We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
I thought Joshua might be interested in this paper...
I'll add in the link to my commentary...
As you'll see in the excerpt below, this author seems to dismiss Epicurus as arguing that the gods are "pure nonsense" which is off the mark. But the title is intriguing nonetheless.
The Neurobiology of the Gods
Excerpt:
Gods, demons, angels . . . muses, spirits, ghosts . . . fairies, devils, imps, fauns, unicorns, dragons, poltergeists, ghouls, vampires, djinns, werewolves. . . saviors . . .
Have you ever wondered why humans have spent so much time writing and worrying about, praying to, running from, blessing, cursing, exorcizing, and placating these entities? If there is so little physical evidence that any of these things exist, why do we spend so much energy thinking about them?
Philosophers as early as Epicurus argued that they are pure nonsense, yet since the dawn of our existence humankind has been convinced of the power of these ``spiritual'' entities. Isn't this irrational? Illogical? Even potentially harmful? Why would such a propensity evolve, when clearly a more rational animal would never waste precious biological resources on self-sacri®ce, burnt offerings, or self-mutilation in the name of a god?
I started reading the article Godfrey posted, more out of curiosity than anything. I thought a passing similarity between Jungian archetypes and Epicurean gods would be it, but, as I'm reading, this line jumped out at me:
we Jungians cannot go on basing our theory of archetypes on scientific assumptions which have been falsified by more recent research if we do not want to run the risk of becoming ridiculous in the scientific world. It is important that we stop arguing that archetypes are transmitted genetically if we want to be taken seriously.
I would amend that first phrase as:
"we Epicureans cannot go on basing our theory of prolepseis on scientific assumptions which have been falsified by more recent research if we do not want to run the risk of becoming ridiculous..."
The use in paper of the word "innate" also seemed to echo the idea of the prolepseis in Cicero and other spots.
Seligman's paper may be interesting to look up for our purposes here.
Preparedness: Even Seligman (1972), a behavioural psychologist and certainly not a friend of analytical psychology, found a phenomenon which he called ‘preparedness’: it refers to the interesting fact that humans generally develop anxieties and especially phobias towards animals like snakes or spiders, even though they may never have had any contact with them, but usually not towards animals such as rabbits or cows. He explains this by a biologically based preparedness which has developed throughout evolution and serves the aim of protection against poisonous animals – otherwise it could be possible that one cannot learn from a first contact experience because one does not survive it.
I like the author's first line of the conclusion:
I must admit that, for now, there are more questions than conclusions...
Now, *there's* a direct parallel with the prolepsis of the gods!
Another interesting angle could be the cultural complex paper that the author referenced (Singer & Kimbles 2004) .
Okay, after reading I do see parallels between prolepsis and archetype, but I also think this author's perspective, attitude, and honesty is relevant to our search for understanding the conundrum of prolepsis, especially of the divine. I continue to insist that Epicurus found a correct understanding of the gods to be of vital importance to his philosophy. It is put first in several places, at least the PDs and the letter to Menoikeus plus he devoted sections of On Nature to the topic. He seemed to see it as a necessary thing to "get right" to be able to live a pleasurable life. Now, whether he saw this primacy in the context of his own time ("This is how I make sense of the way we can worship the gods in the culture in which we live...") or as fundamental to his whole system of philosophy ("This is the way we MUST understand the gods if we are to have no fear of them! You must get this right FIRST!") can be argued. I lean toward the latter but not leaning so far as to fall over (to take that metaphor to its end).
So, for further rabbit-holing, I'm looking for:
- Seligman, M. E. & Hager, J. L. (Eds.) (1972). Biological Boundaries of Learning.
Appleton: Century-Crofts
- Singer, T. & Kimbles, S. (2004). ‘Emerging theory of cultural complexes’. In Analytical
Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Psychology, eds. J. Cambray & L.
Carter. Hove & New York: Brunner-Routledge.
A book that I always meant to read but never got around to is God is not One; The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World by Stephen Prothero.
Thanks! Added to my Good Reads "Want to read" list
More on an idealist Epicurean view of the gods, by Sedley:
That's a good one. Sedley is the big name when it comes to this topic.
I'm looking forward to listening!
And August 20 is the anniversary of the Launch of Voyager II in 1977 to explore the cosmos.
and therefore you will no more approach their shrines with an easy mind, no more in tranquility and peace will you be able to receive the images, the representations of their divine forms, that form from their pure bodies and strike powerfully upon the minds of men:
I think it's interesting to consider the opposite of what Lucretius is saying:
If you do purge your mind of such conceits, and do banish them your breast, and do forebear to think unworthily of the gods, then you can approach their shrines with an easy mind, in tranquility and peace will you be able to receive the images, the representations of their divine forms, that form from their pure bodies and strike powerfully upon the minds of men.
That's how Epicurus approached his participation in the rites and festivals of the gods.
Okay, "seize the day" has been so in-grained in modern Western popular culture to equate with FOMO (Fear of missing out) or constantly seeking new thrilling experiences that I feel obliged to urge everyone to take a look at Horace's original.
Wikipedia actually has a nice article:
To me, I prefer the more literal "Pluck the day" or "Harvest the day".
Compare Greek καρπός (karpós, “fruit”) and κείρω (keírō, “to cut off”), English harvest, sharp, shear.
"Seize" always has such a frenzied feel to it. Seizing, grasping, clutching... And that's not what the original means.
I envision Horace plucking a ripe peach from a tree and sinking his teeth into its perfect, juicy flesh.
Dewitt comments that Epicurus is pointing to a way to console us for loss of immortality (presumably as alleged by religious viewpoints). I am not so sure about that, and in fact I wonder if we fail to grasp some of what Epicurus is saying because we are trying to fit his perspective into a mold in which life can be viewed as fair to everyone. .
