Posts by Don

Epicurean_Preconceptions.pdf

I just found this article by Dr. Voula. It appears to have some good summaries of the current scholarship on the prolepses, and she gives her own take as well. I've only just begun reading, but a couple things jumped out so far including this list:

Quote

In the first place, an examination of early Epicurean texts intimates that the range of objects of which we have preconceptions includes: natural kinds, such as man, horse and cow; abstract entities, for instance justice, utility and truth; moral and psychological attitudes like responsibility and agency; and non-perceptible items, such as gods and atoms. Preconceptions of these objects always have an evidential basis. One acquires the preconception of cow through repeated clear impressions of cows, that of justice by perceiving many just acts, that of moral responsibility by being exposed to acts of praise and blame, and the prolēpsis of atoms as constantly moving by observing corpuscula dancing in the light. However, the evidence makes it reasonably clear that only some of our concepts are preconceptions formed in the aforementioned way, while all other concepts are formed by internal mental processes in which the mind plays a role. ‘All notions arise by means of confrontation, analogy, similarity and combination, with some contribution from reasoning as well’ (DL 10.32).

The list is helpful, but I'm not sure I accept the conclusions. I find it interesting that she includes truth in the abstract concepts list! I'd like to know where that comes from in the texts to provide some context.

Prolepses are also described elsewhere as being innate, and, if they're innate, that seems to mean they are inborn. So, Tsouna's contention that they require multiple experiences doesn't seem to line up with that idea of innateness.

Onthe other hand, consider the acquiring of language by babies and toddlers (to look at the prolepses of language, e.g., cow, man, horse, etc.). My contention would be that as we are acquiring the words of our individual language (man, άνθρωπος, l'homme, etc.) we are attaching these to prolepses of the general meaning of man, car, house, tower, etc. These are NOT Platonic Forms but mental images we will immediately access when we again hear or read or imagine those concepts.

But is this prolepses or simply memory? For me, the innateness and reflexive automatic pre-rational access of the prolepses would argue against this kind of formation of prolepses. I'm much more inclined to the instinctual, inborn faculties as being the prolepses.

I'll have to study the texts and the scholarship more, but this is where my head is at right now.

Speaking of sweetness and bitterness.. and revisiting Clear & Vivid with Alan Alda... Here is an episode of that podcast that got me thinking of the prolepsis of sweet = good & bitter = bad. The guest talks about tiny worms that seek out sweet things and avoid bitter things. I think I can see the idea of the proto-prolepsis in the worm but I'm not sure if others would see the sensations or the reactions (pleasure/pain) or all three of the Canon working in concert. I believe this is in the first half of the episode if you get a chance to listen.

I suppose I may be weaseling my way out of providing more of my current understanding of Epicurean prolepses. I'll try to be brief but also put my opinions out there.

First, I thought this article was interesting in drawing distinctions between Stoic and Epicurean prolepsis.

Now, for me, prolepses are engaged at the instinctual level. Research has shown that animals and babies already have a sense of fairness and "justice" if you will. Check these links here, here, and here to start. And we know Epicurus looked to animals and children for confirmation of the basic tenets.

So, my understanding is that prolepses could be thought of as instinctual or innate, inborn faculties that "grasp" more abstract phenomena like justice and our sensations grasp more concrete phenomena like sights, sounds, tactile sensations, etc.

That's why I don't think we need a prolepsis of Truth. Something either agrees with our sensations or it doesn't. I don't think that's the same as recognizing whether something is just or not and hence needing a prolepsis.

Quote from Godfrey

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

Thanks for that quote, Godfrey ! I would say no, that's not the prolepsis (or a prolepsis), but let me explain.

This was actually the point I was originally trying to make. "The Truth" with a capital T and scare quotes doesn't exist. That seems to me to be a Platonic ideal that has no relation to the real world. I would agree with your quote in that the only things we have are true facts as ascertained by observation and evidence. That way, we don't get into arguments about my Truth vs your Truth. What do the observations say are true facts. Otherwise, we're arguing about internal mental constructs that may or may not be connected to things able to be perceived. If someone believes the existence of God is Truth, can that be observed? Can that be factually ascertained? No? Then it's not a true fact but empty opinion.

