Reverence and Awe In Epicurean Philosophy

Susan and others --

Creating subforums is something that I have do do myself under the software rules, but creating threads is easy for anyone to do anywhere, and it is easy for me to move threads to different forums once the threads and forums are created.

Here is an example of how three levels of forums look:

I think most people are generally using telephones to access the site, so we need to see how that looks on a telephone.

I am thinking that regardless of the direction we go, that it will eventually be useful to formulate an opening paragraph that describes the topics and their relationships to each other.

Here is an example, but I think this needs much work and expansion:

The topic of Epicurean Divinity is very complex. The place to start is by looking at what is left to us from what the Epicureans actually wrote, here in “Relevant Texts.” The issues involved in this subject include Epicurean Piety, Images of the Gods, Anticipations of the Gods, The Material Nature of the Gods, The Origin, Life, and Potential Death of the Gods, The Relationship of Non-Intervention Between Gods and Humans, and The Appearance of the Gods,

See where I am going with that? It could be in outline format, but I am thinking that a narrative paragraph might make more sense.

Let me know thoughts and suggestions.

In the meantime Susan I am fine with what you wrote in that last post.

EDIT: Also to be clear, once we do a paragraph with links, I can "pin" that to the top of the forum, or maybe even include it in the forum description.

I will either PIN it to the top of the "Nature of Epicurean Divinity" subforum, or I might even be able to make it a "description" of the forum itself.

Yes please make a suggestion for writing it, that would be great. I can then set something up and we can change it as needed.

I propose that we need some procedural agreements when evaluating the texts on statements about the gods. My suggestions are:

1) Epicurus' own words take precedence over all other source material. Anywhere Epicurus leaves room for different interpretations is not narrowed down by commentary from other sources, such as Philodemus or DeWitt. Neither will individual quotes be taken out of context with his whole body of work.

2) The process of determining what is real takes precedence over details of prior or current conclusions. When new data is available that Epicurus didn't have, we agree to present both what he concluded based on information available to him _and_ revisions which are necessary to continue adhering to his process of observing nature and trusting the senses. We agree that such revisions are an embedded expectation in a philosophy based on observations of nature, and that to ignore new data is to distort Epicurus' intentions beyond recognition.

3) Prolepses are subject to the same verification process as any other sense data and are not to be given special status when the combined sense evidence contradicts them, no matter how compelling they are. We will not say prolepses are infallible when the content is in the form of a conclusion about reality. This is the same as we do not say a straw in a glass of water is bent because it looks to be so from one view. Instead, we examine it from different positions and touch it. We combine our senses to test any conclusion. A sensation about gods from an intuition or dream is not a mistake in the same way seeing an optical illusion is not a mistake, but assumptions about the _cause_ of those intuitions and dreams is a matter up for verification by the other senses. We must especially beware of making assertions of material fact on grounds that we received special knowledge due to a prepared mind, because this closes off the importance of examination by the senses.

That sounds like a good start to a document that would apply across the board to all our discussions. We need to develop such an approach because it probably would serve as a good supplement to the "Not NeoEpicurean" list and the rules for posting everywhere on this forum.

Here's an example:

Quote from Elayne

We will not say prolepses are infallible when the content is in the form of a conclusion about reality.

That's the kind of observation that is a foundational premise from the very beginning. NONE of the three legs of the canon are "infallible" in the sense of providing us fully-formed true opinions. Every item of data has to be considered and evaluated in full context of all the data.

It's really inconvenient to repeat these points over and over so it would be good to develop a list of rules like this so we can point people to them easily.

We can discuss and refine this list over time.

I realize in writing that last comment this which I think is important:

We all have a pretty good idea of how "a particular sight" is an example of the faculty of vision; how a particular sound is an example of the faculty of hearing. Same goes for pleasures and pains. We understand instances of pleasure and pain and we therefore understand how we are putting those in categories called "pleasures" and "pains."

I do NOT however, think that we have a consensus or even much articulation at all of what "an anticipation" is and how that differs from "the faculty of anticipations."

Almost by definition, "an anticipation" is not the same thing as a concept or a word or an opinion, nor would the "faculty of anticipations" constitute a "set of concepts or opinions."

We really need to find a way to articulate the meaning of these two categories. What is "an anticipation" and how does a single anticipation fit into our definition of "the faculty of anticipations"?

