Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

Life can't be the "greatest good," otherwise, death would conversely be the "greatest bad." And death is nothing to us.

Pleasure (i.e., living a pleasurable life) is the goal, telos, beginning, and end.

I think that is another perspective issue. Being dead is nothing to us, but losing our lives prematurely before it is necessary is a huge thing to be avoided (that gets us into the issue of how long should we seek to live.) That's a huge issue that deserves its own discussion. It is NOT a matter of indifference to me if I die tomorrow vs 20 years from now which I might reasonably hope to do given state of health, etc. So that "Death is nothing to us" line is something else that has to be parsed VERY carefully.

So I think that we have a big issue here about being very careful about defining what we mean by the "greatest good" -- and I think we have several texts that warn about that exact issue, including the Plutarch "walking around talking about...." text.

I haven't had time to pursue this myself but I hope others will and also comment here.

Also camotero as I mentioned a moment ago in another post you're going to want to add the appendix to the DeLacy Translation of Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" to your reading list. The appendix is excellent and compares and contrasts Epicurean views on these issues to those of Aristotle and Plato. After you read the appendix you're then equipped to begin to get something out of the text, which I think is hard to do unless you read the appendix first.

You probably need to look directly at the Vellius statement in "On the Nature of the Gods" as that is all there is - and there is not much.

I personally don't see it as Platonic however - I see it as absolutely the practical inference from the fact that here on earth we "never" see "only one thing of its kind." Extraplolating that out to the rest of the universe, which we presume absent evidence to the contrary is analogous to Earth, then that turns into something we expect to find everywhere.

Now I think were you are heading there is to a discussion of Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference" and I highly recommend the DeLacy translation (free on internet everywhere) and especially his appendix which attempts to unwind the full story of Epicurean reasoning from observation to conclusions.

I am pressed for time this morning and am no doubt going to be short in these responses. Feel free to follow up.

Quote from camotero

Something like, all the possibilities that are in line with the physics are possible until one is proved to be the right one and the others proven to be wrong? Is there a PD about this?

This would be primarily PD 24If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong.

But the issue of choosing prematurely is also mentioned in Lucretius and also the letter to Pythocles. We discuss this in this week's podcast which I hope to get out soon. Here is letter to Pythocles:

Quote

[86] We must not try to force an impossible explanation, nor employ a method of inquiry like our reasoning either about the modes of life or with respect to the solution of other physical problems: witness such propositions as that ‘the universe consists of bodies and the intangible,’ or that ‘the elements are indivisible,' and all such statements in circumstances where there is only one explanation which harmonizes with phenomena. For this is not so with the things above us: they admit of more than one cause of coming into being and more than one account of their nature which harmonizes with our sensations.

[87] For we must not conduct scientific investigation by means of empty assumptions and arbitrary principles, but follow the lead of phenomena: for our life has not now any place for irrational belief and groundless imaginings, but we must live free from trouble.

Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth. Now we can obtain indications of what happens above from some of the phenomena on earth: for we can observe how they come to pass, though we cannot observe the phenomena in the sky: for they may be produced in several ways.

[88] Yet we must never desert the appearance of each of these phenomena, and further, as regards what is associated with it, must distinguish those things whose production in several ways is not contradicted by phenomena on earth.

Quote from camotero

What do you mean by this? I though the greatest good was life, and the objective/end (or "telos" as DeWitt puts it) is pleasure.

I think most of us (certainly me) think that DeWitt is being a little broad in saying that, and it is necessary to be very specific about what perspective is the "greatest good." Certainly neither plesure nor pain has any meaning unless we are living. Does that mean that being alive is our greatest good? Sort of, from some perspectives of that word. But does that mean that when we are alive we spend every moment thinking about staying alive? No, we pursue pleasure and avoid pain, but in the context of staying alive. Those viewpoints can be fit into all sorts of word-play constructions so you have to be careful.

Quote from camotero

is that it may be looked by many as an objective in itself, instead of pleasure, j

I agree that NOTHING is an objective in itself other than pleasure (which assumes staying alive).

Quote from camotero

you get a feeling that this philosophy is a highly individualistic one.

