Prolepsis Citations from Long & Sedley

I am struck by the variety of ways in which prolḗpseis is employed:

Sometimes, prolḗpseis seems to be used within the domain of memory, as mental impressions or representations that have been formed from personal experience, sort of like mnemonic scars; sometimes, we express prolḗpseis is as a function of linguistics, as a necessary condition for communication, as a common idea to which a word refers, like how two people with different forms of colorblindness can both share the common idea of a "rainbow", or the fact that people who have lost their ability to detect sounds can still hear their favorite songs in their head. Othertimes, we refer to prolḗpseis as a feature of developmental psychology, where it acts as an intellectual category required for children to develop pattern recognition. Elsewhere, prolḗpseis exists within the domain of dreams, as mental apprehensions, uncensored from the editor that is the ego.

It seems clear why there are various "camps" in terms of "interpretations" of Epicurean theology: the criterion of prolḗpseis, itself, has so many applications: Is the concept of "god" more like "divinity" or "blessedness" (or "justice"), as in, a prototype against which new examples can be judged? As in Star Trek V, where the crew meets a supreme being, but ultimately decides that this being cannot be God because it is willing to inflict pain? Or is the concept of "god" more like "human" or "living being" (or "animal") as in, a sort of "who" or "it" that a human infant could observe and (as pre-verbal infants do) point at with their chubby digits to indicate "That! There! It!" Is there a period in the development of young children prior to receiving their conception of "god"? Or is it conditioned by the very genetics that deal the cards of our neurology?

Here again, I really, REALLY want to consider that Epicurus would have mentioned, at least once (humor me here), that he, himself must have, as a conservative practitioner of Eleusian and Dionysian rituals (which, again, he, himself, seems to have attended with enthusiasm) ingested chemicals that were intended to induce an altered state of consciousness, a state that people throughout millennia have recognized as being exceptionally noteworthy and positively transformation. So, it is ultimately geared toward improving the circumstances of one's life. The experience of certain, psycho-active chemicals can reliably reproduce "the experience of God" when administered to Christians in laboratory conditions (among other faiths). Epicurus and his associates would have been aware that intoxicants were capable of inducing dreams that host godlike characters and fill participants with an overwhelmingly, undeniable sense of bliss.

I would be very surprised if Epicurus did not "see" Zeus at least once during his rituals.

I would be even more surprised if Epicurus (purposefully, it would have to seem) omitted any mention of the private, mental experiences people experience after ingesting entheogens in his writings. It would seem strange for a person in that context to not draw a connection between intoxication, good dreams, the feeling of bliss, the rituals of religion, and discussion about theology. Epicurus seems to have thought that pre-civilized humans developed conceptions about "the gods" (including, I have to assume, a being that would later be called "Zeus") in their dreams, independent of each other. They then developed spoken words they could share with one another to refer back to "that-memorably-strange-recurring-Zeus-experience". After time, they realized that "memory of the Zeus-experience" made them more observant of their own behavior. So, life improved.

As someone who writes every dream I have, and every dream I can recall (and have continued to do so for over 15 years), and as being that same someone who has experimented with psychedelics, may I just say that psychedelics are a much more reliable way to experience anything remotely "religious". Most of my (and probably your) dreams are anywhere from mundane to bizarre to incoherent, whereas your average trip is always memorable and meaningful.

Ultimately, I think what I'm getting at is that a prolḗpsis needs a stimulus. So what was the stimulus? The prolḗpsis of "the gods" must have been stimulated by a powerful agent capable of inducing an exceptional, purely-mental experience, significant enough to re-direct the trajectory of a person's life. So what are our candidates for the stimulation of spirituality? Religious institutions are one, and their forms of indoctrination are powerful, but they aren't always reliable at inducing profound mental experiences. (A lot of religious people just show up at church like they would show up at work or school, as purely a social obligation.) Dreams are another, and can be memorable and inspirational, but, as mentioned, usually just recycle mundane, daily experiences; dreams are only as reliable as showing the image of gods as they are showing the image of unreal monsters. But certain psychedelics are powerful, reliable, and psychologically transformational; "pre-civilized" humans who foraged for food were not choosers (they were opportunistic), so when it came to diet, mushrooms were/are nutritious, ubiquitous, visually-arresting...

I guess what I mean to say is this: we were tripping before we were assigning words to objects, so by the time we developed spoken/written language, the "weird-experience-after-eating-mushrooms" (or walking past a volcanic vent, or eating fermented fruit, or walking past a forest of burning cannabis plants, or eating alkaline barks, or consuming ergot that would have grown on stored grains, or..., etc.) demanded a word to go along with it, and I think that the words we use, like "god", "divine", and "blessed", are in the same spectrum as the words Epicurus meant when he referred to ancient peoples' dreams. I suppose, also ... perhaps, some of the discussion we have about Epicurean theology is taking place in a bubble of the English, Spanish, German, Italian, and Greek-speaking scholarship from societies that are propagandistic and prohibitionary against chemicals that would have been exposed to the human ecosystem for hundreds of thousands of years. To be frank, I think we all overlook the influence the drugs had on early religion (the real kind).

