Posts by Bryan

I think it is all in the "toil" over a joy that is only "now and again."

If I enjoy playing an instrument, and it is "low toil" and "frequent joy," then I am not his target.

I enjoy playing my banjo (looking into getting a bouzouki) -- but really only at the very end of the day when I have given my greater mental energy to greater things. I do not learn songs, only improvise, every second that I play is the song.

Quote from Don

It seems to me, the epicureans could take pleasure in the performance and not need to listen to critical analysis or music theory.

Yes, and not only not take part in music theory -- but also not learn to play an instrument.

P.Herc. 1578 fr. 20, Philodemus (Translated, I think, by D. Blank):

"It is typical of small-minded people with nothing worthwhile to which they can dedicate themselves, let alone which would make them happy, to toil over learning (to play music) in order to amuse themselves now and again, people who do not see the abundance of public performances or the possibility of partaking in them all the time around the city, if they want to do so, and who do not consider that our nature refuses (to listen to music) for too long and quickly tires of it."

Which version did you choose Charles? Which color and base?

Thanks @Eikadistes!

On a slightly related note, it seems that many authors were in the habit of using the plural.

----------

Heraclitus (_{fl. f.} 50 ^CE), Allegories of Homer, 4

ὁ δὲ Φαίαξ φιλόσοφος Ἐπίκουρος "ὁτῆς ἡδονῆς ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις κήποις γεωργὸς"

Phaiāx calls the philosopher Epicurus "the cultivator of pleasure in his own gardens"

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

Seneca (_fl. 35 ^CE), Letters to Lucilius, 4.10

Accipe quod mihi hodiērnō diē placuit – et hoc quoque ex aliēnīs hortulīs sumptum est:

Receive what has pleased me on this very day – and this too has been taken from little foreign gardens

---------

Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 21.10

"ecquid bene acceptus es? nōn irritant" inquit "hī Hortulī famem, sed exstinguunt

"were you well received?" he says "these little gardens do not provoke hunger, but they quench it"

---------

Cicero, On the Laws, 1.13.39

in hortulis suis iubeamus dicere...

In their small gardens let us allow them to speak...

------

There are more from Athenaeus and Plutarch.

I ordered another one of these, but they refunded the order and now seem to have shut down the whole shop.

Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero!

This was great all around! The quote from DeWitt on "Epicurus' innovation" is excellent -- as was your treatment of the sorites topic! Thank you.

I always have in mind this quote of Metrodorus (from Plutarch in Non Posse 1091 A):

"This very thing is the good: escaping the bad – because it is not possible for the good to be placed anywhere, when nothing painful or distressing is further withdrawing."

----
Full physical contentment is consistently and naturally achieved through our body's internal processes when we have the necessary provisions of food and shelter.

Similarly, full mental contentment can be maintained by recognizing the ease with which physical contentment can be obtained and by cultivating gratitude for this success.

I added a bit of paint, but sticking to gold/bronze/silver turned him into a bit of a ghost, so I'll try again with more realistic colors.

Adding this as well, which shows Epicurus fighting against eliminative materialism.

Epicurus, On Nature, Book 25, P.Herc. 1056 col. 6 (fr. B 28) & col. 10 (fr. B 32):

Insofar as we would refer to this aggregate as something: but also insofar as [we would refer to an aggregate only as] "atoms" and insofar as [we would refer to an aggregate as] "an aggregate" [per se]...

…for itself, according to what is similar and undifferentiated, [your reasoning] will be said to mentally perceive itself ^[1] as if it were one particular thing in what is conceived to exist [i.e., "this is my ability to reason"], but also ^[2] in reference to itself, of itself, within [the context] of other things [i.e., "my ability to reason is based in atomic movement"] – and in as much as [your reasoning] is said to perceive itself in some experience…

^{ᾗἄθροισμα τόδε τι ἂν Προσαγορεύσαιμεν: ἀλλὰ καὶ ᾗ "ἀτόμους" καὶ ᾗ "ἄθροισμα."}

^{…[ἑ]αυτῶι κατὰ τὸ ὅμοιον κ̣αὶ ἀδιάφορον ἑαυτὸν ῥ̣ηθήσεται διανοεῖσθαι οἷον ἑνός τινος ταύτηι τοῦ νοο̣υμένο⟦ν⟧υ ὄντος ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφ' ἑαυτ[ὸ]ν ἑαυτοῦ ἐ̣ν̣[τὸς] ἄλλων. καθότι δ' ἐν [πά]θ̣ει τινι ἑαυτὸν λέ̣[γεται διαν]οε̣[ῖσθ]α̣ι…}

Regarding the main topic, I wanted to share Epicurus, On Nature, Book 25, P.Herc. 1056 col. 21 (fr. B 43):

^[Sedley] From the very outset we always have seeds: some directing us towards these, some towards those, some towards these and those actions and thoughts and characters, in greater and smaller numbers. Consequently that which we develop – characteristics of this or that kind – is at first absolutely up to us; and the things which of necessity flow in through our passages from that which surrounds us are at one stage up to us and depend upon beliefs of our own making.

