Posts by Bryan

This excellent lecture covers these exact glassmakers and shows their process (LINK).

This is another great lecture from the Corning Museum of Glass that covers Ennion more specifically (LINK)

While atoms are a mechanism for vision, they cannot be visible -- they compose the films that allow us to perceive everything else, but do not produce films themselves. We do have Epicurus on the topic at 56a. "but every Size [of atom] existing is also not useful for [producing] the differences of qualities – and It would also therefore have been necessary for visible Atoms to arrive among us (Which are not observed to be produced) nor is It possible to conceive how a visible Atom would be produced"

^[Bailey] But the existence of atoms of every size is not required to explain the differences of qualities in things, and at the same time some atoms would be bound to come within our ken and be visible; but this is never seen to be the case, nor is it possible to imagine how an atom could become visible.

We also have Laertius 43a. "for [Epíkouros] states that division [of atoms] does not happen further ad infinitum, even though (as he says) the Qualities are transformed – unless Someone is also going to extend those [atoms] completely ad infinitum in [terms of] size"

and Laertius 44b. "He says within [his books], that no Quality at all for the atoms exists except shape, size, and weight – that Color varies with the position of the atoms, he states in the Twelve Elementary Principles – and that concerning them every Size does not exist: never, at least, has an Atom ever been perceived by sensation"

Great podcast! I know I'm missing the point, but Achilles was Phthian (e.g., Il. 9.363 & Il.1.155: "Never did [the Trojans] drive off my cattle or my horses, nor ever in deep-soiled Phthia, nourisher of men, did they destroy my grain, for many things lie between us -- shadowy mountains and sounding sea.")

As we know, time is, and is only, a quality (i.e., characteristic) of motion. Time only exists as a consequence of motion. Time can in no way be separated or exist without motion. Without a tiny bit of motion, time is inconvincible. Beyond the minute limit of motion, time cannot exist. The minute limit of motion is also the minute limit of time.

Quote from Cassius

And it's my view that people need to realize that that kind of "turn off" reaction is exactly what was expected and hoped for by Zeno (and his variants after him). They want people to give up looking for a true philosophy that they can understand

Very well said all around! Yes, paradoxes can be intellectually demoralizing—almost a type of brain-clearing trick—and in that cleared space, paradoxers then set down their own nonsense and support it with logic and mathmagic (or just promote languishing in pure skepticism).

Great post, thank you!

Quote from Twentier

mortals have this annoying habit of dying whenever you try to count them all

This make me think of Seleucus in Petronius' Satyricon who speaks of a recently dead man (Chrysanthus, part 42) saying "abiit ad plures -- he went over to the majority."

Yes, Alexander himself had an education in medicine -- he lived with, and was an assistant to, a doctor when he was young. His most popular ointment, kytmides, was a mix of real medicines and bear fat, probably for easing muscle pain -- but we can be sure it did not have any actual mystical properties. Nevertheless, it was partly real -- just like Glycon himself.

Quote from Cassius

I wonder if the "it" in that chart needs to be replaced by "opinion" for clarity's sake.

Excellent suggestion, thank you! I have now updated the headers in that chart at 51c.

Quote from Cassius

"true and real" anything that moves us - external OR internal .

Yes, I agree that this is the case at the level of sensation (as we see in 62b), but at the level of thinking there is a differentiation between subject and object, as well as between true and false (as we see in 51c).

Quote from Cassius

it is repeated observations that confirm "opinions," which we make from the perceptions, but the perceptions themselves are not "confirming" each other.

I agree, the senses cannot confirm or negate each other.

Quote from Cassius

Perceptions are NOT equal to opinions, and perceptions are never true or false!

62b "Everything observed [by the senses] or apprehended through attention to [mental] perception is true"

(τό γε θεωρούμενον Πᾶν ἢ κατ᾽ ἐπιβολὴν λαμβανόμενον τῇ διανοίᾳ ἀληθές ἐστι)"

Opinions about perceptions can be false, but the perceptions themselves are not false - they must be real because they physically affect us. However, we must think about and judge these "honest" reports of our sensations to figure out the extent that they do, in fact, accurately correspond to external objects and circumstances.

51c "and regarding this [movement of thought in us], if it ^[Ǝ] is not affirmed or ^[A] is contradicted, Falsity is produced ¬ if it ^[E] is confirmed or ^[∀] is not contradicted, Truth [is produced]"

(κατὰ δὲ ταύτην, ἐὰν μὲν ^[Ǝ] μὴ ἐπιμαρτυρηθῇ ἢ ^[A] ἀντιμαρτυρηθῇ, τὸ Ψεῦδος γίνεται ¬ ἐὰν δὲ ^[E] ἐπιμαρτυρηθῇ ἢ ^[∀] μὴ ἀντιμαρτυρηθῇ, τὸ Ἀληθές)

A true opinion is established by the full correspondence of that opinion to external objects and their circumstances. If our opinion is not affirmed or is refuted, it is false; but if our opinion is affirmed or not refuted, it is true.

Yes, this was just a quick search in English in Epicurea, where a form of the word "pleasure" is used 477 times, and "tranquility" only 25 times.

I am only 1/6 complete adding the Latin and Greek into Erik's work, but so far I have, looking at specific words: variants of ἡδονή 48 times, and variants of voluptas used 34 times. For tranquility, we have variants of ἡσυχία (including verbal forms) mentioned 8 times, and similarly for ἀταραξία which is also mentioned 8 times. So far, then, it seems pleasure is being referenced in the primary sources 5x the rate of tranquility.