Might have gone off topic there. Thanks for the share, Don!

Thank you Don! That Sextus Empiricus reference is particularly interesting and helpful!

Quote from Don

feel free to pepper your writing and conversation with νή Δία! "By Zeus!"

Yes, by Zeus! Epicurus really does use this with great frequency. I started saying "nē Día!" almost as a joke in place of an interjection (in place of a "curse"). Over time "nē Día!" has become a genuine reflexive interjection.

Don, you are amazing! There's a lot happening here:

Quote from Don

Col.31: Epicurus, in a letter to Polyaenus, writes: "(It is necessary for us) to conceive of their nature as accurately constituting the notion of benefit according to the epistemological standard (kriterion). Let us sacrifice to those gods devoutly and fittingly on that proper days, and let us fittingly perform all the acts of worship in accordance with the laws, in no way disturbing ourselves with opinions on matters concerning the most excellent and august of beings. Moreover, let us sacrifice justly, on the view that I was giving. For in this way it is possible for mortal nature, by Zeus, to live like Zeus, as it seems. And concerning obeisance (προσκυνήσεις) in [Epicurus's] On Lifecourses [Περί βίων]"

Here's an attempt at rendering its content: Divine nature (its blessedness and indestructibility) constitutes (either fully or partially) the kriterion of benefit. So expressing some form of reverence to that nature benefits us. For that reason, we can comply in good faith ('devoutly'/'justly') with the acts of worship required by law. However, we Epicureans will make such sacrifices free from the disturbing opinions of the many about what it means to 'benefit' from the gods.

So on my take, the question Polyaenus has asked is: 'is it impious to comply with the laws requiring sacrifices, given that we don't think the gods reward people in exchange for sacrifices?' Because surely, there was a question about whether they participated simply to avoid breaking the law or with some measure of sincerity.

Another intriguing example of prolḗpseis comes from Philodemos' On Piety, where he writes, “For [the] All [pân] […] is thought of, just as Time [khrónos] is defined, as being a naturally formed generic conception [prólepsin]” (Col. 66.3-6). I find this interesting because Philodemos makes a comparison between "the universe", "time" and "the god(s)". For one thing, each of these prólepsin feature instances of an infinity in one way or another: everything is spatially boundless, the universe is temporally endless, and the gods are indestructible. For another thing, each concept is somewhat abstract (due to their not being able to be fully experienced) yet is implied as necessarily real. Case in point, Philodemos records Epicurus as having explained in Book 32 of On Nature that these "naturally formed" impressions are "apprehended with clarity", and yet, Philodemos later admits that "no one furnishes in abundance demonstrations for the existence of gods".

Quote from Twentier

Another intriguing example of prolḗpseis comes from Philodemos' On Piety, where he writes, “For [the] All [pân] […] is thought of, just as Time [khrónos] is defined, as being a naturally formed generic conception [prólepsin]” (Col. 66.3-6). I find this interesting because Philodemos makes a comparison between "the universe", "time" and "the god(s)".

Cool! I find this interesting, too, in part because Epicurus makes a point of saying we shouldn't investigate time like we investigate the prolepseis of objects that are 'observed within ourselves' (Letter to Herodotus 72). But he never says explicitly whether there's nevertheless a prolepsis of time that is different than the ones we have of objects.

I agree that we should be cautious about all reconstructions, and I'll be curious to see what AI starts doing with these.

Quote from Don

And I believe that the πᾶν doesn't have the usual definite article for it to refer to TO PAN "The All" "the universe." The author (again could be Philodemus or Phaedrus) could be referring to "all (somethings)" and not The All.

Yeah, the missing to is puzzling, though I guess I might expect a panta if it were modifying 'all Xs.' Unless that gamma is actually a tau, of course, then it is panta instead of pan gar.

In summary, trying to digest the various intersection that prolḗpseis seems to demand between developmental psychology, descriptivist linguistics, the development of religion, the anthropology of spiritual practice, social norms and ethics, and the neurological architecture of psychedelia...

