Posts by Bryan

Yes, I agree, atoms are uncuttable. What is incorrectly called an 'atom' by those currently allowed to get credentials in physics is really a conglomerate.

Indifference is a "chicken and egg" situation. Elite educators consider themselves curators of the Overton window.

The many and frequent critiques of Epicurus brought forward by academics (for example in Oxford's 800 page Handbook, published 2020) do not show scholastic indifference but formal opposition. They know who Epicurus is, but he is heretical to their system. They ignore producing translations and only produce critiques, and the critiques they put forward against Epicurus are now being repeated by the public.

There has been a demonstrable effort to bury the Epicureanism scholarship that had started before the world wars. Very little has been done by them since 1950's even though pulic interest has been organically increasing.

Looking for any criticism on this rough start, which I think may be the first attempt to fully render these lines into English.

Quote from Cyrano

But the moneyed rulers of society have very good reason for wanting us to revere Plato and Socrates and to be ignorant of Democritus and Epicurus.

Thank you Sir! This is true. I am about to share a work of Polystratus (a student of Epicurus) which, as far as I know, has not before been fully translated into English -- but modern education institutions have a lot of time and money --- can they not produce an English translation of Polystratus for the public? It is more than suspicious!

This argument has been building. Stephen Rosenbaum, who got the opportunity to write THE article about death in the recent oxford book, gives a long list of "modern philosophers" who argue that Epicurus did not understand that "value for a person does not depend on sentience or existence" or "facts thus might be good or bad even for those who are dead and no longer exist" I feel these statements are too absurd to need a counterargument..... but the absurdists are:

Kaufman's "Death and Deprivation" article,

Feinberg's "Moral Limits of the Criminal Law" article,

Feldman's "Confrontations,"

Rosenbaum's "The Harm of Killing,"

Silverstein's "The Evil of Death"

ALL just on footnotes of pgs. 124-125 on the oxford general article on this topic !

Anybody can look and see if I am correct or not.

They are trying to take our ladder away

Let me give another Polystratus quote "Thus, either all these things, which each person clearly perceives and works upon, must be said to be false -- or, not wanting to shamelessly dispute and fight against the obvious, we should not regard the ‘noble’ and the ‘shameful’ as falsely believed just because they are not the same for everyone -- in contrast to stone or gold or anything else of that kind."

ὥστε ἢ καὶ ταῦτα πάντα φατέον ψευδῆ ει αι, ἃ περιφανῶς ἕκαστος θεωρεῖ ὃ ἐργάζεται, ἤ, μὴ βουλόμενον ἀναισχυντεῖν καὶ μάχεσθαι τοῖς φανεροῖς, οὐδὲ τὰ καλὰ καὶ τὰ αἰσχρὰ ἀρτέον ὡς ψευδῶς νομιζόμενα, ὅτι οὐ πᾶσι ταὐτά ἐστιν ὥσπερ λίθος ἢ χρυ[σο]ς ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν τοιούτων (P.Herc. 336 col. 16 sup.)

Your writing is very engaging! If I were unfamiliar with Democritus, this would certainly spark my interest in him. Thank you for sharing! (The stamp is also a nice addition)

Great point about Pietas, Joshua!

Following Nate's post on Polystratus, I was reading this similar quote from him which seems to relate in a general way to this discussion today:

"Certain remedies are beneficial to the one who suffers from one disease, others to the one who suffers from another illness; and such remedies benefit the patient in the throes of a violent fever, others to the one whose temperature is too low, and… It is the same for what concerns actions: there too, it is not profitable for all to perform the same acts; but some acts are beneficial for some and others for others. And it is not true that all opinions are false, but they depend on the differences that exist both in individual natures and in circumstances." (Polystratus, de irrationali contemptu)

Whichever etymology we go with: (1) relego (“choose, gather”) or (2) religō ("bind, moor") we have nothing inherently objectionable. Having chosen Epicurean philosophy, I have gathered my focus toward it and moored myself in the philosophy. It this sense it is no trouble for me to say that my "my religion is Epicureanism." But as you know, that wording is more poetic than exact (I re-read your "On '-Isms' and Pleasure Wisdom" article last night, very good!)

