Posts by Bryan

Quote from Martin

I guess it is that counter-interintuitive loss which is disturbing with the theories of relativity. I felt this disturbance, too.

Thank you Martin, yes that gets to the heart of my objection.

Allow me to press a little farther: I wonder if the calculations for relativity fit together because they are self-referential and constructed with their own set of rules.

For example: it is my understanding that the speed of light has not been measured -- even if we grant that round-trips have been calculated -- the idea that light moves at a consistent speed is only a convention, is this correct?

Yet the assumption of this constancy of the speed of light is at the basis of his subsequent propositions.

Quote from Martin

Epicureans need to accept that the void can be filled with force fields.

Hello Martin,

Thank you for responding. Filling the void is easy to accept, but it is not easy to accept that the void is affected in any way, which (as far as I understand it) is ultimately part of his argument.

Can we interpret Einstein in way that leaves the void untouched and unaffected, but only the host of forces/matter?

Thank you for the conversation!

It seems to me that the data contained in sight is pre-rational and automatic whether (1) we are purposefully focusing our eyes on something, (2) we just happen to see that thing, or (3) that thing grabs our attention.

If we choose to look at a dog, the data we see about the dog will still be pre-rational upon reception. We will then immediately (but nevertheless subsequently) start thinking about this data.

Similarly our anticipations are honest witnesses that report directly the data contained in the perpetuated disturbances that strike and stimulate the mind. Just like sight, anticipations/stereotypes are pre-rational and automatic whether (1) we focus on them, (2) we observe them as they come and go, or (3) they grab our attention.

Examples:

(1) We choose to think of a dog, the general stereotype (our anticipation) of a dog automatically strikes our mind -- and from this pre-rational basis -- we can then immediately begin to manipulate the idea/image of a dog.

(2) We let the images come and go without thought or analysis -- most often when we are very relaxed or sleeping.

(3) We see a dog-like thing, the general stereotype (our anticipation) of a dog automatically strikes our mind -- we can then immediately (but nevertheless subsequently) begin to think "this is a dog," "this is a dog-like animal," or "this is actually just a statue of a dog."

(excuse my slight swerve from the topic)

This is fun:

Quote from Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 1916, Translated: Robert W. Lawson

The purpose of mechanics is to describe how bodies change their position in space with "time." I should load my conscience with grave sins against the sacred spirit of lucidity were I to formulate the aims of mechanics in this way, without serious reflection and detailed explanations. Let us proceed to disclose these sins.

It is not clear what is to be understood here by "position" and "space." I stand at the

window of a railway carriage which is travelling uniformly, and drop a stone on the

embankment, without throwing it. Then, disregarding the influence of the air resistance, I see the stone descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes the misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. I now ask: Do the "positions" traversed by the stone lie "in reality" on a straight line or on a parabola?

Moreover, what is meant here by motion "in space" ? From the considerations of the

previous section the answer is self-evident. In the first place we entirely shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by "motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference."

The positions relative to the body of reference (railway carriage or embankment) have

already been defined in detail in the preceding section. If instead of " body of reference" we insert "system of co-ordinates," which is a useful idea for mathematical description, we are in a position to say : The stone traverses a straight line relative to a system of coordinates rigidly attached to the carriage, but relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached to the ground (embankment) it describes a parabola. With the aid of this example it is clearly seen that there is no such thing as an independently existing trajectory, but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference.

Display More

When it is put so simply, it is easy to simply disagree with it.

Ultimately, Einstein throws away the void, and his "vacuum" is affected by gravity.

Thanks for sharing!

Yes (expanding on what I said in KD24) instead of using the modern analogy of ‘focusing’ the mind (as though the mind were something like a camera), Epicureans used the analogy of ‘throwing’ or ‘casting’ the mind (as though the mind were something like a net). The paraphrases animī iniectus ("throwing the mind") and ἡ επιβολή τῆς διανοίας ("casting the mind upon") therefore are equivalent to our modern use of ‘attention' or 'focus' in the broad sense. Everything from trying to hear a particular sound out of many to focusing on our automatic mental images/stereotypes.

As Lucretius says, often things in the room with us are totally out of our thoughts, so much so they may as well be miles away—until we focus on them. He says the same of our mental images. Many people are very busy and ignore all but the most pressing impressions that cannot be ignored for life to continue (stereotypes of dangerous things, for example).