I wanted to share this statue of Glycon, complete with his statement that he is the grandson of Zeus and a light to humans, requests for his prophecy (with intact seals of course), Alexander's best selling ointment (kytmides), and payment.

Great Discussion! Allow me to throw in these quotes as well:

Philódēmos, On Piety, 1.36.1023 – 1.37.1054: ^[Obbink] And for the production of benefits from the gods for good people and harms for bad people, they [the kathēgemónes] allow. And for the wise and just it must be conceived that benefits and harms which are no feebler or even greater than people in general suppose are made complete, not out of weakness or because we have need of anything from God, even in return [of] his benefit [here], and these things [the kathēgemónes] say most piously. And in On Gods what kind of source of retribution and preservation for humans through the deity must be accepted he outlines in some detail. And in book 13 he speaks concerning the affinity or alienation which God has for some people.

And of course we all remember SV65 "it is pointless begging from the gods for what one is sufficiently able to obtain for himself."

P.Oxy 2.215, col. 2, lines 8-16 ^[Chilton] Only be careful that you do not permit any admixture of fear of the gods or of the supposition that in acting as you do you are winning the favour of the gods. For indeed, in the name of Zeus (as men affect to say) what have you to fear in this matter? Do you believe that the gods can do you harm? Is not that, on any showing, to belittle them?

Quote from Cassius

This (So they say that there lies in our minds a kind of natural and inbred conception leading us to feel that the one thing is fit for us to seek, the other to reject) sounds pretty close to something in which "prolepsis" is involved.

I'd say that an anticipation must be involved for every word we use -- we would have no idea what any particular word indicated unless we have some general stereotype that we access before we start thinking or speaking about any object or relationship.

This is also mentioned by Quintilian (Institutio Oratoria, VII.3.5) "for he gave God human form and a place in the spaces between worlds."

And Aetius (Doxography, 2.1.8) gives us, "Epíkouros asserts that the spaces between world-systems are unequal." A world-system, as we know, is a closed system and contains a finite amount of matter, but there is an infinite supply of matter in-between world-systems.

Quote from Cassius

pleasure & pain: These terms can be used to describe BOTH fundamental units of experience themselves, AS WELL AS innate categories of fundamental experiences, depending on the context of the discussion.

Yes I agree. Epicurus employs this flexibility.

Quote from Cassius

"Absence of pain" is simply a way of extending the definition of pleasure to ALL non-painful experiences

And how happy we are to realize this truth -- an instant and constant source of gratitude!

"4) But we do not agree that when pleasure is withdrawn uneasiness at once ensues, unless the pleasure happens to have been replaced by a pain: while on the other hand one is glad to lose a pain even though no active sensation of pleasure comes in its place: a fact that serves to show how great a pleasure is the mere absence of pain."

As we know, this is true of active pleasures of variation that we experience after we have established a foundation of static pleasure through philosophy. When an active pleasure is withdrawn, static pleasure remains. And we are of course fully grateful to lose an active pain -- even of not replaced by an active pleasure, because we have our foundation of static pleasure.

As you said, images ("films") are always flowing off of other objects and contacting our body. Our body is able to perceive these films differently in different parts of the body (the nose will smell, the eye will see, the brain will visualize).

It seems to me that repeated contact with these images/films produces an automatic expectation (basic stereotype) of objects and object-interactions that we can access in our mind by focusing on them -- and these stereotypes are the basis of our thought and speech.

Epicurus says (38a) "Seeing [for ourselves] the primary thought for each word, and in no way needing proof, is necessary – if We are to have [something] to which we will refer what is investigated, uncertain, or judged."

Quote from Don

There really is no applicable analogy in modern cosmology

Yes, given our inability to translate it, I suppose we can take refuge in "cosmos" and "cosmoi."

I fully agree using terms from other schools confuses the issue and should probably be avoided... to the extent that cosmos means different things to different people, this will be ground that must be defended, and we will have to educate them about the correct meaning!

(As we know, Epicurus uses "atomos" and translating that as "atom" means we use the word that is not the same as modern science. But, I think you would agree, not using "atom" when translating him certainly gives up too much ground. We can use "atom" in our school, and use in its proper and true meaning. )

Quote from Don

Using "galaxy" obscures the ancient Greek understanding of what a kosmos was.

This is certainly true and I do agree. But then of course Epicurus would have a different view of the meaning of the word compared to his predecessors. LSJ often accommodates Epicurus' variance, but it does so unevenly, as you know. I see that galaxy is too much, and that "world-system" is correct, but I do wish for a more elegant solution. I only want one unnamed thing (that 4th part) and this feels like adding to that list. Perhaps, just cosmos.

Quote from Cassius

people of normal intelligence shouldn't be asked to accept "trust the scientists" or "trust the mathematicians" any more than they accept "trust the priests" as an explanation.

Yes, as we know, authorities and what they say may or may not be helpful, but they are certainly not our measure of truth. Sensation is our measure of truth.

Quote from Don

infinite number of worlds (κόσμοι ἄπειροί kosmoi apeiroi)

I agree we should not "update" or add ideas when translating -- but do we have any good arguments or objections to using "galaxies" for "kosmoi"? (We all know the difficulty with the English "world," which now means only one planet).