Posts by Don

Quote from Godfrey

This thread is pointing out to me the idea of balance between the three faculties.

For instance if our feelings are particularly strong regarding something, that may suggest a need for gathering more information (sensations, input). Thinking in these terms, self-interested agents gain power through disrupting the balance of the faculties. For instance religion minimizes (undermines) the sensations and perhaps the prolepses by insisting on "faith." All that leaves is feelings with which to measure truth. And reason, which is ineffective without proper input. The same goes with filter bubbles. Or Platonists: look at the society Plato proposed in the Republic.

No wonder we have to struggle so much to understand our natural faculties....

Very insightful post, Godfrey ! I think balance is a very good way to put it. The idea of the three-legged stool does in fact seem to be a good metaphor for the Canon. I know that's not original to Epicurus, but that idea of balance and working together seems appropriate.

Quote from Cassius

I completely agree with where you're going.

The main fault I would find is that these guys should not talk as if this is surprising!

Quote from Don

That's not something that we thought another species would do.

Excellent point, Cassius !

I just finished watching an episode of PBS's Nova about animal intelligence. Unfortunately, the episode is not available to stream for free but here is a transcript. I can't see how someone would watch/read this and argue animals do not have a prolepsis of justice/fairness. And if a Prolepsis of that, what else? And I feel (it brings me pleasure) that I'm justified in making this observation since Epicurus himself looked to animals and infants to formulate parts of his Philosophy.

Transcript selection (emphasis added):

NARRATOR: Frans believes that primates, as they negotiate their social lives, are very aware of the competition. And so he's come up with another experiment, this one to test their sense of justice.

Do they realize if they're being treated fairly or not, compared to others?

FRANS DE WAAL: Normally, you would think the only thing an animal should care about is, “What do I get for my task? I work, I get rewards,” but, no, they're comparing with what the other one is getting.

NARRATOR: Frans begins the fairness test with the capuchin monkey. These small, clever animals are kept in large enclosures, but for the short duration of the test, they're in a lab area. Each monkey carries out a simple task: they have to give a small stone to the experimenter, in exchange for a reward.

When both get a reward of cucumber, everyone's happy. But watch what happens when the one on the right receives a grape reward, instead.

FRANS DE WAAL: If you start giving one of them grapes, which are far better than cucumber, then the one who gets cucumber becomes very upset and becomes agitated, emotionally agitated.

NARRATOR: It turns out, quite a few creatures, including ravens and dogs, will protest if they get the short end of the stick, as if they know that they're being treated unfairly. But what about a concern for injustice for the other guy?

Research with one of our closest relatives, a highly social chimp, called a bonobo, is revealing some surprises.

At the Lola ya Bonobo orphanage in the Congo, animals spend most of their days in the forest, but come inside for short periods of time for experiments like this.

One bonobo is inside an enclosure. The door is locked and can only be opened from the other side. Here, another bonobo, a stranger, is given a delicious pile of fruit.

So, what will she do?

BRIAN HARE: We recently discovered that bonobos can share with strangers, that they actually will sacrifice their own food for the opportunity to interact with another bonobo they've never met before. That's not something that we thought another species would do. When we think about nature as “red in tooth and claw,” that you would share with somebody you don't share any genes with, it's not in your family, they're not even in your group, I thought that was something that humans did. So the fact that a bonobo does that is remarkable.

It's the closest you can think of to doing charity in animals.

I think this is why the idea of people living in filter bubbles online causes me pain. #Cassius if this is too political it won't cause me pain if you delete this post

People experience a reaction of pleasure by having their preconceived or predetermined ideas reinforced whether or not they reflect a rounded view of reality or circumstances. But they might also be experiencing pain by having their worst fears compounded. They may become depressed, fearful, but may experience this as pleasure in having their personal views fed back to them in their bubble. "I must be right because that is all I'm seeing." I see this as a pleasure of the profligate/lost since it is not conducive to long term well-being/eudaimonia. They don't seek alternative perspectives or additional information to confirm or deny. They only seek confirmation of possibly erroneous preconceptions. That's one area where I was/am having real problems in accepting "feeling" as a criteria of truth. But as you've both pointed out, that's my painful reaction to the situation so I'm using that feeling to react to this. On the other hand... But... However... Aaah!

Quote from Godfrey

Maybe this is too simplistic, but Don in #11 you asked a question because you were feeling unease (pain) regarding an idea. By asking the question you were able to gather more data, and based on that data and the background activity of your prolepses you were able to "assuage your pain." That, in a nutshell, is one example of how I understand the process of the Canon to work.

Godfrey , that actually helps a lot. I don't think that's simplistic at all. It's a simple explanation, and those are sometimes the best. You're talking about using pain as a goad to resolve the uneasiness makes sense.

I think my initial reaction to the idea of feelings as a criteria of truth was when people don't take that second step. They use pain to stop looking and use the pain itself to say this is true. "I don't like this thing/fact/event, therefore I will reject it" I'm thinking flat-earthers for example. I could use others but I'm trying not to get political. The Earth not being flat is demonstrably false if you look at additional evidence from science and the extension of our senses. But the idea of a round Earth is "painful" for them so they reject it. This is the kind of thing where I don't think feelings alone can be a criteria, BUT you work all three legs of the Canon and then you can reliably construct a mental picture of reality.

Am I making any sense or talking in circles? This thread has been very helpful, so thank you both for taking the time to respond!

Actually, that does help. I don't know if it resolves all my uneasiness (assuages all my pain?), but I think it certainly begins to address it.

So, that's why they Canon is three-legged. We need all three aspects: pain/pleasure, sensations, prolepses - working together, not one alone. I think this is why it came as such a shock (pleasant shock) that PD24 specifically cited the three aspects of the Canon in the original Greek. You need all three.

