Posts by Bryan

Antiochus IV was born and raised an Epicurean. He is an example of one of the most politically powerful Epicureans. He is also at the heart of origins of hanukkah.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Jerusalem.pdf

I am happy to see that map Elli included! I made it many years ago and have it on my wall... but I did not expect to see it in the wild! I forgot I had even shared it.

Quote from Cassius

has analogs in the core texts

I think Epicurus' famous "barley-cake and water give out the highest pleasure" in his letter to Menoeceus (131a) comes rather close.

If we had to choose between food and our libraries, we must pick the food in every case -- or die like those Buddhists monks that starve themselves to death while reading scriptures.

Yes the take-away from VS 11 seems to be a reminder to always hold in mind the goal of tranquil activity -- that we want to be tranquil without becoming listless, and we want to be active without becoming agitated.

On the original topic, I wanted to point out the fun connection that the word for "school" is the same as "leisure" -- and the word in question is the negation of leisure -- i.e., occupation. This is why the translations diverge a bit at this point.

Hello Dave, the book I listed, which I am currently reading with great joy, is composed of articles from 23 different physicists (most still living, but some are being published posthumously) all in support of La Sage's theory and pointing to the many issues with Einstein's model. Many physicists say La Sage's theory is debunked, but there are many other physicists who passionately argue he was more nearly correct than Einstein -- with a far superior model.

We'll need to keep in mind that "religio" is a "bad" word in Lucretius, with implications of being bound up by nonsense, (ligō = “to bind”)

To support my last post above, I wanted to share this book that goes over the explanation of the model.

It is a fully physical theory of gravity that explains what we observe -- and the operations of our technology -- without needing support from the pure-math ideas of spacetime, vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, etc.

This model was directly inspired by Epicurus (Nicolas Fatio was a careful reader of Lucretius) and also has a long list of supporting physicists up to the present that can see how it is more nearly correct than the explanations provided by general relativity and quantum field theory:

Le Sage's theory of gravitation - Wikipedia

Quote from Cassius

Porch. You hold toil to be an evil?

Epicurus. I do.

Porch. And pleasure a good?

Epicurus. Unquestionably.

Porch. Do you recognize the distinction between differentia and indifferentia? Between praeposita and rejecta?

Epicurus. Why, certainly.

Hermes. Madam, this discussion must cease; the jury say they do not understand word-chopping. They will now give their votes.

Porch. Ah; I should have won, if I could have tried him with my third figure of self-evidents.

Justice. Who wins?

Hermes. Unanimous verdict for Pleasure.

Display More

As my post above on ἡ λεπτότης shows, "subtlety" is a word used by Epicurus in discussing physics -- but not (except for this example of the manuscript's version of VS 63) when discussing morals.

Among the examples, this quote below must be the best, because Epicurus stacks near synonyms, and in doing better shows us what he thought of the word:

"...It has the force to eject air, [while] carrying [the air] over – and It is evident that this same Force also exists even in the films: for if only a hard Object had the force to produce ejections ¬ but a Film did not [have the force to produce ejections] – then only hard Objects would have the force to be quickly carried in the ejecting way ¬ but the films would not [have the force to be quickly carried], at least [not] in the ejecting [way]: however, in what is completely encompassed around immediately from the ready void, through the settlements into narrowness, subtlety, and minuteness……"

[Epicurus, On Nature, Book 2, P.Herc. 993 col. 10 (column 111inf) | P.Herc. 1149 col. 5 (column 112sup)] "^{…[ἀέ]ρα ἐξ̣ω̣[θεῖ]ν [δυνα]τὸν περαιοῖ, φα̣[ν]ερὸν ὡς καὶ τοῖς εἰδώλοις ὑπάρχει καὶ [α]ὕτη ἡ δύναμις· εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ στ̣ερέμνιον μόνον ἠδύνατο τὰς | ἐξ̣ώσεις π[οιεῖσ]θαι, τὸ δ̣' εἴδωλο[ν μή], ἦν ἂν κατὰ τὸν ἐ̣[ξ]ω̣στικὸν τρ̣όπον τὰ στερέμνια μόνον ταχέ̣ως δύνασθαι φέρεσ[θ]αι, [τ]ὰ̣ δὲ εἴδωλα μή, κατ̣ά γε τὸν ἐξωστ[ι]κό[ν], κα[τ]ὰ μέντοι τὸ περ̣ι̣λαμβανόμενον εὐθὺ[ς ἐξ] ἑτ[ο]ίμου κε̣νοῦ διὰ τ[ὰς] συνιζήσεις τὰς ε[ἰς στ]ενότητα καὶ λεπτ̣[ό]τ̣ητα καὶ μι[κρ]ότη[τ]α…}"

We could draw a line from "subtlety" to "simple living" if it was otherwise established, but I do not see that it is.

