Posts by Bryan

(Aetius "Pseudo-Plutarch" Placita Philosophorum 1.7.34) "In the judgment of Epicurus, all the Gods are anthropomorphites, or have the shape of men; but they are perceptible only by reason, for their nature admits of no other manner of being apprehended, their parts being so small and fine that they give no corporeal representations. The same Epicurus asserts that there are four other natural beings which are immortal: of this sort are (1) atoms, (2) the vacuum, (3) the infinite, and (4) the similar parts; and these last are called Homoeomeries and likewise elements." (Goodwin trans.)

"Ἐπίκουρος ἀνθρωποειδεῖς μὲν πάντας τοὺς θεούς, λόγῳ δὲ πάντας τούτους θεωρητοὺς διὰ τὴν λεπτομέρειαν τῆς τῶν εἰδώλων φύσεως: ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἄλλως τέσσαρας φύσεις κατὰ γένος ἀφθάρτους τάσδε, [1] τὰ ἄτομα [2] τὸ κενὸν [3] τὸ ἄπειρον [4] τὰς ὁμοιότητας: αὗται δὲ λέγονται ὁμοιομέρειαι καὶ στοιχεῖα."

Philodemus makes similar statements that the gods are "constituted by similarity" in his books on the gods. Epicurus argued against Homoiomereia as the constitution of objects in world systems -- and objects in world systems are corruptible in part by the intrusion of matter that is alien to the constitution of that object.

The finite amount of matter that is bound up in world systems has its natural equilibrium (isonomia) in the infinite amount of matter that freely exists in the spaces between the worlds!

(Cicero, DND 1.37.105) "Nor should there ever cease to be an addition of like bodies from the infinite." "Neque deficiat unquam ex infinitis corporibus similium accessio"

By taking up the matter that is similar to them and excluding what is alien, the gods easily but actively continue their existence.

Cassius, the quotes you shared from DeWitt really are superb.

Calling the gods immortal does not seem inconsistent with DeWitt's interpretation, because whether the gods are (1) immortal due to their composition or (2) immortal due to their activities, they are still immortal either way.

Thank you TauPhi! I just purchased a copy from AbeBooks, so I have a copy being shipped from the Netherlands (the ebay version may still be available for someone else here).

I also sent an email to Claudio Vergara to see about access to his digital version.

Thank you, TauPhi, for pointing this out. I have never seen this. Do we have a PDF? Or a place it can be purchased? I have been looking but cannot find it yet.

I just started this (which has the typical PDF-to-text issues), so before I spend too much time cleaning it up I wanted to ask if we have the original full text in Unicode.

Here is my working translation of that bit (the subjects are capitalized).

"for you the crafty Earth sends up
sweet flowers- for you the Surfaces of the sea sparkle-
and the calmed Sky shines with spread out light.
just as the springtime Appearance of the day is revealed
and, once set free, the productive Air of the west-wind is lively:
first the Birds of the air signify you, goddess, and your
arrival, overwhelmed in their hearts with your power."

1. Divine Origin Theory. Words are given to humans directly by a divine entity or through a supernatural act.
2. Intentionalist Theory: Word meanings are shaped by what the individual speaker intends to communicate, regardless of conventional language norms.
3. Constructivist Theory: Words are a constructed tool, deliberately invented and developed by humans to meet their communication needs.
4. Conventionalist Theory: Words are products of social conventions and agreements among members of a language community over time.
5. Naturalist Theory: Words have a natural basis. Humans, like other animals, naturally produce specific sounds in response to specific circumstances, leading to a natural foundation for each language. While cultural and social factors have influenced language development, there is a core link between words and their meanings that is rooted in human nature.

Epicurus and Metrodorus originally took a fully conventionalist view of language. By 296 BC, (when On Nature, Book 28 was written) Epicurus came to see that humans naturally created relationships between objects and words, just as animals naturally create a relationship between their circumstances and their vocalizations. Therefore, language is not purely conventional. There is, for any group of people in any environment, a natural connection between their words and the objects that they label.

I had not seen these articles before -- I enjoyed them, thank you for sharing Kalosyni!

Some good points:

(1) We benefit from embracing the excellence of the human form, gods in human form, and idols of gods in human form.

(2) We benefit from having high levels of tolerance and acceptance (although not in a way that risks our health and safety).

(3) We benefit from envisioning the life we want to live and working to make it a reality.

(4) We benefit by remembering and being grateful for the past and in this way we can always access goods and friendships that have past.

Excellent points about idiosyncratic idiots and honest martyrs!

Godfrey, absolutely! In a way this is my preparation for revisiting the rather difficult On Signs.

