Posts by Don

So, here's the question: Do we engage with the author at his Substack comments? Is it useful to do so?

Okay. I waded into the fray at the Substack for better or worse.

FWIW, katalepsis shows up in Diogenes Laertius:

33] By preconception they mean a sort of apprehension or a right opinion or notion, or universal idea stored in the mind ; that is, a recollection of an external object often presented,

Τὴν δὲ πρόληψιν λέγουσιν οἱονεὶ κατάληψιν ἢ δόξαν ὀρθὴν ἢ ἔννοιαν ἢ καθολικὴν νόησιν ἐναποκειμένην

I think it's hiding in other forms within the texts. Bryan pulled these out in the past, I think.

My possibly idiosyncratic position on Epicurean prolepsis, filtered through possibly a modern lens, is that prolepsis is the faculty that allows us to make sense of the ever-flowing flood of sense perceptions coming into our physical and mental senses. Prolepsis picks up or sorts out patterns that correspond to real world phenomena. The senses register colors, shapes, etc to the eye in a kaleidoscopic flood. Prolepsis picks out patterns and reoccurring patterns that can be worked on by reason. The flood of colors random shapes etc come first; this shape holds together, moves together, has some permanence over time - this seems significant. Then reason steps in and names it a dog (or canem or cù or whatever your culture names that shape).

Quote from Cassius

So as per our prior discussions I think you too agree Don that just like the sensations, the "prolepses" are never "opinions."

Agreed, but I believe Epicurus thought that the mind/soul could receive images/eidolon directly as a sense like taste, touch, etc. Reason then have meaning to those perceived images. That's why, according to Epicurus, we can have a prolepsis of justice and other immaterial or abstract concepts.

In the midst of these conversations, I feel the need to state for myself: modern neurobiology and psychology would appear to show the human brain doesn't work like the ancient Greeks thought. Understanding how Epicurus vs Stoics vs Skeptics thought sensation, reason, prolepsis, katalepsis, etc worked is enlightening in light of their positions, but I feel no need to accept any specific detail that doesn't hold up to modern scrutiny to consider myself an Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

I wanted to limit prolepsis to 5-sense exposure to concrete objects

Doesn't Epicurus also include grasping concepts with the mind as a sense, too?

Quote from Todd

I think there is a simple answer to the meaning of natural/unnatural. It refers to the criterion provided by nature: the feelings.

A natural desire is one that is likely to result in net pleasure if fulfilled.

An unnatural desire is one that we only imagine as likely to produce pleasure, but in fact is likely result in net pain. Also referred to as "vain and empty". The first definition that comes up when I search "vain" is "not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless" - the desired outcome being pleasure. Empty means empty of pleasure.

Agreed. Well stated.

Quote from Cassius

So you are in the "alignment with nature's goal" camp rather than "inborn at birth" camp?

I don't know whether I'd say I'm encamped. That sounds like I'm queueing up for battle. But yeah that appears to be my current (checks watch) perspective.

Quote from Cassius

nature as "aligned with the goal of nature"

As aligned with the natural goal of seeking pleasure. The way you stated it seems more of a tautology.

Quote from Cassius

Presumably there could be something destructive inborn in us at birth that is NOT aligned with the goal of nature, thus those are two different things.

Agreed, but I'd like us to come up with examples before we plant that flag. According to Epicurus, ALL our actions, decisions, etc. ultimately end up as a pursuit of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

Separate and apart from the necessary criteria, what does "natural" mean? Because I can see someone arguing that if it's natural, it's natural from the start and forever, just like atoms have shape, size, and weight.

As is my wont, let's consult LSJ: The word Epicurus uses is φυσικός (physikos) "natural, produced or caused by nature, inborn, native; of or concerning the order of external nature, natural, physical." So, I take that to mean a desire which is aligned with the natural order of things, in other words, a desire which aligns with the natural order of seeking pleasure. If a desire leads to pain with no accompanying pleasure (I'm thinking the desire for the pleasure of a healthy body via the pain of exercise is natural) that's an "empty/vain/corrosive" desire.

Quote from Cassius

I presume your "Yes" means you think that you don't think it is sufficient to say "the desire was present at birth

Actually my yes was responding to "something about the way we pursue it"

Good questions, Cassius . I'll circle back to those. However, I think we need to acknowledge that Epicurus didn't use natural and unnatural all the time. In the Menoikeus, he wrote:

Quote

Furthermore, on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.' And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which are only natural; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself.

Not natural and unnatural, but natural, "empty," and necessary. He didn't even use unnecessary in that text.

If course. PD29 does use the familiar categories:

Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion).

And VS20 as it appears in the manuscript:

Of the desires, on the one hand, there are the natural and necessary; then the natural ones and the not necessary ones; then the not natural and not necessary arising from empty belief.

