Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Don

What differentiates an "atheist church" from an Epicurean "garden" if the church-goers don't accept any supernatural causes? What do "we" offer as a distinct philosophy to secular "nones"?

We have the philosophy but not the community. I've no experience with atheist churches, so for me a question would be "what do they offer?"

Of interest is the community and morality offered by any church, atheist or theist or deist or whatever. I think that to some degree these are as important as the theology, both to unite the congregation and to separate them from outsiders. Note all of the people born into a given church who disregard the supernatural but still follow the morality established, supposedly, by that supernatural. There is also the "advantage" of being able to follow a pre-established morality and so not having to engage with difficult questions to the degree, perhaps, of somebody following a relative morality. In an atheist church there is the danger of settling upon an absolute morality; a garden avoids that. But I think that, throughout time, community and morality are at least important as the supernatural for the allure of churches, and at least as divisive in terms of an overall culture or "us" v "them."

Don makes a great analysis of sunsets and burns. Sunsets, vistas, contemplating the universe; so many things do seem to stimulate a prolepsis of awe/wonder/mystery/connectedness. I'll even go out on a limb and say that this could be what some people (not me!) have referred to as "the god shaped hole" in their hearts. Which maybe leads back to "images."

Don I think we're saying the same thing about justice. I was attempting to differentiate between the concept and the prolepsis, but you've described it more clearly.

I guess I've absorbed more of DeWitt than I was aware of! It's been a while but I've read the sections on the Canon a couple of times though I don't consciously remember them. That's one reason why I'm not a lawyer!

Regarding the "images," to me there are two topics involved. Don rightly mentioned above that all three faculties aren't activated without a stimulus. To clarify my original point that he was responding to, my thinking is that the prolepses and feelings aren't activated without an internal stimulus. The sensations, it would seem, are reacting to external stimuli. They then transmit an internal stimulus to the prolepses or feelings.

The images are described as external particles stimulating the faculties. I'm not sure that I buy that and that is one topic of discussion. The other topic is our modern understanding of thoughts and dreams. On the subject of the Canon, I would describe these as internal stimuli that can then tickle the prolepses and feelings.

A further question that I periodically ponder is whether or not the three legs as conceived by Epicurus function together as a process, interact randomly, or both.

I keep leaning toward the notion that they function together as a process, but I may be bringing that to it from my personal bias. The way that I envision the process working is that the prolepses work on a "gut" level to route a received sensation to either a pleasure or pain receptor. If neither feeling is involved, then there's no prolepsis. So we determine a concept of justice not necessarily from a single use of the Canon but through multiple exposures to situations that involve justice and stimulate resultant feelings of pleasure or pain. The concept of justice is a mental construct (not Canonical). The prolepsis of justice is the "intuition" that gives us pleasure or pain from the situation involving justice or injustice.

Now there are situations that lead to feelings with, seemingly, no prolepsis involved: seeing a beautiful sunset, burning your hand on the stove. And there are situations that don't stimulate feelings (recognizing an ox as an ox) and so, by this line of reasoning, don't involve a prolepsis. But in thinking of it in terms of a process, the prolepses or feelings aren't activated without a stimulus. Which maybe after all is just a long winded way of saying that a prolepsis is not a concept, although more specifically I'm trying to ascertain if the Canon is considered to be an integrated process.

What if we zoom out a bit, then zoom back in. This is an off the cuff expression of my current understanding so I'm kind of going to ramble a bit.... The Canon is a three legged tool with which to measure the veracity of observations and/or arguments. One leg, the sensations, provides input. One leg, the feelings, responds to input (sensations, thoughts, etc) and also provides guidance for action. As to the leg of prolepses... it seems that this can be a bridge between the two other legs. Is it also an internal source of input, or, like feelings, is it strictly another response mechanism? As a response mechanism it would be an innate faculty, but subject to "training" over time.

I need to give this a lot more thought, but where I'm going is asking what the function of each leg is, how or if they work together, and whether or not this can help to define a prolepsis. Part of the difficulty in answering this is that there seems to be a wide variety of ways that the Canon can function.

Also, there are five or more sensations which interact with each other. The feelings have an inverse relationship as described by the Full Cup model. Is there something analogous in the workings of the prolepses? I often think of them as a bridge between the other two legs but I'm not sure that that's entirely accurate.

I'm not sure if this is useful or not but I figured I'd put it out there....

Quote

So whether we have "prolepsis of truth" very possibly should always be stated to convey that we are talking about having a prolepsis of the truth of a particular situation.

Yes, that's very important!

Again to compare truth with justice, I think that it's also the case that a prolepsis of justice applies to a particular situation. Thinking about it, a prolepsis, being part of the Canon is a faculty to evaluate a particular situation. Similarly for sensations and feelings.

We can apply well developed concepts to the evaluation of specific situations, but a prolepsis is a more fundamental, gut level, lizard brain tool for evaluating. A different faculty from the use of reason. Which accidentally asks the question "is reason a faculty?" Maybe there's a better word that's specific to "abilities" outside of the Canon.

Absolutely it's not an absolute!

To further compare truth and justice as prolepseis: in order to provide further understanding of the prolepsis of justice, Epicurus provides 10 Principal Doctrines. In order to provide further understanding of (the prolepsis of?) truth, he provides the Canon.

That of course doesn't mean that truth is definitely a prolepsis, but it does seem to me to be an analogous situation.

Now I understand better what you wrote previously, Don. Thanks for elaborating!