I also don't think this recognition of a true fact rises to the level of a prolepsis. Either things correspond to observable phenomena as ascertained by our senses or extensions of our senses (e.g., telescopes, microscopes, instruments, etc.) or they don't. I know the prolepses are a hot topic and I won't go into my (current) understanding of them; but, in summary, I don't think we need to fall back on a prolepsis to determine if an observable fact is true or not. It either corresponds to our observations or it doesn't.

I hope that fleshes out my understanding a little, but I remain open to to reading others takes on this!

I'll do my best

I'm also reading Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference" and the commentary that you recommended. This does seem to bear directly on the issue at hand, so thanks for that suggestion.

Oh, dear. I did say I was going to respond. I'm going back and listening again to make sure I remember correctly. I'm about 1/2 way through again. Here are some initial thoughts:

I think I'm coming around to the idea that investigation... observation, if you will... of phenomena doesn't have to stop if you're Epicurean. I'm still not sure if I'm onboard with Epicurus and the classical Epicureans being advocates of "science" since science as a method or discipline didn't exist yet. I'm uneasy about imposing anachronistic definitions onto ancient terms, texts, and ideas. That said, Epicurus's φυσιολογίας "physiologias" or the study of Nature/what is natural would imply he wanted an accurate or realistic understanding of natural processes and phenomena. My jury is still out on the implications of this.

I do want to address the conversation in the podcast on truth or Truth with a capital T. I have to disagree with Elayne and others that everyone knows what Truth is. In a quotidian sense, people can understand what true vs false is. "2+2=4" is true. I can count things. "The Earth is flat" is not true but some people will assert that it is true. For them, that statement is true and in some ways Truth. Other people "know" God is real and intercedes in their life and that's True. They would say others who don't believe God is Truth are mistaken (at least). All of humanity does not have a prolepsis of Truth. That would make life easier. Maybe in the most rudimentary sense of true vs false, but I don't think that rises to the level of prolepsis. People know what THEY know is Truth but those other people over there don't know Truth. Unless I've misconstrued the conversation, I think the concept of Truth is much more elusive than some on the panel tried to make it out to be.

PS It appeared to me that Truth was being described as more of a Platonic ideal than as an Epicurean prolepsis in the podcast.

Quote from Cassius

Yes, Godfrey I agree. I can understand the technical issues being discussed by those who challenge "free will" - at least I think I can - but I also observe that those who really get into arguing against "free will" seem to have an agenda with implications that go far more deep than just a desire to be technically correct. Some version of "free will" is something that seems to be just as real to us as pleasure and pain, and from a practical point of view that pretty much ends the discussion of whether it is "real" or not.

I agree, Cassius . I can follow their arguments but I find them unpersuasive most of the time. And I agree that, from a practical perspective, free will is "real."

Quote

Godfrey: I recently listened to a podcast with Alan Alda interviewing Brian Greene.

It wasn't the Clear and Vivid episode by any chance, was it? I'm a regular listener of that podcast.

Interesting. It looks like vestigia carries the idea of footprints ("vestigial" marks left over from someone walking):

• vestīgium n (genitive vestīgiī or vestīgī); second declension
• footprint, track
• trace, vestige, mark
• sole of the foot
• horseshoe
• (figuratively, of time) moment, instant

My heavens (pun intended)! This thread has been active since I've been sleeping! Wonderful, thought-provoking comments and clarifications! I'm looking forward to digging in and responding!

One thing that hit me this morning was that I wanted to go back and see what Epicurus actually said when talking about other worlds in the Letter to Herodotus:

Quote

"Moreover, there is an infinite number of worlds [κόσμοι ἄπειροί εἰσιν], some like this world, others unlike it. For the atoms being infinite in number, as has just been proved, are borne ever further in their course. For the atoms out of which a world might arise, or by which a world might be formed, have not all been expended on one world or a finite number of worlds, whether like or unlike this one. Hence there will be nothing to hinder an infinity of worlds [τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων].

