Posts by TauPhi

Cassius makes great points about FOSS (Free and Open Source Software). I'll add few more points to encourage people to give it a go:

-) FOSS gives its users freedom of usage, adjustment and modification that is absent from close source software

-) It's easy to combine different pieces of software to get required results, i.e. get output from program A and give it as input to program B for further processing. It may sound unimpressive and quite alien to people who haven't been exposed to Linux but I promise it opens gateway of limitless possibilities.

-) FOSS does what it was designed to do instead of pretending to do something when in actuality its main purpose is to collect user data, send it to a producer who sells it to the highest bidder.

And here's a list of the software I use most often. A lot of these programs are terminal based but I prefer them to GUI programs because of their extensibility and speed.

Arch Linux - operating system

i3 - windows manager

Neovim - text editor, both for general purpose writing and light coding, combined with Groff software for document formatting

sc-im - spreadsheet editor

Firefox - web browser

Newsboat - RSS reader

MPV - media player

CMUS - music player

Sxiv - image viewer

Zathura - document viewer

Xournalpp - pdf editor

nnn - file browser

Syncthing - synchronization

Quote from Cassius

Thank you TauPhi!

Here's that list of works from Google translate:

Unfortunately, most of these are not attainable. I tried to find Epicurus related works but beside the books I've mentioned (which are also out of print) I couldn't get my hands on any of these works.

Quote from Cassius

Thanks for the translation!!

As to this:

Quote from TauPhi

He called for the sacrifice of the most precious gift that human can make, namely the act of understanding, and to this call he remained faithful throughout his entire life.

"Called for the sacrifice of....?" Meaning more like dedication to?

It's an opposition to the act of blindly sacrificing everything to gods out of fear (referring to Oxyrhynchus Papyri quote above). Sacrificing the act of understanding might not be the best wording (though Krokiewicz uses just that) but it's the act of giving everything one has intellectually to achieve fearless blessedness instead of fearful submission (at least that's how I understand it).

BTW, Adam Krokiewicz gives in this paragraph very interesting source. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 215 is suspected to be potentially written by Epicurus himself. Here are some links if anyone cares to investigate further:

General info about Oxyrhynchus Papyri:

Oxyrhynchus Papyri - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Specific info about Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 215:

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 215 - Wikipedia

And lastly, the source material and its translation:

The Oxyrhynchus papyri : Grenfell, Bernard P : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xii, 358 pages, plates : 27 cm

archive.org

Quote from Cassius

So it is always interesting to me if we come across new names to add to the list of scholars who seem fundamentally in support of Epicurus without this kind of hedging that we have from Bailey.

This is the last paragraph from the first chapter of 'Nauka Epikura' (1929 book) where Adam Krokiewicz describes Epicurus himself before going into Epicureanism in detail. This can give you better understanding of Krokiewicz assessment of Epicurus and his philosophy. I transcribed it, run through Google Translate and corrected the translation so it's as close to the original as possible.

Adam Krokiewicz, 'Nauka Epikura' (1929), page 62:

The teaching of Epicurus, intended for all humans and pointing the way to happiness in life, ultimately becomes a religious denomination, and its founder one of the religious geniuses. Because of the position of the gods as the natural ideals of human perfection and the position of humans as beings with natural duty to liberate their spirit and attain perfection during their lives, this religion may be called earthly in contrast to otherworldly mysticism. Because of the primacy of reason, the religion can be called intellectual as opposed to religions based on feelings, which violate reason. Epicurus did not recognize the piety of people who said: "I fear and worship all gods, I want to sacrifice to them all that I have" etc. (see Oxyrhynchus Papyri II, 215). He preferred them in truth to indifferent people, but he considered only the effort of rational thought to be the essential basis of piety. He called for the sacrifice of the most precious gift that human can make, namely the act of understanding, and to this call he remained faithful throughout his entire life. The teaching of Epicurus was as compact and uniform as the man himself. It deserves not only general, but also detailed understanding.

Quote from Cassius

Very interesting!

Quote from TauPhi

I based my views on books by Polish author called Adam Krokiewicz.

A Polish Cyril Bailey is very interesting. I am not a big fan of Cyril Bailey's take on Epicurus but I feel sure you mean his scholarship more than has personal impression. I am curious about how Krokiewicz fits in that regard in terms of his ultimate assessment of Epicurus. Do you find him to be a supporter of Epicurus' ethics and general worldview who looks for reasonable constructs where the texts are unclear (sort of like DeWitt), or more scholastically neutral?

