The Epicurean Alternative to "Cogito Ergo Sum" Would Be?

Just a passing thought this morning. We've discussed several times on the podcast the famous statement by Descartes, and I see that in 2017 I set up a primitive graphic:

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3460/

It hasn't occurred to me to ask:

(1) How closely do we think Epicurus would endorse Jefferson's formulation? and

(2) If we were looking for an Epicurean Latin response to cogito ergo sum, what would be the best formulation of Jefferson's first sentence? (maybe it should be considered whether to use ______ ergo sum vs _______ ergo ___(exist)____

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

Quote

Descartes's statement became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to provide a certain foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.

One critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking".^[5]

It's interesting that Gassendi, notable fan of Epicurus, is listed there as having an objection. Would be interesting to know what else Gassendi thought about Descartes

Nate how close do you think that is to something Epicurus would say? Not knowing the details of what Gassendi was complaining about, I don't really think the issue if any would be "is there an 'I'?" If there is an issue, there might be something along the lines of some logical objection, analogous to not admitting that Metrodorus must be alive or dead tomorrow. Maybe he would have a concern about the "ergo" or maybe the whole basis of the discussion would be questionable (does our thinking or our feeling really answer the question? Don't we still exist even when asleep or unconscious?

But in general I think I could see Epicurus endorsing "sentio, ergo sum" especially in the context of a debate with Descartes.

Quote from Godfrey

"Sum, sentio, cognosco", or something along those lines? The idea here is that we exist, and we work from that basis. No ergo involved. Maybe add "I act" to the end: sum, sentio, cognosco, ago.

Yes I an thinking too possibly Godfrey that Epicurus might not like the "ergo." But I presume at times (lots of them) Epicurus did use the equivalent of "ergo" so the issue is more subtle than I can process right now.

Quote from Don

Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo

Good point that we know that one. So I definitely think "sum" is correct and the issue is what short Latin makes sense to precede it as evidence, plus what "connector" makes sense ( ergo?)

Don any thoughts as to why you would put the "I am" first? I have to think back to the purpose of the construction in the first place. Is the purpose to establish to our own satisfaction that we really "exist"? Or are we primarily defining what it means to exist?