Don, regarding ἡ ἐπιμαρτύρησις et al., I know we have -ησις as a general suffix to form abstract nouns. But I feel that ἡ ῥῆσις "saying" "manner of speaking" must also part of the construction. I cannot quite tell right now if this is obviously there or if I am forcing it.

(Epicurus - On Nature - Book 28, P.Herc. 1479 col. 1) ἰδιοτήτος τῷ σοφῷ καὶ μὴ σοφῷ διε[φώ]νεις, οὐδέμ παρε[μ-]βάλλων [τοῦ π]ερὶ τῶν οὐκ ἐπιμαρτυρήσεων κα[ὶ] ἀντιμαρτυρήσεων. ἐτίθεις δ[έ] τινα τῶν ὀνομάτων εὐθὺς διὰ τῆς αὐτῆς λέξεως, καὶ τὴν κατ’ αὐτὰς τὰς αἰσθήσεις πλάνην τῶν πολ[λῶ]ν ἀπο[σ]ημαίνων, οὐ μό[νον] τὴν ἔν[νοιαν .

(Sedley trans, "fr. 11, col. 2") In your search for verbal individuality you were in conflict [as much] with the wise man as with the unwise, by including nothing about lack of confirmatory evidence and the presence of counter-evidence. You fixed some of your vocabulary directly with the same language, also representing the error of most men with regard to what they actually perceive…

Epicurean Epistemological Terms:

1. Confirmation (ἡ ἐπιμαρτύρησις): Affirmative evidence. The evidence that supports or validates a specific claim or hypothesis; crucial for establishing truth or credibility.
2. Non-confirmation (ἡ οὐκ ἐπιμαρτύρησις): Lack of affirmative evidence. The absence of evidence to affirm or support a claim; important in scenarios where a statement or hypothesis cannot be substantiated. Disproves an idea about the perceptible.
3. Contradiction (ἡ ἀντιμαρτύρησις): Counter-evidence. The presentation of evidence that directly opposes or refutes a given claim or hypothesis, playing a key role in dialectical and critical discourse to test and challenge assertions. Disproves an idea about the imperceptible.
4. Non-contradiction (ἡ μὴ ἀντιμαρτύρησις): Lack of counter-evidence. The situation where no evidence exists that contradicts a claim, often leading to its tacit acceptance or the lack of opposition in argumentative processes.
5. Error (τὸ διημαρτημένον): The error or misalignment of terms. Always comes from the intrusion of opinion when a fact awaits [1] confirmation or [4] the absence of contradiction and then is [2] not confirmed or [3] contradicted.

Great job guys in dealing with this difficult content.

When I was a teen, living with my grandparents at that point , they were both diagnosed and died from cancer within three years. In each case, it was clear that it would have been better for both of them to have passed a few months before they did. Holding out as long as possible when death is very near anyway may not be the best choice.

Epicurus' final letter, unmixed wine, and bath with hot (thermos) water, are suggestive.

Some further notes on Book 28

Αἱ Πλάναι: “wanderings, errors”

1. We can use common words, but it is important to recognize that those words can contain errors.
2. To avoid retaining errors in the use of common words, we must perceive each object fully and we must align the basic and original meaning of a word to that fully perceived object. To keep from making mistakes with common words, we should really see things clearly and make sure the word's true meaning matches what we sense.
3. Errors arise when our ideas are misaligned with our sensations (i.e., our preconceptions, perceptions, and receptions). Mistakes happen when what we think does not fit with what we sense.
4. As much as possible, we should identify errors in the use of words by identifying the harmful behaviors that come from the error. We should try to spot mistakes in how words are used by looking at the harmful actions they lead to.

Data that is empirical (ἐπιβλητικός) is derived from impressions (φαντασίαι) that we perceive clearly through the focus (ἐπιβολαὶ) of our faculties (κριτήρια). These faculties are the [1] sense-organs (αἰσθητήρια) which we use to focus on something clear (τι ἐναργὲς), and the [2] intellect (διάνοια), which we use to focus on the clear thought of the subject (τὴν ἐναργῆ τοῦ πράγματος ἐπίνοιαν).

I really enjoyed your introduction Cassius!

Joshua, you provided many great points throughout, but I particularly enjoyed "Epicurus did not say it would be sweet to be roasted alive" (21:30). Correct and well said!

This was a helpful discussion everybody -- Thank you!

Do you suppose it would be too idiosyncratic to preserve that spelling?

Quote from Bryan

I am struggling with #5.

Quote from Don

Sedley has περ̣[ίληψ]ιμ where you have μερίληψιν (Sedley pi π.., your mu μ..).

Thank you very much Don! That goes far to explain my struggle! Thank you! I have fully re-checked my transcription and found two additional errors.

