We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Welcome!
I have Cassius Amicus Elemental Epicureanism, which I am just beginning to delve into.
You will find that the material on this forum is much more up-to-date than that old work of mine, so I hope you will look around here and engage in the discussion -- I think you will find that much more productive!
Welcome Pacatus !
This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.
In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
Welcome to the forum!
Episode One Hundred of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode we conclude our examination of Justice from an Epicurean perspective, and discuss Diogenes of Oinoanda's plea that we keep the virtues in their proper place - as a tool to achieve pleasurable living.
There seems to be particular importance in my mind on the "pro-" part of "prolepsis". The particular prefix that is added to the root word indicates a temporal relation, in this case, "before".
I very much agree!
Welcome ayraj !
This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.
In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
Welcome to the forum!
Thanks to Don for this link and information!
codex Vaticanus Graecus 1950 (1950 is the reference number, not a date incidentally)
The Vatican Sayings begin at the bottom of folio 401v with the big red Τ for Το μακαριον και αφθσρτον ... (PD1)
See further information in Bailey's "Epicurus the Extant Remains." Bailey discusses the Vatican Sayings starting on pp. 106 & 375. He gives all the sources or at least where they're also started in latter section. The following is the main section of page 375 - https://archive.org/details/Epicur…/mode/1up?view=
I am in the editing stage of Episode 100 so the casters and I get the liberty of preparing the thread with clips we mentioned in the episode.
Here's one which will illustrate the Prosecutor who seeks justice to the ultimate degree - and who explaining it shows the seductive glory of virtue and justice all in one. It's a very memorable and attractive song -- shall we label this Epicurean due to the pleasure that comes from its beauty and because Epicurus seems to consider justice a virtue and virtue to go hand in hand with the pleasant life? 
Possibly it's also an illustration that if you don't know the background facts - who he is prosecuting and why - a message like this comes across as very sympathetically delivered. And maybe that makes it a great illustration of the key issue of justice -- that there "is no absolute justice" no matter how emotionally we plead for it.
Welcome @Rob !
This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.
In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
Welcome to the forum!
If you're saying there are commentators that put forward some kind of soul travel outside the body... Yeah, that makes no sense.
I think what's on my mind is that I pick up things on reading posts and articles from a variety of sources, so I should not overgeneralize. However I know from several discussions that the point being discussed here has been of interest in some of the discussions over in Greece. If considered strictly as a literary device, agreed - no harm done. But what I pick up is that those who contend that there should be considered to be a "fourth" leg of the canon consider this reference to be key in supporting the "fourth leg" theory. And of course this goes way back - long enough for Diogenes Laertius to refer to it.
So I THINK the point is that the issue to be avoided is seeing this as a "bridge" to platonism, or a "bridge" to making any kind of fully-formed concepts to be part of the canon itself. I believe the first and major point that probably gets lost is that the "canon of truth" is not itself a list of ideas, but instead a set of measuring devices which produce data from which ideas are formed. Even at that basic level I think there's a lot of confusion and the Stoic-sympathizers see this discussion as a path to finding "innate ideas" in Epicurean philosophy.
It's very innocent and fine to think in terms of flying through the universe mentally and seeing things from outer space. That should not lead to problems because no real Epicurean would think it possible for the soul or mind to literally leave the body. But if the wording turns into a device by which the mind has some kind of preprogrammed power to attach particular words to particular events (and that's an argument I have seen in private) then I think we're a long way down a road that wouldn't be started down in the first place if we were rigorous about the canonical faculties being automatic and pre-rational.
No doubt it's tricky, because the texts seem clear that Epicurus thinks that the mind can receive "images" directly. But even there I think the emphasis should be that these images are received in much the same way that the eyes receive light -- they may receive these things, but they don't make judgments about them or perceive them automatically as fully formed ideas.
I hope I don't sound tedious on this point but I've seen it come up over and over and every conversation needs to probably go back to these basics to be sure the table is set.
Thanks to both of you guys for this post so far. This is an essay by Dewitt that I have tended to just glance over because of its technical nature, but you guys are wrestling with the same issue that he found so important, and in reviewing it I am seeing again why he spent so much time with the issue.
I do want to make a request that I hope you will keep in mind: In order to give your work as wide and strong an impact as possible, I hope you will take special care to spell out the possible conclusions and implications of the various options. It's very easy for more casual readers to throw up their hands and think that the difficult translation issues are just left to the experts, and not necessary for them to understand. It's probably true that the "translation" aspect of it is beyond most of us, but if we bury the conclusions inside the technicalities then I think people fail to see why the issues are so important.
