Anticipations - Justice & Divine Nature

  • Hi All,


    It has been a loooong time since I posted here. I've been roaming philosophical/spiritual landscapes and my explorations have led me back here. Go figure! I will talk about that on my wall as it is personal.


    I'm slow-reading DeWitt's book. I came across this line on page 213 (ch 11 Soul, Sensation, and Mind) and it struck me as very important:


    Quote

    ...the volitional mind takes cognizance of the Anticipations, that is, the innate ideas of justice, of the divine nature, and other such abstractions, and it puts to the test every law of the land to determine whether it harmonizes with the innate idea of justice.

    The importance of this quote is its applicability to modern times since we are living in a culture of laws, for better or worse. The key anticipations mentioned of justice and divine nature are particularly important as they relate to the laws under which we currently live.


    So I am curious to know what innate ideas are thought to be "justice" and "divine nature".

  • I think Don is on the right track. Principal Doctrine 31 makes the point explicit:


    Quote

    Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another.


    And 24:


    Quote

    Those animals which are incapable of making covenants with one another, to the end that they may neither inflict nor suffer harm, are without either justice or injustice. And those tribes which either could not or would not form mutual covenants to the same end are in like case.

    In light of this, "natural justice" is not to be confused with "Natural Law"; it is merely the sense of justice inherent to human nature. And yet even here there is hairsplitting, for though all humans likely possess this innate sense as an heirloom of our evolutionary past, it is quite possible to be conditioned by culture or circumstance out of a sense of justice.


    Even in lower order animals we can see certain seemingly altruistic behaviors, like food-sharing, that hint at the development of this trait in humans.


    ___________________


    Divine Nature as an abstraction is also thought to be innate. Epicurus' evidence for this is the near-universality of belief among humans; even today, the rate of proper atheism among U.S. adults is something like 5 percent. There is a tendency among the non-religious to believe that religious belief at some distant epoch will at long last perish from the Earth, ushering in a golden age of...well, I don't know what exactly.


    But if Epicurus is right, this is not to be hoped for. Like Sigmund Freud in his Future of an Illusion, Epicurus seems to have recognized that the religious sense is innate; like the sense of justice, it can be conditioned against by culture or circumstance, but on the whole our species is not likely to abandon it altogether.


    _________________


    But here is where things get interesting; in the case of justice, Epicurus' account is descriptive, not normative. It tells us how things are, in other words; not necessarily how they should be. Primitive tribes whose culture or circumstance prevent them from exercising a sense of justice are not thereby unjust. In living without justice, they also ipso facto live without injustice. The words cease to carry any meaning or applicability for those peoples.


    And this should be true of the divine nature as well. There will be those for whom the hypothetical objection imagined by Pascal is a truth to their own nature; "I am so made that I cannot believe."


    Lacking a sense of the godly ought not make one ungodly, if the same is true of justice. It ought to be possible to, I might say, sublimate beyond the reach of the question altogether; to change one's state so completely that it no longer applies. But that's my argument, and not Epicurus'.

  • Eric you have highlighted a passage in DeWitt that I agree is very important but where I have a different point of view than DeWitt:

    Quote

    the innate ideas of justice, of the divine nature, and other such abstractions, and it puts to the test every law of the land to determine whether it harmonizes with the innate idea of justice.


    In my view DeWitt would have been better off if he had not used the word "idea" here and had instead used a word like "principle." Not to split hairs, but i think to suggest that we are born with fully formed "ideas" would be a form of Platonism that Epicurus was reacting against. DeWitt consistently points out how Epicurus is antiPlatonic in many areas, and he should have carried over that analogy more clearly in this area as well.


    In my view, the anticipations have to be considered to be a "faculty" that is equivalent to the five senses and the feeling of pleasure. Faculties is a reference to mechanisms that work through principles, like eyes involve natural "physical" principles of optics and hearing involves natural "physical" principles of sounds. We are not born with "ideas" of shapes or sizes or colors, we are born with a faculty of sight which perceives those qualities about things when we "see" them through the physics involved in optics. We are not born with "ideas" of music or symphonies or claps of thunder, we are born with a faculty of hearing that perceives those things when we are exposed to the physical phenomena involved with sound, for the first time after birth. We are not born with feelings of pleasure in ice cream or pleasure in sex or pleasure in dancing, we are born with a faculty that perceives those pleasures through the physical principles involved in the way we are "wired" for pleasure and pain, when we experience those phenomena for the first time.