MFS's recently posted translation of Oinoanda include:

[for us to show] which of the desires are natural, and which are vain.

Of the desires some are vain, others nat-

Now, those that are natural seek after such things as are [necessary] for our nature’s enjoyment, [while those that are vain] …

Yes, I'm picking nits but they're nits that deserve picking.

Quote from Cassius

Does that mean that the true defining criteria of what should be classified as natural or unnatural is not whether the desire in question is with us at birth, but something about the way we pursue it?

Yes. (Added: something about the way we pursue it to clarify a question noted by Cassius below)

Maybe it's specificity. The desire for food and drink is natural and necessary and leads to pleasure. The desire for occasional variety or novelty in food and drink is natural but unnecessary and maintains pleasure. The desire for "an endless string of drinking parties and festivals" is unnatural and unnecessary does not lead to pleasure in the end but rather leads ultimately to more pain than pleasure.

I would go so far as to say the desire for an occasional drinking party or festival is a natural but unnecessary desire. However. I find it interesting that Epicurus uses the word πότος (potos) and not συμπόσιον (symposion) "symposium, drinking-party." He wrote a book or dialogue entitled Symposium in which he wrote "Even when drunk, the wise one will not talk nonsense or act silly." So, Epicurus didn't seem to oppose drinking wine or attending drinking-parties. There seems to be a distinction between πότος and συμπόσιον, possibly with the difference being one of emphasis on drinking versus conviviality.

A κῶμος is "a village festival: a revel, carousal, merry-making, Latin: comissatio." They seem to have involved crowned revelers parading the streets, bearing torches, singing, dancing, and "playing frolics."

Note that he doesn't say you can't attend a drinking party or take part in village festivals! He's saying life shouldn't be an "endless string" of them (οὐ συνείροντες "not stringing together"). That's going to lead to more pain than pleasure in the end.

That might not hold up in every natural/unnatural desire situation, but I would be interested to see if others hold up under this paradigm.

And just to remind everyone: natural/unnatural & necessary/unnecessary refers to desires and not pleasure. This reminder is as much for myself as the the thread.

I was curious to check what I've thought in the past on this topic. Here are some selections:

Post

Positive psychology article of the science of gratitude

https://positivepsychology.com/neuroscience-of-gratitude/

See also

https://www.mindful.org/what-the-brain…bout-gratitude/

Don

November 27, 2024 at 8:27 PM

Post

Ologies episode on Eudemonology

https://www.alieward.com/ologies/eudemonology

Ologies is a fun, informal, eclectic podcast that I listen to when the topics interest me. I was aware of Dr. Laurie Santos, director of the Happiness Lab at Yale, instructor of the Happiness course in Coursera, and currently the go-to expert on research on happiness and positive psychology. I don't always find her compelling but feel it's important to keep up with the research to see where it parallels or echoes Epicurean philosophy. I also found…

Don

September 10, 2021 at 7:48 AM

Post

RE: Episode One Hundred Thirty-Nine - The Letter to Menoeceus 06 - Pleasure Part Two

[…]

I'm curious if you're "for" the idea of flow being connected somehow to katastematic pleasure or "against" the idea I'm legitimately unsure from the way you worded that.

I also think there's some connection between mindfulness and ataraxia/aponia. This excerpt from this article makes me go "Hmmm?"...

[…]

I do think ataraxia happens here and now, a calm abiding in the present moment. I'm especially intrigued by that "flow happens during pleasant experiences."

For those unfamiliar with flow,…

Don

September 14, 2022 at 7:20 PM

Post

RE: Why Does Stoicism Seem to Be More Popular Than Epicureanism, Especially In England?

I put this in the wrong thread at first. Mea culpa!
Copied from the other thread:

I found some notes of mine in my Google Drive relating to positive psychology. PLEASE note, these were not for public consumption, but I thought the raw notes would give an idea where my head was at at the time:

[…]

And in looking at this again, I think that some Positive Psychology research may be of interest and use from an Epicurean perspective. That specific article that I linked to just struck me the wrong way.

Don

October 3, 2020 at 6:54 PM

That last whole thread looks interesting in light of the current thread. I find it interesting to go back and look at what I've said in the forum in the past on any given topic. I don't know if it's positive or negative but overall I seem to have remained surprisingly consistent (I think) even with longer and deeper study and appreciation of the philosophy. Or maybe I'm just obstinate

Quote from Kalosyni

"Should someone who studies Epicurean philosophy also include the study of modern psychology and implement evidence based "self-help" and positive psychology"?

I agree that there's not an ultimatum to or prohibition against the study as Pacatus 's last sentence states.

However, Kalosyni , I think you've hit the nail on the head by using "evidence based." If a technique or practice is shown to increase happiness or enhance gratitude in keeping with Epicurus' philosophy, I certainly see no reason to not take advantage of it if it resonates with someone.

