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
Side-by-side translations of Lucretius created by TauPhi
This needs to be corrected. I've only created side-by-side Laertius' Book X. Lucretius was prepared by Cassius , as far as I know, and his book/intermediate/detailed views added on top of all the translations makes this resource spectacular. Do yourself a big favour and bookmark this page if you haven't already:
The formatting looks excellent as well. Do you mind sharing what intermediate programs you used to produce the final PDF? did you use some kind of Latex generation or something else that is accessible to others. I can imagine that others here might tackle similar projects in the future and it would be good to know if you've got a particularly useful methodology that others can duplicate.
Programs:
pdftotext - extracting a text layer from pdfs
neovim - text processing and spellchecking
typst - typesetting and pdf compiling (similar to Latex but I prefer this markup system)
zathura - pdf viewing
Methodology:
I instruct Neovim to send the file I work on to Typst to generate pdf and show the end result in Zathura. This way I can instantly see the end product with one press of a button.
This is an obscure book but it can be valuable for anyone interested in the studies of Epicureanism. On top of that, the book is historically interesting as it was published at the very end of the 17th century when Epicurus' philosophy was being introduced into the English-speaking world.
Until now, there were two ways of reading the book:
1) 200MB pdf scan of a 300-year-old book printed with a typeface containing an archaic, long s via archive.org - not much fun there
2) digitized but unformatted and incomplete transcription containing random OCR conversion artifacts - even less fun there
I decided to remedy the situation so I cleaned the transcription, filled in the missing bits, corrected any errors I could find and typeset the whole thing creating a new edition of the book.
During the process of typesetting I tried to be as faithful to the original as possible. Every chapter, paragraph and even inline text highlighting is exactly as in the 1699 edition of the book. I just got rid of an archaic, long s. so the text is easier to read by modern audience. That said, I'm just one guy and this is a 400 pages long book, so it's highly probable that I missed some errors or even created some of my own during typesetting. If anyone notices anything off, please let me know and I'll make sure to fix the problem.
I also added a new title page and an interactive Table of Contents which can take the readers directly to every section of the book.
Cassius Every resource used in the creation of the document is in Public Domain. I listed the sources at the very end of the book. My work is also in Public Domain as indicated at the end so if you find this worthwhile, feel free to add the pdf to the 'Files' section of the forum so the book is easily accessible to anyone interested.
Without further ado, after a short period of 325 years or so, here's the unofficial, second edition of Bernier's "Three Discourses".*
[*) The third edition is scheduled for release in year 2350 - stay tuned.]
So this little exercise indicates well of the paraphrase but also indicates the hazards of following Gassendi too closely.
Pierre Gassendi lived and worked in the 17th century. This is historically very important period for the revival of Epicureanism as the philosophy started to get some traction again but at that time everything got filtered through Christianity. Gassendi, Le Grand and Charleton are Epicurean heroes in disguise. They tried to put Epicurus back on the map but the map was still firmly stomped by a Christian boot. Their works are really interesting and they should be investigated closely even if they can't be treated as authoritative sources for the study of Epicureanism. I'll make separate post about Le Grand in few days as I'm currently restoring one of his works.
Proper English translation from 1699 containing 'Happiness':
Transcription of the book (not perfect but workable - click 'View entire text' to see the whole book):
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A42442.0001.001/?view=toc
Every picture you care to share here makes me bigger and bigger admirer of your work. This one is my favourite so far. Please keep it going, Raphael Raul.
It's an exceptional resource.
I second that. It was one of the first books on Epicurean philosophy I've read and to this day I don't regret it. The amount of information there is extraordinary.
Actively constructed subjective imagination cannot be confirmed nor contradicted. 'I imagined it therefore it is', is not compatible with Epicurean system.
I think it can. Dreams are real. We don't choose our dreams, they just happen.
Dreams are real in the sense that they happen to us but what we dream about does not automatically become true in Epicurean system. 'I imagined it therefore it is' is not compatible because it's a simplification that can easily produce errors. For Epicureans, the claim that we create our own gods to represent our ideals therefore such gods are real would fail under the scrutiny of their theory of knowledge. Epicurus explicitly talks about this here: (Letter to Herodotus, section 51, Yonge's translation)
In fact the representations which intelligence reflects like a mirror, whether one perceives them in a dream or by any other conceptions of the intellect, or of any other of the criteria, can never resemble the objects that one calls real and true, unless there were objects of this kind perceived directly. And, on the other side, error could not be possible, if we did not receive some other motion also, a sort of initiative of intelligence connected, it is true, with direct representation, but going beyond that representative. These conceptions being connected with direct perception which produces the representation, but going beyond it, in consequence of a motion peculiar to the individual thought, produces error when it is not confirmed by evidence, or when it is contradicted by evidence; but when it is confirmed, or when it is not contradicted by evidence, then it produces truth.
My current understanding of the issue is as follows. Feel free to point out any problems you see with my line of thinking.
Non-evident things must be proved by means of apparent things. To do this, confirmatory testimony and lack of contrary testimony is required to claim that something is true. The lack of confirmatory testimony and contradictory testimony indicate that something is false. That's, in a nutshell, an Epicurean theory of knowledge for non-evident phenomena.
Epicureans, as far as I'm aware, claimed that gods existed because:
1) images of gods could be detected directly by human mind
2) principle of isonomia
3) pre-conceptions of gods were incorporated into human nature
To Ancient Epicureans these were confirmatory testimonies of non-evident gods and these testimonies were not contradicted in ancient times (at least not contradicted according to Epicureans).