In this case, it takes a lot of reading into the DeWitt article to discovery that there are at least a couple of major issues involved, such as "Would or did Epicurus himself wish to use the literary device of casting the mind or soul out into space? It seems to me that modern writers now universally seem to agree that he did so, which DeWitt points out would be contrary to one of the most fundamental physical premises of the philosophy -- that the mind/soul is absolutely connected and tied to the body and cannot be separated from it.
There's also perhaps the ultimate issue of whether this terminology, whatever is meant by it, constitutes a "fourth leg of the canon." On that point it seems even more clear that Epicurus himself did not consider it to be so, and it ought to be an immediate red flag whenever later and lesser minds attempt to "improve upon" fundamental aspects of the philosophy of the original "genius."
Related to that is the complex relationship between the "true" and the "real" which I think we see over and over to be important in Epicurean philosophy. If we can't handle with intelligence a basic issue like whether Epicurus held "all sensations are true" then I doubt such a person can ever make anything else understandable about of Epicurean epistemology.
So I hope you guys can develop the discussion in ways that make the real-world conclusions clear. And it's worth encouraging many more of us to read the DeWitt essay in full, especially to dig out its conclusions, rather than just give up when we're hit with a barrage of untranslated words and phrases.
Well since I cited that same section before, maybe it IS the one I was thinking about: Thoughts On The Alleged "Fourth Leg of the Canon"
I am going to see if I can find some pithy excerpts on this. Unfortunately the subject is so complex that it's basically covered throughout his entire chapter 8....
Part of it is here but there is a longer discussion somewhere else that I will find:
at the moment at least I am not finding the additional discussion that I think exists somewhere else in EAHP about the comment made by Diogenes Laertius at line 31 (in case that's not clear already, which Bailey translates as "the Epicureans add to these the intuitive apprehensions of the mind" ===
31] Logic they reject as misleading. For they say it is sufficient for physicists to be guided by what things say of themselves. Thus in The Canon Epicurus says that the tests of truth are the sensations and concepts and the feelings; the Epicureans add to these the intuitive apprehensions of the mind. And this he says himself too in the summary addressed to Herodotus and in the Principal Doctrines. For, he says, all sensation is irrational and does not admit of memory; for it is not set in motion by itself, nor when it is set in motion by something else, can it add to it or take from it.
Nate I am not sure that the term "placeholder" is clear to explain for the conclusion that you may be suggesting. Do you mean "equivalent"?
the following observation, provided by the Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy: “Preconceptions are direct apprehensions, true beliefs, concepts, and universal thoughts that are formed fromt he outside by the repeated impressions of simulacra emitted by objects, which ultimately are stored in our memory through an act of focalization of the mind [EΠΙΒΟΛΗΝ TΗΣ ΔΙAΝΟΙAΣ]” (310). The author explicitly describes prolepsis according to KD24.
I am pretty sure that I disagree with the Oxford handbook line of reasoning and agree with what is cited in opposition as the older group which included Epicurus himself.
When the Handbook says that preconceptions include "concepts" I think we have a clear contradiction which rules out their interpretation. In order to be canonical it seems to me that the thing must be PRE rational, and I think most everyone agrees that word "concepts" means ideas and that concepts are the result of rational thinking, not things that float around in the universe on their own --- except under the Platonic "forms" viewpoint.
I would like to see this discussed as throughly and as long as anyone cares to pursue it because I think this issue is critical- and I agree with the implications of DeWitt that the adoption of this viewpoint by later Epicureans (and it seems certainly correct thst they did so) was a disastrous development for the philosophy.
Welcome @ChadM !
This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.
In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
Welcome to the forum!
Welcome @arnoldflorence !
This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.
In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
Welcome to the forum!
Wow that is nice! Thanks for the photos!
I think you're on the right track and even before that -- welcome to active posting after lurking for quite a while! 
As I scan through your comments I think all of them are correct. It occurs to me to say that my experience is that there are very "practical" people for whom your observations are pretty much all they ever need to see. Given those observations, which are correct, they then go back to focusing on the practical side of life, where they are most comfortable, and that's all they need to know or care about. That's fine.
But there are others who really "get into" the logical arguments that divide the two schools, and those people don't find it satisfying to stop at the observation that "the virtues" and "pleasure" go hand in hand. And it's also my experience that many of those people who don't want to stop there are some of the most devoted Stoics, because they are focused on the "epistemological" issues, even maybe more so than the physics issues.
Maybe to better explain the point I am thinking about I would suggest you read sometime (if you haven't) the latter books of Cicero's ON ENDS where he attacks Stoicism from his own more standard "Academic" perspective. His attack is really vigorous and I think makes a lot of sense even from (or especially from) a non-Epicurean perspective, and Cicero probably helps draw into the open why people should be dissatisfied with Stoicism.
