Posts by Cassius

This is the last of the major points I wanted to drop here before coming back later. The Epicureans were referring to something known as "inconceivability:"

This one I include because I think it should remind us of the very opening section of Lucretius, where Epicurus is praised for exploring nature with his mind and coming back to us to explain the "limits and boundaries set forever" which he found in his exploration:

I will include this principle because the issue involved seems clear and simple and important. Dionysius is an opponent of the Epicurean method:

As to this paragraph, it is necessary to elaborate on what is meant by "contraposition." I need to look that up again and come back with an elaborate definition, but I think it is safe to generalize and say that "contraposition" refers to a method of reasoning using a logical syllogism, or in even simpler terms, "an argument based on logic," i think the meaning of this paragraph is that the Epicureans held that arguments based on at least a certain type of logic are "valid only in so far as they are supported by analogy." It's tempting to rewrite that as "arguments based on a certain type of logic are based valid only in so far as they are supported by direct evidence," but it seems likely to me that "reasoning by analogy" is actually a reference to "reasoning by circumstantial evidence."

In answer to the question "When is it proper to reason by analogy and when is it not?" we have this:

One issue that has already come up in recent discussions is that posed by "exceptions to what we think is a general rule," Does not the frequency in which we discover exceptions to the rules which we think we know show that it is improper to ever generalize by analogy, from matters we have observed, to assert a conclusion about matters on which we have no direct evidence? In response to that, check this paragraph:

Elayne and i have been having some discussions which I think are going to lead back to the material in "On Methods of Inference" ("OMOI") and I would like to tackle the task of identifying "Just What Is The Argument Presented in On Methods of Inference?" In other words, before getting into the details, can we at least begin to get a handle on what the argument was about?

The primary source material I have found most helpful on OMOI is the book by Phillip and Estelle De Lacy. Their introduction and their endnotes are extensive and I think bring some degree of clarity to a very complex topic, but even with all those notes is difficult to get a handle on what the issues were, and what the Epicurean position was on those issues. So in the following excerpts and comments I am going to try to make a start at grasping the big picture, and I hope others will see what they can do to help.

First, I think I have identified two key paragraphs in the introduction which purport to be a summary of the main issues of the work. Unfortunately the meaning of the terminology in them about "contraposition" and "common and particular signs" is not immediately clear, but at least this gives us a place to start. In the end, it appears to me that we're ultimately after a formula by which we can decide how to attack things for which there is no direct evidence. In other words - in legal terms - we are talking about the proper method of using circumstantial evidence, and when (if ever) it is possible to state a conclusion with confidence based on evidence that is only circumstantial. This material, and the excerpts that follow, begin on page 13 of the text.

I am going to read more and enter more comments on this thread, but if someone already has a command of this material and wants to try to shortcircuit the need for a deep dive into this subject, please feel free to jump in and save us all some time!

Failing that, I think this is an issue that underlays a great deal of Epicurean philosophy, and explains how it differs from competing philosophies, and also probably explains how different people who consider themselves to be within the Epicurean tradition can find themselves reaching different conclusions based on much the same evidence. I don't want to distract @Susan Hill from her current project, but I think the issues involved here are going to have a deep impact on how we should understand the conclusions of Epicurus on divinity as well as on many other matters.

So from here let's go further and see what we can read from the signs.

Hey look what just popped up on one of my feeds. What a great sign on that wall there? In case everyone doesn't recognize him, that's our Epicureanfriend user shahabgh66

Yes - the prime material from the Velleius (Epicurean section) is here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?…re-of-the-gods/

However there is certainly other commentary by the non-Epicurean speakers that will be relevant to understanding the Epicurean parts.

Just a note to Susan and everyone who hasn't run into this before: If you paste directly from other programs you'll sometimes get the font transferred as well, such as this:

While it is not always true, I think it's probably best for the forum if we try to keep the font styles to the default, so I'll sometimes go in and edit a post to remove the extra fonts.