There is little doubt about that, and I think most of us here agree, that in practice Epicurean philosophy IS highly individualistic. However it also incorporates that your greatest pleasures are necessarily tied to having friends, so the goal is never "individualism for the sake of individualism" but "whatever works for the pleasure of myself and my friends (family, etc)." That is hard for some people to swallow but there is no mechanism in nature for feeling the feelings of other people other than through your personal contact with them. You can conceptualize "I love all humanity and all living things" and that's perfectly valid to derive pleasure from that. But there is no Supernatural or Natural mechanism in play that compels everyone to that point of view. There is the practical consideration that if you go around being "mean" others are likely to respond and smack you in the head. But that is a purely practical consideration and has no mechanism naturally or supernaturally to enforce it. Sometimes people we think are bad don't get smacked in the head - it is only if real people take real action to avenge the "wrongs" done on them that such punishment occurs.

Quote from camotero

I'd argue that an important (arguably the most important) part of the observations that we can make out of this comparison of species is that of our ability for empathy and compassion, and the pleasure we can get out of it, which, as I understand, from what I've read, was completely missing from Epicuru's description.

I would not say at all that that is completely missing. He emphasized that friendship is the most important tool for securing safety and happiness (pleasure). That means we have to be to some degree cooperative. What appears to be "missing" to many people is that because Epicurus held that there are no Gods or idealistic mechanisms to enforce the extension of friendship to the whole world, Epicurus didn't choose to invent one like Plato and the rest did. He acknowledged how Nature functions and says that's "The Way Things Are."

Quote from camotero

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say here. Could you please explain? I do think all experiences could be categorized as either pleasurable or painful, and I like the simplicity of that. Are you saying this is not so? I'd like to learn your point of view about this.

What I am reacting to here is that some people think that Epicurus was only talking about "Bodily" pleasure (food drink sex etc). I believe it is clear that Epicurus included EVERY activity in life, even those which we consider to be purely "mental" as experiences that generate pleasure and pain. The reason to emphasize this is that Epicureans are attacked for allegedly thinking that "their god is the belly" and that is false. Epicurus clearly stated that "mental" pleasures and pains are frequently more intense and important than "bodily" ones. (That is clearly stated in Torquatus' section in On Ends)

Quote from camotero

Unfortunately, I've done it many times; since they start from a place of ideallistic competition, they focus on winning or losing the argument,

Yes and I too think it is unavoidable. Epicurus clearly did. If you live in a world of Platonists / Stoics like we do, there's going to be no way to avoid responding to their logic games.

Quote from camotero

what I meant is not that physics are not important, but rather that the specific physical explanations of Epicurus and Lucretius don't have to be right for the rest of the philosophy to be valid, especially nowadays that we have better explanations that allow us to reach these same two conclusions you mentioned.

I would just emphasize there that the ultimate conclusions are either certainly or probably still valid. I certainly think that the ultimate conclusion is that the universe operates on natural principles (not supernatural) and that there is no human life after death. Those I put in "certain" I also personally think that the other conclusions about "infinite space" and "eternal time" and "no infinite divisibility" were also very important to Epicurus, and remain highly probable at the very least, but I certainly understand that not everyone agrees with that and it's not such an important issue to resolve immediately that we can't all work together. However anyone who admits the nose of "supernatural" or "eternal soul" under the tent is in my view simply too far outside the limits to be considered an Epicurean.

Quote from camotero

Are there any examples or anecdotes about this?

There are several references in DeWitt which discuss this, but the main two text sources that talk about the deviations are:

(1) Diogenes Laertius in discussing the number of legs of the canon, and

(2) Torquatus (in On Ends) discussing how some Epicureans (himself included) think it is necessary to prove that pleasure is the goal by abstract means

Yes I think we are pretty close. It is possible to generalize, and generalizations are generally useful.

What I generally am fighting against is what I perceive to be also a "general" point of view of most people we run into in the outside world -- that there is some "objective" measurement to which all people should conform, including their view of whether something is pleasurable or painful.