    Likewise I think it is not correct to suggest that we are born with "ideas" of justice such as equality before the law or contracts or cooperation or teamwork. We are born with a faculty of perceiving that something called "justice" is involved in certain situations and arrangements when we perceive those arrangements for the first time. We are not born with an "idea" of a god being omnipotent or omniscient of even self-sufficient. We are born with a faculty of perceiving that there is a spectrum of perfection in living beings, and that as we come into contact with examples of living beings we can recognize that there is a way to rank living beings in terms of how successful they are in living.


    I think that "ideas' as that term is generally understood (fully formed concepts) is very different from "principles" of operation of the faculties that nature gave us, which is all very "preconceptual."


    So I think DeWitt is correct that anticipations are something we are born with, but instead of suggesting that they are "ideas" he should have suggested that there is a "faculty of anticipations" which involved physical principles of operation that dispose us to form concepts in certain ways in those areas of human life.


    And in addition, it seems to me critical to observe that just as any single sight or hearing or touch may not be "true to all the facts" of what we are seeing or hearing or touching, just as Epicurus said in the letter to Menoeceus, it is possible for "anticipations" not to be true to the facts as well, as when people have anticipations about the nature of gods that are incorrect, such as when they think that the gods are like themselves. That means that there can also be anticipations of justice that can be incorrect, such as when we think that justice can or should be the same for all people at all times and all places, which Epicurus says specifically is not the case.


    I recognize that my thoughts here are not fully-formed and are more assertions than something that can be considered firmly established, but this is personally how I think is the best way to extend the direction that DeWitt was correctly moving, but (in my humble opinion) did not state quite as well as he could have.

  • Great responses, guys, thanks! I find the concept of the Anticipations to be the most difficult to understand. Indeed for me, the notion that we are born with innate ideas makes no sense and I can understand its opposite, the blank slate.


    However, as Cassius describes it as faculty or ability, I can start to get my head around it. The concept of "justice" is an awkward one to deal with because of the various ways it can be described. Look a the daily news to see what I mean. Which "justice" is actually just? This question will take us into endless conceptual debates.


    When I've watched children at play and they get into a dispute over a toy, game, etc. I've witnessed the indignant retort, "hey, no fair!" This is usually the result of a desire being thwarted, but they don't say, "hey, I didn't get my want fulfilled!" or some childhood equivalent. They refer to something called "fair" that represents the feeling of their desire being denied. In other words, they sense innately that there was something unfair, or unjust, about the situation. Does this sound like the existence of an Anticipation of "justice"?


    An example from our adult world is pornography. While definitions abound in trying to pin down what is pornographic and what is not, I can say with confidence that "I know it when I see it." While the context can vary historically and across cultures, I've often wondered if most people "know it when they see it" and then attempt to define it afterward. Is this an example of an Anticipation?

  • Indeed for me, the notion that we are born with innate ideas makes no sense and I can understand its opposite, the blank slate.

    I completely understand where you're coming from. However, the "blank slate" idea, while a popular and long-standing theory, has been well debunked. There is a lot of fascinating research on babies and toddlers.

    When I've watched children at play and they get into a dispute over a toy, game, etc. I've witnessed the indignant retort, "hey, no fair!" This is usually the result of a desire being thwarted, but they don't say, "hey, I didn't get my want fulfilled!" or some childhood equivalent. They refer to something called "fair" that represents the feeling of their desire being denied. In other words, they sense innately that there was something unfair, or unjust, about the situation. Does this sound like the existence of an Anticipation of "justice"?