I do agree that it does not benefit us to throw away terms because they are misused by others. If we throw out 'god' because others have used the term incorrectly, we have let them win the argument. I think Epicurus would agree that we should not throw out the word 'religion' -- but clearly it comes with its own baggage.

We do have Religio as a bad word in Lucretius, his "oppréssa grávī sub rêligiône" (pressed down underneath heavy religion), "sǽpius ílla Rēlígiō péperit scelerôsá ^atqu^e ímpia fácta" (more often Religion produces wicked and ungodly acts), etc.

Nevertheless, we understand, as Lucretius often stated, that the supernatural claims are the problem of 'religion,' not our human desire to gather a tradition and stick to it.

I found this article from Cambridge (David Patterson) that says that Democritus also mentioned the Jewish practice of ritualistic cannibalism. I have not seen this before in Democritus, but if he did, then makes Apion's connection to Epicureanism even stronger. I think Mr. Patterson is in error, and it is a different Democritus that is mentioned in the Suda.

Of course some aspects of ritualistic blood-drinking are still practiced openly, for example in the ritual of Metzitzah B'peh (not to be confused with simple Brit Milah). https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/healt…/safe-bris.page

Great stuff Don! I agree this word appears to have been important for Epicurus, but I cannot add much to what you have said.

"The word ataraxy implies a metaphor derived from the sea and the weather. One of the original synonyms is “calm,” galenismos, of which the proper application is to the sea, tranquillitas in Latin." (DeWitt, pg 225)

For Galenismos:

ὁ γαληνισμός ‘tranquility’ ‘peace’ or ‘calming effect.'

'Pacification' Oxford Handbook (pg 442)

From ἡ γαλήνη  ‘stillness of the sea’ ‘absence of wind’ ‘calm,’ ‘calmness of the mind’ ‘serenity’

The famous doctor Galen, born about 450 years after Epicurus, also got his name from this word.

"...and as for all who are not fully among those on the way to being perfected, some of them can from this summary obtain a hasty view of the most important matters without oral instruction so as to secure peace of mind." (83b, Bailey)

"...while those, on the other hand, who are not altogether entitled to rank as mature students can in silent fashion and as quick as thought run over the doctrines most important for their peace of mind." (Hicks)

"...will be able in their minds to run over the main of the essential notions, and to derive assistance from them for the tranquility and happiness of life." (Yonge)

A bit more about Engalenizein:

"I who urge upon others the constant occupation in the investigation of nature, and find my own peace chiefly in a life so occupied, have composed for you another epitome on these lines, summing up the first principles of the whole doctrine." (37a, Bailey)

"I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this, have prepared for you just such an epitome and manual of the doctrines as a whole." (Hicks)

"I recommend them, while still pursuing without intermission the study of nature, which contributes more than anything else to the tranquility and happiness of life, to make a concise statement, or summary of their opinions." (Yonge)

The starting text "est itaque ut" is uncertain, another possible rendering of the text is:

“Excetra ut serpens, hominis quae tacta salivis

disperit ac sese mandendo conficit ipsa.” (DRN 4.638)

excetra = viper (it could be from ἔχιδνᾰ, traditionally held as a poisonous snake, viper, but perhaps also a constrictor) (Wiktionary)

So instead of the usual "there is a certain snake" we could have "there is the Excetra Snake" or "there is the Echidna Viper"

This idea is from Bailey's commentary, page 1258, where he says "most likely the corruption conceals the name of some snake"

We have in Lucretius:

“Est itaque ut serpens, hominis quae tacta salivis

disperit ac sese mandendo conficit ipsa.” (DRN 4.638)

"As a certain snake there is which, touched by spittle of a man, will waste and end itself by gnawing up its coil (Leonard)"

"There is, for instance, a snake which dies on contact with human spit - it commits suicide by eating its own body (Johnston)"

We also have Pliny saying:

