Research Into The Background of Epicurean Observations Of The Twentieth - ("Eikas" Information)

Good way to say it Don. Some of the "best" things in life are laughter of a type, and some of the "worst" things in life are laughter of another type. The trick is knowing how to tell the difference!

But in the end I think a significant part of the issue is that it's much harder to write about this than it is to express it in real life through tone, facial expression, etc. Those can make all the difference in the world and the very same sentence:

"What do the other gods of Epicurean philosophy think about that?" can mean alternately that:

(1) The speaker is absolutely stone-cold crazy, a menace to himself and others, and someone for the hearer to run from as fast as possible, or

(2) The speaker and the hearer are in tune as to the multiple meanings and issues involved, and see the question as at one and the same time highly respectful toward everyone concerned, great fun, and motivational toward the best that any philosophy can offer.

And that's what we would expect from a philosophy context is a major component of what the atoms create:

Of course we are helped, of course, of course, we are nourished

By certain definite things; all creatures are,

In different ways, of course. The reason is

That many things have elements in common,

But differently combined; and therefore nurture

Must also differ. It is most important

Both with what other elements they are joined,

In what positions they are held together,

And their reciprocal movement. The same atoms

Constitute ocean, sky, lands, rivers, sun,

Crops, bushes, animals; these atoms mingle

And move in different ways and combinations.

Look -- in my lines here you can see the letters

Common to many of the words, but you know

Perfectly well that resonance and meaning,

Sense, sound, are changed by changing the arrangement.

How much more true of atoms than of letters!

(Lucretius Book One - Humphries)

As promised/threatened, here are some thoughts on Cassius responses to my original post regarding the "seriousness" with which the ancient Epicureans would have regarded the 20th and, by extension, the "Epicurus as god" idea.

First, a general statement. I firmly agree that Epicurus himself as well as the other founders and most/many of the ancient Epicureans would have had a sense of humor. There are hints of humor if not outright satirical/humorous bits in the Epicurean writings. The one I seem to return to again and again is at the ending of On Nature, Book 28, where Epicurus has gone on for feet of a scroll, he says, "So let the words which we have prattled suffice for the present." and the verb there is specifically a form of ἀδολεσχέω “to talk idly, prate” so Epicurus is being self-effacing. I really like that.

Plus he comes up with creative name-calling of his opponents.

Okay, general statement number two: For all of Epicurus's contention that he was self-taught, he stood firmly in the lineage of Democritus. Democritus was known as the Laughing Philosopher, and he was called "The Mocker" which seems to dovetail with Epicurus's penchant for "creative" nicknames of his rivals. So, at least with Democritus at least, the atomists seem to have had a reputation for humor, laughing, and cheerfulness. This seems to be in contrast with the stern face of Epicurus with the furrowed brow we often see in the busts, but there's nothing stopping Epicurus from being serious when necessary *and* being cheerful at other times.

So, now let's get to the thing that started this all with Cassius 's use of the phrase "tongue-in-cheek."

Quote from Cassius

That's one of the aspects in which I think Frances Wright has best captured the good nature of the Epicurean school - many exchanges in "A Few Days In Athens" are witty and humorous, and I think it would in fact be impossible to fully capture the extent of Epicurean pleasure without appreciating the various types of humor that are involved in pleasure.

I fully agree there must have been good humor and witty repartee within the Garden and among students and teachers. With the importance placed on frank speech given in a kind manner as a tool of teaching and correction, humor and a light touch would be accepted. Now, the teachers also "put the hammer down" when necessary in a no-nonsense way, too, but it seems to me from reading parts of Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus, the caring, light touch was preferred if at all possible. So, yeah, a survey of extant Epicurean humor or satire would be an interesting exercise.

Quote

I would fully expect that "humorous inside jokes" were in fact a large part of Epicurean practice and procedure. It would be the Stoics and similar who are deadpan earnest and suspicious of all humor as caustic.

