Posts by Bryan

Quote

However, if we interpret Lucretius’ concept of corpora as ‘discrete particles’ or ‘atoms’ instead of flows, his whole conceptual edifice of folding [plex] (simplex, duplex, complex, amplex) completely unravels. Atoms simply cannot fold.

I do believe that Nail is alone in interpreting corpora as "flows." Corpora is a common and simple word that means "bodies." It is used by Lucretius, among many other terms, to refer to the primary particles ("atoms" in the literal sense of fundamental uncuttable units).

The idea of "flow" will not be found in any dictionary entry for Corpora (link for example). There is no place in Latin literature where Corpora means anything close to "flows."

Similarly, although the -plex ending in simplex, duplex, etc. does indeed etymologically come from “-fold”, nevertheless simplex, and duplex are the standard Latin words for "single and double" -- and forcing an actual and literal "fold" into the idea -- beyond "single-fold" meaning "single" and "two-fold" meaning "double" -- is another unique interpretation of Thomas Nail.

Quote from wbernys

he apparently disliked the study of Homer, seeing it as a waste of energy

Regarding critique of form, Epicurus disapproved of the study of Homer in terms of comparative literature and analysis of poetic meter (which were very popular pastimes among the elites in his day -- elites who were not inclined to take Homer literally, but still had a lot of respect for his work from a cultural perspective).

Regarding acceptance of content, Epicurus also disapproved of Homer being so highly respected among the middle class, who were more inclined to take Homer literally, and who viewed Homer's work as an ancient source of actual information about the gods.

However, regarding critique of content, Epicurus certainly did approve of studying Homer in order to criticize his content.

According to Plutarch (Non Posse, 2, 1086F), Metrodorus himself "rebuked (λελοιδόρηκεν)" Homer "in many of his writings."

In his criticisms of Homer, Metrodorus wrote about "the poetic rabble (ἡ ποιητικὴ τύρβη)" and "the foolish sayings of Homer (τὰ Ὁμήρου μωρολογήματα)."

So Metrodorus produced multiple books about Homer, digging deep into his specific claims, and highlighting their absurdity.

Quote from TauPhi

'The History of Materialism and Criticism of its Present Importance'

This looks like good "seeing the forest through the trees" material, but we need an audio version... Looking at the whole forest is too tedious -- but it is easier to listen to the whole forest.

Quote from Eikadistes

Karneískos' fragment to Philístas

Your productivity has made it difficult to keep up lately, but that is a great problem to have. This is wonderfully done! The translation and the presentation are both spectacular.

As you know, we need to do this to all the P.Hercs. The task is large. Thank you for your help!

On a side note, I have enjoyed many items from the Emporium, but I have to say the "Happy Eikas Sweater" is one of my new favorite pieces of clothing. Staying warm is natural and necessary, therefore, we all need one of these sweaters.

Quote from Cassius

As to Lucretius, I am finding zero reference to the natural and necessary categories.

Yes, of course we have this section, 2.20, but it does not expand on the idea very much.

I will throw in a few related quotes:

"Epicurus {as reported by Colotes} acts with the purest effrontery when he claims to lay down the same first principles, but nevertheless does not say that "color is by convention" and thus the qualities sweet, bitter, etc. "
^{[Plutarch (fl. 80 CE), Against Colotes, 1111A]}

"Oh by the Gods! Through your disposition, you revealed to us that you were deserving -- not according to the conventions of civic freedom"
^{[Philodemus (fl.c. 70 BCE), Treatises, P.Herc. 1418, col. 32]}

"for one ought not to study nature according to empty axioms and conventional rules ¬ but as apparent things call out"
^{[Epicurus, Lives, 10.86c]}

"…[to such an extent produces linguistic] conventions by [your] memory through [the use of] a term – oh, by gods! – that you see these [conventions] as an established thing… [with you] proceeding according to [your] judgements as [practical] situations arise in various ways: anyone could disturb [those practical situations] – for they are always empty…"
^{[Epicurus, On Nature, Book 10, P.Herc. 1413/1416 fragment 5]}

"…and You happened to be applying [your choice of words] at that time without the association of certain conventions [which have been developed] ¬ [thus] you would not have made clear: the [fact that] judging every expression applies to a certain [judgment* – but you were] still seeing [the public] indiscrimination of words vs. [practical] situations, [and] You were fully conceiving [this issue]" * i.e., most words naturally apply to an originally specific concept.
^{[Epicurus, On Nature, Book 28, P.Herc. 1417, fr. 13 (col. 2 inf.)
| P.Herc. 1479, fr. 13 (col. 3 sup.)]}

"…indeed, to integrate [common terms into technical vocabulary] to a larger [extent] with what we ourselves want ¬ but if at that time, thinking the same thing, we were speaking according to the interpretation [then] set-forth: in which [we said] that every human Error exists having no different shape than what is produced due to the multifaceted conventions of terms upon the preapprehensions and [upon] the appearances [of objects] , and… …because of these things, We have split [them] into two… …[with the] anticipations… …every saying…"
^{[Epicurus, On Nature, Book 28, P.Herc. 1479, fr. 12 (col. 3)]}