Cassius Yes, by comparing Adam Krokiewicz to Cyril Bailey I meant similarity of their scholarship.

My impression is that Adam Krokiewicz personally valued Epicurus and his philosophy. It looks to me as Krokiewicz always tried to do Epicurus justice and presented his philosophy as a consistent system. That said, Krokiewicz was a full-blooded scholar and it shows especially in his 1929 book. It's an academic treatise which can be difficult to read sometimes. His 1960 book, however, is written with broader public in mind and definitely more accessible.

I cannot compare Krokiewicz to DeWitt as I've never read the latter. I know his work is highly valued here and it's on my reading list but for now I can't say much more.

Quote from Cassius

Tau Phi just for background I am curious as to how many of the texts you have reviewed in this. Have you gone into the Dirk Obbirk (sp?) material in On Piety as well as the Velleius section of "On the Nature of the Gods"? I really haven't done an exhaustive review of what is out there. Have you done that because just having a list of things to check would be helpful to people studying this.

Cassius I'm afraid I'm going to leave you a bit disappointed regarding sources for my previous entry. I based my views on books by Polish author called Adam Krokiewicz. He was a university professor who published several works on ancient Greek philosophy including two books on Epicurus. The first one was called 'Nauka Epikura' (transl.: Teachings of Epicurus) published in 1929 and the second one called 'Hedonism Epikura' (transl.: Hedonism of Epicurus) published in 1960. He was Polish equivalent of Cyril Bailey, more or less. I don't believe these books were ever translated into English. If there are any Polish speaking members here, I can refer you to the second book (pages 172-194) for discussion on the nature of gods.

Not to leave you completely disappointed Cassius , I list below main sources Adam Krokiewicz quotes in his discussion on the nature of gods (I didn't study these myself):

Cicero - De Natura Deorum

The scholia attached to PD01 (also mentioned by Don above)

Philodemos On the Gods

Sextus Empiricus - Adversus Mathematicos IX

W. Scott - The Physical Constitution of the Epicurean Gods - Journal of Philology XII 1883, p.219

Don I appreciate your addition of grist in this mill. I like the idea of infinite, individual and mortal gods vs eternal eidola of blessed beings because it's the best idea I found that is consistent with Epicurean physics (atomism), epistemology (eidola) and ethics (blessedness) at the same time.

I don't particularly like to talk about gods in general as I almost always feel like a blind man talking about the beauty of yesterday sunset but I'll add one more thing that I came up with on that topic. It's just my personal opinion and may be as accurate as the description of that sunset, though.

I like to think that human perception of Epicurean gods is similar to our perception of rainbows. Please mind I don't equate rainbows to gods. Rainbows aren't sentient and are perceived by us by the sense of vision whereas Epicurean gods are sentient and experienced directly by our minds through eidola. I'm just trying to show the essence of these perceptions.

So are rainbows real? They are because we can see them. At the same time they are just refraction of light in water droplets. We can admire their beauty briefly if the conditions are right. Rainbows like Epicurean gods cannot, however, influence anything. Individual rainbows are not immortal but we can be entirely sure that we'll observe rainbows for as long as light, rain and the Earth exist. In that sense rainbows are immortal. Visual refraction of light in water droplets are like mental perceptions of atomic layers of divine blessedness. If that makes any sense.

I'd like to present my view on gratitude among gods and their nature (Were/are the god(s) animal(s)?). I'll attach two quotes from Letter to Menoeceus and elaborate on them. All criticism is welcome as I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to understand the nature of gods from a perspective of Epicurean philosophy and I'm still not sure if I got it right.

(1) On gratitude:

[...]And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many.[...]

We cannot treat gods as reflections of humans, therefore gratitude, as any other human feelings, must be alien to gods.

(2) Were/are the god(s) animal(s)?:

[...]For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision.[...]

Immortality of individual gods is not permitted by Epicurean physics (as there are only 3 things that are eternal and indestructible: individual atoms (not compounds of them); the void and the universe itself as an infinite container of infinite number of everlasting atoms)). Epicurean gods have no names. There are no individual gods mentioned anywhere and for good reason. There are infinite visions of gods, however, that we can perceive because in eternal universe there must be infinite number of gods and our minds are capable of detecting some of the visions.

