Posts by Don

Several references have been made to images - eidola - that Epicurus says we perceive as eminating from objects that impact our senses and mental perception. I've reinterpreted this as light - for sight at least - bouncing from the object to our eyes. Light is constantly bouncing off objects and striking our eyes. If something produces sound or odors, those too will spread out and if we're in the way we encounter a sound or smell.

Now the idea of our minds perceiving concepts or encountering eidola independent of physical physical senses gets a little trickier. Although, look at those babies again "sensing" whether something is fair, or right or wrong. They're obviously "sensing" something coming from that experience. Although it's their sight that is allowing them to assess the situation, sight is not being used to determine the justice of the situation. This is one reason I'm inclined to think the mental Perceptions and Prolepses either work hand in hand or are the same thing by different names. The Mental Perceptions sense the "pattern" (to co-opt a phrase from Elayne ) but the Prolepsis puts it into a category or paradigm.

I think this has parallels to the Prolepsis of the Divine... But I'm still working on that!

So where do I personally think this all leads... Or where it comes from?

The more I think about prolepses, the more I'm convinced they have to be inborn and then evolve as we mature. The newborn and toddler sense of right and wrong grows into our Prolepsis of Justice. So where does our Prolepsis of the Gods or maybe of Divinity come from? Take a look at the rapt look on some babies and toddlers faces when they take part in some research studies where they pay attention to puppets. Take a look at this toddler experiencing snow for the first time. Babies and toddlers obviously have the capacity to experience awe to be in wonder. Look at the baby's eyes in that last video link! That sense of wonder, I believe, can grow into a Prolepsis of the Divine.

Well said. The feeling - I might say reaction - of awe is real.

I have additional thoughts but I wanted to share a time when I can say unequivocally that I experienced awe:

On a family trip to California, we had spent the early afternoon at the giant redwoods south of Yosemite Valley. We drove north and went through one of the tunnels and pulled off to take in the view. Little did I know this was the famous Tunnel View. My first view of Yosemite Valley literally took my breath away! I literally - and I mean this - the view was so awesome (in its original sense) and expansive that I didn't feel I could get enough air into my lungs. There was just so much space to take in, I was so tiny in relation to this expanse. All I could do was stare, slack-jawed.

That remains an archetypal, visceral experience of awe for me. It was a precognitive experience. I had no words at the time describe. I remember saying at the time, "Now, I know what breathtaking actually means!"

[Edit: In rereading that, "pre-rational" mighty be better than precognitive. It was a direct sensory - proleptic? - experience that bypassed my ability at first to put it into words.]

Quote

Strange as these doctrines may seem, they were combined with definite previews of Christianity. The idea of love between man and God would not have seemed a novelty to Epicureans. They were taught "that the gods were friends of the wise and the wise were friends of the gods." Friendship and love were one for the Greeks, though denoted by different words in Latin and English.

Okay, this is a prime example of why Dewitt drives me crazy in this book. His lack of a source for his quote of "the gods were friends of the wise and the wise were friends of the gods" does not allow us to see the context of the quote.

Plus his assertion that "Friendship and love were one for the Greeks" is self-serving to his quote about the gods and the wise being friends, which makes me dubious.

Of course, the Greeks had a different semantic spectrum when it came to love... And most everything else when compared to modern English words and idioms.

I find this a fascinating thread and plan to weigh in more, but I had to get my DeWitt frustration off my chest. (Sorry, Cassius )

Quote from Godfrey

6. In a sentence the author uses the phrase “concepts born of sensation” (followed by προληψεις [prolepseis] and a citation that I don’t understand) (page 58)

I had to investigate. It's appears the Life citations are to the verses in Diogenes Laertius, Book X, Life (of Epicurus). But they don't fall exactly every time. I'm using the one posted to Perseus Digital Library. But that has to be it after checking several, so take the verse number and +/- 1 verse. Could be here using a different translation.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=a(rmoni/a

I'm only about 1/2 through the episode, but it seems from LSJ that ἁρμονία harmonia is a joining together or a joint. So the harmonia/harmony being opposed is the idea that the "soul" is joined together with the body, it's something from outside the body that gets joined to the body. The Epicurean view is that the "soul" arises with the body from physical materials.

I agree with Elayne and Charles that you feel strong emotions in the chest.

Made an interesting discovery in verse 126 this morning:

126c and 126d exemplify why it's important to look at the words Epicurus used and not just modern English translations. Take a look at the final phrases of each: 126c. ...ἀλλὰ τὸ ἥδιστον αἱρεῖται, "choosing that which brings the greatest pleasure" 126d. …ἀλλὰ τὸν ἥδιστον καρπίζεται. "enjoying the fruits of that which brings the greatest pleasure." Both of these use the word ἥδιστον = hēdiston which is the superlative of ἡδύς = hēdus "pleasant" which is related to ηδονή = hēdonē "pleasure". By variously translating these two occurrences of the same exact word as "most pleasing/brings the greatest joy," "most delicious/happiest," "nicest/most agreeable," or "most enjoyable" (for both), the fact that Epicurus used the same word is lost. Only Yonge uses "most pleasant" for both. Epicurus teaches that pleasure is the greatest good, and by refusing to translate words like ἥδιστον more literally as "(that which) brings the most pleasure" it would appear that translators are consciously shying away from acknowledging that pleasure was Epicurus's goal. When Epicurus says pleasure, he means pleasure. Translators should not equivocate or obfuscate. They should strive to illuminate and communicate. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=h%28%2Fdiston&la=greek&can=h%28%2Fdiston1&prior=to\n&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0257:book=10:chapter=1&i=2#lexicon

She also mentions Star Trek in that podcast episode, too, so I thought of you, Cassius

Speaking of Lucian: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0910n6s

Just discovered and listened to Natalie Haynes Stands Up for the Classics and this episode extolling the importance of Lucian. She doesn't mention his Epicureanism but it's obviously a fan of Lucian. Enjoyable light-hearted romp through classical history.

