Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

your literalist interpretations

Are you calling me a fundamentalist??

γελᾶν ἅμα δεῖ [one must] καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ οἰκονομεῖν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς οἰκειώμασι χρῆσθαι καὶ μηδαμῇ λήγειν τὰς ἐκ τῆς ὀρθῆς φιλοσοφίας φωνὰς ἀφιέντας.

This sounds something like mindfulness! Do all these things while philosophizing. Note that several of the alternate translations below put philosophize first when the first word in Greek is γελᾶν, the infinitive of γελάω "laugh." So the emphasis is on the laughing first. The translations should really be something like: One must laugh and - at the same time - pursue the love wisdom, administer the rest of one's household affairs,...

41. At one and the same time we must philosophize, laugh, and manage our household and other business, while never ceasing to proclaim the words of true philosophy. http://epicurus.net/en/vatican.html

41. One must philosophize and at the same time laugh and take care of one’s household and use the rest of our personal goods, and never stop proclaiming the utterances of correct philosophy. https://churchofepicurus.wordpress.com/vatican/

VS41. We must laugh and philosophize at the same time and do our household duties and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy. https://newepicurean.com/suggested-read…Vatican_Sayings

γεγόναμεν ἅπαξ, δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι· δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι· σὺ δὲ οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον· ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἀσχολούμενος ἀποθνῄσκει.

"Γεγόναμεν ἅπαξ." (Gegónamen hápax) We are born once and only once. Let that sink in. This life we have is the only life we will have. Make it personal: This life I am living right now is the only life I will have. This moment only happens once. What will I do with it? How shall I spend this precious, unique life?

Παραπόλλυται (Parapóllutai) refers to something "ruined undeservedly." Our precious life deserves to be lived! If we are constantly putting off and delaying living, experiencing, loving life, we ruin and squander this life and it does not deserve that. You would ruin your life undeservedly. You deserve better than that.

From Attalus: Johannes Stobaeus, Anthology, XVI.28: From Epicurus: "We are born once and there can be no second birth. For all eternity we shall no longer be. But you, although you are not master of tomorrow, are postponing your happiness. We waste away our lives in delaying, and each of us dies without having enjoyed leisure." {= Usener 204}

μελλ-ησμός, ὁ,

A procrastination, indecision of character, Epicur.Sent.Vat.14, D.H. 7.17, Gal.1.576, Paus.4.21.4.

II approach, threatening, of disease, Aret.SD1.11.

Quote from Aristotle

“We become just (δίκαια) by doing just acts, temperate (σώφρων) by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts. 1. [5] This truth is attested by the experience of states: lawgivers make the citizens good by training them in habits of right action—this is the aim of all legislation, and if it fails to do this it is a failure; this is what distinguishes a good form of constitution from a bad one.” (1103b)

Is that the one you're thinking of?

Quote from Cassius

Don and his badger-like investigations

LOL!!! So, there'll be a badger on my coat of arms. I'll need to change my username to Τροχος, a word used by Aristotle to refer to an animal that appears to have been referring to a badger... But no one is sure. Μodern is Ασβός but that's too easy.

The text in Diogenes Laertius for PD5 is slightly different than the text of VS5. Often, VS5 is simply referenced as PD5 ... but while the text is VERY similar, it is not identical.

PD5 Diogenes Laertius text: Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, <οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως> ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως. ὅτῳ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ ὑπάρχει ἐξ οὗ ζῆν φρονίμως, καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἔστι τοῦτον ἡδέως ζῆν.

It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives well and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life. (Hicks)

VS5 text: Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, ὅπου δὲ τοῦτο μὴ ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν.

It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and so where these do not exist, it is impossible to live a pleasant life. (Vat.gr.1950 manuscript, with translation repurposing Hicks with the exception of ὅπου "where" vs ὅτῳ "whenever".)

(NOTE: This should really also be posted to the VS5 thread but that section is locked... Cassius?)

