New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
I feel as though a lot of modern psychology, with its focus on problems, makes this error.
Do you have an unpleasant feeling? They will give it a specific name, and focus on its source and ramifications!
Once your own personalized list of problems are labeled -- you can look after those problems more specifically and more effectively make them grow stronger!
-------
All that is needed is to throw away the TV, and sleep and exercise a lot. Things grow with focus. Focus on the good!
Brilliant! Thank you for sharing! I search etsy occasionally for new busts -- but this one got past me until now.
the philosophers who bear the name of Anniceris
I never think of the Annicerian school!
The Suda says Anniceris was an Epicurean, which is a bit confusing. Link Here
"A Cyrenean, a philosopher, who became an Epicurean despite being an acquaintance of Paraebatus, the student of Aristippus. Anniceris also had a brother by the name of Nicoteles, [sc. also] a philosopher, and his student [was the] famous Posidonius. The sect called Annicerean [sc. originates] from him. He lived at the time of Alexander [sc. the Great]."
Diogenes Laertius says this (2.96):
"The school of Anniceris in other respects agreed with them [sc. The school of Hegesias], but admitted that friendship and gratitude and respect for parents do exist in real life, and that a good man will sometimes act out of patriotic motives. Hence, if the wise man receive annoyance, he will be none the less happy even if few pleasures accrue to him.
The happiness of a friend is not in itself desirable, for it is not felt by his neighbour. Instruction is not sufficient in itself to inspire us with confidence and to make us rise superior to the opinion of the multitude. Habits must be formed because of the bad disposition which has grown up in us from the first.
A friend should be cherished not merely for his utility – for, if that fails, we should then no longer associate with him – but for the good feeling for the sake of which we shall even endure hardships. Nay, though we make pleasure the end and are annoyed when deprived of it, we shall nevertheless cheerfully endure this because of our love to our friend."
The Loeb version of De Officiis says this about Epicurus -- about as accurate as AI.
"The Size Of The Sun Is As It Appears To Be!"
I wanted to share this section of Sextus Empiricus (fl.c. 200 CE), Against the Professions 7 (Against the Logicians/Dogmatists 1) 207-9, where he is arguing from the Epicurean perspective:
"Let us make the reasoning based on visible things in this way: the hard object is not seen as a whole, but only the color of the hard object. Of the color, one part is on the hard object itself (just as in things seen from nearby and from a moderate separation) – the other part is outside the hard object and underlying in the adjacent locations (just as with things envisioned from a distant separation). But this, being completely changed in the intervening space and taking on a particular shape, delivers such an appearance as the kind of thing which it also underlies in truth.
In just the same way, therefore, neither is the sound thoroughly heard in a bronze instrument that is being struck, nor the sound in the mouth of the man who shouted ¬ but rather the sound that is falling upon our sensation.
And in the same way that no one says a person hearing a sound from a small distance hears falsely just because after he has come nearby he instead receives it as louder: in this way I would not say that vision is deceived because from a far separation it sees the tower as small and round, but from nearby as larger and tetragonal.
Vision truly reports. Even when the sensible object is apparent to vision as small and of a certain shape: it really is small and of a certain shape – due to the transmission through the air, as the edges of the films are being broken off.
And when it appears again large and differently shaped, it is again similarly large and differently shaped – since by now both appearances are not established as the same thing. This is what remains of distorted judgment: to suspect that the appearance envisioned from nearby and from far off was the same."
It's πλειονος.
Although I think that would require adding τοῦ before καλοῦ, giving μετὰ [τοῦ] καλοῦ πλείονος, but even then we would expect μετὰ πλείονος [τοῦ] καλοῦ -- all of which is more of a change than from πλειονος to παιωνος.
In further support of this, we do have "τοῦ καλοῦ πλείονος" used here (which is an Usener Edition). I have not been able to find both adjectives put together (but only καλός being made substantive by adding an article).
"to which of the implied subject(s)/object(s) do the articles/pronouns refer?"
I am not seeing a reference to fears. I am seeing "...but whenever what must happen (τὸ χρεών) leads us out: having greatly spat on life and on those who cling to it in vain, we go out of life..."
(Although, of course, τὸ ζῆν is more "living" than "life")
spitting on good (or is it beauty?)
We do have Johannes Stobaeus (fl. f. 450 CE) in his Anthology: volume 3, chapter 17, section 24 quoting Epicurus: "I teem with what is pleasant for this little body – using only water and bread – and I spit on the pleasures from extravagances: not because of them, but because of what is difficult that follows from them"
[Ἐπικούρου] "Βρυάζω τῷ κατὰ τὸ σωμάτιον ἡδεῖ – ὕδατι καὶ ἄρτῳ χρώμενος – καὶ Προσπτύω ταῖς ἐκ πολυτελείας ἡδοναῖς: οὐ δἰ αὐτάς, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὰ ἐξακολουθοῦντα αὐταῖς δυσχερῆ"
If we take the sigma, I think we have προσπτύω. Given the active form of προσπτύσαντες, it is difficult to pair with προσπτύσσομαι.
Preuss holds a very unconventional view on Epicurus' view of death. Preuss apparently believes that Epicurus held open the possibility of life after death
To claim that Epicurus in any way accepted the idea of "life after death" is a misapplication of his denial that all statements about the future must be either true or false.