There is also the idea (cynically promoted by those who prefer that they -- not you -- are in control of your thoughts) that if a stereotype is wrong even once it is invalid. But abandoning this natural mechanism would make us defenseless in body and enfeebled in the mind. In reality nobody can actually live for very long without using them.

If some people tell you to stop relying on your senses as the basis of your thinking, you must stop trusting those people.

Epibolai really just means “focus.” We understand the eyes can focus on a specific range within the sea of information around us, whereas the ears can focus on a different range within this sea of information, and so for the rest of the senses.

As we know, there is a lot more data out there. From radio waves to radiation, there are many perpetuated disturbances (waves/eidola) all around us that carry information that our external senses do not pick up.

Epicurus understood the internal sense of the mind also focuses on a range of this information, which produces mental images (prolepseis). If we have a thought that is not based on images – it is just "a label on an empty box" (hypolepsis). So, we are talking about a “mental picture.”

Just as when we increase our views of the formerly distant tower, we come to see it’s true nature – as we increase our views of these mental pictures, while guided by the laws of nature, we are more acutely able to focus on and more accurately able see what exists within the universe.

The anticipations are these mental pictures, and mental focus (ἡ ἐπιβολή τῆς διανοίας) is our attention to them.

Quote from Pacatus

...the distinction by the Pyrrhonians between “criteria for truth” (which they found suspect – at least with regard to certain knowledge about “nonevident matters”) and “criteria for agency.” That latter may be uncertain, but can be the best evidence we have to make choices and act upon. It strikes me that, based on Dr. Glidden’s analysis, the prolepseis might fall into that second category.

Yes, it is interesting that Dr. Glidden is keeping the anticipations distinct from the visual focus of the mind (αἱ φανταστικαί Ἐπιβολαί τῆς διανοίας), and not accepting the anticipations as a criteria of truth. I have preferred to coalesce them.

He takes Diogenes as being sloppy here "[10.31] They reject dialectic as superfluous; holding that in their inquiries the physicists should be content to employ the ordinary terms for things. Now in The Canon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and anticipations and our feelings are the standards of truth ; the Epicureans generally make the visual focus of the mind to be also standards."

He prefers to stick to Epicurus "[KD24] If you reject even one sensation and you will not separate (1) a theory about what is still pending, versus (2) what is actually present according to the senses, feelings, and the visual focus of the mind: then you will disturb the remaining senses with empty thought – as you will be rejecting the whole basis of judgment."

Some people point to the non-sequiturs and repetitions in DRN as evidence of it not being fully edited (Let us forget Jerome’s silly statement regarding Cicero’s editing). The repetitions are certainly present, but they are short and cover important points. Happily, more often when there seems to be some lines missing, the text picks up on the same topic. We do not know the state of the manuscript the Carolingians copied from, and the bottom/tops of some of the pages may have been missing or illegible.

Some say that it is unfinished because there is no full section on the gods. It is true that Lucretius does promise to talk at length about the gods (tibi posterius largo sermone probabo – I will show to you later in a large discourse, 5.155), but does not do so.

Some even argue that is is unfinished because it ends on the topic of mass death. However, the beginning of the book is about birth and the end is about death, which seems appropriate to me. The books are all about the same length, with the later books being a bit longer.

The ancient DRN probably did not have the gaps we have. Munro says “not that the great mass of his poem is not in a sound and satisfactory state… but owing to the way in which it has been handed down, his text has suffered in some portions irreparable loss.”

PHerc. 365 may be DRN book 2. But there is too little there to even be certain if it is DRN or not. So the earliest manuscript we have is the one from Dungal of Bobbio when he was in Saint-Denis working in a Carolingian scriptorium between 811 and 825.

There are very many good things about this book. To highlight a few:

Excellent introduction – lots of vocabulary treasures from our school are given in Greek and clearly explained – and you make those bright terms shine even brighter by contrasting them with darkness, as אפיקורוס (“epikorós” meaning “heretic”) is also presented and explained.

Adding art throughout the text is an excellent choice. Other traditions focus so much on words and logic, they forget to use their eyes as a basis of their thinking. Epicureans do not make this mistake. I am slowly producing an edition of Lucretius that has no text and is only pictures.

The double columns on each page are a very appealing formatting choice. The Herculaneum papyri shows how slender the columns were in ancient texts (often only 15 to 20 letters long), so double columns on each page is a format we can embrace with ancient precedent.