I admit I assumed that he used a word like Earth or something. I was pleasantly surprised and amused that the word he uses throughout is κόσμος kosmos or, if you will, cosmos. So, "there will be nothing to hinder an infinity of worlds" could just as readily be translated as "There is nothing impeding an unlimited number of cosmos." The ambiguity of that word "cosmos" is fun to play with. Don't misunderstand! I'm not saying Epicurus was a proponent of the multiverse interpretation (necessarily) but I don't think he'd rule it out. As I understand, cosmos can refer to a world or a world and its associated system or the universe, the sum total of "order" (cosmos) that arose out of Chaos (and we know Epicurus was unsatisfied by his early teachers' attempts to explain Hesiod's Chaos).

The poetry of a phrase like "an infinity of worlds" has a certain allure and power to my ears. That whole last sentence of that paragraph would make a great Tshirt or bumper sticker

Quote

οὐδὲν τὸ ἐμποδοστατῆσόν ἐστι πρὸς τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων.

"Ouden to empodostatēson esti pros tēn apeirian tōn kosmōn."

That empodostatēson carries the connotation of feet (..podo...) being put into shackles or fetters. So, there's nothing (ouden) binding the feet of reality for the existence of innumerable (apeirian) cosmos.

Ah! That concept - and the way Epicurus expresses it - just sings for me in the original language!

Good point, Cassius , on the necessity of some scientific literacy for everyone. You seem to also be making an argument for the need for some critical thinking skills which I also agree with wholeheartedly.

One thing that struck me just now (literally, just before I saw your post and replied) was that this feeds back into my earlier query about Epicurean attitudes to multiple explanations. On our current thread's topic here, there are multiple explanations (at least 4) for different multiverse theories. All appear to have parts of real possible approaches for getting at the real nature of reality. But we *can't* know for sure at this point, and that's okay. I can accept a possible multiverse and wait for more evidence of study to hone that idea. Just like the causes of lightning or earthquakes to Epicurus or Lucretius. They *couldn't* know for sure (no instruments, no theory of plate tectonics, etc.), but they thought about it, came up with multiple plausible (to them) fully-natural explanations, and decided to live under those parameters but be open to more study or evidence of it came along.

One of the things that attracted me to Epicureanism is that, from my perspective, it can incorporate an idea like the multiverse or evolution or the possibility of alien life or other science with barely a shrug. "That's very interesting," Epicurus says, and goes on about his writing. I don't think many systems of thought can do that. Concepts like the Atonement (What happens if there's aliens? Can they be saved too?) or evolution can tie Christian theology into knots! Epicureanism can look at those (aliens, evolution, etc.) and go, "Yep. No problem." Even classical Stoics saw the Logos at work in the universe. Epicureans didn't. They saw atoms and void and random movement. The fact that we have seen particles and anti-particles pop into and out of existence through energy changes of the quantum fields in particle accelerators doesn't affect the overall worldview of Epicurus one bit. There are fundamental physical building blocks of the universe. Whether you call them "atoms and void" or something else, the universe is built of matter without divine intervention. And even if "gods" exist, Epicurus demonstrated they have no concern over what we do nor could they have built the universe. That is incompatible with blessedness and happiness.

That's one of my reasons for finding Epicurus's philosophy compelling and worthy of study for myself.

Quote from Godfrey

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

I'm happy to provide some resources:

• "Nothing" - a TV program about "nothing" although the host also refers to it as the void and the vacuum. The void is an active principle out of which the universe arose. The void is not nothing.
• "Is our universe the only universe?" - TEDed presentation by Dr. Brian Greene pulling together string theory, inflationary cosmology, and the multiverse. Greene is an engaging, dynamic speaker. I highly recommend his videos and books.
• "Do we live in a multiverse?" - A good summary from The Economist and a summary of different multiverses
• "How many universes are there?" - PBS SpaceTime. Just when you think you may be wrapping your brain around the theory, watch this one (and others in the PBS SpaceTime series). My brain hurts!

Just the tip of the multiverse. If you're still interested, I recommend Dr. Greene, Dr. Sean Carroll, PBS SpaceTime. Please feel free to let me know if you find these interesting.

Quote from Cassius

Right -- so long as the infinite has no boundary, then there's no "other side" for god to live on, and any gods that do exist must live in our own universe. Good point.

