by students or readers after the death of their authors. The main common characteristic of these letters is that they bear only the external characteristics of letters; in fact, they are rhetorical or philosophical treatises, and can only be placed at the borderline of the epistolary genre. The letters of Plato and the letter of Thucydides are rather συγγράμματα (treatises), in accordance with Demetrius’s understanding of the proper style of a letter.124 In imperial Roman and late antique times, philosophical doctrines continue to be written in epistolary form, in the style of the Epicurean letter. Such are, for example, the didactic letters of Seneca,125 the Stoic letters of Musonius Rufus (1st
c. AD), and the philosophical letters of the neopythagorian Apollonius of Tyana (1st c. AD). To the same type may be classified the letters of Saint Paul, although the latter were sent not only for the purpose of teaching, but also for the spiritual support and practical organisation of newly-established churches. In Late Antiquity, letters that include philosophical doctrines are those of the emperor Julian the Apostate and the church fathers, especially the Cappadocians Saint Basil and Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, also, a large collection of letters (about 1600), including correspondence with Saint Basil, has survived from the teacher of rhetoric, Libanius (AD 314–393). (p.25-26)
An interesting paper on the topic of ancient letter writing theory:
Some quotes:
The oldest preserved letter that contains the epistolary formulas typical for the subsequent epistolographic practice is the letter of Cyrus to Cyaxares, inserted in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (Κύρου παιδεία) (Xen. Cyrop. 4.5. 27-33). Cyropaedia was written around 370 BC. The letters that the manuscript tradition assigns to Plato are also dated to this period approximately.
In the Second Philippic, Cicero calls letters аmicorum colloquia absentium ‘conversation between absent friends’ (Cic. Phil. 2.4).
Interesting to me, the paper also includes numerous types of letters written in the ancient Greek world.
Here's another one:
The study of epistolography and Paul is a vital undertaking if we are to understand Paul•s relationship to the Greco-Roman world of letter writing. Paul did not write in a vacuum, but was rather trained in the letter writing principles of his day.
Personal letters constitute the most common letter tradition of the ancient world, whose general format remained fairly constant from the third century B.C. to into the third century A.D.1
Most openings are short, direct and with very little expansion, with the overwhelming number of letter openings having the following formula: A to B, Greetings with an occasional health wish.
It is clear from his letters that Paul's standard greeting is not the traditional χαιρειν, but rather he employs his now signature "Grace to you and peace" with the additional !from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
It is interesting to evaluate the nature of χάρις υμίν και ειρηνη. It is clear that there is a relationship between χαρις and χαιρειν, in that they both are derived from the same root.44
This similarity is beyond chance and suggests that Paul was adapting his letter greeting from the traditional χαιρειν form.45 Furthermore, Paul•s use of peace is parallel to the Hebrew letter form. As mentioned above, Ezra 4:17-22 and 5:7-17 both utilize the "To Y, Shalom" formula. However, in the LXX the word used toto translate "shalom" is ειρηνη. It appears that Paul was incorporating the Hebrew greeting into his letters and combined it with the noun form of the verb χαιρειν to create his letter greeting.
I'll stop quoting there, but it seems to me that Paul is simply part of a letter writing tradition within the larger Greco-Roman and Jewish culture in which he lived. I see no reason to try to establish a link specifically between Epicurus's letter writing and Paul's activity.
Discussions like this always lead me back to how much we've lost.
Paul founded probably 20 churches, conceivably wrote letters to each maybe once a year over 10 years. That's potentially 200 letters.
We have 7 undisputed letters left.
Epicurus had communities of friends in Asia Minor and probably wrote regularly.
We have 3 whole letters plus fragments of a few others.
And the numbers get worse for older civilizations or those not deemed worthy of transcribing or transmitting.