    Excellent observation! This sense - anticipation - of "justice" or "fairness" has been observed in monkeys as well. I think I've posted elsewhere on there forum on this, but the one that comes to mind is the experiment where two monkeys are given a task and rewarded with a cucumber. However, as soon as one is rewarded with a "better" prize - fruit - the other monkey sees this and refuses to perform the task. I've seen videos of the "deprived" monkey throwing the carrot back at the researcher.

    Here it is. Evidently he says they've done it with dogs and other animals:

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    That looks like a rudimentary anticipation of justice to me!

  • Here's that full TED Talk:

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Be sure to watch to the end for an explanation of chimps refusing the grape until the other one gets one, too!

  • Thanks, Don. That is very helpful. Clearly, the important detail in all of this is differentiating between the sense or feeling of fairness and actual thoughts of it. My reference to the blank slate is related to the latter. What is blank are the actual ideas, thoughts, concepts, etc. that are later conceived via the interaction of the Anticipations with experiences. Am I understanding this correctly?


    Now, how about "divine nature"? If we are not born with actual innate ideas, what is going on with this one? What is innate in us that refers to what we later define conceptually?

  • My comment in response to the last two posts is that I would emphasize over an over that any single "anticipation" might be just as erroneous as any single glimpse by sight or hearing of the thing being considered. A faculty of being aware that "there's something here I need to pay attention to" does not tell you what you should "conclude" about it. I think that is the main issue that needs to be grappled with in discussing anticipations -- "faculties" are not omniscient or omnipotent and the immediate temptation to conclude "Nature tells everyone to be 'fair'' or "Nature tells us to punish the unjust" needs to be resisted because as Epicurus hammers home there IS no absolute just or unjust.


    Then:

    While definitions abound in trying to pin down what is pornographic and what is not, I can say with confidence that "I know it when I see it." While the context can vary historically and across cultures, I've often wondered if most people "know it when they see it" and then attempt to define it afterward. Is this an example of an Anticipation?

    I would say that yes this is quite possibly the faculty of anticipations at work. You recognize that there is an issue here that needs to be evaluated and dealt with, but you are not given at birth a "rule-book" written by a Censorship Committee of what is and is not acceptable. If you did not have some natural faculty disposing you to take notice of this issue, you would stare blankly at it and see nothing of significance to you any more than a grasshopper looking at a TV screen.



    What is blank are the actual ideas, thoughts, concepts, etc. that are later conceived via the interaction of the Anticipations with experiences. Am I understanding this correctly?


    I agree with Don that the terms "blank slate" and even "blank" are not very useful at all, and as they ARE used by those philosophers who promote it, it is very damaging, because what they are indeed trying to do is erase all reference to natural faculties and dispositions, in favor of "logic" -- conceptual processing that they seem to believe is TOTALLY within our own minds and arrived at by our own thinking.



    Now, how about "divine nature"? If we are not born with actual innate ideas, what is going on with this one? What is innate in us that refers to what we later define conceptually?

    I would say that the Velleius narative in "On The Nature of the Gods" is, as DeWitt suggests, an accurate version of Epicurus' views. We are born with a faculty that allows us to recognize higher and lower states of "performance" in living, and we are at birth wired / disposed to categorize ways of living as "more or less blessed" (or any similar superlative you want to use). As we grow older from day to day we are exposed to more examples of ways of living and our minds begin to classify them according to what we begin to conclude are better or worse. As we think about these ways of life we are exposed further to stories and natural scenery that inspire us to deeper and deeper thought. We are exposed to the idea that the universe is infinite and eternal and teeming with life. We are exposed to statues and artworks and depictions of divinity that others before us have conceived. And if you take Epicurus at his word, we are exposed to "images" that stimulate our minds directly (if you want to joke, like radiation from a cell phone, or radio reception through a tooth filling) to think further about these issues.


    But despite all that, these things are not properly thought of as "innate ideas." We are not born Presbyterians or Islamists or atheists.


