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.
Thanks for the suggestion, Cassius. Detailed TOC is now added to the letters/doctrines and to each of the 112 sections as well.
Also, feel free to put this file into 'files section' for general accessibility, if you think it's worthwhile. This file contains 100% of public domain material.
There are 112 pages in the attached pdf file. Each page contains one section of Epicurus' core texts (the three letters and Principal Doctrines) as per Diogenes Laertius' notation and is marked as such at the top.
Every page has four sections. Epicurus' words in Greek are followed by three translations: Yonge's, Hicks' and Bailey's. I think such arrangement can enhance the study of the philosophy by increased understanding of each passage.
I know there are more modern translations available but I included only those translations which are complete (i.e. all core texts are translated) and are in public domain. This way, the attached file can be freely distributed and used without any constraints.
This is an initial version and most likely contains some errors. Please let me know if you see something in need of correction or you have an idea how the file can be improved. I'll do what I can to make it better.
Have a blast studying!
Agreed. That's why I content that the prolepsis of the gods does not cover their blessed and incorruptibility.
Thanks for focusing again on the question of which aspects of knowledge of the gods constitute prolepsis and which constitute opinions arising from reasoning.
I'm with Don on this one. Prolepsis, as all Epicurean canonical faculties, is separated from reasoning. The way I see it, prolepsis is a pattern recognition. If I see enough cats in my life, I'll recognize the next one as a cat without thinking about it. If I lift enough cups of coffee in my life, I'll apply a perfect amount of force to lift the next cup of coffee without thinking about it. Epicureans believed that humans' minds are directly hit with the images of gods, so humans were able to develop prolepsis of gods.
The moment we think: 'Sphynx cats are furless', 'Led cups with coffee are heavy', 'Epicurean gods are blessed' is when the reasoning kicks in. Canonical input data is being processed and opinions arise.
These five tables are brilliant, Bryan . Thank you for preparing them. One suggestion for the third table. Under 'Experiences' I think it would be more precise to go straight into ἡδονή - pleasure and ἀλγηδών - pain instead of '(i.e., feelings)'. Essentially, these are epicurean παθη.
Bryan's tables are pure essence of Epicurean's truth criteria. If someone wishes to investigate them in more descriptive form, I've prepared something for you in the attached pdf file. It's an extract from Sextus Empiricus 'Against the Logicians'. Four passages from books I and II. Definitely worth a read.
And if someone is interested in other ancient philosophers' takes on epistemology, you can easily find 'Against the Logicians' on archive.org.
For those who don't want to post anything online but want to use this software for personal projects where side by side texts comparison is needed, here's the easiest way to do it.
Step 1: Download the zip file and unpack it where you want it. It's basically a webpage template that allows you to display the texts side by side.
https://github.com/tasuki/sbs/archive/gh-pages.zip
Step 2: Create a local HTTP server. This will create a local environment for your webpage. There are different way to do it but the simplest is to run below command in the directory where index.html is. (Make sure Python is installed and you run the command in the correct directory)
python -m http.server
Step 3: Edit index.html to make sure base href is set to current directory: <base href="/"> or simply remove this line as default is current directory anyway.
Step 4: Copy of the files from tests/the_raven folder into the folder where index.html is. These files are the example to show you how things are done. For your own projects, modify these files or create your own.
Step 5: Open your web browser with this address: http://localhost:8000/. This is how you access the local server where your newly created website is.
That's it. Now the world is your oyster. You can put your own texts, compare, re-arrange or even change how things look like by modifying all_min.css file in styles directory. (The file is obfuscated but there are ways to deobfuscate it so it's easy to modify to your liking). After you're happy with the results, you can print as pdf in the browser and you have a nice looking document. Have fun.
Recently, I came across a note in one of the books I was reading that listed 'Lucretius, epicurean and poet' in two volumes by John Masson as an important monograph on Lucretius. It got me curious because I've never heard about this author. I tried to find some information about him online and I got even more curious when I found absolutely nothing. I did, however, found the monograph on archive.org along one more book on Lucretius published in 1884 (all the links at the end of this post).
I don't know if the books are worth recommending because I've only skimmed through the tables of contents but at the first look, these works seem to be thorough and interesting studies on Lucretius. If anyone is familiar with these books, please let me know if they are worthwhile.
The atomic theory of Lucretius contrasted with modern doctrines of atoms and evolution (1884)
Lucretius, epicurean and poet - volume I (1907)
Lucretius, epicurean and poet - volume II (1909)
If you're looking for something like that:
you may want to follow the link to the source code given in 'About' section. I didn't investigate it closely but it looks like there are some instructions how to create similar projects. There are also author's contact details there, if needed.