By Zeus! I don't know what to believe now!

Here's the manuscript of VS67

Here is the Wotke & Usener footnotes:

I haven't dug into this one yet, so I'm not sure how many differences there are. But I can definitely see κτηματα in the manuscript as opposed to the common text's χρήματα!

ἐλεύθερος βίος οὐ δύναται κτήσασθαι χρήματα πολλὰ διὰ τὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα <μὴ> ῥᾴδιον εἶναι χωρὶς θητείας ὄχλων ἢ δυναστῶv, ἀλλὰ συνεχεῖ δαψιλείᾳ πάντα κέκτηται· ἄν δέ που καὶ τύχῃ χρημάτων πολλῶv, καὶ ταῦτα ῥᾳδίως ἃν εἰς τὴν τοῦ πλησίον εὔνοιαν διαμετρήσαι.

Common translation: A free person is unable to acquire great wealth, because that is not easily achieved without enslavement to the masses or to the powers that be. Instead, he already has everything he needs, and in abundance. But if by chance he should have great wealth, he could easily share it with his fellows to win their goodwill.

κτηματα "pieces of property, possessions"

χρήματα "needs; things that one needs or uses; goods, property; money; things, matters, affairs"

So, maybe not earthshattering ... but I' goin gto have to dig into the rest of the discrepancies and see.

As far as the parallel constructions go, maybe it's enough that they end in the same letters?

σοφίαν φιλίαν

νοητον ἀθάνατον

Although those are very common grammatical endings, so...

Still, there's no arguing with what it actually written in the manuscript!

* ὁ γενναῖος περὶ σοφίαν καὶ φιλίαν μάλιστα γίγνεται, ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστι νοητον ἀγαθόν, τὸ δὲ ἀθάνατον.

An alternative translation: "One who is noble in mind most of all depends upon wisdom and friendship — one is a good perceptible to the mind, thinkable, and imaginable; the other, everlasting and perpetual."

I would take that that friendship is so important, one can barely conceive of its importance.

γενναῖος "noble in mind, high-minded" From γέννα (génna, “descent, birth, origin”) +‎ -ιος (-ios). Compare ἀγενής (agenḗs "of no family, ignoble, mean, cowardly, vile"). Think of the name Eugene "well-born, noble"

σοφίαν (sophian "skill in matters of common life. sound judgement, intelligence, practical wisdom") Remember this is also the exact element in philosophy "φιλοσοφία ".

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, σοφία

γίγνεται has a number of connotations including:γ. παρά τι to depend upon...

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, γίγνομαι

νοητος

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, νο-ητός

αθάνατος

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀθα?́να^τ-ος

Well, would you look at that! It was hiding in DeWitt (p. 226) all along!

DeWitt uses the noeton in the manuscript and NOT the thneton "correction."

pasted-from-clipboard.png

I'm taking another look at this... Yes, we're starting the morning out with a bang. Good thing it's a holiday and I don't have to go to work!

That first letter is clearly an epsilon: ε

The next letter is a ligature for sigma+tau (i.e., s+t): pasted-from-clipboard.png

and the next letter rounds out esti: εστι

The next letter appears to me be a nu which would start νοητον. I don't see any room for θν(ητον) and that letter is clearly a familiar variant of nu. It matches that middle version here perfectly: pasted-from-clipboard.png

Yep, the manuscript has νοητον. Jury still out if it's a scribal error or not, but the manuscript clearly has νοητον. Is this an instance of Usener knowing better than the scribe? The manuscript dates from between 1301 and 1350, so we're NOT talking anywhere near contemporary with the *original* sources... but still, it's all we got.

Wikipedia has a nice table of ancient Greek miniscule writing including some ligatures for those who want to dive into these waters with me:

Greek minuscule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and this page is even more thorough:

https://schmidhauser.us/tools/rgl/rgreekl2.pdf

Would these have any relevance for this discussion with wisdom/Sages and friendship being discussed?