Ah! But don't the Epicurean gods live in the intermundia... And couldn't that be the space between the universes of the multiverse? Just throwing that out there.

Cassius had some comments above that I wanted to comment on, so I'll include them all here. Most are "Amen, ho adelphos mou (my brother)!" and others I wanted to riff on.

Quote from Cassius

My personal take is that Epicurus is stressing the need to think about and get comfortable with the idea that there are certain things that are very difficult to get our minds around. He's saying that instead of defaulting to some mystical attitude that "it must be god/divine/magical," we should come to terms with the limits of our capabilities and get comfortable with making decisions within that scope, with is itself a very desirable thing to be good at.

Fully agree. It's that "limits" concept again that has a stream running through the philosophy. I also think Epicurus stresses again and again the material nature of reality with no need to default to the supernatural or mystical forces. And agreed that getting comfortable within one's limits is a positive thing, recognizing those limits, but also expanding those limits and one's understanding. Epicurus seemed to encourage students to study the doctrines and expand from the summary/epitome phase to the comprehensive view (i.e., the 37 books of On Nature) while never loosing sight of the summary versions and using those to keep your knowledge fresh *and* using that to be able to explain the philosophy succinctly and clearly.

Quote from Cassius

an important distinction between "uncountable because we don't have the time or ability" (the grains of sand on the beach) vs. "uncountable because it in fact has no limit on the number of instances" (the number of stars or planets or whatever in the universe).

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. I would include the grains of sand, the stars in the sky, and the number of molecules in one's body in that first category. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "instances". And, in fact, all those things are "countable" at least "estimate-able" using extensions of our senses and/or extrapolating using mathematics (e.g., a grain of sand is this big...; planets tend to form around this kind of star and there are this many stars...., etc.). My version of unlimited/infinite comes down to the average humans ability to both count and comprehend these enormous numbers. Which goes back to your point, I believe, about context and what audience one is talking to.

Quote from Cassius

That's why personally for me when we discuss (in the podcasts for example) that it doesn't matter whether the heat death of the universe theory is correct or not, because the time span is too great to be of relevance to us, I personally don't find that a satisfactory place to stop. I don't think Epicurus would have accepted (or suggest that we should entertain) any theory as possible which would postulate that anything could go to nothing, or come from nothing, much less the universe as a whole.

That's not exactly my take - i.e., its being relevant to us - on this topic. Let me expand on my thoughts on this one: I don't think it's a place to stop investigating. And details of all the cosmological theories are still to be worked out! And as I mentioned earlier, that "heat death" is only for our own little "pocket universe". The bigger multiverse stays "here" eternal and unchanging to paraphrase Epicurus. My take on the concept's "relevance" to us humans is that the timespans are SO mind-bendingly huge that - for all intents and purposes - the universe *is* "infinite" in relation to us even though its actual lifespan is (most likely) finite. Scientists have "seen" (with extensions of their senses) space expanding and the broad consensus is that it will keep expanding until the last bit of energy is spent. But that is SO far off in the future - relative to us - that even our far-off descendants or the descendants of the sentient squids that come after us will be long gone. BUT that doesn't negate Epicurus's fundamental Canon and material-based, non-supernatural Physics relative to us with respect to our situation in the here and now.

Also, I should say, I don't necessarily buy the idea of parallel universes where there are infinite numbers of "me" all living slightly different or radically different lives (a la Rick and Morty for those familiar with that animated series). 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. As long as there aren't multiple me's roaming around, I can *almost* wrap my head around that.

More to follow... Enjoying this thread! (Does it show? )

Quote from Cassius

Yes I agree, but just as we have to remain flexible toward ultimate particles we ha e to be at least as flexible and skeptical, or more so, about any particular theoretical model, especially if it is used to imply or advocate interpretations that would undermine the conclusion that the senses (thecanonical faculties) are what human life is all about.

"They're made up of sub-atomic particles according to the Standard Model"

Oh, agreed!

My understanding is that Epicurus built his Philosophy from the ground up, but what was most important in the end was how we live our lives based on that structure with the firm foundation of Canon and Physics.

