What "Live Unknown" means to me (Lathe Biosas)

I largely agree with your conclusions here but in regard to this fragment I always caution against reading too much into it (beyond what you are doing here) because it comes to us with absolutely zero context. To my understanding we have zero knowledge about when or where or how or in what situation this was stated, or even for sure that it was Epicurus himself. And given as a premise that ALL rules of conduct are contextual, we would need to know much more than we do to conclude how much emphasis Epicurus and the key Epicureans placed on such views, since as you say they did not exactly "live unknown" themselves.

As I see it the phrase can be helpful for discussion, just like the "tetrapharmakon" but overemphasis on it creates many of the same problems that overemphasis of the tetrapharmakon does.

We simply dont have enough surrounding context to know the use cases that were referenced, or who said these things and why.

People who don't understand the full depth of Epicurus can easily misinterpret both, so its important to provide the background first (as you've done here) so these phrases don't get misused, as they probably often are in the hands of those who want to keep Epicurus safely confined in the hermit-like box they have created for him.

Quote from Eugenios

I had also forgotten before writing this that the source for this fragment is Plutarch's diatribe against this very Fragment itself. So, already in that respect, we're at a disadvantage! The very source of the (let's say) "infamous" saying of Epicurus is a polemic against that very "infamous" saying of Epicurus taken out of context to attack him! That's a vicious circle if I ever saw one.

Thank you for looking that up Eugenios, when I wrote I failed to take the time to do that - but you are exactly right from my perspective.

Quote from Eugenios

but was NOT disengaged from society, his friends, and those that sought him out.

Yes that's the key from my perspective. Unfortunately the "live unknown" is used primarily (in my experience) to imply the opposite, and that Epicurus was essentially a hermit. Used properly the phrase gives us lots of good warning about things to avoid, but improperly it reinforces one of the worst and most untrue stereotypes by Epicurus' enemies.

As much as I've always wanted to like Julian, isn't he the one who said that he was happy to see that Epicurus' texts were hard to find? So again an enemy of Epicurus even to mention it, but you're right he does not seem as bad here since he seems to be limiting the impact and stating a way it can be applied correctly, which is what I think we agree Epicurus would have said:

Quote

And this indeed may happen, but you will not be sure of it until that final day." Do you think that such a man after being told all this would choose even to live in a sea-port town? Would he not bid adieu to money-making and all the advantages of commerce, and caring little for troops of friends and acquaintances abroad, and all that he might learn about nations and cities, would he not approve the wisdom of the son of Neocles^[10] who bids us "Live in obscurity"? Indeed, you apparently perceived this, and by your abuse of Epicurus you tried to forestall me and to eradicate beforehand any such purpose. For you go on to say that it was to be expected that so idle a man as he should commend leisure and conversations during walks. Now for my part I have long been firmly convinced that Epicurus was mistaken in that view of his, but whether it be proper to urge into public life any and every man, both him who lacks natural abilities and him who is not yet completely equipped, is a point that deserves the most careful consideration.

Right. Plus apparently Julian was properly concerned about getting "good" Greco-Romans to participate in public life so as to offset the nefarious influence of the Christians. I can't help but think that in those circumstances, Epicurus would have urged exactly the same thing as Julian, since the very survival of the Greco-Roman-Epicurean way of life that they valued was at stake and was about to be overwhelmed. .

From what else we know of EP, I think the context here is that fame, the public life, is neither a natural nor necessary desire. This is in the category of the empty desires.

I would be very careful there. Fame is one thing, but "public life" is a broad term, and to the extent that times require public action - an appropriate day to comment on this, given coronavirus panic - then public life may be required, as i think there are hints if not explicit record of Epicurus saying. "Fame" on the other hand, might be something that is a byproduct and never really a sound goal in the first place, nor would it seem likely to be required in the same way that public action might be required.

Yes I think that's exactly right. And in case I haven't said so recently, I see no reason to discount Cassius Longinus' understanding of Epicurean philosophy, as he was willing to debate it even with Cicero, and he (and others he cites in his letters) were both devoted Epicureans and also leaders in Roman public affairs.

If we have to choose between what the commentators today, and the enemies of Epicurus, tell us, vs what we can observe for ourselves as to what leading Epicureans actually did, i will take "what the leading Epicureans actually did" every time!