I see this as another instance where it is necessary to simultaneously affirm two things that people think are in conflict:

(1) generalizations (about the sense of pleasure and many other things) are indeed generally useful as a matter of practice, so long as we acknowledge that they derive from the particular circumstances and people involved.

BUT

(2) Generalizations do not arise from supernatural means, nor is there a Platonic ideal or an Aristotelian "essence" by which anyone can say that there is only one "right" answer to a particular question.

The general tendency of people, due to religion and false philosophy, to embrace "objective" standards for all people at all times and all places is so strong, and so pervasive, and so insidious, that I think it is necessary to constantly "shout" that (like Diogenes of Oinoanda). As I experience life, in almost every conversation with the general world we can be sure that they are thinking that such an objective standard does exist. And they are presuming that we agree with them!

And this goes much further than basic pleasure sensations, but extends (because pleasures and pain are the starting point for all choices) into every ethical question as well.

Quote from Don

But the feeling of pleasure itself is a human/animal/natural reaction all humans/animals experience (unless there's a neurological disorder). That's why Epicurus could hold it up as a standard against which our decisions could be made. Otherwise, the idea of a *canon* is meaningless.

Ok I think we disagree there. I would say it is NOT the "everyone experiences it" that makes pleasure the standard but that FOR US these faculties are our only means of perception of reality which makes it the standard. 50 million Frenchmen are often "wrong" and while the experience of others is helpful to check out own predictions, it isn't the validation that comes from others concurring that makes pleasure the standard, but our own ability to verify through repetition that is our ultimate test.

No matter how many times and people I am told that spinach is pleasing, my reality will never agree with that.

I can admit that "spinach seems to be pleasant to most people, so I hear" but that is not and will never be the reality of my own pleasure. So my reality of pleasure disagrees with theirs , but I still assert that "pleasure" is the only standard of choice, because it is the only such faculty that we have.

Aside: I hope everyone who feels they have anything productive to contribute will weigh in with comments or questions as we proceed be side that could certainly help.

I think we can agree with all you wrote their yet we seem to be separate on something - and I perceive the issue is still the question of whether pleasure is any any sense "objective" across people(s) or is always a matter of individual perceptions.

I would say yes the faculty of pleasure is always the faculty of pleasure, but different people have different pleasure responses to exactly the same stimulus - and some people will find that exact stimulus painful. This means presumably that while it is fair to say that "pleasure" is the same faculty for all, there is no "objective" sense of pleasure that we can point to as leading to the same pleasure response in all situations, so we must always defer to the people involved and ask them "Do YOU find this pleasurable?"

These are good points to move the discussion along. Let me comment on them:

Quote from Don

I'm interpreting some things posted here to say that everyone has their own standard. No. I can't see how that can be correct. Everyone has their own opinions, beliefs, interpretations, etc., but the Canon provides a standard against which those opinions and beliefs are measured. You can't say a belief or opinion is "empty" κενός if you have nothing against which to measure it. Otherwise, the Canon has no meaning. You can't say the standard is not a standard. That doesn't place a value judgement. It a belief does not START with a canonical sensation, preconception, or feeling, it's not a valid belief. Not all beliefs are equal. How else could you say that a belief that the gods influence my actions is vain/empty/κενός without referring to the yardstick/ruler/Canon?

Let's start with that one: Yes I do think that everyone has there on sense of pleasure, and I think that is the easiest one to deal with. Some people find pleasure in many different ways -- do we agree on that?

If we do, then that's the first indication that a canonical faculty gives different results for different people.

Don't we also agree that people see colors in different ways (for example some are color-blind) and hear in different ways (some are "tone-deaf")? I think we'll agree there too.

As for anticipations, that's really the question we're discussing, so let's defer whether people have different instances of anticipations, though I will assert eventually that those differ too.

Where I think you are going, though, is that yes I agree that we can "generalize" and find that MOST people's sense of pleasure and pain, and their senses of sight and sound etc, do fall within ranges or bell curves or whatever. I would think that those "ranges" or "statistical probabilities" are what we are all thinking form the basis for our generalizations as to what is desirable and what is not desirable for most human beings.