FWIW I am equally good with the word "preconception" because that stresses the distinction between preconceptions and conceptions, but I personally tend to shy away from "prolepsis" as that smacks to me of an untranslated Greek word for which we haven't settled on an understandable English term. I know not everyone agrees with me on that and I don't assert this as a rule of the forum (at least at this point without a lot more work on rules) but in general it does not seem to me to be a good idea to use untranslated Greek terms in our normal english discussions. The only way to really be clear when you do that is to give the greek accompanied by the translations, as Don generally does, but that gets to by unwieldy very quickly, and I don't think we want to compose most of our writing in ways that only experts can understand.

As Don and Dewitt would say, "Philosophy for the Millions!"

Cassius, I think the original writing leaves room for multiple interpretations, which is actually why I prefer the Greek lest our translations inadvertently close off interpretations prematurely.

I think it's ok to leave interpretations open IF we agree not to assume they are infallible, whatever they are, so that if one of us describes something we are calling a prolepsis, we agree it can be evaluated in context of all the senses.

Yes I agree Elayne, and in this case I think "prolepsis" can be particularly suitable for those who want to use it, because I don't think we have a clear understanding of what the word means, so we might as well call it XYZ or "prolepsis"until we are ready to take a position to what it means to a common everyday english-speaker.

I think "anticipations" and "preconceptions" hint at the right direction, but only hint.

This is the kind of thing I am talking about. There is strong data about Hyperactive Agency Detection in humans-- it's not something I made up. It means we have sense evidence that we assign agency where there is none, and to ignore that tendency is likely to lead us to accept conclusions about mental experiences that are false. False conclusions could in turn contribute to life choices not conducive to pleasure. If accuracy of conclusions didn't affect pleasure, the accuracy wouldn't matter, because mattering is the province of feeling.

So how do we accept any kind of prolepsis as true? We don't, in isolation. We accept it when it's in accord with the senses or at least does not contradict them. In this case, we have sense data that this particular type of mental experience can cause false opinions, we would be especially wary about those specific prolepses. So I think questioning those experiences is entirely Epicurean. Not cause for saying we are abandoning the philosophy in some way.

Quote from Susan

Quote

...but you suggested that we are hard-wired for animism in a way that deludes us about the existence or nature of gods, so how could you then accept any kind of prolepsis as conveying true information?

I'm still slightly uneasy about the word spirituality, but I like the closing "Paian Anax"

However, if we're using spirituality in the sense of "spiritual practice" that seems to be a big tent. I'll be frank that the Stoic "Logos" is what turned me away from the Stoics and toward Epicurus. Too much Christian baggage with The Word/Logos. But I'm not against exploring what Hadot would broadly call "spiritual exercises."

Check out the length of this dictionary entry for λόγος:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/h…p%3D47%3Aentry%3Dlo%2Fgos

I should have figured Don would like PAIAN ANAX

Ok so what does that mean?

Quote from Don

However, if we're using spirituality in the sense of "spiritual practice" that seems to be a big tent.

Not by any means exactly the same word, but a lot of the text that we've covered recently in the podcast has referred to "spirit" and "soul" -- I think based on anima and animus.

All this needs to be dissected and we come up with a glossary to match Elayne's rules of construction, or some such thing, or else we go on explaining ad infinitum.

1) Is "theology" a good word, or should we stick with "divinity"?

2) Pending further discussion on "theology" and "spirituality," and other suggestions, my current minor rewrite would be:

Epicurean Divinity is a huge topic, especially because it differs in so many interesting ways from the theologies of mainstream organized religion, or the state-sponsored religion of Epicurus’ own time. Unfortunately, very little of the original writings on the subject have survived; however, from secondary period sources referring directly to the original teachings, we can still glean a great deal about the original doctrines of the Epicurean School of Philosophy.

For those to whom these teachings prove personally appealing, we can even examine ways in which Epicurean views of divinity may be applied today.

This forum includes two main sections. The first, “Relevant Texts”, gathers together the textual source material pertaining to Epicurean theology, while the second consists of the sub-topics. Areas for exploration and discussion. include Epicurean Piety, Images of the Gods, Anticipations of the Gods, The Material Nature of the Gods, The Origin, Life, and Potential Death of the Gods, The Relationship of Non-Intervention Between Gods and Humans, and The Appearance of the Gods.

Threads on these topics or similar can be created by users as their pleasure prompts them. Links can be created referring to the source material to support ideas expressed.

This thread has reached all time third most commented post on the forum - I definitely want it to make it into the top two, and maybe number one, before we consider splitting off in too many pieces!

I vote for "divinity" since θεός theos can have that connotation in addition to "god."