Scholar Spotlight: Tim O’Keefe

Don't take it from me: good work on Epicurean ethics

open.substack.com

Not sure who Jack Gedney is, but this new Substack account looks worth following. He likes Emily Austin's book and references Dewitt.

Quote from Diogenes quoted by Pacatus

“ … and not least we did [this] for those who (II) are called foreigners, although they are not really so. For, while the various segments of the earth give different people a different country, the whole compass of this world gives all people a single country, the entire earth, and a single home, the world.” [My italics]

For anyone interested... ...κ̣αλουμέν̣ους μὲν ξένους, ο̣ὐ μήν γε ὄντας. ⁦ (vac. 1)⁩ καθ̣' ἑκάστην μὲν γὰρ ἀποτομὴν τῆς γῆς ἄλλων ἄλλη πατρίς ἐστιν, ⁦ (vac. 1) κατὰ δὲ τὴν̣ ὅλην περιοχὴν το̣ῦ̣δε τοῦ κόσμου μία̣ ̣π̣άντων πατρίς ἐστ̣ιν ἡ πᾶσα γῆ καὶ εἷς ὁ κόσμος οἶκος.

• foreigners = ξένους (xenous)
• earth= γῆς (gēs, form of γη = earth, including land and sea; from which we get geo- as in geography)
• world= κόσμου (kosmou, ie cosmos)
• country = πατρίς patris, literally "the place of one's father/ancestors"
• home = οἶκος oikos

I find it interesting that Diogenes distinguishes between the earth γης and the cosmos κοσμου.

Welcome aboard!

Quote from Cassius

Of course when the Terminators take over they may not agree

I fully realize that this is going to come off as harsh, but I was off work today with sinus issues, sneezes, aches, and coughs and maybe my inhibitions are a little less than usual. Please take that as context, but with that said...

I'm sorry, but this is a prime example of the reason I despise AI summaries. It looks all authoritative with words like aphoristic length and presented in a bulleted list, but it's all an LLM predicting what word comes next and extruding it out for human consumption.

The "references" include posts I've made on this very forum that don't really say what the AI summary is trying to make them say: Presenting the Principal Doctrines in Narrative Form

The references also include papers/articles on Bible versification, which is not exactly a direct comparison. And Bible verses are also notorious for breaking across chapter lines or breaking up a thought:

https://thebiblebistro.com/episode/breaking-bad-paragraphs/

Purpose: Chapters and verses were added to make referencing easier (e.g., John 3:16), but they can sometimes disrupt the text’s flow.

The AI summary also makes mention of the 40 doctrines, and I've personally found (at my referenced post) both 40 and earlier 44 "doctrines" that break in very different places:

Post

RE: Presenting the Principal Doctrines in Narrative Form

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb…ge/465/mode/1up

German, 1806, with 44 Principal Doctrines ?

Don

June 21, 2023 at 8:22 PM

Post

RE: Presenting the Principal Doctrines in Narrative Form

Okay, this was VERY interesting. I used the 1739 Greek with Latin translation to compare with the text at Perseus Digital Library:

1739: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nnc1.0021…7768674761-1400

Perseus Greek (DL, Book 10): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…0%3Achapter%3D1

Perseus English (DL, Book 10): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…0%3Achapter%3D1

I used the Greek text to compare with each other since 1739 had 44 Principal Doctrines and Perseus (i.e., Hicks, 1972) had the…

Don

June 22, 2023 at 12:06 AM

So, it's a game of "Spot the Doctrine" with different results with, in my opinion, neither being right or wrong. It's overlaid on the text.

I can see Epicurus or whoever wrote Kyriai Doxai writing in smaller digestible chunks for easier memorization. I gladly admit that there are short sections that are apparent when reading the topics covered, but there is nothing to the best of my knowledge that confirms there are meant to be 40 separate doctrines in the book.

In my further opinion, reading them in conversation with each other within a particular topic rather than in isolation, provides additional context leading to a fuller picture of what's being conveyed. Trying to puzzle out things like "What does this Principal Doctrine mean?" is fraught with unnecessary difficulty if only one reads a few before or a few after or both.

PS. I need to add that I remain open to research on where the "breaks" happen to be in Principal Doctrines. But the arbitrary 40 isn't really helpful in that quest in my opinion.

Quote from Bryan

I agree with you, Cassius. I will parenthetically add that Epicurus does use all of these terms below, and it is clear that they are "grades" or "rankings" of one's advancement, but I doubt the divisions were very formalized.

Do you have the citations/references for those? I'm curious to check them out.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

As I've said ad nauseum in the past, the Principal Doctrines were not originally verified.

Far be it for me to question anyone's typing but perhaps you meant a word other than "verified"?

Thanks! Fixed.