    And to repeat my view is that it is very important to speak accurately and distinguish "the faculty of anticipations" which is like "the faculty of sight" as against "an anticipation" or "one or more anticipations" which is like saying "I observed elephants from a tour bus four times in my life." Those observations are extremely helpful, but they are raw data that must be processed into opinions, and once they become opinions, they are no longer strictly examples of anticipations. Your viewpoint of on whether you find elephants to be sympathetic and admirable creatures arises FROM your sensations of them in the past, and from the feelings of pleasure or pain you felt in regard to them, and from your anticipations by which you organized your views of their "justice" or "blessedness" or other abstract issues), but all of those you have processed into opinions, and those are YOUR opinions, not handed to you in final form by Nature, and YOU have to take responsibility for the correctness of your personal conclusion to be a Nature Guardian or a Big Game Hunter. Others can decide whether to judge you positively or negatively as to which of those choices you take, but everyone (you, those who judge you - everyone) are just acting to the best of your abilities. Nature hasn't programmed any of you on the final conclusion you "should" reach. There's no heavenly ranking or Platonic realm list which tells everyone how to evaluate those things.



    Even though I am disagreeing with him as to the word "ideas," I believe I am essentially following, and simply expanding, on DeWitt's perspective on all this. DeWitt knows much better than I do that there can be false anticipations, as cited in the letter to Menoeceus. Once you incorporate into the big picture that no single anticipation can be considered to give you the "correct big picture," I think this "anticipations as a faculty that provides data that can be either 'right' or 'wrong' to the full facts" position is where you end up.

  • there can be false anticipations, as cited in the letter to Menoeceus.

    Hmmm. The anticipations aren't false. It's the popular opinions of the gods that Epicurus takes issue with in the Letter:

    Quote

    Impious is one who upholds popular beliefs about the gods, because those pronouncements are false opinions rather than actual preconceptions.

    More later.

  • Ok, think I'm sloooooowly getting the idea here. The feeling that something is unfair is the operation of the faculty of anticipation while the actual thought of "this is unfair because..." is the operation of the rational mind. That mind can make mistakes due to personal issue, incorrect information, ideoligical bias, etc. But the original ability of sensing "something" unfair is the faculty in operation that requires interpration.


    Interestingly, I came across this picture this morning. I think it speaks to this question despite what I suspect is a religious origin.

  • Ok, think I'm sloooooowly getting the idea here. The feeling that something is unfair is the operation of the faculty of anticipation while the actual thought of "this is unfair because..." is the operation of the rational mind. That mind can make mistakes due to personal issue, incorrect information, ideoligical bias, etc. But the original ability of sensing "something" unfair is the faculty in operation that requires interpration.

    I would agree with that. That seems well stated.

    That's where I'm uneasy about Cassius maintaining the anticipations are wrong or can be wrong, if I'm reading him correctly. My reading of Epicurus is that the senses are an accurate reflection of reality. They are "true." It's our opinions and beliefs branching off from our canonical faculties that are the problem and not the Canon itself. I think it's the same or similar with the anticipations (as implied by that quote from the Letter to M.)


  • That's where I'm uneasy about Cassius maintaining the anticipations are wrong or can be wrong, if I'm reading him correctly. My reading of Epicurus is that the senses are an accurate reflection of reality. They are "true." It's our opinions and beliefs branching off from our canonical faculties that are the problem and not the Canon itself. I think it's the same or similar with the anticipations (as implied by that quote from the Letter to M.)

    Yes this is the point we need to drill down on. I firmly think (and I think DeWitt says too) that any anticipation is always (1) reported truthfully - that's what makes it canonical, BUT ALSO - (2) need not be true "to all the facts" or "to the big picture" which is why we check one anticipation against another, just like we check one sight against other sights, one hearing against another hearing, etc .


    This is EXACTLY the point that DeWitt goes into in regard to the multiple meaning of "all sensations are true" -- Yes they are reported honestly, but nobody ever said they are ominiscient or "absolutely true" for everyone in the world. Each sensation and feeling of pleasure and anticipation are "reported truly to us" by the faculty that is involved, but that does not make it "true for everyone in the world." The only way we have confidence in predicting that the sensation/feeling/anticipation will remain true for us is by the REPETITION of receiving the same sensation in the same context.


    This is a huge point so we need to stay with it til we all come to a clear understanding of the parts where we agree and the parts where we don't agree.


