"On Methods of Inference": Notes For Review And Discussion (Including David Sedley Article: "On Signs")

Quote from Godfrey

s to placing "MOI" in an outline, it shouldn't be in the canon as it's not direct experience

Godfrey I am not sure this is a correct inference. The Canon would (I think) include discussion of the "methods of processing" of the data that comes through the canon. The raw data doesn't mean anything on its own, but I am not sure I would separate out the raw data from the immediate methods of processing it.

I am thinking that the problem with "logic" is the type of logic that doesn't ever connect to these three sets of data. The manner of processing the data correctly, however, might well be called "epicurean logic" or "epicurean reasoning." Not saying that definitely but I think it's a possibility

Yes I am leaning toward the second outline, and I agree with your last comment.

You used the word "mediated" - i might prefer something like "processed through"....

Also Godfrey I meant to type this earlier:

We need to look at the first half of Book 4 as to the processing of images, and how to deal with illusions. I think that gives us concrete examples of how the data from the senses has to be "processed" in order to form valid opinions, and that process is I think what we are talking about.

Quote from Godfrey

To my understanding, the type of logic that doesn't connect to canonic data is not really a part of Epicurus' philosophy and doesn't belong in the outline.

And to repeat - yes, i agree with that conclusion that it doesn't belong in the outline, any more than would "divine revelation." As to it being a part of Epicurean philosophy, it's a part only insofar as it is discussed as something to affirmatively reject.

An email from Academia sending a link to the Manetti article reminded me of this thread. Skimming through it this morning i think one thing that is at least for me personally un-done is to find and post a link to the 1978 update of the DeLacy book. I rely on the appendix to the older edition a lot, so it would be good to locate a source for the "current" (now 40+ year old) edition.