But the real point there is that these are just generalizations, and they vary (sometimes dramatically) by individual, so while it is correct to say "generally" that most people (or most "Amerians") or most "men," or most of many other types of categories that we could come up with, do perceive things in a general way, that's pretty much the same as any other kind of statistical generalization. While yes that generalization does arise from nature, it's not really the kind of "absolute" standard at all that most people think about.

Now when we are talking about purely "mechanical" observations like length or width or weight or many many other things that can be "measured" yes we can come up with rulers and yardsticks and ways to measure them that are in fact 'objective' in way, but even there it is us (rather than nature) that is selecting an arbitrary standard to compare them against. Our confidence that those measurements always remains the same comes from the fact that we can reliably repeat them over and over and get the same result, not from any reference to an absolute standard "floating in the air"

Quote from Don

The Canon provides no ethical or conceptual content. All the canonic faculties (I think that's a good word) function pre-conceptually. "Images" impact the senses. Preconceptions/anticipations are exactly that: they are "before concepts" or "anticipate" concepts. The feelings of pleasure and pain are automatic. We cannot (really) control whether we feel pleasure or pain. We can decide to endure pain as a choice. But we feel pleasure or pain prior to any conceptual understanding of it or "meaning" behind it.

I think we are completely in agreement here, with the exception that pleasure and pain are the foundation of all ethical choices, and so I doubt that it is really proper to completely sever ethics from the canonical discussion.

Quote from Don

As far as determining whether something is just or not, whether there is justice in a given situation, that is entirely a matter for Ethics and the social contract. The most basic social contract - according to Epicurus - is "to neither harm nor to be harmed." That's not the prolepsis of justice. Granted, I'm still wrestling with what the "Prolepsis of Justice" is, but I'm leaning toward it having to do something with those animal experiments, especially since their working out something preverbally and maybe preconceptually but rather instinctually. The "prolepsis of justice" will not "tell" us whether something is just or not. That's determined by the social contract of a particular time and place.

I am pretty sure here is where we will disagree. First, I don't really think there is a sanction for saying that Epicurus really endorsed a 'social contract' in the first place, other than his observations that when people do agree not to harm each other, we can call that the foundation of any concept of "justice" that may exist. But he is also very clear that circumstances can and do change at a moment's notice, so that agreements which may have been "just" yesterday can become "unjust" today or tomorrow. And I think that just emphasizes the ephemeral nature of justice and that nothing is ever just in and of itself. He's really saying that any relationship that leads to the happiness of the person concerned with it may be considered just, but he's also saying that if we choose not to enter into any such arrangement (or for some reason we're not capable of it) there is no justice involved.

While it's possible to correctly generalize that most people in most situations benefit if they agree with each other, all those caveats to me simply emphasize that there is no such thing as absolute natural justice, social contract or not, so that the entire discussion just becomes another illustration that there is no such thing as absolute virtue (with justice simply being a subset of virtue).

As to this sentence "The "prolepsis of justice" will not "tell" us whether something is just or not. That's determined by the social contract of a particular time and place." I doubt I agree with that. I am thinking that would be better stated as something like "When I was a child I had four friends and the ice cream man gave us four ice cream cones so one of us didn't have one so we shared them equally anyway." I think that child found PLEASURE in seeing herself and all her friends get the same amount of ice cream. She found pleasure in that, however, only because her faculty of anticipations told her to recognize that there was an issue in everyone getting a a similar amount. Some of the other children could also have recognized the issue but thought "I am older so I should get more." And another one could think "I haven't eaten lunch so I should get more." And another one could think "I don't care what she thinks I am stronger and they depend on me so I deserve more." and many other possibilities could occur along the same lines.

In that scenario I would think that is an example that there is no natural sanction for a "social contract" for everyone to agree to divide equally, although that is ONE among several options that they could choose to follow. It was the sense of pleasure that ultimately provided the stop and go signal as each child evaluated (using their anticipations that there was an issue to consider) the situation that they might or might not choose to divide the ice cream equally. And to make Epicurus' point, they could choose to "agree" to divide it equally if they want, and they can call that "justice" if they want and "injustice" if someone breaks the agreement, but that ultimately if someone chooses to exit they agreement because it is no longer in their view mutually beneficial to them, they can simply choose to do so and no "injustice" is then involved. The word "just" becomes from that point of view as maleable as any other virtue - none of which are "absolute."