Happy Birthday Onenski
Through the presentation of a lesser-known Epicurean called Boethus of Sidon, Francesco Verde in his article makes an intriguing points about Epicurean position regarding geometry and its (in)validity. Something else, however, caught my eye as well there. That is the paragraph on acoustics and its explanation through atomism and the influence of heat and cold on atomic concentrations. Enjoy.
Some fragments from Oenoanda dealing with why gods didn't create the world; Dead Sea argument (probably the most interesting part as it doesn't appear in Epicurus' writings known to us); severe pain leading to death; nature of pleasure; natural phenomena like thunderbolts and earthquakes and few other bits and pieces.
I have to ask, because I really don't understand how DeWitt's statement at the beginning of this episode is presented as relevant to the discussion. I'm talking about this:
The adoption of the Euclidean textbook as a model involved, of course, the procedure by deductive reasoning. The Twelve Elementary Principles were first stated and then demonstrated like theorems. Each theorem. in turn, once demonstrated, became available as a major premise for the deduction of subsidiary theorems. [...]
Where his 'of course' chain of statements come from? How do we know about the adoption of the Euclidean textbook and its consequences? What Twelve Elementary Principles? Where were they first stated? Where were they demonstrated like theorems? How each of this theorem that we know nothing about became a premise for anything?
Is there anything out there that would validate all these claims as DeWitt doesn't provide any sources for his statements? If they are nothing but his speculations, I don't see how they can be considered relevant to the discussion.
And the very thought that we should restrict ourselves from exploring space and learning more about the universe is antithetical to Epicurus' emphasis on studying nature as the best way to live happily.
Cassius , I don't know what you're trying to achieve by stating the above but if you're suggesting I'm against learning, getting knowledge or exploring space, than you can't be further from the truth. I was talking about not pursuing physical contact with Epicurean gods, not about not pursuing anything at all. Your conclusions have nothing to do with what I said, whatsoever.
Again, I think we're just in fundamental disagreement here because you are maintaining that it is inherently impossible to gain additional knowledge in the future (after space travel) than we have today, and I think that's a fundamentally flawed perspective.
Yeah, except that's not my perspective at all. Once again, you're twisting my words about pursuing physical contact with Epicurean gods into what suits you and it's in almost perfect opposition to what I think about gaining knowledge.
It's possible Tau Phi that you have a unique perspective that makes you impervious to concerns about divinity, and again if that is so I applaud you for it.
As I said, my perspective is not relevant to the conversation. I'm talking strictly about Epicurean perspective regarding gods.
His direction clearly seems to be, "Supernatural gods do not exist, but the idea of "divinity" is not crazy at all, and there is good reason that people think about it."
I absolutely agree that this is the case.
And to repeat, even the "idealists" who reject the view that Epicurus thought his gods really existed appear to me to be essentially in agreement with how important a question this is. Having a proper perspective on divinity is a lot more than saying negatively "supernatural gods don't exist." It's an essential part of the picture to understand where the issue comes from and to have a positive position that relates to where we want to go in living as close to happily and imperishably as we can.
As far as I can comprehend Epicurus' view of gods, I think his gods were very much real in a physical sense. And he tried to make perfectly clear that they are not supernatural, not interested in human affairs and this is the proper perspective on divinity - think about it, marvel at it but don't physically touch it. He did this to remove the fear of gods and to shut the door behind such fear. Your insistence on the possibility of contact with gods by the means of space travel opens the door again to the fear of gods and I think this is an anti-Epicurean position and again, please don't read it as I am against knowledge in general because such accusations are frankly speaking ridiculous.
He said that there are infinite numbers worlds with life on them, some like and some unlike ours, and all his basic definition requires is that they be living, happy, and imperishable.
The first part is about non-gods. The second part is about gods. They don't mix.
So if you're clarifying that you mean don't "physically" hunt for them, then I'd agree,
I am responding to your parallel of looking for extraterrestrial life to looking for Epicurean gods. I am talking about active, physical pursuit of finding life (and gods) in the universe, not about an abstract deliberation on their existence or non-existence.
at least until we make further progress in space travel etc.
And again I have to disagree with this, taking the Epicurean perspective into consideration. It doesn't matter how much progress we make. Even if we have technology to be everywhere at the same time in the universe, Epicurean gods are off limit to humans. This is non-negotiable. Otherwise, the idea of such gods collapses entirely and Epicurus is proven dead wrong in this area of his philosophy.
