I think I saw that this is purely an automatic, instinctual response to acoustic stimuli:
Beavers start instintincutally damming pathways when they hear running water. If you put a beaver in a suburban house, and run the faucet, it will grab clothes and shoes and toys and dam a hallway.
After all this, and ten years of devoted study, I must say, understanding prolḗpseis is like holding wet soap. It functionally works when you just cup it and apply gently, but when you squeeze it to test its composition, it just slips out of your hand and re-orients itself toward another drain.
Diognes describes prolḗpseis as cog in the wheel of formulating language. Hermarkhos and Philodemos entertain hypotheses that almost make me suspect that a prolḗpseis is a song that we receive on our mental radios from the FM being transmitted from the gods in deep space. And I'm not into that. That frankly sounds oddly mythic, and unnecessarily reliant on metaphor.
I bring up my drug hypotheis with you guys (too) frequently because, honestly ... I'm really just an defacto atheist who thinks religion is really fucking dumb, and I have tried – TRIED, I mean, was raised Methodist, questions God as a pre-teen, dated a Catholic for years and entertained mass, accepted the rituals of Cathoicism, prayed with fraternity at Mosques, worshipped at Buddhist temples, engaged the artifaces of New Age commercialism, dedicated myself to replicating the meditative practices described in Gita and Paramahansa Yogananda's famous book, and re-studied heterodox Christianity with nonjudgmental eyes, and NONE of the provided me with any practice advice, and all of them blinded me to the reality of the genuine religious experience .... until I ate mushrooms. Six grams of psilocybin cubensis will provide any atheist with a fascinating journey through convincing intellectual demonstrations that lead to reasonable religious belief. All natural, all conditioned by chemicals that happened to be released in a young philosopher's brain.
If prolḗpseis are just "common sense" human concepts, like "justice" or "divinity" or "time" then ... fuck it, right? Who care what they really are, or where they came from, or how they work. They simply are, like color. Wavelength measures in nanometers or not, we know what color is because DAMN there is it. Likewise, people talk about the gods, when I drop LSD, I feel downright blissful and holy and oceanic and incorruptible and pure and utterly godike, and I want to know.
Or is this just his response to Plato's belief in innate ideas that precede birth and have a more fundamental reality than death. These are the "idea"-level of human existence, and Epicurus is just trying to contextualize them in mental processes to the best of his linguistic creativity. It this is the case, prolḗpseis isn't technical we just mean "notions" or "ideas" or "concepts" that are on-point when it comes to being reflective of the place, person, objects or process to which they refer.
As far as the gods go, they've been here, they're here, they'll be here ... it's on the cash in my pocket I use to buy weed, it was in my 9th-grade biology class when we talking about Darwin and Mendel, it gets a tax break on every street corner in Central Florida, like ... we can't escape it. They are self-described godly people, who believe ungodlike things. F$%@ 'em.
But back to LSD ... I don't mean to bring it up as an abstract point of show-and-tell or as a fringe theory (like the simulation fantasy that has encapsulate undisplined minds) ...but really, I'm asking my Epicurean friend who accept Epicurean theology: do your guys have experiences in your mind with a humanoid figure that you have seen in very unique dreams? (maybe a new thread Cassius ). I never have, of hundreds of recorded dreams. I have a few figures that I identify as "God", but my personal definition in "what 'God' is" is a "Helper" or a "Guardian", which is, according to Epicurus, is a false conception that comes from culture, not natural impressions.
Fair enough. Even so, I have *never* dreamed of a blissful humanoid. I've seen *some* interviews with people on DMT who describe Machine Elf Faeries that are eerily similar in description to Epicurean detities, but still ... I am constantly fighting the feeling that Epicurus walked about from church feeling re-charged and inspired, and I've just felt guilty and ashamed, and I have, for a deacde now, really struggled to understand this principle for what it means to my life.
I wish we had his letters to Metrodoros about his struggled conception of divinity. Did Metrodoros share similar gripes as do it? Did any other Epicureans say, "look ... BRILLIANT argument to the bozo thesists about their circular reasoning to provide them with a genuine challenge ... but we don't believe in ... like ... okay, so, for real, we just think Apollo is dumb and we eat food and discuss physics and the nature of human desires ... we don't get on our knees, slit a lamb's throat, paint our face with blood, and then assume that this act will somehow reinforce our psycho-social health, that's, ugh, gross, right?" Or if Epicurus really did practice the Dionysian mysteries with regularity, was his god the intoxicating feeling of empathy and warmness in non-alcoholics that was personified as a jolly god?