“However, all men contain a poison available as a protection against snakes: people say that snakes flee from contact with saliva as from the touch of boiling water, and that if it gets inside their throats they actually die; and that this is especially the case with the saliva of a person fasting.” (Pliny, Natural History, Book 7.2.15)

And an article of a newspaper from 1875:

Human Saliva Kills Snakes, 1875

Clipping found in The Osage County Chronicle published in Burlingame, Kansas on 1875-11-05. Human Saliva Kills Snakes, 1875

www.newspapers.com

That section from Epicurus.net has some very speculative content! To quote "There is some evidence that Jesus meanwhile fled to Syria and then eastwards out of the Roman Empire, where he continued his teaching and faith-healing for many decades in Iran and Kashmir. A possible tomb of Jesus is located in Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir."

My goodness!

Quote from Don

Do we know how far back Apiqoros goes in Hebrew? To the time of the Maccabees?

Best I can tell, the word has been around since Epicurus. Yet, it looks like we first have the term attested in text just a generation after the invasion of the Maccabees. The word is used in "the early Tannaitic sources (first century before Hillel)" where it is used "to refer to one who espouses Epicurean philosophy."

There is a tradition of denying that the term comes from Epicurus, while nevertheless understanding that is really does come from him. Happily the handbook even mentions this open deception "It is also worth bearing in mind that the Talmudic etymology of the term may itself be a self-consciously homiletic effort rather than a serious philological one" (pg 567). Meaning the argument that it is unrelated is not even believed by those who make the argument.

Also, the argument that the word means "heretic" in a general sense may also be disingenuous -- at least originally it specifically means "Epicurean."

(Avot 2.14) "know what to respond to an Epikoros"

(Sanhedrin 10.1) "These are they who have no place in the world to come: He who says there is no resurrection of the dead, that there is no Torah from Heaven, an Epikoros"

The advice to, (if legally possible) publicly kill Epicureans (but if not legally possible) to kill them by deception is hardly a unique treatment for those who disagree -- although the bit about leaving us to die in wells by "temporarily borrowing" our ladder (if the opportunity should arise) is a unique little twist!

Quote from Cassius

Just remember that the Hebrew word for 'heretic' is 'אפיקורוס' or 'Epikoros'.

I was reading The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism (2020) and came to page 549, where it says “The Term Epicurus, or Apiqoros as it is more often pronounced, is alive and well in contemporary Jewish culture.”

It goes on to state “Epicurus is a unique figure in Judaism – a Greek philosopher whose name has become a legal category. An Apiqoros cannot give testimony in court (Mishnah Torah 11.11), one may not return a lost object to Apiqorsim (11.3), one is even obligated to kill them” (page 551)

Here is the quote form the Torah:

(Mishneh Torah, Rotzeah uShmirat Nefesh, 4.10) It is a blessing to kill minim and Epikursim… Epikursim deny the Torah and the concept of prophecy. If there is the possibility, one should kill them with a sword in public view. If that is not possible, one should develop a plan so that one can cause their deaths. What is implied? If one sees such a person descend to a cistern, and there is a ladder in the cistern, one should take the ladder, and excuse oneself, saying: "I must hurry to take my son down from the roof. I shall return the ladder to you soon." Similarly, one should devise other analogous plans to cause the death of such people.

Different translation: "The [following are considered] Ha’Epikorsim (הָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים): those who worship idols or commit transgressions in order to provoke anger. Even if one eats non-kosher meat or wears garments of mixed fabric to provoke anger, he is considered an Epikoros (אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס). This includes those who deny the Torah and the Prophets. It is a commandment to kill them. If one has the power to kill them with a sword in public, he should do so. If not, he should employ subterfuge to cause their death. How so? If one of them falls into a pit and a ladder is inside, he should remove it and say, 'I must go and bring my son down from the roof; I will return the ladder to you,' and similarly in such matters."