We can't be beholden to millennia-old texts and be taken seriously when it comes to scientific assertions (like some people .. cough... Say "The Universe is 6,000 years old" ... cough), but being beholden to the spirit of the assertions should not be a problem.

And I also agree that most people don't need to concern themselves with multiverses, quantum field theory, etc., to live their daily lives. For those of us who enjoy that type of contemplation, it's pleasurable. But just knowing there are physical laws in the universe and we're made up of an infinite number of atoms and molecules and building on that, that can be enough.

I also don't think we should get caught in the trap of Epicurean Fundamentalism in requiring specifically "atoms and void" to exist as Epicurus described then. And we can't hold Epicurus to modern scientific standards of evidence and terminology.

We know modern "atoms" which make up molecules are not "un-cuttable" now. They're made up of sub-atomic particles according to the Standard Model. And those particles in turn may be made up of "strings" or fluctuations in quantum fields or... And so on.

The ultimate importance of Epicurus's "atoms and void" is that there are fundamental physical "somethings" (atoms) and "something" within which those other "somethings" move (void) that make up the universe... That make up everything. There is no Prime Mover, no Demiurge, no Zeus, no Logos, nothing, other than those fundamental particles/laws/fields/? that comprise the universe and, by virtue of that, we can come to understand the universe without resorting to supernatural explanations, luck, or the vicissitudes of Fortune.

Quote from Cassius

Ha, Don and I crossposted and took opposite positions on the heat death issue ...Does "nothing come from nothing or go to nothing" really mean that, or should be be open to exceptions even there?

Well, there's one way to get honest responses from each of us!

I think I should expand my thoughts. I'm still not saying "nothing comes from/goes to nothing." As I understand it, if you take the multiverse or pocket universe theory at its word, there is a superstructure within which each universe "pops" into existence. Our universe would "simply" come into being within that larger structure... Just as we "pop" into existence out of the superstructure of atoms and void that make up our universe. There's reason to believe that that superstructure is infinite and eternal and all the universes come into existence, exist and expand, and eventually fade away due to scientific principles. The universes constituent parts would get Incorporated back into the superstructure of the multiverse, like our atoms go back to the universe to be used again somewhere else.

That all may sound spooky and supernatural, but I don't think it is. The more I contemplated how the universe works, the more that line of thought makes sense... It feels right, if you will.

Oh, I forgot to mention the heat death of the universe! For me, this idea makes sense in that the universe would have the same life as everything else. Before the big bang it did not exist, then it existed, and finally it too will die and exist no more. I realize Epicurus said the universe, the All, το παν, always existed. And that may be true from a multiverse perspective, but also, from the perspective of a human lifespan, our own universe might as well be infinite in expanse and time.

I wanted to go back to the original of Cassius 's underlined quote there:

Quote

μάλιστα δὲ σεαυτὸν ἀπόδος εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀρχῶν καὶ ἀπειρίας καὶ τῶν συγγενῶν τούτοις θεωρίαν

This is interesting because it includes θεωρίαν which means "contemplation, consideration." This is the same word used in the characteristics of the sage that gets translated "take joy in public spectacles" but refers to speculation, etc., in the mental sense in Epicurus. So, Epicurus is encouraging Pythokles to most importantly set out yourself on the contemplation of these things.

The word meaning infinite in this list is ἀπειρίας, literally ἀ "un, not" + πειρίας "bounded, limited". Wikipedia had an infinity article which mentions the Greek attitude to the concept. The LSJ had a definition that includes mention of Aristotle and there Stoics use of this concept, so we always have to keep in mind whether Epicurus was using the term on its own or as a reaction to another school.

My take recently was that something doesn't need to be literally infinite for us humans to consider it so. An example is the task of counting of all the grains of sand on every beach and in every desert on Earth. Sure, that's a finite number but for all intents and purposes it might as well be infinite in relation to a human lifespan.

I think we need to be careful, too, about assigning modern mathematical concepts of infinity to classical Greeks. Our scientific notion may be similar but not identical to theirs.

That picture has an MC Escher vibe to it and also reminds me of the talk of pocket universes. Thanks for starting the thread!