So my answer to your question is "yes I think you understand it right as far as you have gone so far." And the question of whether you want to go further to focus on the more abstract issues is entirely up to you and what makes you happy - since from our Epicurean perspective your goal is in fact happiness based on pleasure, rather than as the Stoics might say, "knowledge for the sake of knowledge." For some people it takes plowing into the more abstract issues, for others it doesn't.
Cassius I agree with what you've written but I do question this quote. First, are you saying that we actually categorize something as part of a preconception? That seems to me to be done using reason: I understand a preconception as being more "primitive" than that, more akin to a sensation or feeling.
Yes I agree with your point Godfrey. Whatever we are talking about has to be pre-rational. As I think about it further I think in the past I may have suggested an analogy with the way that the eyes and ears work -- they see and hear within a range of naturally determined "wavelenghs" and within those ranges they perceive in certain ways - colors for example.
We can't be talking about rational categorization as for example Aristotle does with his logic. We have to be talking about something inherent in the mechanism of the human mind that is tuned to perceive relationships that we otherwise would not even perceive as significant.
Do I recall that there are examples such as whether animals looking at a TV screen even perceive the images on them? I am thinking that this mechanism must be some kind of tendency to recognize something specific (like the eyes see light and the ears hear sound) but that it functions in the field of abstract relationships. I seem to recall that was DeWitt's suggestion, though I think when he talks about it he strays too far and seems to talk about ideas themselves.
This is where I go back to that article from Jackson Barwis written in criticism of John Locke's (and others') Blank Slate theory. Barwis' point is that just because we aren't born with "ideas," that doesn't mean we aren't born with "principles of function" that precede and allow us to develop ideas from those principles:
You know, continued I, Mr. Locke advances that principles cannot be innate unless their ideas be also innate. “For, says he, if the ideas be not innate, there was a time when the mind was without those principles; and then they will not be innate, but be derived from some other original. For where the ideas themselves are not, there can be no knowledge, no assent, no mental or verbal propositions about them.”
Now is there nothing in what he advances in this place that will affect your doctrine of innate principles?
I think not, answered he.
For granting that we have no innate ideas, it is by no means from thence follow, as he says, then we have no innate principles. Ideas, simply considered, are very different things from innate moral principles, or from any other principles, which constitute the nature of things. If I have not already shown, I will, by and by, endeavor more clearly to show that the propositions we compose according to our idea of things are nothing but propositions; they are not really the principles of the things treated of: the principles of the things treated of are naturally inherent and exist perpetually in them whether our ideas or propositions concerning them be true or false.
But in the part quoted there is a fallacy. He says, “if the ideas be not unique, there was a time when the mind was without those principles.” The conclusion, you see, is vague and delusive. The only just conclusion he could have drawn was, that if the ideas be not innate, there was a time when the mind was without those ideas, out of which the propositions are formed, which I call principles. I doubt not that you perceive they are very improperly so called in the present question. For Mr. Locke thus confounds the principles of our nature, and the ideas contained in the propositions he names, together, as if they were the same things: but they cannot be so, because the one receives existence from the prior existence of the other. That is, our moral ideas receive their existence from the prior existence of our innate moral sentiments or principles: as our ideas of light and figure are derived from the prior existence of sight.
In this question the matter, as too frequently happens, has been puzzled and obscured by the misuse of words. Axioms, and allowed propositions, are called principles. But they are only principles formed by the human mind, in aid of its own weakness; which, in reasoning, can proceed but a little way without proved or granted propositions to rest on. They might, perhaps, with much more propriety, be called helps, assistances, or supports to the imbecility of the human mind, than principles of things. The principles which naturally inhere in every species of created beings are of a nature entirely different.
It seems, then, said I, that you agree with Mr. Locke that neither ideas or propositions can be innate: but you differ from him by denying any propositions what so ever to be properly the principles of any species of beings; and by affirming that both speculative and practical propositions are mere creatures of human invention; which whether they be true or false, that is, founded in the nature of things or not, the true natures and principles of things remain unalterably the same.
That is my meaning, replied he, and that, therefore, most of the arguments advanced by Mr. Locke against innate principles are nothing, or but very little, to the purpose; because they only tend to combat things as innate principles which are nothing like innate principles; and, if it be not too bold a thing to say of so penetrating a genius, he seems only to have been fighting with a phantom of his own creating.
Indeed, highly as I think of his genius and integrity, I should have much doubted of his sincerity in this doctrine if we had not frequently seen men of the first rate abilities suffer themselves to be carried into great absurdities by their fondness for a favorite system, or, by too hasty a desire of forming a perfect one.