The closest I have is in The Double Indictment (section 2) Lucian has Zeus complain "I myself have to do any number of tasks that are almost impossible to carry out on account of their subtlety (ὑπὸ λεπτότητος)" -- which may be enough to draw it all together and preserve the manuscripts reading.

I can't justify the decisions made here, although I was thinking of those processional roads with flanking identical herms/statues.

For ΚΔ 40, we have a slightly different word τὸ πίστωμα (instead of ἡ πίστις), and we have the privative version of ἡ πίστις (ἡ ἀπιστία) in VS 56.

This is excellent -- great idea to have each one link to the specific papyri.info page!

P.Herc. 908 may actually be by Demetrius Lacon. The content is interesting -- the topic is on sex, and it is very medical/gynecological (rather than moral/ethical).

Quote from Rolf

I experience no pain from not watching the movie

Of course boredom is a pain. Once your body is well-served, we are not expected to just stare at a wall for the rest of the day!

If a movie is your focus, just make sure it is enjoyable in the short and long term.

"Again, in the work On Fulfillment, [Epicurus] speaks in such a way 'for I myself am not able to conceive the good – removing the pleasures from flavor, or removing those from Aphrodisian activities, or removing those from auditory experiences, or removing those pleasurable movements from form in accordance with appearance'" (Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, 7.11, 280A)

From that basis, Epicurus (as we would expect) recommended mostly studying philosophy and physics in one's free time.

"...I recommending continuous activity in natural science and pacify myself particularly with such a life..." 10.37a

That same word for "fortune" (LSJ "the act of a god") also is used for "chance" (LSJ "chance, regarded as an impersonal cause")

I also wanted to point out that the beginning of this saying -- "I have thoroughly anticipated you / Προκατείλημμαί σε" -- is built from the same stem as the the word for anticipations.

Quote from Eikadistes

is doing so διά (diá) "by way of", "on account of", or "due to" something being "indefinite"

Here I think we have the feminine abstract noun "ἡ ἀοριστία, indefiniteness" itself -- but it is an odd one, and I only have examples of the adjective being used elsewhere.

For example (of the adjective):

Porphyry of Tyre (_fl. 275 ^CE), Letter to Marcella, 29.459-461

"ἐφʼ ὅσον δ’ ἂν Ἀμηχανῇς: Λήθῃ τῆς φύσεως Ἀμηχανεῖς· σαυτῷ γὰρ ἀορίστους φόβους καὶ ἐπιθυμίας Προσβάλλεις"

"to the extent that you have no means: you have no means because you fail to notice nature – for you apply undefined fears and desires upon yourself"

----------------

Epicurus, On Nature, Book 25, P.Herc. 1056 col. 15 (fr. B 37) et alia

^{…{[μ]νήμ̣η̣ ἢ τὸ τε̣͂ι [μνή]μηι πά}θος ἀνάλογον ὧν ἔδει μ̣ᾶλλον ἐνεγείνετο πρὸς τὸ ὡρισμ̣ένον καὶ τὰ πάντα {ἐξελέγχον τῆς ἀναφορᾶς γινομένης κα̣ὶ οὐ πρὸς ἀόριστα καὶ κρίσεως προσδεόμενα –– αὕτη δ' αὖ πάλιν ἡ {τούτου μνήμ̣η̣ ἢ ἀνάλογος μνήμηι κίνησις τὰ μὲν συνεγε}γέν[νη]το εὐθὺς, τὰ δ' ηὔξητο τὴν [ἀρχὴ]ν ἔχουσα καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν.}

…Memory, or the Experience of those [movements] analogous to memory. It would have been more necessary that [the memory] was implanted in relation to what [experience] was being defined – even with Everything refuting out the reference [to the definition] as it was being produced ¬ and not in relation to the undefined things, that are also in need of distinction. but again, this Memory of [an experience] or a Movement analogous to memory: with Some [aspect of memory] having been generated together directly [from experiences] – while Other [aspects of memory] had increased, although they have a foundation and a cause [from former experiences].

--------------------------------

For ἐκπίπτειν of course we also have:

ΚΔ 15. ὁ τῆς φύσεως Πλοῦτος καὶ ὥρισται καὶ εὐπόριστός ἐστιν – ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτει.

The wealth of nature is limited and well acquirable – but the [wealth] of empty judgments falls out into infinity.