Also book 25, P.Herc. 1056 col. 16 (fr. B 38):

^[Sedley] ...many naturally capable of achieving these and those results fail to achieve them because of themselves, not because of one and the same responsibility of the atoms and of themselves.

Really most of book 25 is relevant to this topic.

Quote from Don

You could quit. But are you ready to face the consequences of quitting your job?

On this topic, I wanted to share Seneca (_fl. 35 ^CE), Letters to Lucilius, Letter 22, sections 1-5:

"You now understand that you must be led out of those flashy and harmful occupations, but you ask how you might achieve that. Some things can only be shown by someone present… What generally happens, and what ought to be done, can be passed on and written down in universal terms: such counsel can be given not only to those who are absent, but even to future generations. but that other kind – when something ought to happen, or in what way – no one will advise from afar, since it must be deliberated with the circumstances themselves.

It is necessary not only for someone who is present, but for one who is alert, to notice the opportunity as it rushes by. So look around for this – if you see this, grab it with full force and all your strength: strive to strip yourself from those duties. And now, pay attention to the opinion I am about to give: I believe it is necessary for you to either depart from that life, or from life [itself]. but I think this as well: it is necessary to go by the gentle path – so that what you’ve badly entangled, you may untie rather than tear apart – however, if there is no other method of untying it: then do tear it apart. No one is so timid that he prefers hanging forever to falling once!

In the meantime – and this is the first thing – do not entangle yourself further: Be content with the business in which you have entered (or, as you’d rather have it seem, '[in which] you stumbled').

There is no reason for you to strive for greater things – otherwise, you will lose the excuse ¬ and it will become apparent that you did not just stumble into it. Yes, those things that are usually said are false: 'I couldn’t do otherwise' 'what if I hadn’t wanted to?' 'It was necessary'

For no one is it is necessary to chase after happiness at a run: there is something of value – even if not in resisting – in stopping, and not pressing forward with fortune as she drives. Surely you would not be offended, if I not only join in counsel, but also call in men indeed wiser than I am– to whom I usually refer, when I am deciding something:

Read the letter of Epicurus that pertains to this very issue, the one addressed to Idomeneus, whom [Epicurus] urges to flee as much as he can and to hurry – before some greater force intervenes ¬ and takes away the freedom to withdraw.

He nevertheless adds that nothing should be attempted unless it can be done suitably and at the right time. But when that long-awaited time finally comes: he says one must leap out.

He forbids the one thinking about this flight to fall asleep – and he hopes for a saving exit even from the most difficult things: if only we do not rush before the right time ¬ nor delay in the right time."

ADMIN EDIT: WIKISOURCE LINK: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_let…ilius/Letter_22

To further support Joshua's argument that starts at 16:00, I wanted to share these two quotes:

Plutarch, Non Posse, 28, p. 1105D: "If then 'The memory of a friend that has died is pleasant from every standpoint' as Epicurus said, indeed already it is possible to understand how much they deprive themselves of joy: believing they [passively] receive and [actively] pursue appearances and films of dead companions – in which neither mind exists, nor sensation – while they are not expecting to be truly united again with them (and to see their beloved father, and beloved mother, and even their helpful wife)."

Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 63.7 (apparently quoting Epicurus): "For me, the thought of departed friends is sweet and pleasant: for I had them as though I would lose them – and I have lost them as though I still have them."

-----

Brilliant juxtaposition about prudence at 37:00! That needed to happen and you did a great job!

I noticed that most of the other statues offered from the same shop have pupils. I have struggled to paint them on other busts, so I asked the shop if they could add pupils to this bust. They said they could and gave this from their program as a sample; so be aware of this option. We'll see how it turns out.

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.

Quote from Cassius

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.

Quote from Cassius

"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."

Quote from Don

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).

Quote from Eikadistes

"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")