So, I think during the formal commemoration of the 20th each month, there had to be some kind of ritual thanksgiving to Epicurus and Metrodorus partaken of with a serious demeanor with the full realization that:

• they no longer existed
• they were not going to respond to prayer
• this was solely a way to keep Epicurus's and Metrodorus's example "before the eyes" of the members of the Epicurean school
• the living members of the school were serious about this act of communal thanksgiving

That said, I'm sure they also shared stories, both humorous and serious, about the founders (for those who would remember him within a generation after their deaths), but as time went on, this became less likely as Epicurus as a living examplar gave way to a tradition. Now, would the attendees at the 20th have had lively conversation punctuated by laughter and joy? Of course! Are the Stoics caricatured as caustic killjoys in the ancient world (see Lucian)? Of course? Is there humor associated with other philosophers? I gotta say, I'm partial to some of Diogenes antics: e.g., plucked chicken = "Behold! A human being! Plus, that's at the expense of Plato, so double win.

Cassius also brings up the article's reference to Epicurus's response to the Veiled Man "puzzle" in Book 28. The specific reference is to Epicurus writing "For this reason, everybody can easily laugh when somebody gets another to assert that it is impossible to know and not know the same thing, and then cites the riddle of the Covered Father, and others of the same kind." So, there are at least 2 references to self-deprecation and laughter JUST in Book 28 of On Nature.

That's probably enough prattling on for now

Quote from Cassius

The conclusion of the article is particularly on point to our current discussion:

Yet there is one precious fragment that may allow us a brief glimpse of this kind of laughter. It can be found in Diogenes of Oenoanda (fr. 19.II.6–11):

We ought to make statues of the gods genial and smiling, so that we may smile back at them rather than be afraid of them. (trans. M. F. Smith)

This is a smile that seems to originate from the source of deep Epicurean happiness.³⁶ In Diogenes’ view, the visual contact with an image of the blessed gods will cause feelings of a similar blessedness, expressed by smiling. In such a context, there is no place for polemical, despising laughter, nor for excited guffaws. The Epicurean’s purified inner gladness becomes evident in a quiet, mild smile (meidiama). It is a smile, though, that is directly connected with the gods, in a shared, perfect happiness. It is the beautiful, blissful smile of the Epicurean sage that here appears one last time, before Epicureanism forever left the scene of ancient philosophy. ³⁷

Yes! That is a good excerpt. I'm going to have to see if I can get that paper. I couldn't download it from the original link.

As I understand it, this is why the statues of the Buddha are typically in a half-smile: to be approachable, to be inviting, to convey the "peaceful, easy feeling" (to quote The Eagles) that the Buddha claimed was open to everyone. I think this has parallels (if not exact implications) for Epicurean images.

This dovetails with my original point, too. Let's take those who didn't know Epicurus or Metrodorus personally, who joined the community of the Garden after the Founders were dead. Epicurus welcomed people into the Garden, all people. Any images should be inviting. Thinking of Epicurus as a god doesn't imbue him with supernatural existence. He's dead. To paraphrase a group of modern philosophers:

Quote

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This philosopher is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the throne 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PHILOSOHER!!

That being said, his example lived on through his writing. For that, the classical Epicurean could be genuinely grateful and reverent. They need not think about what others - outsiders - thought about the word "god." They needn't give a thought in the moment of the 20th, when they were gathered with like-minded students of Epicurus, that they were partaking in some inside joke against those not following in the footsteps of Epicurus. In that moment, they seriously thanked the Founder on the special day set aside BY HIM to remember Metrodorus and himself.

OK now all that being said by Don, I'd like to continue to emphasize that I did not mean "tongue-in-cheek" as expressing any kind of slight toward Epicurus or the founders themselves.

One aspect of this I was thinking about yesterday is that it would be really interesting to know for sure how the ancient Epicureans used the word "god" among themselves and in public and the extent to which there was a difference.

For example Don and I could here agree that "black" means "white" and whenever we say "black" we have a non-standard definition that is useful to us. We could use that all day long in private, and we could even state publicly that that is what we are doing, but would we continue to do that at all times and circumstances, even when we knew we were talking to people who did not understand our definition and our reason for using it?

It seems to me that we have to cut a lot of slack to the ancient texts because it's very hard to know the context in which words like "god(s)" were used, and we have to constantly be aware that they could be using the Epicurean definition, or the standard definition, or be half-joking, or deadly earnest, depending on circumstances that we don't really know for sure.