It is certain, however, that nothing can be more excellent than his work as far as it regards our manner of acquiring ideas by sensation and reflection. But what should move him to advance that we have no other way of acquiring ideas; why he should exclude our moral sense and deny even its existence with the pains of so much acute false reasoning, I shall not, at present, endeavor to explain. But having so determined, he found it necessary to remove all notions of innate moral principles (and with them, all other innate principles) out of the way, in the beginning of his book: for had they been granted, another source of ideas must have been admitted besides those of sensation and reflection as explained by Mr. Locke. And I shall not hesitate to affirm that a clear and indisputable explication of this mode of acquiring ideas would have cost him much more pains in trouble than all the rest of his most ingenious work. For human actions and opinions, in the ordinary course of things, pass away in so rapid a succession as to leave no lasting traces behind them; nothing fixed to which we may refer for a renewal or a correction of our moral ideas concerning them, if our memory prove deficient. And, unless they be recorded with extraordinary accuracy, they can seldom be contemplated a second time in precisely the same light in which they were viewed at the first.
But all those ideas which arise in our minds by the impressions which external things make upon our senses being derived from objects of fixed and lasting natures, when our memory fails us, when we doubt the clearness or precision of our ideas, we can, generally, refer with ease to the objects themselves, and can renew, or rectify, our ideas at pleasure. This renders geometry so certain and indisputable as science: for the least variation or incorrectness in our ideas may be discovered and corrected by recurring to the figures themselves, which, through the medium of sight, convey invariably the same ideas to the mind. Nor is there any impediment, anything naturally interesting to our affections, in the nature of the things themselves, that should make us see them falsely or apply them irrationally.
As those who have been here long enough know, I highly recommend the entire essay by Barwis - "Dialogue on Innate Principles." My view has been for a while, and continues to be, that working with Barwis' core point it's possible to reconstruct a very possible description of the path that Epicurus was taking on anticipations as a PRE-conceptual ("pre-ideas") faculty.
Is the prolepsis (notion, anticipation, preconception, etc) of justice simply the concept that one neither harms nor inflicts harm?
At first blush, I would say not, that it varies from group to group and person to person.
My current opinions on this topic:
I agree with Godfrey's take with this modification: I don't think anticipations contain "black letter law." I think "black letter law" ("contracts to neither harm nor be harmed are good") is a conclusion that is reached only after rationally processing raw input data.
I think that in large part because preconceptions / anticipations are arranged in the canon as if they are parallel to or at the same level as to (1) the 5 senses, and also to (2) the feeling of pain and pleasure. Both of those function automatically, pre-rationally, and are not operating through rational processing and opinion.
So the parallel I would assert is that there is a "faculty of preconceptions" just like the faculty of sight and the faculty of hearing and the faculty of feeling pain and pleasure, all simply reporting and not processing data.
If that is correct, then the proper analogy would be that due to your faculty of preconceptions you have the ability to perceive that certain relationships and dealings with people are significant enough to perceive them as falling into a general category of relationships that we choose to call "justice." The particular preconception is a recognition that in the dealings of the people involved there is a relationship that we can expect to be repeated over and over and thus needs evaluation. It would be the faculty of pain and pleasure which then processes the data about the relationship and decides whether we feel pleasure or pain at the observation of the relationship. And of course we wouldn't notice it at all if we didn't have sight or hearing to make the observation in the first place.
So this is where I think DeWitt is on the right track by saying that the canonical faculties all work together, all simultanously, all serving as "reactions" which happening automatically and without (at that first stage) evaluation by reason or opinion.
It's only after all of those canonical faculties weigh in that we have the raw facts which our minds would then process and develop opinions and rational (or irrational, as the case may be) conclusions about what we "think" is going on in the situation we're considering.
And in support of this analysis I would cite the other clear text about anticipations, involving anticipations of the gods, where Epicurus seems to be saying that the false opinions about the gods also involve the processing of anticipations. So it's never anticipations themselves that are right or wrong or good or bad, but only our processing of them in the mind that leads to opinions about right or wrong or good or bad.
Anticipations wouldn't be "right" or "wrong" anymore than data from the eyes or ears is "right or wrong." What they could be is "more or less accurate" in the same way that someone's vision or hearing could be operating poorly, but even in those situations where there is some defect in the mechanism of seeing or hearing or anticipating, that doesn't mean that the reports from those faculties are "wrong" - it just means that they are less true to the facts being observed at that particular moment.
That's the way at present I interpret the direction DeWitt was going, which I think is correct. But the main and absolutely imperative point would be to reject that anticipations contain "opinion" or rational processing of any kind. If you go down the road of thinking that anticipations contain "conclusions" or "opinions" then that removes their canonical authority of being automatic and pre-rational, and puts you into a Platonic position of saying that there is some mechanism of transmitting "ideas" that are inherited at birth. Lots of things are inherited at birth, including apparently things we view as "instincts," but I think Epicurus ruled out the view that "ideas" are inherited from birth.
Dear me, is there to be a lot of shouting? 😅
Only when you channel the spirit of Diogenes of Oinoanda!