Behind analyzing Epicurean persons and writings in history on this topic, we could also argue with the Epicurean's way of thinking and his approach to the universe. In my opinion, an Epicurean focuses in his daily life primarily on sensations, feelings and the preconceptions. By to do so, he leaves behind the ideas of the men of the croud. Contrary, referring to the ideas of the crowd is the daily basis of action for a politician. (Heavily) involving in politics, as you can see by observing politicians, always means to adapt and to repeat phrases and ideas which are just related to artificial constructions that have no relations with the basic nature of things. Finally, involving in politics is able to drive a person far away from (in my opinion) the core propagation of Epicurean philosophy: Focussing on your natural perception and by this revealing your true personality, that is common with the easyily aquirable pleasure of nature.

I somehow missed this thread in May, but I'm glad to have caught it now.

It's true that we don't have much context here from an Epicurean point of view, but in other respects the context is quite rich—it involves the whole history of Greek culture.

The belief among these ancients seems to have been that the underworld was not a place of torture, except in a few notable and extreme cases, but a place of forgottenness. Achilles, Pericles, Homer—a handful of the select and renowned have gone to the Happy Isles, and their names will echo until the world ends. But the common lot of humanity is to wander forever listlessly as shades ("pale in wondrous wise" to quote a translation of Lucretius in reference to Ennius); no name, no face, no memory. Utterly forgotten. The Damnatio Memoriae was not only a punishment for tyrants brought low. It was, to the Greeks, the sad fate of almost all of us.

How happy, then, to be an Epicurean! Death holds no terror; no, not even the subtle anguish of living on without really living; of being, yet without Being. Yes, most of us will be forgotten, and not so long after our deaths.

But we will not care, because we will not exist.

For me, "lay low" is our best contemporary idiom that expresses the basic meaning of ΛΑΘΕ ΒΙΩΣΑΣ. Somewhere behind it are "going underground" and maybe either "take the red pill" or "turn on, tune in, drop out". Turn on your natural intellectual faculties, tune in to the teachings of Epicurus, drop out of superstitious religious cults.

I also find connections with Vatican Saying 58 ("We must free ourselves from the prison of public education and politics") and Fragment 24 ("I congratulate you, Apelles, in that you have approached philosophy free from all corruption").

I am adding to this thread becaues the "lathe biosas" issue is coming up tomorrow in our book review of the Emily Austin "Living for Pleasure."

I wanted to add this link where the primary source for this phrase as being Epicurean is recorded - in Plutarch:

Plutarch's Moralia in sixteen volumes. Vol.14: 1086C-1147A [Loeb 428] : Plutarchus / Plutarch (46 - ca. 122) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Source: https://archive.org/details/moraliainfiftee14plut

archive.org

The essay is "Is Live Unknown a Wise Precept?" and it begins on the page at this link:

Plutarch's Moralia in sixteen volumes. Vol.14: 1086C-1147A [Loeb 428] : Plutarchus / Plutarch (46 - ca. 122) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Source: https://archive.org/details/moraliainfiftee14plut

archive.org

I once read all (or at least most) of Roskam's Live Unnoticed. Let me see whether I can track down some key passages from that and post them later. The main thing that I remember Roskam arguing (and that I agree with) is that the advice depends on circumstance, much like most other Epicurean advice.. Sometimes it is actually more prudent to get involved in public affairs when it bears directly on your own security. But I think we are to understand that those circumstances are few and far between.

I myself (perhaps mistakenly) have come to believe that it means, at least in part, that we should not *care* to be noticed. We should not do things for that reason. We should be perfectly content, to use something like Don's rendering of lanthano, to be overlooked or unnoticed.

From all of the above postings it seems that "live unknown" can relate to the following list of ideas:

--Don't try to make a name for yourself

--Don't do things that put you in the spotlight such as becoming a politician

--Don't teach Epicurean philosophy publically

--Don't get involved in politics (political activites or political debates)

--Don't be concerned with being known after you die

--Don't take on (espouse) the groundless ideas of the crowd

And there are reasons for "why" for all of the above are important to consider, although it should be understood that there isn't some kind of absolute rule against these. If your life is beginning to move into a "hellish" direction, you may choose to do something to prevent it from getting worse.

If your life is going well and there isn't any extremely pressing reason to publically engage in politics, then take heed, because you are highly likely to end up creating a "hellish" life for yourself, and you will have ruined your chances for enjoying this one life. (Perhaps in modern times we have more room for consequence-free expression of opinions because of the internet).

In addition to the above, I see "live unknown" as the start of the consideration of whether or not we "owe" time and energy to upholding the well-being of the city-state/nation/commons. If that kind of action gives you pleasure, then go ahead (but you will likely encounter difficulties). If it isn't something that comes naturally, then don't feel that you are doing something wrong by not getting involved. If things around you are going downhill and you need to protect your life necessities, then of course take action. And since everything is politically polarized, don't be surprise of bad consequences that you encounter when you do take action.