I think we can all agree that Preuss is far off the mark here.
Furthermore, the katastematic/kinetic distinction itself is a later philosophical construct imposed retrospectively on Epicurus’s thought,
a katastematic condition, even if he doesn’t use that term himself.
I am not sure it is possible to say that Epicurus did not use the term, or that it is a later construct, given Diogenes Laertius' direct quote without the use of any indirect speech or an attribution to a secondary source.
10.136: "Epicurus in his book On Choice speaks in this way 'Tranquility and Painlessness exist as established (katastēmatikái) pleasures, but Cheer and Merriment are seen from movement through activity.'"
Don demonstrated that the "early tenth" refers to the Twentieth
Great example. I am certain Don is correct, but I just asked GPT and it said the 7th!
Although the robot is not accurate, I think Cassius is leaning into the correct angle:
There are physicists who take fundamentally different basic assumptions.
From their different basic assumptions (of whether everything is physical matter or not) the different sides stack up their evidence.
I don't think, for me, comparing ancient physics with modern physics will be helpful to try to improve our understanding of either.
I mostly agree. I think you will also agree that taking the side of the mathematicians who say that elementary particles can be something else but a discrete hard unit with mass and weight is a position that is not based on evidence, but in opinion -- and it is a basic premise that Epicurus considered and rejected.
So, it seems to me, those who say Epicurus is incorrect on this topic, are not "staying up to date" but just choosing a contrary basic premise.
As far as "seeing" atoms, it depends on your definition
Absolutely -- what we call “atoms” today can be seen with instruments, but of course those are vastly larger than a true atom and they are made up of countless real atoms. I was referring to a true atom in the original sense: an indivisible, solid bit of matter.
Electrons and photons are adequately described as elementary particles,
An adequate description of an elementary particle must include that particle always having mass.
how reliable of a transmitter he is of Hellenistic philosophy
I would say Diogenes of Oinoanda is accurately transmitting Hellenistic philosophy from our school's perspective. Plato studied Heraclitus "in the garden at Colonus" before joining Socrates (Lives 3.5), and eventually "created a synthesis of the doctrines of Heraclitus, Pythagoras, and Socrates" (3.8); Aristotle did preserve a lot of this synthesis.
We do have:
10.44a. [Bailey] "For on the one hand the nature of the void which separates each atom by itself brings this about, as it is not able to afford resistance, and on the other hand the hardness (stereótēs) which belongs to the atoms makes them recoil after collision to as great a distance as the interlacing permits separation after the collision."
stereótēs is "the condition from making stiff" and means firmness or hardness.
"Totally changeable and soft matter" is for the other schools -- it is the exit door out of science and into religion.
"The Stoics together with Heraclitus say that matter is wholly and completely changeable and alterable and mutable and fluid." (Aetius 1.9.2)
It seems to me that the current state of modern theoretical physics is in a precarious position for following Einstein. A lot of data has been automatically bent to fit incorrect assumptions.
Every year there are many good students, potential physicists, who do not accept the current model and therefore have been turned away from the priesthood. If we had a similar amount of money as the institutions who have been overrun, our version of physics would dominate!
In this sense, it is very political, and we should not give up because we are in the underdog position at the moment.
Real atoms are too small for machines to detect, and what looks like the bending of space is really just the effect of “oceans” of these invisible atoms and their wakes.
APOLLODORUS [the Epicurean]
APOLLODORUS [of Athens]
Thank you for helping with this. We know Diogenes Laertius references as his source "Apollodorus of Athens" (7.181) and "Apollodorus the Epicurean" (10.13). This itself might be the source of the scholastic tradition of them being two different men.
Given my arguments above, I do not think two different epithets certainty means two different men. Epithets in Diogenes Laertius are not consistent or systematic.
And at 7.181, it is "Apollodorus of Athens" defending Epicurus, quite like an "Apollodorus the Epicurean" would be expected to do!
"Apollodorus of Athens, in his "Collection of Doctrines" wanting to show that the works of Epicurus (written by his own efforts and not copied) were innumerably more numerous than the books of Chrysippus, said in these very words: 'indeed if someone were to remove from Chrysippus' books all that was cited from elsewhere – his papyrus would be left empty!'"
“APOLLODORUS [of Lampsacus] [1] (fourth century BC)
I may be overlooking something, but I am not finding him.
Sannídōros!
I still think your translation of "Phallodorus" captures the whole spirit better.
"gilded"
Yes, Joshua pointed this out as well and I agree that it is the correct direction. I'll update.
Thank you for your comments!
Yes I was pointing to the similarities between Heraclitus "the Agitator" and the current theorists in charge as a further charge against them!
The current dominant interpretation in theoretical physics is far closer to Heraclitus’ flux, which imagines a universe in constant transformation, where particles are not solid entities but fleeting excitations in dynamic fields. In this view, reality is a process (only occasionally a substance) shaped by tension, motion, and continual becoming -- this idea is not new, but a form of magical thinking that Epicurus considered and rightly rejected.
"The Stoics together with Heraclitus say that matter is wholly and completely changeable and alterable and mutable and fluid." Aetius 1.9.2