Thank you Don, for all the excellent work above.

I agree that it would be best to follow the manuscript and make ἡ λεπτότης work. I wanted to look at the other instances of ἡ λεπτότης by Epicurus.

------------------------------------------

Epicurus, On Nature, Book 2, P.Herc. 1149 col. 7 (column 116sup):

…πρ[ὸς τοῖς στε]ρεμνίοις καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς διαστάσεις εἰς βάθος εἰληφός, πλὴν οὐχὶ τῶι ἐκ σωμάτων πολλῶν ε[ἰς] βάθος πε[ποιῆσ]θα[ι, ἀλ]λὰ τῶι [τὴν] τοῦ [ἔνδ]οθεν [κενο]ῦ διά[στ]ασιν τὴν [α]ὐτὴν ἔχειν, λέγειν τολμῶσιν ἀλόγως πως ὡς δ̣ιὰ̣ τ̣ὴν λεπτότη̣τ̣α ῥαδίως δι[ὰ π]αντ[ὸς] πόρου [περ]αι[οῦν ἔδει], οὐδ' ἐν[θ]υ[μούμενοι…

…while [the film] even acquired the same dimensions in depth in relation to the hard objects [that were its source] ¬ except with [the film] having been made deeply not by many bodies – but by having the same dimensions of the inner void. They unreasonably dare to say that, somehow, because of the subtlety [of the films], it would be necessary [for the films] to easily pass through every passageway, without [those who say this] reflecting that…

-----------------------------------------
Epicurus, On Nature, Book 2, P.Herc. 993 col. 10 (column 111inf) | P.Herc. 1149 col. 5 (column 112sup)

^{…[ἀέ]ρα ἐξ̣ω̣[θεῖ]ν [δυνα]τὸν περαιοῖ, φα̣[ν]ερὸν ὡς καὶ τοῖς εἰδώλοις ὑπάρχει καὶ [α]ὕτη ἡ δύναμις· εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ στ̣ερέμνιον μόνον ἠδύνατο τὰς | ἐξ̣ώσεις π[οιεῖσ]θαι, τὸ δ̣' εἴδωλο[ν μή], ἦν ἂν κατὰ τὸν ἐ̣[ξ]ω̣στικὸν τρ̣όπον τὰ στερέμνια μόνον ταχέ̣ως δύνασθαι φέρεσ[θ]αι, [τ]ὰ̣ δὲ εἴδωλα μή, κατ̣ά γε τὸν ἐξωστ[ι]κό[ν], κα[τ]ὰ μέντοι τὸ περ̣ι̣λαμβανόμενον εὐθὺ[ς ἐξ] ἑτ[ο]ίμου κε̣νοῦ διὰ τ[ὰς] συνιζήσεις τὰς ε[ἰς στ]ενότητα καὶ λεπτ̣[ό]τ̣ητα καὶ μι[κρ]ότη[τ]α…}

...It has the force to eject air, [while] carrying [the air] over – and It is evident that this same Force also exists even in the films: for if only a hard Object had the force to produce ejections ¬ but a Film did not [have the force to produce ejections] – then only hard Objects would have the force to be quickly carried in the ejecting way ¬ but the films would not [have the force to be quickly carried], at least [not] in the ejecting [way]: however, in what is completely encompassed around immediately from the ready void, through the settlements into narrowness, subtlety , and minuteness…

-----------------------------------------

Epicurus, On Nature, Book 2, P.Herc. 1149 col. 1 (column 93sup)

^{…περὶ δὲ τῆς κατὰ τὴν φορὰν ὑπαρχούσης ταχυτῆτ[ος] νῦν λέγειν ἐπιχ[ειρ]ήσομεν· πρῶτον μὲν̣ γ̣ὰρ̣ ἡ λεπτότης, μακρὰν τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων λεπτότητος ἀπέ[χο]υσα, ταχυτῆτα τῶν εἰδώλων κατὰ τ[ὴ]ν [φ]ο[ρ]ὰν ἀνυπέρβλ̣[η]τον [ἐ]νδε[ί]κνυται…}

…but We will venture to speak now about the speed that exists in the transmission [of the films]: first, their Subtleness – because it is far different than the subtlety [derived] from the senses – is indicated in the unsurpassable speed of the films in regards to their transmission…