• The experience of "the divine" is universal for hominids (even the ancient ones).
• Ancient hominids received clear insight into "the divine nature" through dreams.
• (They had the benefit of not being confused by institutionalized mythology.)
• (Also, dreams are the clearest and most reliable source of the concept of "divinity")
• The true concept of "divinity" is synonymous with the notion of blissful humanoids.
• The true concept of "divinity" is antinomic with the notion of blissful humanoids.
• We can use this true notion as a criterion to measure allegations of "divinity":
• (a) Identifying a needy creator as "divine" contradicts the meaning of the word "divinity".
• (b) Identifying a happy meta-creature as "divine" is coherent with our concept of "divinity".
• Cults and religions developed from the concept of indestructible, happy humanoids.
• Most cults and religions identify their "divine beings" as being troubled humanoids (see: Homer, Hesiod, Bhagavad Gita 11:32; Gen. 19:24–25; Mark 11:12-25; Surah Ali 'Imran112)
• (In fact, all of the mainstream spiritual traditions have deviated from this universal truth)
• This deviation is harmful to our spiritual health, and a huge source of human misery.
• We should avoid this spiritual harm (the effects of impiety) by practicing genuine piety.
• Genuine piety corresponds with a correct understanding about the true notion of "divinity".
• A pious person should reject the belief in a cosmic architect, an eternal soul, a universal mind, or any other propositions that describe "the divine" as having fluctuating disturbances.
• These beliefs (mystical and supernatural) are sources of fear and uncertainty.
• The Good Life is antithetical to holding beliefs that stimulate fear and uncertainty.
• A clear understanding of piety/theology if fundamental to living a happy life.
• This clear understanding is apprehended through the preconception of "divinity".
• Having accurate knowledge about what the "preconception" of "divinity" is is key.
• Evidently, (as true as the sky is blue) the prólēpsis of divinity = never-ending happiness.
• Any being who is ceaselessly satisfied is a god or goddess.
• A ceaselessly satisfied being would not subject itself with earthquakes and storms (so it would live beyond the atmosphere of a world); it would not suffer the disadvantage of not having an opposable thumb or a lack of speech (so it looks like us); yet unlike humans, it would not suffer disease (so its physical nature must be only superficially resemble ours). It would not trouble itself with loneliness (so it would live among friends); and the divine society would not allow external forces to disturb their history (they are hidden in all ways but thought).
• By nature, we cannot be gods ... but by practicing a righteous ethic, one that is characteristic of their form, and by emulating their models of perfection, we become godlike.
• Through devotion to good habits (those like the gods), we inherit the benefit of their model.

After all this, and ten years of devoted study, I must say, understanding prolḗpseis is like holding wet soap. It functionally works when you just cup it and apply gently, but when you squeeze it to test its composition, it just slips out of your hand and re-orients itself toward another drain.

Diognes describes prolḗpseis as cog in the wheel of formulating language. Hermarkhos and Philodemos entertain hypotheses that almost make me suspect that a prolḗpseis is a song that we receive on our mental radios from the FM being transmitted from the gods in deep space. And I'm not into that. That frankly sounds oddly mythic, and unnecessarily reliant on metaphor.

I bring up my drug hypotheis with you guys (too) frequently because, honestly ... I'm really just an defacto atheist who thinks religion is really fucking dumb, and I have tried – TRIED, I mean, was raised Methodist, questions God as a pre-teen, dated a Catholic for years and entertained mass, accepted the rituals of Cathoicism, prayed with fraternity at Mosques, worshipped at Buddhist temples, engaged the artifaces of New Age commercialism, dedicated myself to replicating the meditative practices described in Gita and Paramahansa Yogananda's famous book, and re-studied heterodox Christianity with nonjudgmental eyes, and NONE of the provided me with any practice advice, and all of them blinded me to the reality of the genuine religious experience .... until I ate mushrooms. Six grams of psilocybin cubensis will provide any atheist with a fascinating journey through convincing intellectual demonstrations that lead to reasonable religious belief. All natural, all conditioned by chemicals that happened to be released in a young philosopher's brain.

If prolḗpseis are just "common sense" human concepts, like "justice" or "divinity" or "time" then ... fuck it, right? Who care what they really are, or where they came from, or how they work. They simply are, like color. Wavelength measures in nanometers or not, we know what color is because DAMN there is it. Likewise, people talk about the gods, when I drop LSD, I feel downright blissful and holy and oceanic and incorruptible and pure and utterly godike, and I want to know.

Or is this just his response to Plato's belief in innate ideas that precede birth and have a more fundamental reality than death. These are the "idea"-level of human existence, and Epicurus is just trying to contextualize them in mental processes to the best of his linguistic creativity. It this is the case, prolḗpseis isn't technical we just mean "notions" or "ideas" or "concepts" that are on-point when it comes to being reflective of the place, person, objects or process to which they refer.

As far as the gods go, they've been here, they're here, they'll be here ... it's on the cash in my pocket I use to buy weed, it was in my 9th-grade biology class when we talking about Darwin and Mendel, it gets a tax break on every street corner in Central Florida, like ... we can't escape it. They are self-described godly people, who believe ungodlike things. F$%@ 'em.

