We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Welcome aboard, AthenianGarden !
If you haven't come across Emily Austin's Living for Pleasure yet, I highly recommend that as an intro to the philosophy: well researched, accessible, conversational. We also have interviews with her that served as podcast episodes.
While the voice still needs much improvement
Do you want some of us to provide human voices instead of AI? How many minutes is the segment to read?
Welcome aboard, MarkJW
I'm grateful for Emily Austin's fantastic book, Living for Pleasure
I, too, am a big fan of Dr. Austin's book. That book is my personal recommendation for the best, most accessible introduction to the philosophy currently available. She's a great person, too. If you liked the book, don't miss our podcast episode conversations with her!
I'm in Athens right now, heading off to the Dipylon Gate to walk towards Plato's Acedemy, hopefully passing by where the Garden was. Reading some books and excerpts from his writing
Very jealous but happy for you!
If you're interested:
I looked at that not that long ago and still stand by what I wrote there.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO KALOSYNI AND JOSHUA!
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!
Δίδωσι δ᾽ ἣ γενέθλιον δόσιν τῷ Ῐ̓ησοῖ και Καλοσύνῇ
Offering birthday gifts to Joshua and Kalosyni
(Best I can do quickly, based on a line from Aeschylus' Eumenides. And, yes, Joshua translates the same as "Jesus" in ancient Greek.)
I was under the impression that the gods were "incorruptible" and not "immortal." Are the gods athanatos in some texts? Here's my commentary to Menoikeus:
ἄφθαρτον
LSJ gives the definition of "incorruptible, eternal, immortal, uncorrupted, undecaying" and gives references to Epicurus, Philodemus, and Diogenes of Oenoanda. At its root, the word is α- "not" + φθαρτον "destructible, perishable." LSJ states φθαρτον is the opposite of ἀίδιος "everlasting, eternal" (related to ἀεί "ever, always") which poses an interesting question: Why did Epicurus choose to use ἄφθαρτον instead of ἀίδιος or ἀθάνατος? Φθαρτον is related to θνητός "liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος [athanatos]" (LSJ) Φθαρτον is also connected to the verb φθείρω "destroy, pass away, cease to be, perish." It seems that Epicurus didn't want to evoke that the gods (a god?) were simply immortal or eternal but that he wanted to impress upon us the sense that they would not pass away or cease to be. This is in contrast to everything else composed of atoms and void. Everything else is subject to be φθαρτον; only the gods are ἄφθαρτον! How can this be? Could it be that they are ἄφθαρτον precisely because they are mental concepts? That's one of the reasons I find Sedley's so-called "idealist" nature of the Epicurean gods intriguing.
I have also seen arguments that the stress should not be on the "eternal," as in everlasting in time, but rather the "incorruptible," as in the state of being. A "god" is "incorruptible" or "not able to be corrupted or to decay." They are unaffected by the vicissitudes of fortune, unaffected by anger or gratitude. To me, this is an intriguing perspective and gives a possible reason why Epicurus made the decision to use ἄφθαρτον and not an alternative that evokes the "eternal in time" connotation like ἀθάνατος. From my perspective, this argument is a strong one and deserves some study and thought.
Is this a correct understanding of how to interpret how Epicurus referred to 'god(s)'?
That's my understanding, but certainly not the universal understanding here in our little virtual Garden.
I'm wondering if this is a point of difference between Epicurus (3rd-4th c BCE, Greek) and Lucretius (1st c BCE, Roman) if we accept the authenticity of Epicurus' letters in Diogenes Laertius (3rd c CE).
Epicurus' will clearly states that he wants burnt sacrifices offered for his family: "make separate provision (1) for the funeral offerings (enagisma) to my father, mother, and brothers."
Philodemus also discussed Epicurus taking part in the festivals and Mysteries. So, even if Epicurus kept idiosyncratic meanings of these festivals, sacrifices, and rites in his mind, he obviously was taking an active role in them.