-----------------------------------------

Epicurus, On Nature, Book 2, P.Herc. 1010 columns 26, 27sup

^{…δή, φημί, β̣[λ]έ[π]οντες καὶ τῶν εἰδώλ[ω]ν ταὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐγχ̣ειροῦσ̣ι̣ν [κ]α̣τ̣[α]δο[ξ]άζε̣[ιν] [διὰ τὴν ὁμ]ω̣ν[υ]μ̣ί̣αν τ̣ὴν δὴ τῆς λεπτότητος, {τὴν διαφορὰν αὐτῶν οὐ προσθ̣ε̣ωρ[ο]ῦντες [missing word] μ̣[ή]τε α̣ὐ̣τὰ μᾶ̣λλο[ν] τὰς διαδύσει[ς δ]ύνασ̣θαι ποιεῖσ[θα]ι διὰ τῶν στε[ρεμ]ν[ίων φύσε]ω[ν] σ̣υ̣νβέ̣βη̣[κ]ε̣ν ἤ̣π[ερ] τὰς ἀντιτυπεῖς̣ διὰ τῶν [χειρῶ]ν συγκρίσεις, ἂν μή [τ]ις τὸν τρόπον [τ]ῆς̣ δ[ια]δύσεω[ς,] [ὃν] ἡμ[εῖς] εἰρήκαμεν̣, δ[ει]κνύη δυ[νατὸ]ν αὐ̣το̣ῖς̣ [ὑπάρ]χ̣[ειν ὄντα]·}}

Indeed, I say to these [people]: while they are still observing the films, they attempt to thoroughly judge this very thing [i.e., transfer of temperature] through the sameness of names – in fact, They are not also envisioning the difference in the subtlety of these things. These [hot and cold particles] are not more able to make penetrations through the nature of hard objects than they [are able to] endure their rebounding through the compounds of [our] hands. unless Someone proves that this way of penetration, which We ourselves have described, is able to exist for those [films].

-----------------------------------------

Lives 10.47b

εἶθ᾽ ὅτι τὰ Εἴδωλα ταῖς λεπτότησιν ἀνυπερβλήτοις κέχρηται Οὐθὲν ἀντιμαρτυρεῖ τῶν φαινομένων

accordingly, Nothing among visible things contests that Films are endowed with unsurpassable subtlety

-----------------------------------------

Lives 10.46a

καὶ μὴν καὶ, Τύποι ὁμοιοσχήμονεςτοῖς στερεμνίοις εἰσί ¬ λεπτότησιν ἀπέχοντες μακρὰν τῶν φαινομένων:

and indeed, impressions exist in a similar shape as solid objects ¬ although they are far different from what is apparent in [their] subtlety:

-----------------------------------------

Plato (_fl.c. 388 ^BCE), Republic, 7.523E

καὶ ὡσαύτως, πάχος καὶ λεπτότητα, ἢ μαλακότητα καὶ σκληρότητα, ἡ Ἁφή;

and likewise, does Touch [perceive] thickness and subtlety ¬ or softness and hardness?

-----------------------------------------

ἡ λεπτομέρεια is also worth considering:

Epicurus, On Nature, Book 14, P.Herc. 1148 col. 4 (column 37)

_{…ἐξέφευ̣[γε] τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος στο[λ]ήν, λεπτομερὲς πα[ν]τελῶς αὐτὸ ὂν καὶ οὐ δυνάμενου ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος ἐν ἀθροισμῶι λαμβάνεσθαι συναγωγὴν ἐπιδεχομένωι· οὔτε γὰρ ἐμβρείθεια ποσὴ τις στολὴν ἐπιδέχεται οὔτ[ε] λεπτομέρεια, ἀλλὰ συμμετρία τις ποσὴ καὶ τοῦ τοιούτου συντελεστικὴ γί[ν]εται· ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτ̣ο γελοίως ἐκ τῆς φαντασίας ἀναλελόγισται καὶ οὐκ ἐπισταμένως τἀφανὲς δι̣ὰ τοῦ φαινομένου συλλογί[ζ]εσθαι· καὶ ἡ γῆ δὲ π[ά]λιν̣ οὐ[κ] ἐ[κ τοῦ] αὐτ̣[οῦ τ]ρόπου δ̣ύν[αται]…}

…[flowing upwards, the Form of flames] flows out from the pressure beneath the air, being absolutely of a subtle composition itself, and not having the force beneath the air to be taken into an aggregation that permits a gathering. for neither does any measurable Density [on its own] permit pressure [to form] – nor does its subtle composition [on its own, permit pressure to form]: but some measurable Symmetry [of density and subtlety] does become contributive to such a [formation of pressure as seen in flames].

------------------------------------------

Epicurus, On Nature, Book 2, P.Herc. 1010 (columns 24fin, 25),
P.Herc. 993 col. 14 (column 117inf), P.Herc. 1149 col. 9 (column 118sup).