If "we actively construct our own conception of a 'god' rather than discovering pre-existing beings." and "we naturally tend to imagine beings that represent our own ideals of happiness and tranquility", Epicureans wouldn't be able to epistemologically claim that gods existed. Actively constructed subjective imagination cannot be confirmed nor contradicted. 'I imagined it therefore it is', is not compatible with Epicurean system.
P.Herc. 4 has been around just as a place holder, I have never seen any text from it (except for the clips in this article). Hopefully they fully release what they have.
Wanna see it? Starts at page 13. Happy reading 
Robert You may find this interesting:
https://www.hcsjournal.org/ojs/index.php/hcs/article/download/123/112/216
This paper will give you a general idea why so little is available in English (mostly because very little is available in general).
Right now, it appears there are only few unpublished columns for PHerc. 26 (which is 'On Gods - Book 1') and fragments of PHerc 152/157 (Book 3) which you've already found on Twentiers' site (an excellent place to look for Epicurean texts).
'Freedom' by John Norris in not an Epicurean poem. In fact, the author could be the very antithesis of an Epicurean philosopher. Nevertheless, I hope you enjoy the poem as much as I do. It's a pretty neat depiction of 'Lathe Biosas' lifestyle.
Please find the transcription and the link to a book published in 1699 where this poem comes from (page 113).
I.
I do not ask thee Fate, to give
This little span a long Reprieve.
Thy pleasures here are all so poor and vain,
I care not hence how soon I'm gone.
Date as thou wilt my Time, I shan't complain;
May I but still live free, and call it all my own.
II.
Let my Sand slide away apace;
I care not, so I hold the Glass.
Let me my Time, my Books, my Self enjoy;
Give me from Cares a sure retreat;
Let no impertinence my Hours imploy,
That's in one word, kind Heaven, let me ne're be great.
III.
In vain from Chains and Fetters free
The great Man boasts of Liberty.
He's pinnion'd up by formal Rules of State;
Can ne're from Noise and Dust retire;
He's haunted still by Crouds that round him wait,
His lot's to be in Pain, as that of Fools t' admire.
IV.
Mean while the Swain has calm repose,
Freely he comes and freely goes.
Thus the bright Stars whose station is more high,
Are fix'd, and by strict measures move,
While lower Planets wanton in the Sky,
Are bound to no set Laws, but humoursomly rove.
Philodendrons surviving parts.
This made me laugh so hard I started to cough. Thank you Cassius for this sentence. I know it came about by mistake but it made my day. From now on, Philodemus will forever function as Philodendron in my mind. His surviving parts also make him a zombie in my mind. So there it is - a picture of a zombified plant roaming around and picking up its fallling pieces. And all it took to create this vision was three words. Perfect. Thanks a million.
David Sedley's article closely related to the topic of this thread:
EPICUREAN THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE FROM HERMARCHUS TO LUCRETIUS AND PHILODEMUS
ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to trace the development of Epicurean epistemology from the death of Epicurus in 270 BCE to the latter part of the first century BCE. The story gains interest from the fact that these Epicureans were, as would be expected, scrupulously loyal to the doctrines of their founder as they interpreted these, but at the same time found themselves obliged to elaborate and strengthen the inferential methodology he had bequeathed, initially in order to resist the sceptical critiques of the New Academy, and later in order to justify their school’s empiricism in opposition to the rationalistic Stoic theory of inferential validity. The protagonists are Colotes, Polystratus, Timasagoras, Zeno of Sidon, Philodemus and Lucretius, with Cicero an important witness.
Full article can be found here:
View of Epicurean theories of knowledge from Hermarchus to Lucretius and Philodemus
You can learn about few studies in favour of abiogenesis, conveniently overlooked by the author of the article, here:
Nothing definite yet but definitely interesting.
TauPhi is this ok?
It is. Thank you.
Cassius Please also remove 'any consideration'. I rejected that the pleasure of the one might be evaluated as "greater" than the pleasure of the other but I did not and do not reject the act of thinking about it. I'm all in for considering anything and everything anyone is capable of thinking about.
A good place to start would be 'Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker' (The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics) by Hermann Diels (1903). This book would probably answer all your questions. Unfortunately, it's never been translated into English. The good news is we have the next best thing - 2 books by Kathleen Freeman:
1) 'The Pre-Socratic Philosophers; A Companion to Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker' (1946)
2) 'Ancilla to the pre-Socratic philosophers: a complete translation of the fragments in Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker' (1948)
1) is available on archive.org. If you have an hour or so to spare, read through pages 285-326. The amount of information, heavily supported by testimonia and actual fragments, is all you can wish for and then some more. The arrangement by subject-matter is also helpful to quickly see similarities and differences between Democritus and Epicurus.
2) is not available on archive.org but it's digitally available at 'sacred-texts' website (link below). The link will take you to the ancilla containing fragments of plethora of Pre-Socratics. It's the only place online I'm aware of where all Democritus' fragments are available in English.
And that is why having a position on how to resolve the heap paradox is so important.
Have you proposed an answer to that?
I disagree. The resolution of this paradox is not important at all. It's just a word play based on vagueness of human language. How much do you need to love to love someone very much? How dense a fog needs to be to be called a dense fog? How many times do you need to jump to be very tired? An attempt at answering such questions is pointless.
In regard to whether 10% is reasonable, and how many more % can be added and stay within reason, that is the question.
I'm sorry, Cassius but I don't consider this the question. It's just a reformulation of how many grains of sand make a heap.
And the dividing line cannot reasonably be "whether I have seen it before."
"Whether I have seen it before." has very little to do with "understanding of nature based on our experiences and acquired knowledge". Please don't simplify my argument like that.
