Posts by Bryan

Trying to bring it all together, here are my notes so far. Perhaps over-produced. Please point out any errors you notice, they are certainly there.

Wow that is a great video TauPhi, thank you. Smith seems like a great guy. Smith clearly wants it all dug up, but the Turks in charge have reservations.

Thank you for doing these!

In case this is new to anyone, I wanted to point out that there is a very good recording of this book (https://www.amazon.com/Audible-Nature-Gods/dp/B0CND98MNG), which is free if you already have an Audible membership. The performer has an amusing pompous tone and does a good job.

Apropos to the Anselm discussion:

^{[P.Oxy. 2.215, col. 1, lines 11-16]} And you, Sir, should consider it a great blessing to have rightly grasped the best of all that exists which we are able to conceive – and you should marvel at this understanding (διάληψιν) and you should revere it with freedom from fear.

^[Chilton] You, my friend, must know that the most blessed gift is to have a clear perception of things; that is absolutely the best thing that we can conceive of here below. Admire this clear apprehension of the spirit, revere this divine gift.

^[Grenfell] But do you, sir, consider that the most blessed state lies in the formation of a just conception concerning the best thing that we can possibly imagine to exist; and reverence and worship this idea.

^{[col. 1, lines 11-16]} σὺ [δ', ὦ] ἄνθρωπε, μακαριώ[τα]τ̣ον μέν τι νόμιζε τὸ [διε]ι̣ληφέναι καλῶς ὃ τὸ [παν]άριστον ἐν τοῖς οὖσι [δια]ν̣οηθῆναι δυνάμε[θα], κα[ὶ θ]αύμαζε ταύτην [τὴ]ν δ[ι]άληψιν καὶ σέβου [ἀδ]ε[ί]ᾳ τοῦ̣το.

Taking διανοηθῆναι in the middle voice, but a passive construction is also possible (with no real change in meaning).

Thank you TauPhi! I was surprised yesterday to see Plato mentioned in the Chilton translation. It is a shame the mention of Plato in this text is just speculation by Diels.

[Chilton trans.] ...a marvel not less unlikely than those which Plato imagined.

Excellent! Thank you very much TauPhi!

Quote from Joshua

Words that start with Χαπ- seem to be exceedingly rare.

Very good point, the fact that "Χαπ-" does not seem to even exist as the beginning of any word should have been my clue that one letter probably needs to change!

Quote from Don

Grenfell has χαριέστερον.

It is interesting that Grenfell comments on the ος/ον change but says nothing about χαρ/χαπ.

Χαριέστερον must be the answer. Thank you both!

-----

I see Grenfell translates it as "more taste on his part"

I think I will go with "more refined" for the moment:

"Indeed, possibly such a person at times is more refined than other laymen, but still not in this way at all does the firmness of piety exist."

I mentioned the difficulty with the translation of Oxyrhynchus 215. I wanted to show a bit about what I was talking about: Early on, we have the word Chapiésteros, Χαπιέστε[ρο]ς. This is not a word I have been able to find anything about. This may be the only preserved instance of the word, a Hapax legomenon. This, of course, makes figuring out the meaning difficult.

^{[col. 1, line 1-11]} ...nor whenever, by god, it is spoken again like this by the common people "I fear all the gods whom I revere and to them I wish to sacrifice all things and to dedicate to them." ^{[line 11-16]} Indeed, such a person possibly at times is Chapiésteros than other laymen -- but still, not in this way at all does the firmness of piety exist.

^{[col. 1, line 11-16]} Χαπιέστε[ρο]ς μὲν γὰρ ἴσως ποτὲ [ὁ τ]οιοῦτος ἄλλων ἰδιω[τῶ]ν ἐστιν, ὅμως δὲ οὐ[δὲ] ταύτῃ πω τὸ βέβαιον [εὐ]σεβείας ὑπάρχει.

¹⁰[τ]αθύειν καὶ τούτοις
[ἀν]ατιθέναι”. χαπιέστε-
[ρο]ς μὲν γὰρ ἴσως ποτὲ
[ὁ τ]οιοῦτος ἄλλων ἰδιω-
[τῶ]ν ἐστιν,

Quote from Cassius

Velleius: For with what eyes of the mind was your Plato able to see that workhouse of such stupendous toil, in which he makes the world to be modeled and built by God?

The "eyes of the mind" seems to correspond to criterion #4: "the image-based focus of the mind."

D.L. 10.31: Therefore, in The Canon, Epicurus affirms that the criteria of truth are [1] the sensations and [2] the preconceptions and [3] the feelings, and the Epicureans (also affirm) [4] the image-based focus of the mind.

I'll throw the full quote in here as well:

D.L. 10.31: Therefore, in The Canon, Epicurus affirms that the criteria of truth are [1] the sensations and [2] the preconceptions and [3] the feelings, and the Epicureans (also affirm) [4] the image-based focus of the mind.