Genesia (and Epops) – Hellenion
A festival dedicated to remembering the dead
Also the funerary offerings Epicurus mandated for parents and brothers is ἐνάγισμα, (enagisma) offering sacrifice to the dead, opp. θύω (to the gods). See
Heroes (ἥρωες, fem. ἡρωῖναι, ἡρώισσαι) were a class of beings worshipped by the Greeks, generally conceived as the powerful dead, and often as forming a class intermediate between gods and men. Hero-cult was apparently unknown to the Mycenaeans; features suggestive of the fully developed phenomenon have been found in 10th-cent. bce contexts, but it is not until the 8th cent. that such cults become widespread and normal. The reasons for its rise have been much debated, but seem likely to be somehow connected with more general social changes at that date.Although Greek authors expect the phrase ‘heroic honours’ to convey something definite, there was in practice much variation in the type of cult given to heroes. At one end of the spectrum it could have a strong resemblance to the offerings given to a dead relative; at the other, it might be barely distinguishable from worship paid to a god. Many late sources suggest features for heroic sacrifice which set it apart from the usual form of sacrifice to a god: holocaust sacrifice on a low altar, using dark animals, performed at night. But often only one of these markers is used in a particular rite, and that rite is not invariably addressed to a hero. The form of sacrifice known as enagismos (or enagisma), also used in offerings to the dead and probably indicating a form in which the victim is completely destroyed and there is no participatory feast, is found in heroic cult not infrequently, but by no means universally.
Planning yes, but schedule unknown. It's a big effort. However I am coming around to the idea that the podcast audio versions can serve as a "first draft" that when edited further turn into really good articles with wider impact. So yes I am going to work on more of these!
FWIW: We use Temi/Rev for our transcription on our podcast: https://www.rev.com/pricing
Quote from CassiusCicero is mischaracterizing what Epicure says about pleasure, and secondly he’s mischaracterizing what Epicure says about doing everything for your own advantage. Epicurus never says that the Epicurean standard is pleasure, and anyone who’s at all familiar with what Epicurus does say knows how much emphasis Epicurus places on his friends and the pleasure of his friends, and how much we value that type of pleasure which comes from engagement in society and working with light minded people. Epicurus is not always looking to his own advantage.
This could be a matter of semantics, but I'm going to push back ever so slightly on the "Epicurus is not always looking to his own advantage." Pleasure is subjective. The only standard we have to assess if we're living happily/pleasurably is ourselves. We can only, in the end, "look to" our own happiness/pleasure. That isn't to say we don't care about other people. Our friends' happiness affects our own happiness, but it still means we help them in service to a wise selfishness for ourselves. They happy = I happy.
Substack transcript version of this podcast available here:
https://epicureanfriends.substack.com/p/is-it-truly-impossible-as-cicero
Oh! This makes searching for particular parts SO much easier! Thanks for this! Are you planning on posting episodes going forward?
I will admit I didn't read this entire thread, but that's never slowed me down before.
Traditions like Halowe'en, Samhain, and El Dia de la Muertos have to do (in part) with remembering the dead and breaking down the barrier between the living and the dead, and making offerings and dedications to those who've passed. I would argue that Epicurus was doing exactly these things (okay, maybe not exactly) in his mandated regular "*funeral offerings* to my father, mother, and brothers" and for Metrodorus. That word used in Greek refers to rites associated with burnt offerings. This aspect of this holiday seems right in line with the Garden: reliving pleasant memories of those who have died.
The trick or treating and parties are just having fun, so if they provide pleasure with a minimum of pain, why not participate in the popular civic festival.
Welcome aboard!
FYI
DCLP/Trismegistos 62382 = LDAB 3547
***
DCLP/Trismegistos 62384 = LDAB 3549
***
DCLP/Trismegistos 62386 = LDAB 3551
***
These plus additional fragments:
PS: I realize this is not a translation but I'm posting here to give us an idea of the amount of the text of On God's that has survived from the ancient world not counting any cited fragments quoted by other ancient authors.
As Joshua notes, I certainly agree that Cicero believes he had his good intentions and is sincere. But he certainly also throws up strawman arguments against the Garden with no attempts to steelman anything.
Fair enough. I certainly see where you're coming from.
I personally find it hard to believe Epicurus and his school really thought that the sun was about the size of a football when he wrote it "may be a little larger or a little smaller, or precisely as great as it is seen to be." They could see the sun set behind the hills or fall over the horizon where they had seen ships pass into the distance. The sun "as it is seen to be" is larger than one of those ships of it's in the distance or larger than the hill it is passing behind. That's why Gellar-Goad's article at least made me take a second look at what those texts could be saying. The school said to trust the senses, and my senses would tell me the sun is bigger than a hill or boat at least. The moon obscures the sun during an eclipse, and the moon is bigger than the hills too. Or maybe I'm biased by the modern knowledge I can't unknow?