^{{ο̣ὐ[κ ἔστι] συμ[φυῆ] τα[ῦτα] δ̣ή, φημί, τού[του, ἀ]λλὰ [μόν]ον τ̣[ῶν [ἐ]πιτ̣ηδ̣[ε]ίων μὴ ἐχόντων μορφοειδῆ σχηματισμὸν ἕνα τ[ι]νὰ φύσε̣[ι], ἀ̣λλὰ π[ολ]λ̣οὺς κ̣αὶ̣ [ἄλ]λο̣[υ]ς̣ ἄ̣λ̣λως̣,} [λέ]γω δ' οἷο̣ν̣ [πυρὸς καὶ] πνε̣ύμα[τος καὶ τ]ῶν τοιουτο[τρόπω]ν· ταῦτα γάρ, ἐν ἄλλωι τρόπωι | τὴν λεπτομέρειαν ἔχ[ο]ντα ἤπερ ἐν ὧι αἱ ἔξωθεν μὲν [ἀ]λλη[λοῦ]χοι φύσεις, [ἔ]νδοθε[ν δὲ] πολύκενοι, δύ[να]νται τὰς [διεκδύσεις δ]ιὰ τῶν στερεμνί[ω]ν φύσε[ω]ν λαμβάνειν·}

I say, these [abilities of traveling through hard objects] are not inherent to [film], but only [inherent] to suitable things not having a certain singular shaped configuration by nature – rather, [these abilities are inherent to things having] many other [shapes] also. I mean, for instance, [particles] of fire and of [cool] wind and such types of things: for These [hot and cold particles], because they have a subtle composition in a different manner than that in which [their] external interconnected Natures [exist], but [with their nature also being] porous within, have the force to acquire their emergence through the natures of hard objects.

Quote from Rolf

What about things like nuclear fusion and fission where mass (particles) is transformed into energy? Doesn’t this contradict the Epicurean view that matter is eternal and indestructible?

When matter is broken down so small that it is past the ability of any machine to measure it as a physical unit – machines can still measure the force of that matter. (Just like we cannot see the particles in wind with our eyes, but we can feel their force.)

This does not prove matter is fundamentally destructible, but only proves that matter gets so small that its physical extension becomes undetectable to us. (It really is a similar error, which scientists no longer make, to actually thinking that air has no particles in it, beyond those we can see with our eyes).

Quote from Rolf

How could quantum computers exist and function if the underlying quantum mechanics were false? Does the probabilistic and indeterminate nature of these computations not contradict the Epicurean view that reality is wholly knowable and predictable?

Given most interpretations refuse to admit a level of physical existence too small to be measured, they prefer to rely on math. The function of the computers is of course real – as is the observations of superpositions and entanglement – but to the extent anyone gives non-physical explanations for these functions and observations is the extent that they are leaving reality for mathematical fictions.

It is between "the entanglements" that real atoms lie – and they provide the physical explanation. What is observed is easily explained by the interactions of these true atoms and the wakes they produce.

Quote from Rolf

the double slit experiment, which shows that particles are not always solid particles but also waves.

The big mystery of the wave pattern can again be explained by accepting the existence a substrate that is not directly perceptible by machines.

What looks like a wave pattern coming ‘out of nowhere’ is really coming from the effect that the ‘oceans’ of these invisible atoms and their wakes have upon the matter we can detect. If someone takes an electron or something else that can be detected as the basis of matter, then the extra movement will always seem like it comes out of nowhere.

Great episode -- Thank you!

Quote from Cassius

which is the place I've heard a variation of that view before:

And is ultimately the primary source and confirming bias for Joshua Rothman's New Yorker article and why David Benatar is presented to the public. Once again, just like with physics, much of "modern morality" is just their religious ideas, but packaged to look modern and secular. (Something new was needed once the Christianity scam failed in certain sectors!)

Quote from Rolf

What is it that allows you to have faith in the physics of Epicurus but not the physics of certain modern scientists?

I would say it is about the fundamental assumptions. There will always be thinkers looking for the real fundamental truth in something other than the realm of the senses -- be it in Platonic forms, or in omnipresence of Yahweh, or in mathematics.

If someone says they have a particular knowledge that you cannot access -- but from their knowledge they then teach you something that contradicts your experience, then they have all the intellectual power. They may as well have hypnotized you!

They can then say absurd things such as "matter has no fundamental form" or that "matter can generate from no matter" -- which comes from religious assumptions and is supported by self-referencing mathematics not scientific real-life observations.

In this way they cover your eyes and remove all your footing.