    If we were to conclude that an "anticipation" were "completely true to everyone" -- such that our view of "justice" is the same for all people all times all places we would immediately be transformed into Platonists and that is exactly what Epicurus was warning against.


    There is a strong tendency for us to think that "anticipations" amounts to "innate ethical conclusions" but I think that would be a disastrous conclusion and surely what Epicurus was warning exactly against.


    I think we'll find these things borne out as we dig into the actual citations.

  • Quote

    [124] For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods. For men being accustomed always to their own virtues welcome those like themselves, but regard all that is not of their nature as alien.

    This is the Bailey version, and it is my understanding that the word here listed as "false suppositions" is or is closely related to the prolepsis word. Let's dig into that, along iwth his "conceptions derived from sensation."

    This takes us squarely into the "why is it called a PRE-conception vs a conception" argument.

  • At the risk of quoting too long an excerpt, I need to insert here the reference I have cited before as I think articulating the best way forward in understanding the difference between an "innate idea" versus an "innate principle." This is from Jackson Barwis' book against John Locke's view of innate ideas, and it is the most clear presentation of this issue I have found. I think Barwis is essentially stating the position Epicurus was describing.


    This also addresses the argument which immediately must be confronted by anyone who asserts that there are truly innate "ideas." They must be confronted immediately with the question: "Well, then, give me a list of them!"


    All this comes from Barwis's "Dialogues On Innate Principles"


  • This also addresses the argument which immediately must be confronted by anyone who asserts that there are truly innate "ideas." They must be confronted immediately with the question: "Well, then, give me a list of them!"

    That is almost exactly where I was headed with my original post. When I read that passage in which DeWitt names "justice" and "divine nature" AND "other such abstractions" I took them to be named anticipations. So I wanted to understand what makes them so and then could we start sorting out (listing) others.


    But I see I was making a mistake in being so specific. But I think Don has a good point about them being "always true" in their role as primary ways of knowing. If they represent principles incorrectly, in way that sight can be incorrect in the case of colour blindness, then the rational mind must be engaged to correct the perceptual error. I gather the anticipations must work the same way? They are considered true unless their is a known deficiency in function?


    Boy, this is hard to sort through, at least for me. :)

  • That's where I'm uneasy about Cassius maintaining the anticipations are wrong or can be wrong, if I'm reading him correctly.

    So please help me be as absolutely clear on this as possible, and let's beat the point home like a drum:


    No data (sensation?) from a canonical faculty is anything other than "reported honestly" so that data is always "true to us at that moment" in the sense that it is reported truly ("honestly," "without injection of opinion.")


    But at the same time, no "data" / "sensation" from a canonical faculty is ever, in itself, a "concept" or an "understanding" -- it is always simply a "feeling" or a "bit of sensory data" that must be built up in the mind into words and concepts.


    This is the trademark attribute of what it means to be a canonical faculty - they operate "automatically" without injection of "opinion" ("concepts") at any time.


    No "concept" is ever "absolutely true" because concepts are constructions of the human mind and are not given us by gods or through ideal Platonic forms.


    Therefore in human terms, the only test of "truth" is really "true to us" which is what we build up from the set of three canonical faculties.


    Now another absolutely vital concept that we haven't stated so far in this conversation is that these attributes of the canonical faculties (that they are only true to the extent we reliably build them up from our canonical faculties) is not a defect or a limitation of something to go hide in our cave and cry about. This attribute that these are the only things that are reported to us without opinion mean that they are our most prized and vital possessions which we MUST use and we MUST rely on to form our own judgments about how to live and everything else that is important in life.


    The Platonists and Religionists have backed us into the corner of thinking that only if a concept is absolutely true for all people, all times, all places is it worth anything. That is absolute RUBBISH and BS and needs to be treated as such. We have to seize the moral high ground and assert not only that we are firm in going with the conclusions that we draw from our canonical faculties, but we absolutely reject and dismiss (probably even the Epicurean "spit on") the assertions of absolutely truth -- because they are childish fantasies and deserve to be treated as such.