I would want to see more resources, but per this Wikipedia article, letter writing dates back at least to ancient Egypt:
it remains fascinating, even later in life, to explore the parallels [between Christianity and Epicureanism]
Oh, I would include myself as someone who finds that topic interesting. I've just never seen any parallels (with maybe one exception - see below) that convince me of anything other than convergent evolution. I could maybe see Catholic confession as a perversion of frank criticism, but even that may only be superficial without my knowledge of the wider ancient cultural context.
I've seen a lot of proof texting and applying an almost Rorschach Testing to these topics. It seems people, scholars included, see what they want to see.
I do think "you only live once" when properly understood is Epicurean, and I do think it is pretty much the primary message.
Fully agree with "properly understood." I was referring in my post the popular YOLO acronym.
The word was criticized for its use in conjunction with reckless behavior, most notably in a Twitter post by aspiring rapper Ervin McKinness just prior to his death, caused by driving drunk at 120 mph (193 km/h)
This is a very interesting discussion and there is much to discuss here.
I would agree that this is an interesting discussion from an intellectual perspective; however, I'm beginning to ask what the practical benefit is. And I say this in reference to the current discussion and to DeWitt's penchant for uncovering Epicurean origins of Christian practices and doctrine. While I remain unconvinced and skeptical of much of these alleged connections among Epicureanism, Judaism, and Christianity, I also don't see why it should be important other than for historical curiosity. It's not as if we who find value in Epicurus's philosophy will suddenly see the light, so to speak, and convert to Christian or Jewish practice.
You have included a voluminous amount of information and commentary in your post no. 26 so I do not have time at this moment to respond to it all. Below is merely a start and not meant to comprehensively reply in any way. I'll try to come back to it later, but you raise some interesting points, not all of which I agree with.
For now I will focus on the claim that Epicureanism is about 'living your life to the fullest instead of being a victim on the cross'. This ignores the fact that 'living your life to the fullest' was not the easiest thing to do in antiquity.
I would quibble with the formulation "living your life to the fullest," although I realize that's a popular way of phrasing it. From my perspective, Epicurus's philosophy is about experiencing the available pleasure at every moment of our lives, every moment of our existence. My perspective on the mention of "bread and water" in the Letter to Menoikeus and elsewhere is about taking pleasure in quotidian experiences like a simple meal we may eat every day. "Living life to the fullest" sounds too much like the skydiving, popular culture "carpe diem" "fear of missing out" "you only live once" idea. While those experiences may be part of Epicurus's philosophy, it's not the primary message.
Mary Beard and Vaclav Smil
For those unfamiliar with Beard and Smil:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beard_(classicist)
If you oppose luxury you have to embrace minimalism and if you are skeptical toward political ambitions you have to embrace the modesty of a life with limited public exposure within the confines of a small community of friends.
From my reading of the extant texts, I do not see Epicurus opposing luxury when it is available nor do I see him advocating an embrace of minimalism. Additionally, Epicurus did not sequester himself nor his students within the walls of the Garden. His house was inside the city walls of Athens. He took part, and encouraged his students to do the same, in the rites and festivals of his city. As one example of one who has confronted this "minimalist" Epicurus idea, Dr. Emily Austin's recent book does an excellent job of putting the myth of Epicurus's ascetism/minimalism to rest.
That's all I have time for right now. More to come later possibly.
I went through quickly in Philodemus's work to try and pull out some quotes and to add some commentary of my own. Please keep in mind this is quick and dirty but I didn't want to leave you waiting for a response:
1. At what point does frank speech come across as rude, harsh, or insensitive?
Philodemus states that the one using frank criticism has to tailor it to the individual. If the person is amenable to correction, one can apply kind, reassuring words to set them back of track. If the student is arrogant, etc., a harsher treatment may be required to get them to listen.
Frank criticism seems very context specific in the way it is applied, by whom, and for whom. The teacher has to be skillful and to be aware of how they think the student will respond to the criticism, or feedback if you will. Even so, the practice appears to have been considered essential.
Fr. 40: ...for it is necessary to show him his errors forthrightly and speak of his failings publicly. For if he has considered this man to be the one guide of right speech and [action], whom he calls the only savior, and {to whom}, citing the phrase, "with him accompanying {me}," he has given himself over to be treated, then how is he not going to show to him those things in which he
needs treatment, and [accept admonishment]?