If you paste something and see that the font is different than the norm, the way to fix it is to use the dropdowns such as "A" for font family and T for size and choose the last option to "remove" that characteristic.

Again, no issues, and I'll sometimes go ahead and make this change without mentioning it just in the interests of time. Thanks!

EDIT: I meant to mention, more important even than font style and size is COLOR. Some people use dark themes ("styles") here for the forum, and others use "light" themes. Color can make a dramatic impact on readability, so above all please be sure to remove any "color" attributes when pasting.

OK I have gone ahead and rearranged the forum structure as per the discussions, and since this topic has so many subissues where I would expect comment in the future, I did go ahead and split it off from Physics. No doubt more fine-tuning will be needed so as always let me know what changes people propose.

Epicurean Divinity is a huge topic, especially because it differs in so many interesting ways from the theologies of mainstream organized religion, or the state-sponsored religion of Epicurus’ own time. Unfortunately, very little of the original writings on the subject have survived; however, from secondary period sources referring directly to the original teachings, we can still glean a great deal about the original doctrines of the Epicurean School of Philosophy. For those to whom these teachings prove personally appealing, we can even examine ways in which Epicurean views of divinity may be applied today.

This forum includes several main sections. The first, “Relevant Texts”, gathers together the textual source material pertaining to Epicurean theology, while the second consists of the sub-topics. Areas for exploration and discussion. include Epicurean Piety, Images of the Gods, Anticipations of the Gods, The Material Nature of the Gods, The Origin, Life, and Potential Death of the Gods, The Relationship of Non-Intervention Between Gods and Humans, and The Appearance of the Gods.

Threads on these topics or similar can be created by users as their pleasure prompts them. Links can be created referring to the source material to support ideas expressed.

As we proceed here we need to go forward with some procedural standards to apply when evaluating the texts on statements about the gods. These should be:

1) Epicurus' own words take precedence over all other source material. Anywhere Epicurus leaves room for different interpretations is not narrowed down by commentary from other sources, such as Philodemus or DeWitt. Neither will individual quotes be taken out of context with his whole body of work.

2) The process of determining what is real takes precedence over details of prior or current conclusions. When new data is available that Epicurus didn't have, we agree to present both what he concluded based on information available to him _and_ revisions which are necessary to continue adhering to his process of observing nature and trusting the senses. We agree that such revisions are an embedded expectation in a philosophy based on observations of nature, and that to ignore new data is to distort Epicurus' intentions beyond recognition.

3) Prolepses are subject to the same verification process as any other sense data and are not to be given special status when the combined sense evidence contradicts them, no matter how compelling they are. We will not say prolepses are infallible when the content is in the form of a conclusion about reality. This is the same as we do not say a straw in a glass of water is bent because it looks to be so from one view. Instead, we examine it from different positions and touch it. We combine our senses to test any conclusion. A sensation about gods from an intuition or dream is not a mistake in the same way seeing an optical illusion is not a mistake, but assumptions about the _cause_ of those intuitions and dreams is a matter up for verification by the other senses. We must especially beware of making assertions of material fact on grounds that we received special knowledge due to a prepared mind, because this closes off the importance of examination by the senses.

(Note: The above "standards of interpretation" was added here October 28, 2020. It is subject to revision as we proceed, and will likely be added to the forum as a whole along with the "Not Neo-Epicurean But Epicurean" statement as we have more experience with it.)

Since it's not strictly "Apollo" I gather, maybe your "Lord and Healer" makes better sense.

so Susan do you prefer Glory Be! Or O Lord Apollo?

This thread has reached all time third most commented post on the forum - I definitely want it to make it into the top two, and maybe number one, before we consider splitting off in too many pieces!

1) Is "theology" a good word, or should we stick with "divinity"?