The section headings are masterful. Breaking up the original works into labeled sections seems necessary and your work here is excellent. This adds a lot of coherency and accessibility. Coupled with the columns, this book is not a wall of text, but clearly labeled, easily digestible and inviting sections.

If you reject even one sensation and you will not separate (1) a theory about what is still pending, versus (2) what is actually present according to the senses, feelings, and the whole visual focus of the mind: then you will disturb the remaining senses with empty thought – as you will be rejecting the whole basis of judgment.

Also, if you accept (1) all that which is still pending in theoretical concepts, along with (2) that which is not still pending full confirmation: you will not avoid error – since you will have retained all doubt regarding all judgment of what is true or not true.

Interestingly there is some academic fussing over the word in question here. The usual text is (De Finibus 2.15) si id non sit in voluptate, negat se intellegere, nisi forte illud quod multitudinis rumore laudetur.

But it looks like we also have "minore" (R) and "timore" (NV) as options.

nisi forte illud quod multitudinis minore laudetur: Unless, perhaps, that which is commended by a smaller gathering (ie, the garden?).

nisi forte illud quod multitudinis timore laudetur: Unless, perhaps, that which is commended out of fear from the multitude. (ie, Epicurus is trying to avoid legal issues?).

Hello! Thank you for joining and thank you for that story -- it almost makes me want to start leaving copies of Lucretius in public places! It is exciting to have someone with such credentials here!

Quote from Cassius

You have a couple of versions of each sentence joined with a sort of "nodictionaries.com" word by word definition?

It is comparable to "nodictionaries.com" but I think their formatting is superior. I intended to have the vocabulary at an intermediate level, but that formatting for "nodictionaries.com" allows for full flexibility to toggle between levels. This makes it more alive, which I really appreciate.

Quote from Don

And that vocab list was generated automatically by ChatGPT?

Yes it was and (I think even more helpfully) it put the text into sections (I attached the prompt, but it is nothing special). Although, I did make the large breaks (eg, breaking [44] into [44a] and [44b]) and added the translation comparisons. I'll be going through it in 2024 and add etymological notes and another translation. It's much better than a crossword puzzle.

"I want death to find me planting my cabbages, but careless of death, and still more careless of my unfinished garden.” —Montaigne

The results are mixed, and the robot translations are bad, but just producing this "backbone" would have previously taken a lot of time yet this only took a few hours. With this as a starting point, producing another translation (not that another one is needed) is made fun and easy --- as most of the pieces are put right in front of you.

Just bought it -- should be here in two days, thanks Nate!

I love that you are lecturing Cicero as though he is sitting next to you.

Their recommendation for alpha to be pronounced as the "a" in "bad" is surprising. I am not sure I have even seen that suggested before. I suppose they did that to distinguish it from their recommendation of omicron to be pronounced as "o" in "got" (which is reasonable) but also is very close to the more normal range of recommendations for the pronunciation of alpha.

As they say this is for "degrees in ancient history, archaeology or classical archaeology where a high level of language expertise is not required" I know they are in the UK, so the "a" in bad is not as far off as it is in the US, so even if we pronounce "bad" like the king does, the recommendation still seems bad. A little IPA would have gone a long way.

They also say "αι combines the sounds of alpha and iota, producing a diphthong similar to the English ‘eye’." I agree with this, but I think it contradicts their recommendation for alpha to be pronounced as the "a" in "bad."

If we take the "a" in "bad" and slide it with an iota (either as "beat" or "bit") - we do not get "eye" but "a-ei" in "Maggie." However if alpha is pronounced as Smyth recommends (Spanish "casa" or "father") the slide of the diphthong correctly produces "aye."

I agree. Let me throw these into the mix.

Quote from Don

Is that a metaphor for using elephant-mounted troops in warfare?

Yes I agree that war elephants are the main thing -- and probably the only thing -- that Lucretius is referring to. But the Dio Chrysostrom quote had me thinking for the first time perhaps there could be a bit more to it. We know that frozen Mammoth tusk huts are some of the oldest architecture discovered... Maybe there was a time in India when Elephants were as common as buffalo were in the Great Plains 150 years ago, and their bones were really so common that they became part of the architecture for some tribes for awhile.

This is all wild speculation. The climate in India would not preserve this, so the signs from which we can infer are few.