2. Is the phrase "frank speech" ever used to justify harsh speech? What is harsh speech and when should we avoid it?
To answer the question directly: No, frank speech is not just a synonym for being harsh to someone. I think Philodemus covered some topics like that in On Anger but I don't have ready access to that book.
Fr. 7: ...and toward those stronger than the tender ones and those somewhat more in need of treatment, he intensifies [frankness}, and toward the strong who will scarcely change {even} if they are shouted at, he will also employ the harsh form of frankness.
It seems "harsh speech" used simply because someone is angry or wants revenge on someone is completely out of bounds. There has to be a good reason to use "the harsh form of frankness" where the word harsh in Greek conveys "falling upon, attacking, assailing" in other words, going on the offensive. Contrast that with "sharp frankness" below.
Fr. 60: ...and [some] have judged it right to speak frankly [to] such people, but [moderately], given that sharp frankness bears a similarity to insult, as if insulting indeed out of ill will. Men who are charlatans, too, divert many, seizing them after some stress and enchanting them with their subtle kindnesses.
So, selfishly buttering someone up with kindness is as bad as insulting someone with sharp frankness. The word used for "sharp" there is pikros: bitter, hateful; embittered, angry, hostile; relentless, spiteful, vindictive
3. what kinds of word choices appear to have a domineering, shaming, or power-over (controlling) attitude? When is frank speech just an expression of anger and a kind of punishment?
It doesn't seem to me that skillful frank criticism would have any of traits of being "domineering, shaming, or power-over (controlling) attitude?" For example:
Fr. 60: ...and [some] have judged it right to speak frankly [to] such people, but [moderately], given that sharp frankness bears a similarity to insult, as if insulting indeed out of ill will. Men who are charlatans, too, divert many, seizing them after some stress and enchanting them with their subtle kindnesses.
Philodemus appears to acknowledge some aren't skillful in frank criticism and, indeed, some do it for base reasons:
Col. Ia: ...[to distinguish] one who is frank from a polite disposition and one who is so from a vulgar one. It is indeed possible to [distinguish [the nature] of one who practices frankness from a polite disposition and that of one who in turn {does so] from a base one. And some...
Col. Ib: ...[from a polite one], everyone who bears goodwill and practices philosophy intelligently and [continually and is great in character and indifferent to fame and least of all a politician and clean of envy and says only what Is relevant and Is not carried away so as to insult or strut or show contempt [or] do harm, and does not [make] use of insolence and [flattering arts].
Col. IIIb: [And] {not}, as in the case of those who train choruses [skillfully], in philosophy: both that one {teacher} is irascible and snappish toward everyone, as certain others are in turn, while another is always mild; and that one speaks frankly about everything in a good way, but another does so deficiently on some matter. For all {wise men} both love {their students} alike in accord with the worth of each and see their faults alike and, through [frankness], the...
It's important to remember that frank doesn't mean rude. It doesn't give license to be a bully or to speak disparagingly or to insult. The dictionary gives "honest, especially in a manner that seems slightly blunt; candid; not reserved or disguised." It's basically saying something that has to be said for the good of the person hearing it. We may not like constructive criticism but sometimes it's necessary to hear of one wants to improve on their behavior at work or in living.
Some questions to consider (and if anyone wants to reply):
At what point does frank speech come across as rude, harsh, or insensitive? Is the phrase "frank speech" ever used to justify harsh speech? What is harsh speech and when should we avoid it? And, what kinds of word choices appear to have a domineering, shaming, or power-over (controlling) attitude? When is frank speech just an expression of anger and a kind of punishment?
Those are all excellent questions, and I believe Philodemus addressed most or all of them in Peri Parrhesias (Concerning Frank Speech). Voula Tsouna also addresses the topic in her The Ethics of Philodemus. If I get a chance soon, I'll try to find some specific citations.
