Prolepsis of the gods

Quote from Rolf

Actually, could somebody take a crack at explaining fundamentally what prolepsis is? Is it innate knowledge that we’re born it? I’m more confused than I thought!

Rolf I’ve been doing (undoubtedly) superficial research on the internet to get this topic more firmly in my mind. How does this approach sound to make Prolepsis more concrete (ish) by comparing the major schools of the ancient era?
Prolepsis within Epicurus’ thought is the acquisition of knowledge, the process that comes from experience through the senses, and truth can be determined from repeated experience and thinking about what we know.

Prolepsis within Plato’s (stoic)thought is the acquisition of knowledge from innate sources, divine eternal universal truths.

Prolepsis within Skeptic (Phyrro) thought is that you can’t trust either of the above for definitive acquisition of knowledge since you can’t prove either is true.

Rolf I hope I'm not abusing a topic, but I committed myself to reading DeWitt. DeWitt is hard reading for me, because he is constantly on both the offense and the defense.

Anyway, FYI if you choose to read more, in his chapter: VIII SENSATIONS, ANTICIPATIONS, AND FEELINGS, he gets into a discussion of Prolepsis at p. 143 under the topic of Anticipations of Epicurus' thought.

Quote from Rolf

Actually, could somebody take a crack at explaining fundamentally what prolepsis is? Is it innate knowledge that we’re born it? I’m more confused than I thought!

I can provide a few instances that might help orient the idea. (And not that I have a full grasp – it's a slippery concept for us all – but these are the examples I found in the available works).

Diogénēs provides us with the following definition (per my swing at translating).

Quote

33 But they call the [next criterion] “Preconception“⁵⁰ as if a comprehension, or a right opinion, or notion, or universal thought stored in her, that is, memory of the appearances repeatedly [received] from abroad, like [the form of a] Human, such is one example; for once it [appears], the clear [form of a] Human attaches to [the] preconception, and the imprint of the sensations is preceding [it]. Then, each name primarily follows [what] is visible, since we could not have sought the investigation if we had not first perceived it, just as [we] have further established a horse is [this] or [a] cow [is that]. For one must perceive before the preconception the [physical] form of [a] horse and of [a] cow. One should not at all have named something, not before one experienced the [physical] impression related to the preconception. But the preconceptions are manifest [to the mind], and because of prior [experience] the conjectural things are contingent upon sensible [stimuli] to [which] we say they are referring, as when we have confirmed if [a] Human is there. ³⁴But they also call the preconception [an] opinion [that] they affirm [to be] either true or false; for indeed, to be true, [it] must corroborate or not contradict; but if not corroborating or contradicting, [it] happens to be false. Hence, this has introduced [the need to practice] waiting [for confirmation]; for example, a [soldier] had waited [to make a judgment] and had advanced near a watchtower, and [having advanced] near, it had become known what sort [of watchtower] it appears [to be].

One takeaway here is that, of considerations, a prolḗpsis is a true consideration, and, further, a consideration the directly corresponds with a real, demonstrable thing, or type of thing. Truth is a true belief about reality, so the prolḗpsis of gods is having the right opinion about theology.

Epíkouros gives us an example of a true belief versus a false belief:

In the Epistle to Menoikeus, in a discussion on theology, the ΠΡΟΛEΨΣEΙΣ or προλήψεις (prolḗpseis) are contrasted against ΥΠΟΛEΨΣEΙΣ or ὑπολήψεις (hypolḗpseis). Whereas the prolḗpseis are formed in the mind "before", so hypolḗpseis are formed "after" (123). The prolḗpsis of a god is a being who is blessed and incorruptible. The hypolḗpseis of a god is a being who is corrective, punitive, meddling, and generally troublesome. The prolḗpsis in this case is just the basic definition of "a god", whereas the hypolḗpsis incorporates another, unrelated prolḗpsis (like the prolḗpsis of the atmospheric phenomena of static discharge) to create a fantastical narrative that deviates from this fundamental definition (like Zeus smites the wicked with thunderbolts or rewards the faithful by not obliterating them). Hypolḗpseis are false assumptions, directly contrasted against reliable prolḗpseis.