I am not expressing my personal opinion about gods in post #2, Cassius . My personal opinion is not relevant in this thread at all. My point is, Epicureans should not engage in an attempt to actively seek a physical contact with their gods. Epicurean gods do not interfere in human affairs. Otherwise they wouldn't be blessed. I don't see how my post #2 is dramatically incompatible with Epicurean philosophy. On the contrary, looking for a contact with such gods is incompatible with the philosophy.
"How do you look for gods when you don't know what gods might look like?"
I agree that it's rather hard to look for something if you have no idea what you're looking for. One may be looking for a brick, got hit in the head by it and keep looking for a brick just because he doesn't know what a brick is.
But the answer to your question about the hunt for gods, if those are Epicurean gods, is: "You don't." Epicurean gods do not interfere with human affairs. Whenever you find creatures that are living beings, blessed, and imperishable, you know for sure that those are not Epicurean gods. The act of finding them establishes interference, therefore whatever you have just found is definitely not Epicurean gods. Looking for such gods makes as much sense as trying to see an invisible elephant. If you see it, it's definitely not an invisible elephant.
On the surface, the quote may look like an attractive proposition to people who gravitate towards Epicureanism. On closer inspection, the quote is deeply anti-Epicurean, however. It reveals preference of non-existence over existence. Such a sentiment leads to philosophical pessimism where the only sensible course of action is taking Twain's hundred million years holiday prematurely. Out of nowhere, we find ourselves in the world of Arthur Schopenhauer or Philipp Mainländer.
Mark Twain had some 75 years of opportunity to resume his holiday if he so truly desired and yet he didn't take it. He died when opportunity was no longer opportunity but an unavoidable necessity.
I also don't think Twain thought through the nature of non-existence as he seems to romanticise it with the absence of undesirable feelings (worry, grief etc.) and the presence of desirable feelings (content, satisfaction etc.). Non-existence offers nothing.
That said, I also am a huge fan of Mark Twain. He was an exceptional writer.
Where does he get "pale"? Did I miss a text? Maybe from Epictetus? I'll have to dig around unless someone knows and shares.
I wouldn't spend too much time trying to understand 'pale Epicureans'. The author seems to really love adjectives and probably just meant 'bleak', not 'pale'. The whole article is a perfect illustration why some people should have limited access to a thesaurus, or in the style of the author, the employment of a thesaurus should be categorically and unqualifiedly abstemious.
Thanks, Cassius . Great outline that can lead to an interesting discussion. I'm looking forward to it.
One thing that probably needs correction so it doesn't misrepresent the current science:
"3.1. Some argue that current science indicates that the entire universe is expanding from a center, and that this indicates a beginning point in both time and space."
I'm assuming you're talking about the big bang theory here. According to the theory, there wasn't a beginning point and the universe doesn't expand from the centre. The big bang gave rise to both the matter AND space as we know it and over time the space expanded to astronomical size as we get to experience it now. So the big bang happened everywhere at the same time. At the big bang moment 'here' and 'everywhere' were the same thing. 'The beginning point' was the whole universe. It's just got rather big over time and it expands everywhere, not from the central point.
I might be wrong, I'm not a physicist so maybe Martin can double check this.
With all due respect, Cassius and Kalosyni , I think you missed the purpose of the lecture completely. The purpose is to present few areas of Epicureanism and make people think about how and to what extent practical application is beneficial. It's about questions like: Can I take 3 types of desires as described by the philosophy and use this knowledge in everyday life successfully? Do I need something else or is it sufficient to make good decisions? Did Epicureans got friendship right? Should I change something in my approach towards my friends? What are the personal implications of acknowledging pleasure as the good? etc.
I think these are interesting questions to focus on instead of deconstructing the lecture for no other reason than showing if the presenter is 83% or only 68% accurate in his presentation of Epicureanism as you understand it. It's not an advanced course in the philosophy. And even if you're only interested in exposing how wrong the dude is, make sure you give valid arguments. Accusation that he's cherry picking makes no sense. This lecture is exactly about cherry picking. It's not a complete presentation of Epicureanism in 50min (which is impossible to do even if tried, which is not here). The lecturer picked few areas only and he explicitly says so. I don't understand Kalosyni's point in post #5 either. Kurt Lampe makes it crystal clear that for Epicureans all pleasure is good. Both mental and physical.
