Posts by Bryan

Don, I agree with you that is the correct interpretation. It seems the confusion comes from the the superlative as translated by Seneca in Letters to Lucilius, 92.25, which uses "beātissimum"

^{atquī haec Vōx in ipsā officīnā voluptātis audīta est "beātissimum" inquit "hunc et: hunc diem Agō" Epicūrus – cum Illum hinc ūrīnae Difficultās torquēret, hinc īnsānābilis exulcerātī Dolor ventris}

and yet this statement was heard in the very workshop of pleasure "most blessed" Epicurus said "is this indeed: this day I am living" – even while on one side difficulty of urination was tormenting him, and on the other side the incurable Pain of an ulcerated stomach

But I have not seen this in Greek, so I think the superlative can be ignored as just rhetorical from Seneca.

Quote from Cassius

Can even mental pain be totally eliminated / extinguished?

I'll start with this quote of Epicurus (Lives 10.135b):

"...therefore, study these things and the things akin to them (by yourself, day and night, and with one similar to yourself) and you will never be thoroughly disturbed, neither in wakefulness nor in a dream..."

It is true that here Epicurus uses "διαταράττειν (to thoroughly disturb)" instead of "ταράττειν (to disturb)"

We are all aware, but it is good to keep in mind that Epicurus distinguishes between bodily pain and mental pain.

Bodily pain can often be mitigated by a prudent lifestyle -- but only mental pain can be fully eliminated through a prudent application of philosophy.

I noticed that De Rerum Natura (2.434) speaks directly to the point of pain and pleasure being sensations. TauPhi I think this explains Epicurus' conflation of "sense as a faculty with sense as an activity."


^{Touch, indeed – Touch, by the holy powers of the gods,
exists as the body's sense: either when an external thing itself
slips in – or when what originates in the body harms –
or it pleases as it goes out through the generative acts of Venus,
or when the seeds in the body itself disturb from a collision and,
while stirred up among themselves, they confuse our sense...}

Thank you!

I did not realize that the island Smith lives on has a population of 15 to 30 people. Apparently, there is not even one store on the island. I wonder how he handles getting groceries.

I think the English word "weight" works. We know what it means, it is the heaviness in an object.

If certain trends in modern science do not use words in their normal and correct sense, I'd say that is their problem!

Just like we do not throw out "god" or "atom" from our vocabulary just because the authorities attach non-physical aspects to it -- so too we should not throw out "weight" from our vocabulary just because the authorities attach non-physical aspects to it!

Another idea in support of this argument is that atomic space (i.e., an indivisible magnitude of space) is just as important as atomic matter (i.e., an indivisible magnitude of matter).

"Therefore it is pleasing to those around Epicurus that all [primary particles] be moved with an equal speed through the partless [distances] – otherwise their atomic [distances], if divided, would not be atomic."

^{[Simplicius of Cilicia (fl. 520 CE), Commentary on Aristotle's Physics, 6.2]}

This is great in many ways! This is Lucian's longest surviving work, and having audio versions of relevant writings is very desirable. I think they will be more helpful for “getting the word out” in the long term than written text.

Different voices for the different people in the dialogue are necessary, and this does achieve that well -- and, of course, giving robot-Joshua the winning side of Lycinus is appropriate. We associate Joshua's voice with accuracy and coming from our view-point. Brilliant!

The voices do not catch the sarcastic tone very well (the robot may not even fully recognize when the text is sarcastic). This undercuts the comedy a little bit, but otherwise the voices are great. THANK YOU!!

"The beginning – and the greatest good – is prudence: therefore prudence exists as more valued than philosophy."
^{Lives 10.132b [Epicurus to Menoeceus]}

Quote from Cassius

Eventually move to Philodemus' "On Signs" / "On Methods of Inference

I'm not sure if it will be much help, but a few years ago I took the existing translation and tried to organize it, and also put all the opposing arguments in red. (link here).

My highest expectation, hope, and desire is for personal peace -- and a similar well-being of peace for my friends: what greater thing could be desired?

This is not a low expectation, but a very high one -- and one which our philosophy supports very well.

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

However, from another angle, this may well entail "lowering your expectations" if they are insupportably high!

Not one of us can significantly change the mass flow -- of the ocean, of the air... etc.

Yes, you have made the most of what we have for this text! As we know, the context, in part, will certainly be Plato's view of triangular planes as the basis for the material world, which he explains in the Timaeus, and which our school rejected as having any any preeminence over any other shapes -- and, more significantly, our school denied that a 2-dimensional analysis of reality was fundamentally relevant -- given that the fundamental units have a 3-dimensional extension.

I recreated a bit of this here.

As Epicurus says "…....those triangles of his, from which he also entangles the remaining shapes. If he supposed that indivisible units [ἄτομα] exist, why did he not make any proof that bodies exist as indivisible? But if [his shapes are] not indivisible [and therefore can be divided further], what would one think the remaining [shapes that result from this further dividing] are composed of -- those which he puts together out of anything whatsoever? However, these [topics] will again, I suppose, be lengthened out; but for now, it is sufficient to say that it ridiculously occurred that this man [i.e., Plato] simultaneously called [his basic shapes] similar, while somehow fully depriving other [shapes as a basis]…"
^{[Epicurus, On Nature, Book 14, P.Herc. 1148 col. 5 (column 38)]}

Quote from Cassius

Sedley says flatly that "Katastematic pleasure is the absence of pain."

Both are correct, and it may be more helpful to highlight the similarities in the interpretations.

The "ste" in Katastematic is the same root that gives us "static" in the sense of "standing" or "still" -- and the "kata" is an intensifier! Etymologically the whole word means "characteristic of thoroughly standing"

As we have seen, Epicurus does literally say that "Katastematic pleasure is the absence of pain" at DL 10.136 where he says "Undisturbedness (ataraxía) and non-suffering (aponía) exist as established (katastēmatikái) pleasures, but joy and merriment are seen from movement through activity."

[Mental] painlessness/non-suffering (ἡ ἀπονία) is equated here with a katastematic (established) pleasure.

But this leaves plenty of room to also agree with Austin:

Quote from Cassius

katastematic pleasures are sensory pleasures that issue from confidence in one’s ability to satisfy one’s necessary desires and an awareness of one’s healthy psychological functioning

It is helpful to see painlessness/non-suffering as referring more to the mind/spirit and less so the body... but, of course, the close connection between the mind and body was never denied by our school in any way.

Consider Plutarch [Non Posse, 1089D]:

'See then, first of all, what they are doing: transferring either this "non-suffering" or "painlessness" or "stability" back and forth from the body to the soul – then back again from the [soul] into the [body]!'

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!