From this, I take away that the prolḗpsis of the gods corresponds with the notion that a god is a perfectly happy being, whereas a mortal is an animal that dies, and a horse is a hooved quadraped. In this sense, it can be helpfully contextualized as part of the process of a naming schema. All disconnected cultures of peoples have a words for "warmth" and "baby" and "milk" and "hair", "light", "dark", and, as the cross-cultural exchange triggered by Alexander demonstrated to Hellenic Greece, apparently, as is evident to anthropologists, archaeologists, and linguists, "gods".

In the Epistle to Herodotos, the Hegemon contrasts the prolḗpseis of objects perceived by us against the "concept of Time", which is not described as a thing like a "horse", or "man", or "god", nor a category of things like an "animal", or "mortal", or "immortal", nor even expressed as a quality of a real thing, like "having hooves", or "respirating", or "being perfectly happy", but is rather just a kind of relative, measuring stick, an "accident of accidents" (172). We casually throw around the word time to actually mean something like any relative, human measurement against periodically-rotating, nearby objects, albeit the annual revolution around the Sun, or the frequency of a Cesium-133 atom. Here, Time is a bit of a contrast against a classical, Epicurean preconception.

Mentioned elsewhere, in the final few Doctrines, Epíkouros identifies "justice" as a prolḗpsis, which, itself, is neither a real thing (like a "man" and "horse"), but more of a category (like "vertebrates") but as applies to situations and events, as a pact to neither harm nor be harmed. The preconception is realized during any periods where pacts are being honored between different parties. Here, there's not a Golden Triforce you can pocket called "justice", but there are examples of the "justice" that is evident within "just actions", so, this is another, kind of categorical preconception.

That's how I read it. These are the main instances I found where "preconception" is used.

An analogy (imperfect at best) I use to describe prolepsis, which should be familiar to most these days, are the cameras on our phones. Say that your mind is like a camera constantly taking pictures of various things. Take a picture of a big tree, little tree, wide tree, narrow tree. Eventually the photo album on your phone will suggest a file simply called "trees" or "sunsets" because it has recognized (pattern recognition) the similarities between various individual pictures (sensations) and organized them into an album (prolepsis). Now an analogy which would apply to gods might be something like taking a picture of a ball, a bat, a base, manicured grass, chalk lines, and a foul pole, eventually suggesting a new file called "baseball". However abstract concepts like gods and the game of baseball would require a language to flesh out, I feel. Once again imperfect at best but maybe helpful to some.

There is one passage the relevance of which I think is underappreciated in the prolepsis discussion. This below from fragment 5 of Diogenes of Oinoanda gets referenced frequently in regard to Epicurus' canon in general, but I wonder if it not a specific reference to the function of prolepsis:

Quote

Fr. 5
....

Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

When you're living in an age when most every educated person would be aware that Heraclitus has said everything is in such flux and flows so fast that it is impossible to apprehend anything at all, you need a description of the process by which you DO apprehend things and make sense of them.

I wonder if prolepsis then might best be understood as Epicurus' answer not just to Plato and Aristotle, who were themselves apparently responding to Heraclitus by postulating that there are true forms or essences (neither of which exist).

Epicurus' prolepsis provides the foundation of an answer to Heraclitus' flux challenge in a natural faculty, just like pleasure and pain, to how we actually understand the things around us without reliance on forms or esences which do not exist, or on preexisting innate ideas from a time before birth. In providing a theory of understand the assembly of knowledge, it is parallel to atomism in providing a theory of physics.

Even as to the title we generally give to Lucretius' poem, how would we know what a "thing" is, or distinguish one "thing" from another, if we did not have a faculty which continuously organizes the raw data from the senses into something intelligible?

As I understand it there are not many reliable quotations from Heraclitus available, but those that do make it clear that this "flux" problem demanded a real-world answer.