Posts by Bryan

  • Eudoxus of Cnidus was a large camel

    Quote from Pacatus

    Using the metaphor of a two-humped bactrian camel?

    I had not even thought of that! Given we are talking about "two similar causes" this could be a possibility.


    This text has some great content, and is simpler than On the Senses:

    "People see gods as responsible for all evils, creators of ongoing and future misfortunes throughout endless time, including what comes after death. If these elements weren't connected, people wouldn't fear the gods more than tyrants. They dread death as if, after life, they will be tortured in eternal retribution by the gods, leading to a fear of the gods as the doers of evil in the underworld, and death as leading to fiery torment. Just as people feared Phalaris, thinking he would roast them in the bull, and [they also feared] the bull itself, as the place of roasting -- in the same way, hearing any related word caused equal fear for both, and not less for either, even towards the source of the sound. Similarly, with the gods and death, we don't consider both a double evil, neither the direct nor the indirect threat. If we avoid extreme misery and mental harm by facing pain with a rational mind, we can overcome the worst; for with understanding, we shouldn't see death as a double or untamed evil. (P.Herc. 26, col. 19)"

  • Eudoxus of Cnidus was a large camel

    Maybe even the largest. Philodemus' On the Stable Conduct of the Gods - Book I (P.Herc. 26) mentions Eudoxus of Cnidus who he says wrote On Solar Eclipses (Περὶ Ἀφανισμῶν Ἡλιακῶν).

    Then he says "...since, of his contradictory arguments, Diogenes said that Eudoxus (Εὔδοξον) was the largest (μέγιστον) camel (κάμηλον)." (col. 21) "ἐπειδὴ τῶν ἀντιλογικῶν δ' Εὔδοξο[ν ὁ Διο]γένης κάμηλ[ο]ν μέγι[στο]ν ἔλεγεν"

    The only hint I have is that he quotes Eudoxus, who said "it is impossible to decide, if one hesitates (διστάσης) between two similar causes, whether this one or that is more responsible."

    Do we have any ideas what this means? I suppose it could be a reference to being stubborn? This is another text I do not have in English (but there must be one).

  • The Description of Epicurean Philosophy On Wikipedia

    I think the only aspect where there was some confusion was in the "list making" or "numbering." Epicurus was casual about "all the senses," others do not like this and wish to number them.

    Epicurus to Herodotus [38b] (Hicks) Next, we must by all means stick to our sensations, that is, simply to the present impressions whether of the mind or of any criterion whatever, and similarly to our actual feelings, in order that we may have the means of determining that which needs confirmation and that which is obscure.

  • VS66 - Problems With Bailey's Vatican 66

    Regarding "meditation"(Bailey), "pleasant recollection" (Anderson), "thoughtful concern" (Cook) vs. "taking care of them" (Elli)...

    I think everybody is correct! When alive we "care for / look after / attend to" those around us, and when they are gone we "care for / look after / attend to" our pleasant memories of them.

  • Pros and Cons Of Considering Epicurean Philosophy To Be A "Religion"

    Quote from Cassius

    It's a real challenge to think about where this goes in terms of how to convey the difference in meaning of words.

    In a general sense, this was also a struggle at the time. Epicurus says, talking to Metrodorus (David Sedley translation, On Nature Part 28):

    (Fragment 6, Column 1) "For it was so necessary to point out that we, by observing that those who speak the same language as us, in contrast to our own use of words, were assigning some unsuspected false connotation in addition to those meanings…

    (fr. 13, col. 2) ...and you also used in those days to assign [names] without adapting certain conventional usages, in order that you should not make plain the principle that by assigning any name one expresses a particular opinion, and see and reflect upon the indiscriminate treatment of words and objects. (fr. 13, col. 3) And I too used to notice that you did not establish a difference between two sets of words and then say that you chose one set because it was better than choosing the other...

    (fr. 13, col. 5 sup.) Perhaps , though, you might say that it is inappropriate to lengthen the discussion by citing these cases. Quite so, Metrodorus. For I do not doubt that you could cite many cases, from your own past observations, of certain people taking words in various ridiculous senses, and indeed in every sense in preference to their actual linguistic meanings, whereas our own usage does not flout linguistic convention, nor do we alter names with regard to the objects of perception.

    (fr. 13, col. 5 inf.) ... not because] others transfer words from the class of that which is knowable to denote that which is unknowable, but because of their own errors, which we point out in our work On Ambiguity."

  • Zeno of Sidon - Main Biography

    Quote from Pacatus

    Zeno was Philodemus' teacher.

    Yes, we have in Signs (P. Herc. 1065) Philodemus says "Zeno, in his discussions with us, used to set forth the arguments of our opponents, and he made use of the answers that have been given."

    Interestingly Philodemus does concede familiarity of Zeno to a certain fellow-Epicurean named Bromius. Philodemus starts the second section of Signs saying "Bromius, however, used to say that Zeno expounded the beliefs of our opponents and the answers to them in the following way..."

  • Lucretius AI

    When I have tried asking AI about Lucretius and ask for references it typically says it cannot access the Latin text and then I argue with it about copyright. When it does give a reference it is usually incorrect. Success only occurred once or twice and then I gave up. However, it is proving useful as a dictionary.

  • The dangers of dialectical logic

    Yes, and it's not some random article - but this is THE section on death in the Oxford handbook.

    "Recent debate among philosophers began with the realization that whether death is bad for people depends on 'assumptions about good and evil.' ...Only if one gives up Epicurus's principle that good and bad require sentience and adopts an alternative could one rightly think that death is bad for people. The alternative principle is that something may have value for someone, even if it has and can have no effects on the person in question" (pg 125)

    "If death can have value in these ways, can be bad or good in relation to continued life, then it might appear that Epicurus was mistaken in believing that because the dead lack sentience death can have no value for people... People with this abstract idea of value attach good and bad for people to facts, which they regard as positive or negative... This abstract conception of value is a tool in the range of judgments people make, and has its place in making important judgments." (pg 129)

  • Apion An Epicurean(?)

    I agree with Cassius that it would not be fruitful to peruse who is lying - Apion or Josephus. There are may instances of Josephus were he is proud of his deceit, which is for him a virtue when used as in instrument in his success.

    Josephus problem - Wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org
    Quote from Eggplant Wizard

    I would be avoid taking at face value any claims of Jewish ritual cannibalism or blood-drinking or inferring that the metzitzah b’peh is a vestige of this.

    Even if we believe Josephus (who denies that Greeks were ever kept as prisoners in the temple and eaten), Josephus does admit to other instances of Jewish cannibalism, including eating children (although not ritualistically, but out of hunger) which horrified the Romans. For example:

    Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Whiston chapter 3, Whiston section 4

    "There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary... ....snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant!... ...Come on; be thou my food." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them, and withal uncovered what was left of her son..."

    The idea that Apion was Epicurean is very appealing, but it seems there is no direct evidence.