So ultimately I come down to the canonical faculty of pleasure as ultimately determining the "ethical choice" to be made. But it's also significant to note that no one would have ever even considered "ethics" to be involved at all if they didn't have an "anticipation" that "ethics" was a factor that they needed to consider as to how best to divide the ice cream. They could have, without that anticipattory disposition, just grabbed for all of the ice cream and each one tried to devour it all themselves just like we might say that a "savage" or some other primitive or hungry set of animals might do.

This continues to be a key passage too. To any question of whether Nature gives us any standard of conduct whatsoever, in the form of "ideas" "concepts" "justice" or whatever - there is only ONE answer: "What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance?'" (and of course the answer implanted there is NOTHING)

Quote

Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.) Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature.

What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance? Some members of our school however would refine upon this doctrine; these say that it is not enough for the judgment of good and evil to rest with the senses; the facts that pleasure is in and for itself desirable and pain in and for itself to be avoided can also be grasped by the intellect and the reason. Accordingly they declare that the perception that the one is to be sought after and the other avoided is a notion naturally implanted in our minds. Others again, with whom I agree, observing that a great many philosophers do advance a vast array of reasons to prove why pleasure should not be counted as a good nor pain as an evil, consider that we had better not be too confident of our case; in their view it requires elaborate and reasoned argument, and abstruse theoretical discussion of the nature of pleasure and pain.

Updating this thread -- try this link at Smashwords, and if any of them require a charge, let me know -- all should be free:

Cassius Amicus

My goal is to study and promote the philosophy of Epicurus. If you would like to participate in this work, don't hesitate to contact me at…

www.smashwords.com

As indicated above the only reason some had a charge associated with them at any point is that I could not figure out a way to get them on the Kindle platform and listed at amazon without a nominal charge.

This is the position Epicurus was fighting AGAINST, and so you can pretty much REVERSE this and see what Epicurus' position would have been in arguing that these things are impossible due to the nature of the universe. That means that these things don't exist anywhere, and we won't find them existing in anticipations either. Anticipations will be something different - a faculty that allows us to see the issues involved in justice, like an eye allows us to see trees. But in processing our conclusions about trees or about justice, all of that process is something the human mind does to the best of its own ability, and people aren't going to reach the same conclusions about justice any more than they are going to use the same words or even use the same language to describe trees:

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4104&context=ndlr

The follow up point Eric is that YES, it is through the anticipations of the people involved that they will reach their decisions as to what is just and what is unjust and they will work as hard as they can to implement those ideas.

BUT at the same time they must realize that the answer they reach to their questions is determined by a combination of their own circumstances plus the developed dispositions they bring to the table, and that there is no God, or Ten Commandments, or any other "supernatural" or "eternal" or even "Nature's Own Single Answer" justification for their decisions

I would say Eric just remember that formulation of absolute law in Cicero's Republic, and compare it to PD 30-40.

Epicurus stands for the proposition that there is no absolute justice or absolute ethical standards, other than pleasure and pain as the guide to all choices and avoidances.

That means that all subsidiary parts of the philosophy, including anticipations, point in that same direction.

Quote from EricR

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.

Respectfully to all concerned let's state all this in a way that is more clear about the "always" and the "absolute" implications. I think the point Epicurus was making is that "YES - "anticipations" as a PRE-conceptual source of raw data are always reported "honestly," but "No! - anticipations are not themselves ethical conceptions / propositions and they are themselves never fully formed conceptions that are absolutely applicable in all circumstances!"

Due to the nature of the universe (no gods, no ideal forms, nothing that is "always the same" except the fundamental elements themselves) there is no way possible that any ethical concept can ever be absolute for all people, all times, all places. That is in my view the clear meaning of the "justice" statements in the last ten PD's, but it's also compelled by the Epicurean physics. That's where DeWitt slipped (in my humble view) in describing anticipations as "ideas." They are used to FORM ideas, just like the data from all three of the canonical legs are used in our minds to form ideas, but they are not ideas themselves.