That said, I certainly don't discount the possibility that they could have just got it wrong.
My favorite part of Epicureanism is probably the Tetra pharmakos "Fourfold Cure" (I know Cassian expressed a disliked for it, but i myself consider to be a nice summary of Epicurean philosophy).
I completely agree with you on having an affinity for the Tetrapharmakos. I like that it is a documented connection to the ancient Epicurean community. Granted, it's not clear from Philodemus' work if he was approving or disapproving of its use, but there's no doubt that it was being used in Epicurean communities as the philosophy distilled down to one of its smallest summaries.
i ended up understanding him more fully and now am a full Epicurean (except for you know antiquated scientific views like the size of the sun as most of you are i hope).
You may find Gellar-Goad's article on "the size of the sun" an interest counterpoint to that "as most of you are I hope." 
It's a provocative article, and one that's got a lot of discussion on the forum. I'll admit that I had never thought of the "size of the sun" issue in this way before, offhandedly dismissing it as "Oh, Epicurus can't be right about everything." Gellar-Goad brings an intriguing (and fairly convincing) argument against that perspective.
The Epicureans did not believe that the sun was the size of a human foot. They distinguished between the sun’s actual size and the size of its appearance, the latter of which was the only magnitude measurable from earth with the technology available. In this matter as almost everywhere else, the Epicureans appealed to the truth of sense-perception – with the important caution that discerning reality from appearance requires perception-based judgment, which itself is not guaranteed to be true.
...
In closing I argue that the size of the sun is an Epicurean shibboleth. In Epicurus, in Lucretius and in Demetrius, we see the same nostrum repeated, with progressive elaborations that do not fully clarify the basic precept. The persistence of Epicureans in this formulation is not so much the result of reflexive dogma or pseudo-intellectual obscurantism as it is a passphrase, a litmus test. Think like an Epicurean, and you will figure out that the sun’s appearance and the sun itself are two related but distinct things with two different sizes; that you must keep the infallible data of the senses, tactile as well as visual, in proper perspective when making judgments about your perception; and that the available data is insufficient to estimate the sun’s magnitude to an acceptable degree of confidence. Think that Epicureans believe the sun’s diameter is a foot, that they are absurd, and you have exposed yourself as un-Epicurean.
There's also an extensive thread about that, too: "Lucretius on the Size of the Sun", by T.H.M. Gellar-Goad
I would also like to ask a question for those who don't mind on "atoms and void". From what i can tell science tells us that the space between atoms is not really "empty space" but more like energy (electromagnetic, gravitational energy, quantum waves) which provided no friction and has no form, thus allowing movement. Do you all consider this to be a kind of "Epicurean void" or do you still believe in the classical void that there's empty space in-between?
My perspective on "atoms and void" are that, most importantly, Epicurus was not - and could not be - talking about the modern Standard Model of particle physics. The parallels between Epicurus' "ἄτομος" and the modern "atom" should not be taken too literally. They can be taken figuratively or metaphorically though.
Epicurus use of the term ἄτομος (atomos) conveyed that there were indivisible fundamental material "things" that were not capable of being cut/divided into smaller pieces that made up all the material things we see around us throughout the cosmos and, indeed, the entire universe. Not tinier and tinier replicas of the things themselves (bones are not made of tiny bones) or similar ideas. He didn't see only four elements: fire, earth, air, water, with one being predominant. Epicurus genius insight was that these atomoi could make up an infinite number of different things, things that would be eventually broken down into their constitute atomoi, reconstituted as something else, and the cycle goes on and on ad infinitum, forward and back.
The modern Standard Theory has gone beyond Epicurus, but - from my perspective again - has built on Epicurus' ideas (via Lucretius primarily and the Renaissance scholars that read him). As the CERN site says: "The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists since the 1930s have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the universe is found to be made from a few basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces." On face value, that insight is remarkably similar - in the BROADEST and most GENERAL sense - to Epicurus' insights 2,000+ years ago. But only in the BROADEST and most GENERAL way. I can't emphasize that enough.
So, to be an Epicurean - again from my perspective - means to accept that we live in a physical, material universe made up of fundamental particles governed by understandable principles. We should not feel compelled to adhere to ideas that are millennia old. But in the broadest sense, I have no problem with the idea of "atoms and void" as a general metaphorical phrase as long as I understand it to be pointing to fundamental particles making up the physical universe, moving through "space" however you'd like to understand that.