I really want to flesh this out, because, for me personally, if Epicurean theology isn't consistent, a few other key parts of the philosophy begin to unravel, the more I see it.
In summary, trying to digest the various intersection that prolḗpseis seems to demand between developmental psychology, descriptivist linguistics, the development of religion, the anthropology of spiritual practice, social norms and ethics, and the neurological architecture of psychedelia...
Another intriguing example of prolḗpseis comes from Philodemos' On Piety, where he writes, “For [the] All [pân] […] is thought of, just as Time [khrónos] is defined, as being a naturally formed generic conception [prólepsin]” (Col. 66.3-6). I find this interesting because Philodemos makes a comparison between "the universe", "time" and "the god(s)". For one thing, each of these prólepsin feature instances of an infinity in one way or another: everything is spatially boundless, the universe is temporally endless, and the gods are indestructible. For another thing, each concept is somewhat abstract (due to their not being able to be fully experienced) yet is implied as necessarily real. Case in point, Philodemos records Epicurus as having explained in Book 32 of On Nature that these "naturally formed" impressions are "apprehended with clarity", and yet, Philodemos later admits that "no one furnishes in abundance demonstrations for the existence of gods".
I am struck by the variety of ways in which prolḗpseis is employed:
Sometimes, prolḗpseis seems to be used within the domain of memory, as mental impressions or representations that have been formed from personal experience, sort of like mnemonic scars; sometimes, we express prolḗpseis is as a function of linguistics, as a necessary condition for communication, as a common idea to which a word refers, like how two people with different forms of colorblindness can both share the common idea of a "rainbow", or the fact that people who have lost their ability to detect sounds can still hear their favorite songs in their head. Othertimes, we refer to prolḗpseis as a feature of developmental psychology, where it acts as an intellectual category required for children to develop pattern recognition. Elsewhere, prolḗpseis exists within the domain of dreams, as mental apprehensions, uncensored from the editor that is the ego.
It seems clear why there are various "camps" in terms of "interpretations" of Epicurean theology: the criterion of prolḗpseis, itself, has so many applications: Is the concept of "god" more like "divinity" or "blessedness" (or "justice"), as in, a prototype against which new examples can be judged? As in Star Trek V, where the crew meets a supreme being, but ultimately decides that this being cannot be God because it is willing to inflict pain? Or is the concept of "god" more like "human" or "living being" (or "animal") as in, a sort of "who" or "it" that a human infant could observe and (as pre-verbal infants do) point at with their chubby digits to indicate "That! There! It!" Is there a period in the development of young children prior to receiving their conception of "god"? Or is it conditioned by the very genetics that deal the cards of our neurology?
Here again, I really, REALLY want to consider that Epicurus would have mentioned, at least once (humor me here), that he, himself must have, as a conservative practitioner of Eleusian and Dionysian rituals (which, again, he, himself, seems to have attended with enthusiasm) ingested chemicals that were intended to induce an altered state of consciousness, a state that people throughout millennia have recognized as being exceptionally noteworthy and positively transformation. So, it is ultimately geared toward improving the circumstances of one's life. The experience of certain, psycho-active chemicals can reliably reproduce "the experience of God" when administered to Christians in laboratory conditions (among other faiths). Epicurus and his associates would have been aware that intoxicants were capable of inducing dreams that host godlike characters and fill participants with an overwhelmingly, undeniable sense of bliss.
I would be very surprised if Epicurus did not "see" Zeus at least once during his rituals.
I would be even more surprised if Epicurus (purposefully, it would have to seem) omitted any mention of the private, mental experiences people experience after ingesting entheogens in his writings. It would seem strange for a person in that context to not draw a connection between intoxication, good dreams, the feeling of bliss, the rituals of religion, and discussion about theology. Epicurus seems to have thought that pre-civilized humans developed conceptions about "the gods" (including, I have to assume, a being that would later be called "Zeus") in their dreams, independent of each other. They then developed spoken words they could share with one another to refer back to "that-memorably-strange-recurring-Zeus-experience". After time, they realized that "memory of the Zeus-experience" made them more observant of their own behavior. So, life improved.