But back to LSD ... I don't mean to bring it up as an abstract point of show-and-tell or as a fringe theory (like the simulation fantasy that has encapsulate undisplined minds) ...but really, I'm asking my Epicurean friend who accept Epicurean theology: do your guys have experiences in your mind with a humanoid figure that you have seen in very unique dreams? (maybe a new thread Cassius ). I never have, of hundreds of recorded dreams. I have a few figures that I identify as "God", but my personal definition in "what 'God' is" is a "Helper" or a "Guardian", which is, according to Epicurus, is a false conception that comes from culture, not natural impressions.

Fair enough. Even so, I have *never* dreamed of a blissful humanoid. I've seen *some* interviews with people on DMT who describe Machine Elf Faeries that are eerily similar in description to Epicurean detities, but still ... I am constantly fighting the feeling that Epicurus walked about from church feeling re-charged and inspired, and I've just felt guilty and ashamed, and I have, for a deacde now, really struggled to understand this principle for what it means to my life.

I wish we had his letters to Metrodoros about his struggled conception of divinity. Did Metrodoros share similar gripes as do it? Did any other Epicureans say, "look ... BRILLIANT argument to the bozo thesists about their circular reasoning to provide them with a genuine challenge ... but we don't believe in ... like ... okay, so, for real, we just think Apollo is dumb and we eat food and discuss physics and the nature of human desires ... we don't get on our knees, slit a lamb's throat, paint our face with blood, and then assume that this act will somehow reinforce our psycho-social health, that's, ugh, gross, right?" Or if Epicurus really did practice the Dionysian mysteries with regularity, was his god the intoxicating feeling of empathy and warmness in non-alcoholics that was personified as a jolly god?

I really want to flesh this out, because, for me personally, if Epicurean theology isn't consistent, a few other key parts of the philosophy begin to unravel, the more I see it.

Quote from Twentier

Or is this just his response to Plato's belief in innate ideas that precede birth and have a more fundamental reality than death.

Twentier while I don't think this is *all* there is to it, I do think this is a major part. The whole question of how the mind works is too fundamental to leave to the possibility of supernatural influence. Living things are pretty clearly not just a "blank slate," and if you are going to tackle explaining chaos and how the universe was not created but eternal, you have to come up with an explanation of how thought also arises from the atoms.

Plato and everyone else decided to default to the supernatural. Epicurus refused to do that and instead came up with a theory in which everything - including thought - stems from flows of atoms. I think the answer to unwinding this lies more in following a chain of reasoning which begins with moving atoms and then inch by inch assembles into arms and legs and eyes and brains and thought. Everything has to stem from flows of atoms; beavers have to have imprinted upon them at birth - naturally - the disposition to build dams. Flows of atoms from place to place are the only way to solve the action-at-a-distance problem without defaulting to the supernatural.

I think Epicurus was 100% serious about his ideas of divinity. There has to be a natural process by which pleasure arises from flows of atoms, and everything more complicated builds on that over time. And the reason I agree with you that this is so important is that you just can't leave these kind of things without a natural explanation or -- we see what the priests have managed to do even after Epicurus came along. The same nihilism which bothers so many people today is going to attack anyone who doesn't ultimately come to grips with whether there's something otherworldly and more than our existence, or whether our existence and happiness needs no outside justification.

And in the end I don't see what Epicurus proposed as absurd at all. Everything - including every living thing - is constantly bombarded from all sides with atoms flowing from all directions, and those atoms *do* both influence us, as they are also influenced by where they came from. They come to us and induce reactions on our part - reactions through the five senses, and for all we know reactions directly on our body like the sun causes us to make Vitamin D. And those influences impact all parts of us - including our minds - and our brains wire themselves over time in response to these patterns. As our brains wire themselves we find ourselves in tune with certain patterns that have struck us in the past, and our genetics find ways to transmit over generations dispositions to respond analogously in the future.

Also, as we've been discussing lately, our minds form patterns of behavior as to pleasure and pain that allow us to think about what a "higher" life would be like if we never faced pain or death. We can imagine and benefit from considering what that life would look like - everyone needs a goal and vision of how they would like to live. In parallel with that aspirational aspect, we can think about how in an infinite and eternal universe that is filled with planets like Earth there are bound to be beings that have reached that level. And our consideration of that level of performance constitutes a goal for ourselves mentally and conceptually, just like all pleasure constitutes a goal for us.

I'm far from saying that this kind of explanation solves all the issues, but I think that it's a very reasonable approach and one that continues to have a lot more validity than most any I can name. And It sure beats giving in to the priests or to suicidal nihilism.

I would say there is no doubt but that what you are talking about in terms of a "internal existing working model of how the universe operates" is an important aspect of our lives. And I would say there is no doubt but that prolepsis is involved in the formation and operation of that. It might be going too far to say that they are exactly the same thing, but I'd agree that they are closely related.