As I read the opening of Book Five, I read that as both extremely earnest and sincere, and yet stated in a way that is intended to convey an understanding that Epicurus wasn't REALLY a god in the way the masses understand the word. So I can see the Epicureans flipping back and forth quickly and constantly as the situation demands it, with "both" perspectives (or multiple perspectives) being true and useful as the situation calls for.

Quote

[01] WHO can avail by might of mind to build a poem worthy to match the majesty of truth and these discoveries? Or who has such skill in speech, that he can fashion praises to match his deserts, who has left us such prizes, conceived and sought out by his own mind? There will be no one, I trow, born of mortal body. For if we must speak as befits the majesty of the truth now known to us, then he was a god, yea a god, noble Memmius, who first found out that principle of life, which now is called wisdom, and who by his skill saved our life from high seas and thick darkness, and enclosed it in calm waters and bright light.

I also think that that kind of flexibility and multiple connotations is something that we need to be nimble in ourselves, because one of the quickest ways to validate the (i think unfair) allegations that Epicurean philosophy was a cult would be to focus only on the earnest aspects without at the same time remembering the pleasurable/humorous aspects.

Oh - And this is related but not strictly flowing with the above:

I pick up that Democritus is sometimes thought of as being a laughing philosopher because of the "nothing real but atoms and void" position -- with the implication being that he was ridiculing the idea of taking ANYTHING seriously since in the end there is nothing eternal but atoms and void.

I don't know whether that assertion of Democritus' intent and viewpoint is correct. I HOPE it's not correct, and that the interpretation comes from the mind of others and not from Democritus. But one thing I would argue for sure is that I don't think that perspective was EPICURUS' viewpoint. In my viewpoint that's the short road to nihilism, and I don't think Epicurus would have approved of it at all. And I really don't think a Greek like Democritus would approve of it either. To me it takes a mind polluted by the worst aspects of supernatural monotheism to reach a conclusion like "nothing is significant to us unless it's eternally unchanging."

Quote

For example Don and I could here agree that "black" means "white" and whenever we say "black" we have a non-standard definition that is useful to us.

Weirdly enough, most ancient languages don't seem to have had a word for blue.

Clarkesworld Magazine - Science Fiction & Fantasy

Clarkesworld Science Fiction and Fantasy Magazine and Podcast. This page: The Wine-Dark Sea: Color and Perception in the Ancient World by Erin Hoffman

clarkesworldmagazine.com

Quote from Cassius

I did not mean "tongue-in-cheek" as expressing any kind of slight toward Epicurus or the founders themselves.

So noted, and I'm sorry if I needlessly got focused on that phrase.

Quote from Cassius

it would be really interesting to know for sure how the ancient Epicureans used the word "god" among themselves and in public and the extent to which there was a difference.

Good question. And another thing that comes to mind is WHO is writing the texts. If it is Epicurus and Philodemus writing, that's one thing. If it's Cicero or Seneca or Plutarch writing on Epicurean topics, that's another thing. That Epicurean prolepsis of the gods as "blessed" and "incorruptible" (period) seems important to keep in mind.

I think there may also be an important distinction between use of the word "god" as in the actual object of the prolepsis and "god" as in god-like pertaining to Epicurus's life.

As far as Democritus, I see his "laughing" in line with Epicurus's response to the Veiled Father puzzle. We need to keep in mind what are the important things in life. Let's keep our priorities straight.

Quote from Joshua

Quote

For example Don and I could here agree that "black" means "white" and whenever we say "black" we have a non-standard definition that is useful to us.

Weirdly enough, most ancient languages don't seem to have had a word for blue.

As long as the argument isn't that ancient peoples couldn't *see* blue. People split up the visible spectrum in different ways, but everybody receives "blue" wavelengths.

Quote

As long as the argument isn't that ancient peoples couldn't *see* blue. People split up the visible spectrum in different ways, but everybody receives "blue" wavelengths.

Yes, I was struggling to find a source that didn't make stark claims about mass color-blindness. It was once widely claimed that Australia's indigenous people had no words in their languages for "yesterday" and "tomorrow". This claim--I think even Thoreau mentions it--is evidently not true. But people still cite it (I've probably done this myself), because these things never die; and because it seemed to say something profound about aboriginal perception.

Isn't purple a wavelength between blue and red, and therefore not the same part of the spectrum as blue?