Oh my! I'm about to defend DeWitt everybody! Mark your calendars.
It's true that the Principal Doctrines literally laid out the "basic doctrines" of the philosophy for Epicureans to study and memorize. But Epicurus was providing practical solutions and philosophical medicine to real people. I think he had to provide "a way to console us for loss of immortality (presumably as alleged by religious viewpoints)." I'm not sure of the word "console" but he had to provide an alternative. This went hand in hand with removing the fear of divine punishment or reward. Even without Eternal Hell/Heaven, there was also the prevalent ancient Greek of existing eternally as a shade as Homer describes Odysseus' trip to Hades. Even as a shade, you still get to "live" forever. And most people, I believe, would answer in the affirmative if asked "If you were given the ability to be immortal, would you?" before, of course, thinking about the details. So, yes, Epicurus had to provide consolation or at least a reasonable alternative to the desire for immortality.
t could be that Epicureans were flatly so convinced of the universe's total lack of overall plan that they weren't at all thinking about any "perfection" and that they were constantly thinking only on practical terms about how best to spend "the present" whatever that happens to be.
I think that's the *Epicurean* perspective, but the Principal Doctrines no doubt circulated as a"recruitment tool" as well. As you've said, Cassius, they should make sense to "normal" people 
I just came across this paper:
Good analysis of Epicurean themes in Horace. Still reading but seems solid. One basic thread is the encouragement to be satisfied with little - to take pleasure in little - if circumstances change and little, ie, only the basics, is all you have.
one to poke at Don, Wouldn't the Jefferson Bible count as an epicurean "job".
Oh, exactly.
Somebody now needs to purge the "irrelevant" material out of DeWitt's book on Epicurus.
Is not boredom a pretty general human problem?
I'll have to push back on that statement. Boredom comes from dissatisfaction not lack of variety. Sometimes people looking for variety are running from something - possibly even an emotional trauma. They try to fill a void with novelty. I have a real problem if we start using boredom as a reason for varying pleasures.
(Note: I'm posting this from my previous post so people can respond to this topic without Cassius' and my DeWittean banter)
Don has done a good job of placing his criticisms of DeWitt in context so the only thing I really want to say is to remind everyone that Don has been here a long time; he reads Greek very well; he's read tons of specialized academic articles, and he's far ahead of the curve in understanding the subtleties. He's an expert reader and researcher and he's far from being a novice.
I sincerely appreciate the kind words, even if I don't necessarily see myself in that way all the time. Thank you!
On the other hand, if you are a "normal person"
Hey! Who're you calling "abnormal"!
I'm glad Cassius can at my screeds against Dewitt above. He is well acquainted with my perspective at this point over these last few years on the forum. I do tend to soapbox sometimes.
Oh wow! Yikes on DeWitt! -- I've been saving the reading of that book till we have a future book study Zoom. It seems that the excerpt in post number twenty-four above (especially the first few paragraphs) is very helpful
Yes, i don't want to imply that there's not value in reading Dewitt 's magnum opus. Dewitt does provide some insightful, helpful, and refreshing insights. It's just his use of references devoid of context, Epicurean-inspired Christianity notions, and similar dross that irks me. Someone needs to do a "Jefferson Bible" job on "Epicurus and his Philosophy."
He liveth long who liveth well
See, that's my issue. The "Christian hymnology" citation is superfluous and wrong.
Here's the source of that line that Dewitt is citing:
https://allpoetry.com/He-Liveth-Long-Who-Liveth-Well
That hymn seems to me to be the opposite of what Epicurus stood for. Bonar is saying "living well" is keeping your eye on heavenly rewards not the here and now in THIS life, the only one we have.
He liveth long who liveth well;
All other life is short and vain;
He liveth longest who can tell
Of living most for heavenly gain.
He liveth long who liveth well;
All else is being flung away;
He liveth longest who can tell
Of true things truly done each day.
Be what thou seemest; live thy creed;
Hold up to earth the torch divine:
Be what thou prayest to be made;
Let the great Master's steps be thine.
Fill up each hour with what will last;
Buy up the moments as they go;
The life above, when this is past,
Is the ripe fruit of life below.
Sow love, and taste its fruitage pure;
Sow peace, and reap its harvest bright;
Sow sunbeams on the rock and moor,
And find a harvest-home of light.
Yuck!! "The life above, when this is past, Is the ripe fruit of life below"?! 
That's certainly not the Epicurean fruit to be plucked.
I find Dewitt doing this too often: taking a line or phrase out of context and imbuing it with meaning it doesn't necessarily have.
Maybe this is another hymn that needs an Epicurean do-over.
PS. I'll stop there. I don't want to derail this thread with a polemic against Dewitt. I think he's a top-shelf scholar and I like his academic papers, but, by Zeus, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" (not to mention his "St Paul..") suffers from some flaws in presentation that, for me, make it hard to fully embrace it.
In this case I think his Christian allusions are maybe better placed than in some other areas.
Well, a broken clock is right twice a day.
Okay, that was harsh, I'll admit that... But you already know I'm triggered by his Christian allusion hobby horse. Those take me right out of his argument with an eye-rolling "By Zeus, another @#$& Epicurean-inspired Bible verse!?? At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if Dewitt wrote "John 11:35 clearly shows that Jesus was an Epicurean because..."
Thanks for posting those excerpts.
I think I'm in agreement with Dewitt in these, but, honestly, it's sometimes hard to tell with his convoluted, almost-Victorian prose style along with his superfluous Christian non sequiturs.
I sometimes have an easier time parsing Ancient Greek than I do Dewitt!