I've come up with a first draft of verse 124. I'm convinced that pleasure and pain are the best translations of the "good things" (αγαθοί) and "the bad things" (κακοί) in the first part of the second section. I've included reasons in my text. I also found it interesting that the actual phrase used for the masses is literally "hoi polloi."

I'm sharing the rough literal first draft of a translation below and I'll try and work up a pdf of all the steps soon:

Quote

"For they are not prolepses, but the judgements of the hoi polloi concerning the gods [are] false hasty assumptions. Thence, the greatest evils are brought to the wicked from the gods as well as the greatest aid to the good. Because they (the hoi polloi) are believing that those who are familiar with each other through all excellences and goodness (the gods) accept those who resemble themselves; all those not of their sort (are) strange and alien."

"So, accustom yourself in believing that, for us, death is nothing; since all pleasure and pain are in perception of the senses and the mind; and death is the absolute negation of perception. So, correct understanding is that death is nothing for us, and this is what makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not gaining an endless lifetime for oneself but taking away the yearning for immortality."

Quote

And may we say that this has been proven? Yes, abundantly proven, Socrates, he replied.

Epicurus:

Quote

LOL!

Quote from Godfrey

Continuing on the tangent, the article that I linked to at the beginning of the thread The Polytheism of the Epicureans is a good and fairly brief presentation of the realist viewpoint. I've tended to follow the idealist take, but this got me thinking...

I'm intrigued again Godfrey (Don runs off to read and re-read that article...)

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Epicurus uses "imperishable" specifically to describe the gods. He may use those terms elsewhere, but that's what I'm remembering right now.

Yep. There's just too many clear statements in the texts to think he was being totally allegorical.

Oh, I don't think he was (necessarily) being allegorical. He clearly states in Menoikeus: θεοί εισιν. "Gods exist. There are gods."

But I'm not convinced that the general concept of gods within Epicurean circles was of living beings. Doesn't Sedley talk about the gods being mental constructs? I'm leaning more in that direction. Just because they're mental constructs doesn't mean they don't exist. Natural justice exists. Friendship exists. Why not the gods in the same way?

Talk about a tangent!!

Quote from Cassius

Congratulations, Don! That is every bit as opaque to me as when Elli tried to explain it to me! That means your explanation is every bit as clear to me as that of a natural born Greek! I suppose I was raised on too many "It's Greek to me!'" jokes! OK it is slowly dawning on me - maybe.

LOL

Quote from Susan Hill

Quote from Cassius

of course we're not talking about individual consciousnesses having any continuance; that's specifically ruled out by other Epicurean theory

Didn’t Epicurus outline a physics for immortal gods?

I've found it interesting in my work on the Menoikeus letter (and in KD1) that Epicurus uses "imperishable" specifically to describe the gods. He may use those terms elsewhere, but that's what I'm remembering right now.

You're welcome to see my post and errata on that in the other thread. Here's an excerpt:

Quote

ἄφθαρτον = aphtharton LSJ gives the definition of "incorruptible, eternal, immortal, uncorrupted, undecaying" and gives references to Epicurus, Philodemus, and Diogenes of Oenoanda. At its root, the word is α- "not" + Φθαρτον "destructible, perishable." LSJ states Φθαρτον is the opposite of ἀίδιος = aidios "everlasting, eternal" (related to ἀεί "ever, always") which poses an interesting question: Why did Epicurus choose to use ἄφθαρτον instead of ἀίδιος or ἀθάνατος? Φθαρτον is related to θνητός = thnētos "liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος [athanatos]" (LSJ) Φθαρτον is connected to the verb φθείρω = phtheirō "destroy, pass away, cease to be, perish." It seems that Epicurus didn't want to evoke that the gods were simply immortal or eternal but that he wanted to impress upon us the sense that they would not pass away or cease to be. This is in contrast to everything else composed of atoms and void. Everything else is subject to be Φθαρτον; only the gods are ἄφθαρτον! How can this be? Could it be that they are ἄφθαρτον precisely because they are mental perceptions, because we do have a Prolepsis of them (More on this difficult term later!)

I'm also not entirely convinced that the gods exist as a mental perception only. That's why they'd be imperishable. Still working my way through that!

Quote from Cassius

If you understand how "Babis" is derived from that Greek word, please explain it to me! Elli tried to several times, but it never stuck with me.

I'll take that challenge too.

μπ mp is pronounced like "b" in modern Greek.

(β b is pronounced like "v" βιβλία biblia "vivlia)

η ē in Ancient Greek is now pronounced like I ("ee")

So, Μπάμπης Mpampes = "Babis"

Oh, Babis is their name!! Babis the Epicurean! Now it makes sense! I was trying to figure out what a Μπάμπης was!

That's.... quite the cover photo. Now I *really* want to dig in

Quote from Cassius

Yes that's possible Don, and maybe Diogenes Laertius was just confused. Or maybe you can examine that sentence and find a way that it doesnt add up to their being four.

Challenge accepted!