Regarding prolepseis and what was discussed in the podcast: if I understood her correctly, Elayne was comparing truth with, say, sweetness, as something that doesn't need definition. To me that's not correct, and I would consider it to be a prolepsis. Just as everyone can have a different idea as to what is just, so everyone can have a different idea as to what is true. But the prolepsis, at least as I understand it, is the germ of the idea. Little children have a general sense of what is fair and just, and they also have a general sense of truth. This is different from knowledge of specific concepts of truth and justice, which are only developed with time, experience and input from the senses and feelings. A child can see something and through their feelings, mediated by their prolepseis, have a sense as to whether that something is just, true or whatnot. This precedes conceptualizing about "what is truth" and the like.

At least that's how I currently understand it!

Continuing the quotation above:

Quote

"I see, then, no fixed basis for truth." "

It surely has the most fixed of all — the nature of things. And it is only an imperfect insight into that nature, which occasions all our erroneous conclusions, whether in physics or morals."

"But where, if we discard the gods, and their will, as engraven on our hearts, are our guides in the search after truth ?" "

Our senses and our faculties as developed in and by the exercise of our senses, are the only guides with which I am acquainted. And I do not see why, even admitting a belief in the gods, and in a superintending providence, the senses should not be viewed as the guides, provided by them, for our direction and instruction. But here is the evil attendant on an ungrounded belief, whatever be its nature. The moment we take one thing for granted, we take other things for granted: we are started in a wrong road, and it is seldom that we can gain the right one, until we have trodden back our steps to the starting place. I know but of one thing that a philosopher should take for granted; and that only because he is forced to it by an irresistible impulse of his nature; and because, without doing so, neither truth nor falsehood could exist for him. He must take for granted the evidence of his senses; in other words, he must believe in the existence of things, as they exist to his senses. I know of no other existence, and can therefore believe in no other: although, reasoning from analogy, I may imagine other existences to be.

From A Few Days in Athens:

Quote

"But what is a truth?" said Theon.

"It is pertinently asked. A truth I consider to be an ascertained fact; which truth would be changed into an error, the moment the fact, on which it rested, was disproved."

Wouldn't this be the prolepsis? In a universe of atoms and void there is no Truth, only truths.

Don I've just watched the Economist video and the Brian Greene video and find them quite thought provoking. However what I'm finding is that, for me, physics videos are basically appetizers: just enough to get some idea of the issues but not a full understanding. For me, doing some reading will provide the chance to follow the arguments more carefully as well as to reflect on the implications. But if this subject was simple, we wouldn't be discussing it!

More specifically, the string theory as presented by Greene seems profoundly unsatisfying: too many machinations for too few results. Of course there is the factor of my admitted ignorance.... But I tend to prefer the Ockham's razor approach; the approach in the video seems way too convoluted to suit my simplistic taste.

Thanks for the links though!

Yes, that's the one!

Quote

So as to: "The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. " I think Epicurus would say that statement is exactly correct. Our human reality cannot be fully understood as "physics." Our human reality is real to us through the canonical faculties, including not just the bodily senses, which are "more" understandable in terms of physics, but also the feeling of pleasure and pain and anticipations, which arise from physical processes but in effect constitute a separate playing field of understanding

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but this is my intuitive answer to the idea that there is no free will.

Thanks for the links, Don! I'll take a look at those over the weekend.

I recently listened to a podcast with Alan Alda interviewing Brian Greene. You're right, he's a very good speaker and presenter of ideas; I've been thinking of reading one of his books but haven't yet. I'm also considering Victor Stenger's book God and the Multiverse: it looks like it has less to do with god and more to do with presenting a history of the ideas leading up to current cosmological thinking, which could be a good (if challenging) read. Stenger is an experimental as opposed to a theoretical physicist, which is something I like about him. I don't recall where Greene is on that spectrum but he seemed quite grounded.

Both Greene and Stenger, at least to some extent, consider the philosophical implications of the conclusions of physics. From what I've read or listened to, Stenger addresses the fallacy of god, while Greene addresses the implications of living in a world devoid of meaning. And they both reach ethical conclusions compatible with those of Epicurus. Greene, however, is adamant that free will doesn't exist. I personally don't buy that, and I'm not sure I'm ready to go down that rabbit hole although I would like to read his reasoning at some point.

Hmmm. I've definitely got to read up on the multiverse. I have no idea about spaces between or different sets of laws....

It also eliminates any supernatural since everything that exists is subject to natural laws.

Quote

From Don: "I do find the idea of multiple universes existing side by side in the wider multiverse, all with radically different laws of physics or whatnot, intriguing."

However universes with different laws of physics might provide an opening for the supernatural. I'm not at all familiar with theories of a multiverse (although I did watch that Spider-Man movie ). Sounds like some challenging reading to tackle!

Good discussion! I may have missed it in reading your posts, but isn't a major philosophical value of infinite time and space the idea that nothing (such as a creator) can exist outside of said infinity? To me, this is the key difference between "infinite" and "innumerable."

Recently there was some discussion of the expanding universe, heat death, the infinite (in time and space) universe and the ramifications of these ideas. I just came across an image from 1750 of the universe comprised of infinite galaxies, which made me think that it might be useful to start a thread on the topic. Just in case anybody would like their mind blown!

Here's the article that the image came from:

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/a-finite-…ok-collections/

Happy Twentieth!

Apologies for this tidbit from the Argyle Sweater calendar:

I completely agree with all of the above. To go off on somewhat of a tangent: those who suppress their pain no longer have fully functioning physical/emotional faculties as noted above. So to what do they resort? Reason. This is one pathway to placing reason on a pedestal, which often leads to obviously bizarre conclusions. There are no longer any valid "checks and balances" for their ruminations.

Just another place where Epicurus got it right, by placing reason subordinate to the Canon.