When he shows the equation that “explains everything” yet nevertheless states that there are “parts of which no one on the planet understands,” I think he is playing the game Diogenes of Oinoanda mentions below:

“[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatize] natural science [as unnecessary], being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find? Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing is at no time apprehensible by sense-perception.” (Diogenes of Oinoanda, Fr. 5, trans. Smith)

“…if [the Stoics] call [thoughts] empty on the ground that, while they have a corporeal nature, it is exceedingly subtle and does not impinge on the senses, they have expressed themselves wrongly, [since it was necessary to call] them corporeal, despite their subtlety. If on the other hand they call them empty on the ground that they have no corporeal nature at all – and it is in fact this rather than the former which they mean – how can the empty be represented? What then are they?... for films which are so subtle and lack the depth of a solid constitution cannot possibly possess these faculties.” (Fr. 10)

I feel that the explanation the presenter repeats -- basically the endorsed explanation since the world wars -- simply takes pre-suppositions from other schools, which are contrary to our school, and then labors to argue that recent experiments and technological advances prove their pre-suppositions correct.

(Regarding post #13)

In minute 15 he says that the field operates while being "never touched" and "without ever touching," and says "the field is real... you can affect things far away using the field without ever touching it."

How can something be affected without contact?

In minute 20 "There are no particles in the world, the basic fundamental building blocks of our universe are these fluid-like substances that we call fields"

What is a "substance that is not made of any particles"?

In minute 22 he tells us to imagine a total empty space, and then shows us an animation of all the "fields" that operate within a total empty space, "even when the particles are taken out, the field still exists"

How can total empty space fluctuate? What is moving?

The presenter says (agreeing with Empedocles and the Talmud) that the world is made of 4 elements and in locations where he cannot find any of these four elements (but nevertheless finds movement), he accepts the conclusion that the void itself can move and be affected! We are thus presented with the idea of immaterial force fields! With the smoke of obfuscation provided by equations which he says “parts of which no one on the planet understands,” his magic show turns into a comedy act!

I appreciate his honest comments regarding the LHC’s failures to lend much support for the standard model “all of these fantastic, beautiful ideas that we’ve had, none of them are showing up at all… my impression is that most of my community is a little bit shell-shocked by by what happened, there is certainly no consensus in the community to move forward.” (minute 55)

He may have meant to say “there is no consensus in the community [where] to move forward” but what he did say was closer to the truth. They will keep asserting their beliefs and will keep looking for any evidence that could possibly be interpreted to confirm them.

True atoms are smaller than our machines have been able to see or measure, we can only detect their effects -- this does not mean there is nothing there! Empty space does not move and can not be affected in any way.

Thank you, Cyrano. I truly think this is a work of brilliance and courage. I fully agree with you. Bravo!

We must reject the absurdities of matter coming in and out of existence, an origin of the universe, or any influence on empty space.

"The overview is often needed but the details we only need occasionally" - and this is an excellent overview!

When I see such good productions as this, I think of page 1 of the 830 page Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism which says “...contemporary philosophers continue to churn out article after article of increasing sophistication defending or (mostly) attempting to refute Epicurus’s arguments about the harmlessness of death. […] I imagine many professional scholars may sometimes feel that their contributions somehow lack the immediate visceral appeal of those flashier productions of true believers touting Epicureanism as a cure for everything […] it is doubtful that many of the scholars in this volume write as believers…”

Today I came across a related quote from Hermarchus about our pre-rational sense of justice. The topic is legislation prohibiting murder:

"...some people have come to the consideration of the utility, previously perceiving it irrationally and often forgetting, but others were terrified by the magnitude of the punishments."

καὶ τοὺς μὲν εἰς ἐπιλογισμὸν τοῦ χρησίμου καταστήσαντες, ἀλόγως αὐτοῦ πρότερον αἰσθανομένους καὶ πολλάκις ἐπιλανθανομένους, τοὺς δὲ τῷ μεγέθει τῶν ἐπιτιμίων καταπλήξαντες. (Porphyry, De Abstinentia 1.8)

ἀλόγως αὐτοῦ πρότερον αἰσθανομένους = Sensing it without reason in advance, Having a pre-rational perception of it beforehand.