This is the point that was the fatal flaw in those who adopted a fourth leg of the canon (as cited in Laertius) and it's the flaw committed by Cicero's Torquatus in saying that he was one of those who believed that the proposition that pleasure is desirable should be the subject of essential logical proof.

What we're discussing here is what (in my opinion, I think following DeWitt) blew up the Epicurean movement in the ancient world. They gave in to the Platonists / Stoics and accepted the argument that their philosophy required proof through "logic" - when Epicurus told them that "logic" is not something that is canonical, and that proof comes through the natural faculties (data from all three canonical faculties viewed generally as "sensations") rather than through mental conceptions / logic.

I know pleasure because I can feel it, not because I can define it absolutely accurately in words. The same would go for all the inputs from all the canonical faculties. The data does not come to us in words/concepts, those are just devices that we use to try to describe them, but the words are just devices. The words cannot be mapped one-to-one exactly to the full context of the experience.

Quote from Don

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.

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"

Quote

Mr. Locke then, you know, returned I, has used several ways to prove that we have no innate principles: and though I clearly see that your arguments do make generally against them all; yet I shall be better satisfied if you will permit me to particularize some of them, if it be only to hear, from you, a refutation of them.

He bowed.

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.

But it is not so in moral science; it more closely concerns and is more deeply interesting to us in every point of view: it therefore throws more impediments in our way to a right understanding and clear comprehension of its truths. Our early-imbibed prejudices, misplaced affections, ill-governed passions, and jarring interests, distort and falsify our ideas in moral subjects extremely, nor can a just and natural representation of our moral sentiments or feelings take place in our minds until those delusive and turbulent enemies to moral truth be subdued or properly corrected. And also to men whose affections and passions are duly tempered, and minds naturally adjusted, moral truths may be as clear as mathematical ones, yet, from the unhappy circumstances above-mentioned, they are generally much more clouded and obscured; and are, therefore, perpetually subjected to tedious and unpleasant disputations: a very untoward and disgusting circumstance without a doubt.

But which you think, replied I, not enough so to have caused Mr. Locke to deny the existence of innate moral principles; things so essentially interesting to the calls of virtue: and which, you consider as a source of ideas, not comprehended in what he understands by sensation and reflection.

And are you not of the same mind, interrogated he, in a lively tone?

At present I am, answered I, but yet I must bid with Mr. Locke to be more clearly informed concerning the nature of those innate principles; for, says he, "nobody has yet ventured to give a catalogue of them."

By the demand of a catalog of them, said my friend, he seems only to expect a string of moral maxims or propositions: but these, we have agreed, with him, are not innate principles: we have agreed that they are not properly principles of things at all. But, before we attempt to explain farther what we mean by innate moral principles, it may not be improper to endeavor to define what we would be understood to signify by the word principle, so far, at least, as it regards our present inquiry: and so, perhaps, when we come to speak of any innate principle, after describing it as well as we can, we may be allowed to say what Mr. Locke says of the faculty of perception, which I presume is innate, viz. “who ever reflects on what passes in his own mind cannot miss it; and if he does not reflect, all the words in the world cannot make him have any notion of it.” So, our moral principles be innate, and of a simple nature, when we would describe the sensations or sentiments they produce in us; if by turning men's minds inward upon their own feelings we cannot make them perceive what they are, words in any other view will be vain and useless. Yet in essentials all men must be sensible of them, and capable of perceiving them, clearly enough, in plain, practical cases, for all the good purposes of human life: except, indeed, such persons as Mr. Locke very strangely, not to say preposterously, selects as the most likely to preserve a pure and perfect sense of them: viz. idiots, infants, and madmen.

He was going to proceed in the definition of his meaning by the word principle when finding we were just at home, he declined it to another opportunity; to which I assented, on a promise that it should be early next morning. And thus ended our first dialogue.

Display More

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.

Quote from Don

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.