2) Pending further discussion on "theology" and "spirituality," and other suggestions, my current minor rewrite would be:

Epicurean Divinity is a huge topic, especially because it differs in so many interesting ways from the theologies of mainstream organized religion, or the state-sponsored religion of Epicurus’ own time. Unfortunately, very little of the original writings on the subject have survived; however, from secondary period sources referring directly to the original teachings, we can still glean a great deal about the original doctrines of the Epicurean School of Philosophy.

For those to whom these teachings prove personally appealing, we can even examine ways in which Epicurean views of divinity may be applied today.

This forum includes two main sections. The first, “Relevant Texts”, gathers together the textual source material pertaining to Epicurean theology, while the second consists of the sub-topics. Areas for exploration and discussion. include Epicurean Piety, Images of the Gods, Anticipations of the Gods, The Material Nature of the Gods, The Origin, Life, and Potential Death of the Gods, The Relationship of Non-Intervention Between Gods and Humans, and The Appearance of the Gods.

Threads on these topics or similar can be created by users as their pleasure prompts them. Links can be created referring to the source material to support ideas expressed.

Quote from Don

However, if we're using spirituality in the sense of "spiritual practice" that seems to be a big tent.

Not by any means exactly the same word, but a lot of the text that we've covered recently in the podcast has referred to "spirit" and "soul" -- I think based on anima and animus.

All this needs to be dissected and we come up with a glossary to match Elayne's rules of construction, or some such thing, or else we go on explaining ad infinitum.

I should have figured Don would like PAIAN ANAX

Ok so what does that mean?

Yes I agree Elayne, and in this case I think "prolepsis" can be particularly suitable for those who want to use it, because I don't think we have a clear understanding of what the word means, so we might as well call it XYZ or "prolepsis"until we are ready to take a position to what it means to a common everyday english-speaker.

I think "anticipations" and "preconceptions" hint at the right direction, but only hint.

I realize in writing that last comment this which I think is important:

We all have a pretty good idea of how "a particular sight" is an example of the faculty of vision; how a particular sound is an example of the faculty of hearing. Same goes for pleasures and pains. We understand instances of pleasure and pain and we therefore understand how we are putting those in categories called "pleasures" and "pains."

I do NOT however, think that we have a consensus or even much articulation at all of what "an anticipation" is and how that differs from "the faculty of anticipations."

Almost by definition, "an anticipation" is not the same thing as a concept or a word or an opinion, nor would the "faculty of anticipations" constitute a "set of concepts or opinions."

We really need to find a way to articulate the meaning of these two categories. What is "an anticipation" and how does a single anticipation fit into our definition of "the faculty of anticipations"?

FWIW I am equally good with the word "preconception" because that stresses the distinction between preconceptions and conceptions, but I personally tend to shy away from "prolepsis" as that smacks to me of an untranslated Greek word for which we haven't settled on an understandable English term. I know not everyone agrees with me on that and I don't assert this as a rule of the forum (at least at this point without a lot more work on rules) but in general it does not seem to me to be a good idea to use untranslated Greek terms in our normal english discussions. The only way to really be clear when you do that is to give the greek accompanied by the translations, as Don generally does, but that gets to by unwieldy very quickly, and I don't think we want to compose most of our writing in ways that only experts can understand.

As Don and Dewitt would say, "Philosophy for the Millions!"

That sounds like a good start to a document that would apply across the board to all our discussions. We need to develop such an approach because it probably would serve as a good supplement to the "Not NeoEpicurean" list and the rules for posting everywhere on this forum.

Here's an example:

Quote from Elayne

We will not say prolepses are infallible when the content is in the form of a conclusion about reality.

That's the kind of observation that is a foundational premise from the very beginning. NONE of the three legs of the canon are "infallible" in the sense of providing us fully-formed true opinions. Every item of data has to be considered and evaluated in full context of all the data.

It's really inconvenient to repeat these points over and over so it would be good to develop a list of rules like this so we can point people to them easily.

We can discuss and refine this list over time.