[U386]

Philodemus, On the Life of the Gods, Vol. Herc. 1, VI col. 1: ... to the gods, and he admires their nature and their condition and tries to approach them and, so to speak, yearns to touch them and to be together with them; and he calls Sages "friends of the gods" and the gods "friends of Sages."

[ U539 ]

Cicero, On End-Goals, Good and Bad, I.20.65 (Torquatus to Cicero): On the subject of friendship... Epicurus’ pronouncement about friendship is that of all the means to happiness that wisdom has devised, none is greater, none more fruitful, none more delightful than this. Nor did he only commend this doctrine by his eloquence, but far more by the example of his life and conduct.

Just putting these here for discussion on the topic at hand. No strong feelings one way or the other on applicability.

DigiVatLib

There's the manuscript link.

codex Vaticanus Graecus 1950 (1950 is the reference number, not a date incidentally)

The Vatican Sayings begin at the bottom of folio 401v with the big red Τ for Το μακαριον και αφθσρτον ... (PD1 and VS1)

Hartel is trying to "improve" the manuscript. Usener evidently accepts the θνητον of the manuscript but adds Hartel's improvement as a footnote to be thorough.

I usually try to stick with the manuscript. So...

There's the line in codex Vaticanus Graecus 1950, starting at the red O for ὁ γενναῖος...

Here's the Greek as shown in Wotke & Usener:

78* ὁ γενναῖος περὶ σοφίαν καὶ φιλίαν μάλιστα γίγνεται, ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστι θνητὸν ἀγαθόν, τὸ δὲ ἀθάνατον.

Their footnote then says: (line) 26 θνητον| νοητον V : verb. (verbessert von) H.

What does the manuscript look like to me?

ὁ γενναῖος περὶ σοφίαν καὶ φιλίαν μάλιστα γίγνεται, ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστι... Wait for it....

pasted-from-clipboard.png Well, would you look at that!

It certainly looks like νοητον to me!! And I don't think you have to know Greek to see those first markings don't look like θνητον. For example, here's a theta from elsewhere in the same saying from agathon:

There's no "loopy" theta at the beginning of that word νοητον within the manuscript. Hmmm.....

That said, Epicurus did like his parallel constructions and thneton "mortal", athanaton "undying" would be more in keeping... BUT that's not what the manuscript says! νοητόν is the Attic variation of νοητός.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, νο-ητός

"falling within the province of νοῦς,"

So, I'm not saying some scribe didn't misspell the word and write νοητον when it should have been θνητον ( as the prevalent wording has made it), All it would take are two letters. And the parallel of mortal/immortal is in keeping with Epicurus's style... but again, that's not what the manuscript has. And, to the best of my knowledge, we don't have another instance of this saying anywhere else, do we?? As far as I know, this manuscript is the ONLY copy of the "Vatican Sayings" so there's nothing to "compare" to.

GREAT FIND, Onenski !!!

Source (Wotke & Usener, 1888):

Spruchsammlung; [Gr.] entdeckt u. mitgetheilt von K. Wotke.

Key to Source/Manuscript initials

V = Codex Vaticanus gr. 1950

W = verbessert von Dr. C. Wotke

U = verbessert von Usener

H= verbessert von Hartel

So, according to p.197, the Codex Vaticanus gr. 1950 (V) has θνητον (mortal) but Hartel "improved/amended" the text to νοητον, maybe for the same reasons we find it hard to interpret. Hartel appears to be a German scholar, like Usener and Wotke, not the name of a manuscript.

I've been giving this ocean metaphor more thought, and I'd like to share a refinement that Godfrey offered this evening at our happy hour. I hope he doesn't mind my posting. I think it's a brilliant modification.

So, my issue of seeing katastematic pleasures as the ocean and kinetic pleasure as the waves was the idea of seeing waves as disturbances. There is a tradition of comparing ataraxia (a quintessential katastematic pleasure) to sailing on calm seas. Waves, to me, signified disturbance, turbulence, etc. Not something to take pleasure in.