Quote from Godfrey

Isn't purple a wavelength between blue and red, and therefore not the same part of the spectrum as blue?

"Purple" doesn't really exist. It's a social convention. It's all in how you slice up the spectrum.

Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia

Quote from Don

"Purple" doesn't really exist.

Ah, that oh so tricky word "exist"

And the even trickier "doesn't really exist."

We need a thread on that topic (if we don't already have one).

What does it mean to "exist," and what are the psychic / emotional ramifications of the issue.

Similar to issues of "What is true?" and "What is real?"

I think we can come up with fairly suitable definitions for these, but it's the emotional implications behind the wording that seem to me even more important.

And it does seem that Epicurus dealt with this question, in several passages where he discusses the "reality" of dreams and so forth. I think he too thought it was important that we have an emotional frame of reference by which to keep these issues within practical bounds and from getting out of hand.

Right Joshua?

In fact this "existence" issue probably starts back as far as the discussion of "properties" vs "qualities" ( or "accidents" or "events") in book one of Lucretius.

All the way back to that fairly difficult to understand reference to the way we should and should not think of the existence of the Trojan War and the story of Helen.

Brown 1743:

[430] Besides, there is nothing you can strictly say, “It is neither body nor void,” which you may call a third degree of things distinct from these. For every being must in quantity be more or less; and if it can be touched, though never so small or light, it must be body, and so esteemed; but if it can't be touched, and has not in itself a power to stop the course of other bodies as they pass, this is the void we call an empty space.

Again, whatever is must either act itself, or be by other agents acted on; or must be something in which other bodies must have a place and move; but nothing without body can act, or be acted on; and where can this be done, but in a vacuum or empty space? Therefore, beside what body is or space, no third degree in nature can be found, nothing that ever can affect our sense, or by the power of thought can be conceived.

[449] All other things you'll find essential conjuncts, or else the events or accidents of these. I call essential conjunct what's so joined to a thing that it cannot, without fatal violence, be forced or parted from it; is weight to stones, to fire heat, moisture to the Sea, touch to all bodies, and not to be touched essential is to void. But, on the contrary, Bondage, Liberty, Riches, Poverty, War, Concord, or the like, which not affect the nature of the thing, but when they come or go, the thing remains entire; these, as it is fit we should, we call Events. Time, likewise, of itself is nothing; our sense collects from things themselves what has been done long since, the thing that present is, and what's to come. For no one, we must own, ever thought of Time distinct from things in motion or at rest.

[464] For when the poets sing of Helen's rape, or of the Trojan State subdued by war, we must not say that these things do exist now in themselves, since Time, irrevocably past, has long since swept away that race of men that were the cause of those events; for every act is either properly the event of things, or of the places where those things are done. Further, if things were not of matter formed, were there no place or space where things might act, the fire that burned in Paris' heart, blown up by love of Helen's beauty, had never raised the famous contests of a cruel war; nor had the wooden horse set Troy on fire, discharging from his belly in the night the armed Greeks: from whence you plainly see that actions do not of themselves subsist, as bodies do, nor are in nature such as is a void, but rather are more justly called the events of body, and of space, where things are carried on.

Quote from Cassius

Ah, that oh so tricky word "exist"

And the even trickier "doesn't really exist."

Nah, I don't think this one's too tricksy.

Imagine:

There's a 3'x3' panel hanging on the wall.

It's painted what I'd call "purple."

You bring in (via plane and time machine) a representative sampling of people from 12 cultures.

You'll get at least probably 6 different words if you ask "What color is that?"

It's time for Joshua 's Democritus quote about X and Y and Z by convention but in the end nothing but atoms and void.

He's getting very good at explaining that because every time he brings it up it sends me into orbit looking for the best way to interpret it!

So I think it would be a great contribution for Joshua to say whether and to what extent he thinks it applies here, and how.

Don , I see it as a matter of context. All language is social convention. In post #30 I was attempting to clarify a point in Eikadistes 's post and I believe we were using the same social convention to communicate. In your example, as I understand it, you're illustrating 6 different social conventions. The underlying wavelengths are the same and would fall somewhere between what are "blue" and "red" in our convention.

Godfrey : Ah, I think I got it.

See, this is where sitting around in an actual Garden conversing and having a nice lunch could alleviate some of this cross-talk and confusion.