Posts by Bryan

Thank you for sharing. It is strange that Cassius is still present when Brutus is told the news. It almost seems as though Brutus had and believed some vision about her death, and then he just was not surprised when the messenger confirmed what he already "knew."

The video included this image. They were certainly rendering the eyes with great skill. It seems clearly to be beyond paint, and instead "false eyes," maybe with precious stones?

Thank you for sharing Don! That was inspiring!

Awesome idea, and it looks cool as well! That could open up some fun possibilities!

The introduction in the Glossarium Epicureum says this in Latin about Usener's choice to not include text from Epicurus' On Nature, the second part appears to be a quote from Usener.

"Usener very bitterly bore the deplorable condition of the Herculaneum scrolls in the pages relating to the work on nature, he refrained from both introducing and restoring the text of the Herculaneum scrolls—no one is unaware of this: 'I am not speaking about the remnants of the books On Nature, which Theodor Gomperz, according to the most accurate examination of the manuscripts, is soon to publish much fuller and more complete [version] than before; I would have deserved to be laughed at if I had attempted in vain, relying solely on the Neapolitan copies.'"

We are on page 217.

I'm going as Dionysus. I like the kaftan thawbs I got for the costume so much I have not stopped wearing one of them since they arrived. My wife thinks its just a phase, so she is not worried, but I think she may be wrong.

Thank you for sharing! Yes, it seems the link is still not working. I thought I dropped the ball, but it seems in fact they did!

So I started playing around with some molds, but I need to try some different materials to improve my results.

Quote from TauPhi

column 34 seems to be a refutation of philosophers endorsing the four elements as building blocks of reality coming directly from Epicurus in his 'On Nature - Book 14'

Thank you for bringing this up! Here is one version of what remains from columns 33-35. This is very interpretive, the bracketed and rubricated version with comments is attached.

Epíkouros, Peri Phýseōs, Book 14, P.Herc. 1148, columns 33-35:

(about monism) ...for these situations are not generated from this one single underlying substance by its concentrating or by its dispersing ¬ but rather, what situation prevails is produced out of the differences in the variations of the shapes…

(about Platonic solids) ...such is the case for those who define one particular shape for fire, or earth, or water, or air: since they are more ridiculous than those who do not define one particular shape for each element – given that, in their comparative juxtapositions, those who define shape for elements should have agreed, either willingly or unwillingly, that certain multiple particular forms of shapes are produced which can affirmatively be said to be substantial [i.e., really existing] in accordance with each compound: but some miss the mark regarding these component elements, and there is something more consistent to be said that pertains to these elements – speaking in this way, those who define one particular shape for each element could also wholly refer to the difference in the mixtures – but those people who… for the…

…how could someone perceive water or air or fire as solid and indissoluble, when one cannot even perceive earth as solid and indissoluble? not to mention the fact that those people representing these ideas of indissoluble elements do in reality divide them: given that each of these elements is not conceived as solid, then one could provide many and varied images of shapes according to the divisions of elements – and there will not be just triangles, or pyramids, or cubes, or any other finite shape specific to each element – for those who define a particular shape for each element would have nothing persuasive to say to convince us that it is more fitting to think that these four visible forms are apprehended by us according to their divisions of a specific shape for each element rather than the elements being varied in their specific class of shapes…

Thank you all for this discussion! It inspired me to spend the night working on the text. Here are the surrounding columns. Please let me know if you see any errors.

Quote from Cassius

do you know if there is a translation of what exists most closely before and after this passage?

I have never seen it translated anywhere. I have the next column, number 6, in Epicurea -- it is where Philodemus mentions the rumors that "Leóntion and another ‹companion› are mentioned in the treatise – and that the lover of Idomeneús was Nikídion, and of Leonteús was Mammárion, and of Hérmarchos was Dēmētría – and such a kind also was Polýaenus, tutor of Pythoclês."

Quote from Cassius

I think it is almost or more an issue that we do not have the immediate before or after context of these lines.

The Tetraphármakos is in P.Herc. 1005 column five, and we do have most of columns 2 - 7, but the context is still difficult to work out.

Quote from Eikadistes

3-D print coin

These SFOTSE prints are great. But I lost track of the producer. Do you know if they are still being sold?