Enter Godfrey ...He offered that if the ocean is katastematic pleasure, think of the waves as surfers do. Surfers seek out waves, large and small. They can ride them for a long time, sometimes they wipe out. To me, even the wipe outs are a valuable metaphor. Maybe those are the pleasures that aren't necessarily choiceworthy by everyone?? But, in any case, waves CAN be pleasurable. Thanks, Godfrey !!

So, I'm trying to not become completely enamored of the ocean/wave metaphor...but I'm liking this. As you've seen, I've left out Cicero's "Torquatus" material so far. I'm still not convinced Cicero is a reliable narrator, but supposedly Cicero requested Atticus to get Phaedrus's Epicurean text "On the Gods" when Cicero was writing his "On the Nature of the Gods." But what happens if we take this ocean/waves metaphor and look at what "Torquatus" has to say. I'm not going to be exhaustive, but let's take a look...

Quote from Cicero, On Ends, 1.11

And therefore Epicurus would not admit that there was any intermediate state between pleasure and pain; for he insisted that that very state which seems to some people the intermediate one, when a man is free from every sort of pain, is not only pleasure, but the highest sort of pleasure. For whoever feels how he is affected must inevitably be either in a state of pleasure or in a state of pain. But Epicurus thinks that the highest pleasure consists in an absence of all pains; so that pleasure may afterwards be varied, and may be of different kinds, but cannot be increased or amplified.

From this, we can see:

• Epicurus would not admit that there was any intermediate state between pleasure and pain
• he insisted that that very state... when a man is free from every sort of pain, is not only pleasure, but the highest sort of pleasure.
• the highest pleasure consists in an absence of all pains
• pleasure may afterwards be varied
  • may be of different kinds, but cannot be increased or amplified.

If we examine this, we find a "state" (let's say "condition") which would be katastematic pleasure.

"That very state (condition)" is "free from every sort of pain." Every sort of pain? Would that be both freedom from mental pain (ataraxia?) and physical pain (aponia?)? That's how I could read it.

Pleasures that are varied then could be the kinetic pleasure which are of different kinds and varied, BUT the background condition of katastematic pleasure - the background pleasure - cannot be increased or amplified. Once erroneous view are eradicated, they can't grow back. Correct views once established cannot be increased or amplified.

Quote

it is inevitable that there must be in a man who is in this condition a firmness of mind which fears neither death nor pain

There's that "condition" with "firmness of mind"... sounds katastematic.

I'll leave it there for now, but there are ways to interpret Cicero's "Torquatus" material as this katastematic background/foundation ocean of pleasure punctuated by waves of kinetic pleasure without too many gymnastics.

Fascinating stuff!

Quote from Pacatus

πᾰ́θος–αίσθηση perhaps? Don?

I would probably say αἴσθησις since that has more of the sensation/perception connotation:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, αἴσθ-ησις

Quote from Godfrey

It seems that it may have been Cicero who made such a complex and confusing issue of it. Imagine that!

LOL! Cicero? Obfuscating the issue? Unthinkable!

Which all makes sense since the Cyrenaics would not have accepted the "ocean" just the "waves" as pleasure.

I think you're onto something, TauPhi .

Quote from Godfrey

I'm curious how this relates to PD09:

If every pleasure were condensed in <location> and duration and distributed all over the structure or the dominant parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another. Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)

In scanning those articles and the info on energeia, I'm wondering now if PD9 can be interpreted as the difference in our soul-atoms distributed throughout our bodies that allow sensation and the soul-atoms specifically located in our chest that is the rational part of our psykhē.

I'm beginning to think (as of ... What time is it right now? I could change my mind by this afternoon ) the katastematic pleasure is the preferred background condition of being. Kinetic pleasure is the moment by moment awareness of individual pleasures. Katastematic pleasure is the calm ocean, kinetic pleasures are the waves.

That metaphor needs work, but.... Discuss.

PS. The ocean metaphor isn't mine btw. One of the papers used this. I like it.