As someone who writes every dream I have, and every dream I can recall (and have continued to do so for over 15 years), and as being that same someone who has experimented with psychedelics, may I just say that psychedelics are a much more reliable way to experience anything remotely "religious". Most of my (and probably your) dreams are anywhere from mundane to bizarre to incoherent, whereas your average trip is always memorable and meaningful.
Ultimately, I think what I'm getting at is that a prolḗpsis needs a stimulus. So what was the stimulus? The prolḗpsis of "the gods" must have been stimulated by a powerful agent capable of inducing an exceptional, purely-mental experience, significant enough to re-direct the trajectory of a person's life. So what are our candidates for the stimulation of spirituality? Religious institutions are one, and their forms of indoctrination are powerful, but they aren't always reliable at inducing profound mental experiences. (A lot of religious people just show up at church like they would show up at work or school, as purely a social obligation.) Dreams are another, and can be memorable and inspirational, but, as mentioned, usually just recycle mundane, daily experiences; dreams are only as reliable as showing the image of gods as they are showing the image of unreal monsters. But certain psychedelics are powerful, reliable, and psychologically transformational; "pre-civilized" humans who foraged for food were not choosers (they were opportunistic), so when it came to diet, mushrooms were/are nutritious, ubiquitous, visually-arresting...
I guess what I mean to say is this: we were tripping before we were assigning words to objects, so by the time we developed spoken/written language, the "weird-experience-after-eating-mushrooms" (or walking past a volcanic vent, or eating fermented fruit, or walking past a forest of burning cannabis plants, or eating alkaline barks, or consuming ergot that would have grown on stored grains, or..., etc.) demanded a word to go along with it, and I think that the words we use, like "god", "divine", and "blessed", are in the same spectrum as the words Epicurus meant when he referred to ancient peoples' dreams. I suppose, also ... perhaps, some of the discussion we have about Epicurean theology is taking place in a bubble of the English, Spanish, German, Italian, and Greek-speaking scholarship from societies that are propagandistic and prohibitionary against chemicals that would have been exposed to the human ecosystem for hundreds of thousands of years. To be frank, I think we all overlook the influence the drugs had on early religion (the real kind).
Might have gone off topic there. Thanks for the share, Don!
it's honestly been awhile since I considered it.
Me, too.
I had once supposed that "ἐπιβολὰς τῆς διανοίας" was a direct synonym for "προλήψεις", but I have since come to see an "προλήψεις" as just one type of "ἐπιβολὰς τῆς διανοίας", some of which are canon (like a raw, mental impressions), and some of which are vain (like astrological predictions).
If that taxonomy is reasonable, then, applied to the divine nature, the true "προλήψεις" are naturally-occuring icons (in dreams) that once inspired ancient hominids to plant the seeds of spirituality that would eventually develop into national cults. Some of the "ἐπιβολὰς τῆς διανοίας" about the divine nature are coherent with the basic nation of a "divine creature", such as the proposition that Hermarkhos and Philodemos seem to insist, that (1) the blessed figures of our natural aspirations correspond with metacosmic waveform creatures whose bodies pump ghostly blood and respirate imagination, or also (2) the coherence of admirably "godlike" human (i.e. Epicurus) who are near-enough to the general notion of the "προλήψεις" of a "god" that the concept becomes present and useful and meaningful in the way that word-making first naturally develops. Likewise, some "ἐπιβολὰς τῆς διανοίας" are vain, like the beliefs that (a) magic genies grants personal favors, or that (b) the divine nature is punishing you by willing Mercury into retrograde, which mysteriously, metaphysically drops your credit score.
Excellent work on your website, Twentier, thank you! The only books I have on Philodemus' Rhetoric are Hubbell's translation (that Cassius shared) and Clive Chandler's work on books 1 & 2, did you use/find any other sources?
Thanks, Bryan! I appreciate your feedback.
I've only used Hubbell's translation as my resource.
I've also transcribed it as HTML:
Halfway through Book VII of Philodemus' On Rhetoric, I came across the following, surprising quotation:
"Rhetors prefer to live in a democracy, the worst form of government."
I am well aware of Plato's authoritarian politics ... Philodemus seems to identify "The People" with "a vicious mob".
Granted, this is taken out of context, as are many of Philodemus' fragments.
Still, it makes me wonder more about Philodemus' political positions, particularly his sympathy toward Julius Caesar. He has a lot to say about civic engagement in On Rhetoric.