Epicurean gods can be viewed as immortal only when seen as collective of infinite number of blessed beings. On individual level they must be creatures that reached the state of blessedness but they are alive, created from compounds of atoms and therefore mortal and destructible.

So, were/are the god(s) animal(s)? The answer is yes if gods are considered as separate beings (blessed but created from compounds of atoms and therefore mortal and destructible living beings). The answer is no if we treat Epicurean gods as everlasting visions and ideals of blessedness to which human should aspire.

My money in on Hermarchus as well. I found very detailed 3D model of Epicurus and Metrodorus double bust here:

Epicurus and Metrodorus - 3D model by Flyover Zone (@FlyoverZone)

Name: Epicurus and Metrodorus Material: Cast Format: Double Herm Museum: Abguss-Sammlung Antiker Plastik Museum of original: Capitoline Museums, Rome,…

sketchfab.com

On close inspection, the dude on the cover of the book is clearly not as handsome as Metrodorus.

Jokes aside, check out that 3D model. It's quite impressive.

This book may also be helpful:

LAMPE, KURT. “Knowledge and Pleasure.” The Birth of Hedonism: The Cyrenaic Philosophers and Pleasure as a Way of Life, Princeton University Press, 2015

I don't have access to it but I found detailed review of it here:

Kurt Lampe, The Birth of Hedonism. The Cyrenaic philosophers and Pl...

The monograph by Kurt Lampe is the first systematic attempt in any modern language to deal with the ethics of the Cyrenaics, in particular with their…

journals.openedition.org

Paragraphs 7-9 deal with Cyrenaic epistemology.

Don Interesting topic and I appreciate the work you put in to compile all the info. Your presentation is top notch as well. Thanks for all this.

I remember watching some documentary on Epicurus some time ago and the presenter standing in a car park in Athens saying that this might have been the location of the Garden. I got the same feeling when you showed Marathonos 61 on Google maps. The Garden turned into solid concrete. It got me sad for a moment but then I thought: Well, things change. Good ideas, however, seem to be rather resistant to concrete. And here we are now. Over 2 millennia later talking about what was conceived in the Garden and good luck pouring concrete on that!

I'll try to participate as well.

Considering determinism as harmful or destructive is giving it too much power. I don't think it's such powerful concept. If this is fallacy on my behalf, feel free to point it out but let me explain how I see it.

From Epicurean perspective, wouldn't it be more accurate to consider determinism similar to death? These should be nothing to us as we simply cannot experience them.

You mentioned that '[...] the world revealed to us by our senses / feelings / prolepsis is the only one we have, and the only one we are ever going to have [...]'. I see it exactly the same way. As humans, we perceive time linearly. There's no other way for us. Therefore, it doesn't make any difference if the world is deterministic or non-deterministic. We always experience it in non-deterministic way. Whether free will is objectively true or not, it is true to us. Even if we are automata, we're not able to experience autopilot mode.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for determinism. Not in the slightest. I'm just making a point that determinism seems to be like death. These concepts can be harmful only if we allow them to be by thinking about them in a way that make our lives unpleasant. In reality, we all experience free will in our lives. Then we die and we don't.

Don It is, indeed. There's no good story behind it, I'm afraid. I needed a name when registering and that's what came to my mind. I thought it was good enough so I went with it.

Hello, Fellow Lovers of Wisdom.

Allow me to steal some of your time by introducing myself. I apologise in advance if some of my thoughts are not clearly formulated. I'm not native English speaker.

Philosophy was always something close to my heart. Especially practical philosophy. I guess I can't resist possibility of putting beautiful ideas into practice and see if they work for me. Around two years ago I was reading about Hellenistic age and I discovered a dude with ideas that looked interesting at the first glance. It didn't take me many glances to realise that these interesting ideas were truly beautiful. And so my acquaintance with Epicurus began.

I started to study Epicureanism. The more I studied, the more I loved it. I got to know few other interesting people on the way. Democritus blew my mind with his ideas. Lucretius made me pick up my jaw from the floor more times than I can count (and I can count to ten or so pretty well, most of the times).

Epicurus, Democritus, Lucretius are dead. You are alive. So here I am. Hoping to get to know few more interesting people before we all end up in the Sixth Circle of Hell with smiles on our faces knowing we'd make substantial savings on heating.

Warmly,

TauPhi