LSJ gives us "comprehension" and "inclusion" for περίληψις, but I feel that "comprehension" is closer to the meaning of κατάληψις.  That would give us this tentative list:

1. ἡ ἀντίληψις (hē antílēpsis): Opposition, "Con-ception"
2. ἡ διάληψις (hē diálēpsis): Interruption, Distinction, Dialogue
3. ἡ κατάληψις (hē katálēpsis): Comprehension, Capture, "Perception"
4. ἡ λῆψις (hē lēpsis): Taking, Seizure, Reception
5. ἡ περίληψις (hē perílēpsis): Summary, Overview, Encirclement
6. ἡ πρόληψις (hē prólēpsis): Preconception, Anticipation, Stereotype
7. ἡ ὑπόληψις (hē hypólēpsis): Assumption, Hypothesis, Underestimation

As you say, the section is shredded, Sedley does not translate any of it -- I agree that a full and coherent statement cannot be gleaned from what remains. The topic seems to be that errors in opinions manifest practical consequences.

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

Don, what are your thoughts on "v final, followed by a labial, without exception becomes μ; followed by a guttural, in about 30% of cases becomes γ" (Sedley)

Epicurus, On Nature 28.10.1a (Sedley reconstruction) "πραγματικῶν θεωρημάτων ἐνδίξει καὶ τὴν μερίληψιν... τῆς δόξης... περὶ ταύτης τε τῆς εἰς τοῦτο ἐμβαλλούσης ὑπολήψεως. ὄντων δ' οὖν τοιούτων οἶον... τούτων κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν πραττόντων... τῆς ἐπαγωγῆς γιγνέσθω τῆς πραγματικῆς..."

Looking at that quote, which is very difficult, I wanted to revisit ἡ λῆψις "reception,"

A concave mirror (latuscula) reflects an image with the true right and left, because the image is reflected twice (elisa bis), or because it is given a twist by the mirror.

"Mirrors that have small sides that are curved in the same degree as our sides send back images, right to our right and unreversed. Either since the image is carried across from mirror to mirror, and then flies to us having been twice reflected, or since the image is turned round when it approaches as the curved shape of the mirror turns it towards us" (Melville, DRN 4.311)

"All mirrors with bent sides, which have a shape curved like our own torso, send back to us, for that very reason, an image with our right side on the right, either because the image is transferred from one part of the mirror to another and then, after being reflected twice flies back to us, or because the image, as it gets to the mirror, is reversed -- the curving shape of the surface leads it to spin about towards us." (Johnston)

From Bailey’s commentary, page 1219: “Robin suggests that with the metal mirrors of antiquity the curved effect may have been produced by a number of small flat mirrors placed together at an obtuse angle. This would account for the diminutive, the plural, and the genitive speculorum, but… there is no evidence for the fact and there would be no difficulty in the bending of a metal mirror. Smith takes latuscula to refer to the ‘little sides’ of a jointed mirror.”

Pictured below in a non-reversing mirror is Hammon ("Amen Ra"), who’s warm-at-night, cool-by-day “Water of the Sun” spring in Cyrenaica (Libya), Lucretius talks about in DRN 6.848.

Don, I fully agree with your points. "Happiness" is not incorrect, but well-being is better.

Great comments, thank you! This is some advice from Epicurus on happiness. This website itself is an example of his advice in practice.

"One must always make these arguments for the sake of beneficial outcomes and for those cultivating well-being."

(Epicurus, On Nature 28.13.6) "αἰεὶ δὲ τῶν εὐπαγῶν ἕνεκα πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν καὶ τῶν κατασκευαζομένων τοὺς λόγους ποιητέον"

"We ought always to aim our discussions at the benefit of those who are sturdy disciples in the pursuit of happiness" (Sedley)

We also have:

(Herodotus Histories 1.30.2) Croesus found the opportunity to say, “My Athenian guest, we have heard a lot about you because of your wisdom and of your wanderings, how as one who loves learning you have traveled much of the world for the sake of seeing it, so now I desire to ask you who is the most fortunate man you have seen.” [3] Croesus asked this question believing that he was the most fortunate of men, but Solon, offering no flattery but keeping to the truth, said, “O King, it is Tellus the Athenian.” [4] Croesus was amazed at what he had said and replied sharply, “In what way do you judge Tellus to be the most fortunate?” Solon said, “Tellus was from a prosperous city, and his children were good and noble. He saw children born to them all, and all of these survived. His life was prosperous by our standards, and his death was most glorious: [5] when the Athenians were fighting their neighbors in Eleusis, he came to help, routed the enemy, and died very finely. The Athenians buried him at public expense on the spot where he fell and gave him much honor.