Ἐν τοίνυν τῷ Κανόνι, λέγων ἐστὶν ὁ Ἐπίκουρος κριτήρια τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι [1] τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ [2] προλήψεις καὶ [3] τὰ πάθη, οἱ δ᾽ Ἐπικούρειοι καὶ [4] τὰς φανταστικὰς ἐπιβολὰς τῆς διανοίας.

Great conversation all around! I may be misunderstanding your point, waterholic -- but per Epicurus the atoms are colorless and perception of color is relative.

Scholion on Epicurus, Letter to Hēródotos, D.L. 10.44: He says, moreover, that there is no quality at all for the atoms except for shape (τὸ σχῆμα), dimension (τὸ μέγεθος), and weight (τὸ βάρος) – that color varies with the position of the atoms, he states in his Twelve Elementary Principles.

Plutarch, Against Kōlṓtēs, 1110B: Epicurus himself in the second book of his Reply to Theóphrastos, says that "colors are not intrinsic to bodies – but a result of certain arrangements and positions relative to the eye."

Yes, I agree. Although we will not be experiencing any pain after we are dead, and this is good news, this is not the focus -- instead, the "good news" of Epicurus is pointing out how much of life is actually already and easily pain-free -- which helps us be grateful for what we have and make the most of our lives.

Wow, that is very cool TauPhi! That works well! I have never seen a version like this before that selects some of the text. Thank you for sharing.

I wanted to throw these in here as well, from D.L. 10.118. I feel as though there is room for a more "positive" interpretation of agapeton.

Usener Text: Συνουσίη ὤνησε μὲν οὐδέποτε – ἀγαπητὸν δ' εἰ μὴ ἔβλαψε.

"Intimacy never benefited – but one must be content if it has not harmed."

Henderson Text: Συνουσίαν δέ φασιν ὀνῆσαι μὲν οὐδέποτε – ἀγαπητὸν δὲ εἰ μὴ καὶ ἔβλαψε.

"They say that intimacy never benefited – but one must be content if it has not also harmed."

Plato seems to say (in his poetic way) that the wavelength of blue exists inherently outside of the objects that create the wavelength you see as blue. The problem from a physical perspective is that 2 + 2 = 4 only exists when there are four things to be added (even if only in our physical minds) — there is nothing transcendent about the mathematical equation itself that makes it exist on its own — just like blue wavelengths can be described mathematically but there must be a specific physical basis for wavelengths to actually exist at any point.

One of the tricks of "modern thought/education" is to make the student think they are coming up with the ideas themselves individually (and therefore hold those ideas more deeply) when in reality they really end up only believing and repeating what they have been told.

I believe that having new thoughts is very rare -- people are considered smart when they can repeat what they hear -- and most people have to struggle for years to even be able to repeat what they hear!

Widely accepted, promoted, and permitted modern ideas are mostly just re-packaged judeo-christianty -- everybody is the same, non-physical forces exist, the universe has a beginning, etc, etc... Given this, I like admit to myself that I am only a follower. But I am proud that I choose to follow someone who is an honest leader and not someone cynically manipulating the thought of the public in the same old and absurd ways.

My view is not that Diogenes Laertius is misleading but, as Don and Kalosyni have stated recently, that eudaimonia is not "happiness" but instead "(an enduring sense of) mental well-being."

"happy on the rack" is hard to accept as a simple premise. Perhaps Raimondi had this basic idea in mind.

But "having an enduring sense of mental well-being while in great pain" is possible and realistic -- of course Epicurus himself provided an example of this at the end of his life. I also saw it in my grandfather.

Very interesting letter, thank you for the reading Cassius!

According to the Cambridge edition of Diogenes Laertius, the "nor" or "not" in translations such as "[Nor will] he groan and howl when he is put to the torture" comes from a corruptela (corruption) in the text, which they give in daggers:

μόνον τε χάριν ἔξειν τὸν σοφόν, καὶ ἐπὶ φίλοις καὶ παροῦσι καὶ ἀποῦσιν ὁμοίως διά τε †οδουχ† ὅτε μέντοι στρεβλοῦται, ἔνθα καὶ μύζει καὶ οἰώζει.

The manuscripts all do different weird things at that point, so most of the writers of the surviving manuscripts also scratched their heads here and made their best guess. I think it can be ignored.

Quote from Godfrey

Aristotle conceived of eudaimonia as requiring activity.

Yes Aristotle digs a deep hole for himself when he insists that "Pleasure does not occur except in action!" Eudḗmeian Ethics, 8.1249a: οὐ γίνεται δὲ ἡδονὴ μὴ ἐν πράξει). I cannot imagine reality (or Epicurus) agreeing with Aristotle on this point!

Quote from Godfrey

Perhaps eudaimonia requires action, but blessedness doesn't?

It seems that being alive requires having sensations of actions as well as sensations of condition.