"...He [still] laughs at this [riddle] in regards to [its] sophistry since he had not completely comprehended together in that response what also would have been adapted out of some convention of a term in this way *– so as to fall into saying that it is possible for the same person to understand and also to not understand..."
^{[Epicurus, On Nature, Book 28, P.Herc. 1417, fr. 13 (col. 9 inf.)
| P.Herc. 1479, fr. 13 (col. 10 sup. – part 1)]}

"We do not remove ourselves from the cause [of the generation of movement] – and [we do not remove ourselves from] what [movement] has been fully generated but by [even] doing one certain thing, We similarly clarify [the nature of]ourselves and [of our] composition. We do not instruct about it – indeed, We do not even rearrange many [words] in accordance with certain conventions without [taking any] mind of the terminology… …for what is removed from a cause [of movement] by necessity [is itself its own cause of movement]…
^{[Epicurus, On Nature, Book 25, P.Herc. 1191 fr. 104, 105]}

Quote from Cassius

between the Yonge and Loeb

Looks as though Loeb is correct. Older editors assumed the Latin was wrong. So they assumed a lost negating word. This was considered more plausible here because the word just before this phrase "they condemn" (contemnunt) has an apparent errant "non" (the Loeb edition does have a note about that issue).

For example, this edition (link) says at that spot (in Latin):

"Yet they seek abundance" (quaerunt tamen copiam) These statements are plainly contrary to what Cicero has just said, namely that the Epicureans feigned contempt for pleasures. Therefore Bentley’s conjectures are not to be rejected: ‘yet they do not seek’ or ‘yet they despise’. But perhaps Cicero wrote ‘yet they cling to something’. In any case, nothing certain can be established from the agreement of all the manuscripts.”

Quote from Kalosyni

Lucretius never used the word "atoms"

At every turn Lucretius is trying to translate, not transliterate, Epicurus. There are only a few exceptions (Such as homoeomeria, for which he apologizes for using only the transliteration.) To consider this translation a transformation is of course in part true, but Lucretius at every point, where we have Epicurus' words on the same topic, succeeded in producing very close translations of Epicurus' wording.

Quote from Eikadistes

H. A. J. Munro is the only author I've found who seems to consistently stick to Lucretius' neologisms

I agree it is good to follow Lucretius very closely. Otherwise it seems surprising to learn that Lucretius did not use the word "atom." For example, I use "primary-beginnings" for prīmṓrdia and "first-beginnings " for principia.... but they do both mean "atom."

Quote from Eikadistes

I made a list

This is very helpful! Thank you!

Wow, that really looks GREAT! On a side note, I love young Epicurus in a spacesuit -- and it really is a fully appropriate image. THANK YOU!!!

To get started, let me add some quotes that we are discussing.

From Philodemus:
"…having proposed that we pay attention to the writings of our own men – Epicurus reproached all the madness of those who abolish the divine from existing things – just as, in the 12^th [book]: he finds fault with Prodikos, Diagoras, Kritias, and others – saying that they are deranged and insane (παρακόπτειν καὶ μαίνεσθαι). He even likens them to those who go bacchating, commanding [them] to cause no trouble for us, and to not be irritating (ἐνοχλεῖν). Indeed, they rewrite the names of the gods – just as Antisthenes, insisting on the most general [conception of the gods], attributes the particular [conceptions] to an establishment [by human convention] – and prior to that [an establishment] through some deception."
_{^{[Philodemus (fl.c. 70 BCE), On Piety, 1.18.514 – 1.19.541]}}

Prodikos, Diagoras, and Kritias were well-known atheists. Antisthenes (fl. 406 BCE) "began the Cynic way of life." He was known for "often" saying "I would rather be insane than feel pleasure" _{[Laertius 6.3]}

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

And from Epicurus, where he does not say that the Gods are detectible/manifest -- but only that our knowledge of them is:

"Gods, indeed, exist: for our knowledge (ἡ Γνῶσις) of them is detectible (ἐναργὴς)." _[123c]

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

And it is good to remember that Epicurus does not call the ideas people develop about gods "false anticipations" -- but instead he says:

"the assertions of the many about the gods are not anticipations (prolḗpseis) but false suppositions (hypolḗpseis)." _{[D.L. 124a]}

Quote

^{Lucretius 1.122:
"...in which neither our souls nor bodies endure -- but certain images, faded in strange ways·"}

For the general cultural idea of the existence of one's image (eidōlon) separate from the decayed body as well as the transferred soul, consider the Nekyia (Νεκυΐα, "rite of the dead," i.e., Odyssey, Book 11), where Odysseus – recounting his Underworld visit to Alcinous, king of the Phaeacians – sees Heracles' image in Hades, while "Heracles himself" is with the gods:

"···I became aware of the mighty Heracles – his phantom: for he himself among the immortal gods takes his joy in the feast, and has for a wife Hebe of the beautiful ankles, daughter of great Zeus and of Hera of the golden sandals – about [his phantom] rose a clamor from the dead, as of birds flying everywhere in terror, and he like dark night, with his bow uncased and with arrow on the strong, glared about him terribly, like one about to shoot···" _{(Homer, Odyssey, 11·601)}

Consider Aristotle:
"…when something has caused motion in water or air, and such motion propagates itself to a certain point – even though the initial cause of movement is not present: in the same way, it may well be that a movement and a consequent sense-perception should reach sleeping souls from the objects from which Democritus represents as 'films/images' (εἴδωλα) and 'emanations' (ἀπορροαί). Such movements, in whatever way they arrive, should be more perceptible at night [than by day], because when proceeding in the daytime they are more liable to dissolution (since at night the air is less disturbed, because there is less wind at that time). These films would be perceived within the body while sleeping – since people are more sensitive even to slight sensory movements when asleep than when awake: it is these movements then that cause mental-impressions (φαντάσματα)."
^{(On Prophesying by Dreams, 464a)}

And also Epicurus:
"…[these thoughts] are said [to be] motion-inducing, nor would we assert these few [thoughts alone are motion-inducing]: if indeed ^[1] the greatest part [of our thoughts come in] by penetration [of films] from the surrounding [environment] – ^[2] the rest [of our thoughts] follow along with the whole appearance-based [way of thinking]…"

^{…ῥηθέναι κινητικά· οὐδ' ὀλίγα ταῦτα φήσομε̣ν̣ εἰ αἰ, τ̣ὰ̣ πλεῖστ̣α̣ κατ' ἐπείσοδον ἐκ τοῦ περ[ι]έχον[το]ς, ἄλλα παν̣τὶ τῶ[ι φα]νταστικῶι παρακ[ο]λουθοῦντ̣α…}
[Epicurus, On Nature, Book 34, P.Herc. 1431, column 19 (12)]

Although the section is now lost, Ennius seems to have begun the Annals with a recollection of one of his dreams:

"···So Ennius asserts at the beginning of his Annals, where he says that he had seen Homer in a dream saying that he had once been a peacock and from that his soul was transferred into him, according to the dictates of the philosopher Pythagoras···"
^{(Cornutus, Commentary on Persius, 6·10·2)}

"···[Ennius] wrote at the beginning of his Annals that he was advised in a dream that, according to the doctrine of Pythagoras, Homer's soul had come into his body···"
^{(Porphyry, Commentary on Horace, 2·1·51)}

And, as we have seen, Epicurus wrote a popular, but now lost, letter against the philosopher Stilpo -- and one of the things Stilpo was most known for was the position that only what is in the mind really matters to the wise man.

Seneca (_fl. 35 ^CE), Letters to Lucilius, 9.18:
"[the wise man] will confine all good within himself and say what that Stilpo said – Stilpo whom a letter of Epicurus attacks -- for this man, with his country captured, his children lost, and his wife gone, yet he came out from the general destruction, alone, and yet happy: to Demetrius who was asking – who had the surname Poliorcetes from the destruction of cities – whether he had lost anything, [Stilpo] said 'all my goods are with me!' Behold a brave and vigorous man! He conquered the very victory of his enemy. 'I have lost nothing' [Stilpo] said. he made that man [i.e., Demetrius] doubt whether he had truly won, 'everything that is mine is with me – Justice, Virtue, Wisdom, and this very thing: to consider nothing good that can be taken away.'"

Yes, Epicurus talks about “Speculative Judgement,” (hē theōrētikē doxa), i.e. judgement about conceivable universal characteristics; and the truth-value of this kind of judgement is tested by attestation and contestation via indirect practical consequences. He treats this as belonging to analogical consideration (ho analogismos).

So, as we know, the issue isn’t abstraction as such, but whether the abstraction is (and remains) attested (or not contested) by sensation. The error, if there is one, lies in our “addition of judgement” (to prosdoxazomenon).

Quote from Kalosyni

at times incorporate elements and ideas from external sources

Certainly so,

Quote from Patrikios

Second, and equally important, this practice culminates in zuowang—sitting and forgetting.

Quote from Hiram

"Taoists have a technology of the self for discarding memories: zuowang (sitting and forgetting). Although some descriptions of this practice sound mystifying..."

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

Hiram does a lot of great work, but, as he says in the article, "zuowang" is Taoist.

Pulling these definitions of Zuowang from the wikipedia article:

• "oblivious of oneself and one's surroundings; free from worldly concerns" - Liang Shih-chiu & Chang Fang-chieh
• "oblivious of one's surroundings, free from worldly concerns" - Lin Yutang
• "to be oblivious of oneself and one's surroundings, to be free from worldly concerns" - John DeFrancis

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.