These are the "necklace" molds I referenced last night (with a drachma of Demetrius Poliorcetes for scale). It's an amateur effort -- the most recent one is almost bubble free! But if anybody wants some, just let me know and I'll be happy to gift a few of them (along with a Demetrius drachma).

Quote from Cassius

In the same era of Epicurus lived Demetrius I Poliorcetes = "The Besieger" the son of Antigonus I Monophthalmus and Stratonice. He was a Macedonian Greek military leader, and finally king of Macedon (294–288 BC). He belonged to the Antigonid dynasty and was its first member to rule Macedonia and Athens.

When Demetrius removed Cassander's aristocrats that ruled Athens in 307 BC, many Athenians were grateful to have Demetrius as their more lenient master compared to Cassander's men. Epicurus moved back to Athens just a year later.

It seems likely that Epicurus also favored this political turn, as control by Demetrius I Poliorcetes may well have made an environment more conducive to start the community Epicurus wanted to establish -- scholars seem generally allow that he fostered a favorable intellectual climate compared to Cassander. Demetrius also used his "Besieging" know-how to build up-to-date fortifications for Athens... And also, a glance as his personality will show that he just probably would have looked upon Epicurus' philosophy with casual approbation.

But politics is complicated and it seems that 13 years later Athens rebelled against him, unsuccessfully, but it was at that point in 294 BC that I think Epicurus probably did his famous rationing.

Quote from Martin

Epicurus did not claim the existence of a smallest unit of length either

He seems to get very close to this topic at 58c:

"We observe visible minima in succession, beginning with the first, and do not observe them in the same space as another, nor do we observe them intertwining any parts with any other part. Rather, we observe the visible minima fully measuring size according to their particularity of being visibly indivisible: a greater amount of visible minima measures a greater-sized object, and a lesser amount measures a lesser-sized object. It is necessary to think that the minimum in the atom also follows this analogy – although clearly in minuteness it differs from what is observed by sensation – but it follows the same analogy: since We have also fully indicated that the atom has size, according to the analogy from the immediate surroundings – by extending a small thing, only by a long way. Also, it is necessary to think of atomic minima as pure limits of length – providing from themselves as primary units the full measurement for the larger and for the smaller atoms – by our observation, through reasoning, of what is unseen."

A few weeks ago we were looking at Laë́rtios 10.135 "In other writings, Epíkouros rejects all divination, as in the Short Epitome, and says 'divination is non-existent – but even if existent: what comes from it ought to be considered nothing to us'"

Along with this statement, we must also consider Torquatus (De Finibus 1.72): "Should [Epíkouros], like Plato, have wasted his days studying music, geometry, arithmetic and astronomy? Those subjects start from false premises and so cannot be true. And even if they were true, they have no bearing on whether we live more pleasantly."

Divination does not exist. However, even if the predictions of diviners were real and sufficiently unambiguous to be actionable – those predictions still could not add anything to our life: because they cannot add to our already existing state of total pleasure (which we already easily achieve by fulfilling our natural and necessary needs).

Quote from Cassius

From Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus, Paragraph 47 we read : «… ότι τα είδωλα ταις λεπτότησιν ανυπερβλήτοις κέχρηνται [ατόμοις], ουδέν αντιμαρτυρεί των φαινομένων· όθεν και τάχη ανυπέρβλητα έχει (ως άνω κινούνται ισοταχώς και κατά παρέγκλισιν) πάντα πόρον σύμμετρον έχοντα …»

Good to hear from Elli, thank you for sharing! Just so we are all on the same page, what is underlined ("and as said above move at equal speed and by swerve") is an addition in modern Greek. Paragraph 47 is the most difficult section of the entire letter, and I understand the need to add parenthetical explanations, but it can be a bit confusing when those explanations are also in Greek!

"...accordingly, nothing among visible things contradicts that films are endowed with unsurpassable thinness – from which [thinness, the films] also have unsurpassable speeds, having every proportionate passageway..."

When thinking about things we can't see or sense, we should base our ideas on what we can see and sense, and make sure they match.

Or maybe:

When we try to understand things we can’t see, we should use what we know about things we can see and make sure our ideas fit together.

Great podcast! Yes, Cicero is forgetting that, per Epicurus, a consideration is true -- both "if it is not contradicted " by evidence as well as "if it is affirmed." (51c)

Thank you both, Cassius and Kalosyni!