This confirms, once again, that everything sounds better with a posh English accent.
Cellar door 
There is an added irony, noting that tattoos in ancient Greece would have been partially reserved for slaves given that Epicurus declares that we "must be the slave of Philosophy" (U199). 
Your post made me curious about tattoos in Ancient Greece. It seems they were taken as a sign of “Otherness.”
https://greekreporter.com/2023/07/15/tattoos-ancient-greece/
Indeed, ΔΕΡΜΑΤΟΣΤΙΞΙΑ seems to have been reserved as a punitive measure to identify slaves and criminals, both in ancient Greece as well as Persia (according to Herodotus, who records Greek soldiers as preferring death over being tattooed i.e. defeated and captured by the Persians). On the other hand, their geographical neighbors, the Thracians, Scythians, and Celts used the practice as a form of self-expression, as did/do Polynesian peoples, from whom we inherit the word "tattoo."
There are some colorful anecdotes about the battle of Thermopylae: https://www.actasdermo.org/es-dermatostik…578219021002456
I thought I might start a thread for this in the event that anyone has any ink to share.
I just got this done yesterday! My first share is ΛΑΘΕ ΒΙΩΣΑΣ (láthe biṓsas), a phrase found in Usener Fragment 551, an ancient invocation to cultivate a life of philosophical calm, estranged from egotistical ambitions, indifferent to accolades, immune to the allure of approval, unburdened by popular opinion, unimpressed by affluence, uninspired by opulence, and liberated from vain beliefs about fame, a life too blissfully unremarkable to appear on the turbulent pages of history.
Hi, Holly! Glad to see you here. 
I used that exact quote in an anti-Creationist editorial written for my high school newspaper after a creationist came to our school and presented during an assembly.
I remember that when my high school biology teacher announced that we would be studying evolution for the next few weeks, she said she wanted to impress upon us from the outset, and for us to tell our parents, that we would be studying it as 'only a theory.' *Still* contentious in the schools in 1994.
My 9th-grade biology teacher prefaced our lectures on Darwin and Mendel with a disclaimer on creationism and/or intelligent design. This was in 2004. I live in Florida. 
I think it is important to consider Epicurus' context in a post-Alexandrian world. Epicurus would have thrived at a time when the Greeks became linked with a trans-continental empire that made them aware of dozens of new languages, commodities, and religions. Diogenes records Epicurus as having had a fascination with Pyrrho, who accompanied Alexander's army to Northwest India and and modern-day Afghanistan, so we know that Epicurus had an interest in 4th-century BCE anthropology. One can imagine how an intellectual in this context might have been struck at the discovery that every group of humans whom Alexander encountered had some sort of cultural practice in which they reserved time to interface with inspirational or behaviorally-impactful images in their minds that do not correspond with physical objects in the immediate environment.
Knowledge of spiritual ideas would seem to have been confirmed by the independent attestation of foreign peoples. Based on the cultural exchange of ideas that occurred after Alexander's conquest, it would seem that everyone from every part of the planet knew that gods are sublime, in the same way that everyone from every part of the planet knew that water is refreshing and sex feels good. (Along those lines, every group of humans seem to have independently known that intoxication is memorable, and—what I continue to emphasize is not only not a coincidence, but is rather a fundamental feature of spirituality—almost every religion incorporates an intoxicant or intoxicating practice into the heart of their rituals). Indeed, knowledge of "the gods" is self-evident from Egypt to India and everywhere in-between: everyone has met the divine nature without ever having shaken its hand.
Since the gods did not proverbially walk door-to-door, introducing themselves to each civilization, each in its own tongue, the experience of the gods must be an internal phenomenon.
Do we have a picture of Fragment 551?
Here's another bust to consider, allegedly from the Museum of Neues in Berlin: https://www.smb.museum/en/museums-ins…es-museum/home/
This is allegedly the bust of Zeno of Citium.
I never realized that Bailey's collection of fragments were selected from Usener's:
Thank you for the recognition! The contents are essentially copied from the Hedonicon, with several exceptions (such as the inclusion of Lucian's Alexander the False Prophet). I am also trying to get permissions to host translations of Philodemus and Diogenes of Oinoanda on the website. So far, it's just the works of Epicurus as contained within Diogenes Laërtius and De Rerum Natura. A number of sites contain Epicurus' works, but not De Rerum Natura, and I've connected them with links.