Thanks, Cassius ! That was valuable! Glad I asked

Cassius and Godfrey brought to my mind an issue I want to ...resolve? Raise?

When Epicurus says "feelings" are a criteria of truth, I do not believe he meant that the truth of a fact can be determined by how we feel about it. Did he? I don't think we can be like "I feel it is true in my gut so it's true." Or an I saying that doesn't feel right? It pains me to think that?

We had a thread a while ago that went into the point that "feelings" were a translation of pathē which refers to how one reacts to somethiing. It's important to my understanding that "the feelings/pathē are two: pleasure and pain." The feelings are how we react to something: with pleasure, or with pain. So am I just reacting with pain to the proposition I'm putting forward?

Objective facts (the sun rose in the east this morning, zebras are animals with black and white stripes, the sun is a star, etc.) are not dependent on "feeling" in the common usage as in "that doesn't feel right to me." They are or they're not based on objective, observable evidence. But does that mean that they elicit pleasure?

I admit I'm a little adrift here. What does having pathē be a criterion of truth mean? I can't (right now) accept it's a gut feeling. Or is it?

Help

I listened but found myself just nodding my head in agreement mostly.

You have to look at that whole phrase:

Quote

...throw your other sensations into confusion with your groundless belief...

It's not the senses themselves that are confused but ourselves being confused about what our sensations are telling us due to our groundless beliefs.

The "criterion" is simply pointing back to the Canon if you look at the original text. Criterion is basically a transliteration of the Greek here. That's why she uses it. A better translation to get at the connection would be "the standard of truth." (I also just realized that Epicurus's work on the Canon is literally Περί κριτηρίου η Κανών Peri kritēriou ē Kanōn. So, Epicurus himself refers to the Canon as the criterion.)

This one from Mensch in the 2018 edition of DL's Lives seems pretty accurate as well (although I have differences of opinion about her last few phrases). She does bring out those three parts of the Canon from the original Greek nicely though:

Quote

If you reject any sensation absolutely, and you do not distinguish between an opinion that awaits confirmation and a present reality (whether of sensation, feeling, or perception), you will also throw your other sensations into confusion with your groundless belief, and in doing so will be rejecting altogether the criterion. But if, when assessing opinions, you affirm as true everything that awaits confirmation as well as that which does not, you will not escape error; for you will be preserving complete uncertainty in every judgement between right and wrong opinion.

I'm actually in the process of working through the original Greek. I'll try and post something over the next few days. One discovery I did make already is that that convoluted multi-embedded phrasing in the translations actually just works out to a listing - word for word - of the three parts of the Canon in the original Greek. That was unexpected. Consider that a teaser.

Also, I've found on this one at least that Saint-Andre seems to be mostly sticking close to the original text although I think he's being overly complicated as well.

Hicks translation

24 If you reject absolutely any single sensation without stopping to discriminate between that which is matter of opinion and awaits further confirmation and that which is already present, whether in sensation or in feeling or in any mental apprehension, you will throw into confusion even the rest of your sensations by your groundless belief, so as to reject the truth altogether. If you hastily affirm as true all that awaits confirmation in ideas based on opinion, as well as that which does not, you will not escape error, as you will be taking sides in every question involving truth and error.

Saint-Andre translation

24 If you reject a perception outright and do not distinguish between your opinion about what will happen after, what came before, your feelings, and all the layers of imagination involved in your thoughts, you will throw your other perceptions into confusion because of your trifling opinions; as a result, you will reject the very criterion of truth. And if when forming concepts from your opinions you treat as confirmed everything that will happen and what you do not witness thereafter, then you will not avoid what is false, so that you will remove all argument and all judgment about what is and is not correct.

Mathitis Kipouros , your etymological nerdiness is in good company

Joshua : I know I liked your post above on gratitude and appreciation but had to say out loud "Well done!" I wish there was a Like button on this forum as well as a Really Like button.

I think you absolutely nailed the idea! Thanks!

Quote from camotero

The thing with gratitude is, as I understand it, that someone has to be the object of your gratitude, because you’re grateful that he/she has been willingly good to you, and thus you recognize this good will. Being grateful to nature or some other non human thing would have to imply endowing them with the ability to will something unto us; please share a different point of view about gratitude if you can.

So When we tried this gratitude prayers we focused on being grateful to mom and dad for whatever (which seemed rather boastful since he’s not coming up with these thoughts ) and to his kinder teacher and to his grandparents and such...

I would concur with your basic idea of gratitude. When my reminder alarm for keys in the ignition goes off, I find myself saying Thank you to whoever invented that. Literally

I like some of the Buddhist gratitude practices I've seen, especially the meal "prayer" that starts

"I am grateful for this food, the work of many people..." On a basic level, it makes us stop and think how we're connected to people and the world from who made the meal to who grew the food to who shipped the food and so on.

With Nature, maybe gratitude isn't the right word. I think we can feel fortunate that we're alive and able to experience the pleasure of the sunshine on our face, the sight of stars in the sky, the power of a thunderstorm.

I so wish Epicurus's work On Gifts and Gratitude wasn't lost to us.

And I hear what you're saying about mom and dad. "Thank us! Thank us! How great are we!"

I found these articles that may be helpful. Even the Buddhist ones appear "non-denominational"

https://leftbrainbuddha.com/bedtime-ritual-help-thanks-wow/

https://amp.reddit.com/r/Parenting/co…s_bedtime_poem/From there:

We are very thankful
We are very glad
For friends we meet
Food we eat
For home and mom and dad.

Ah, toddlers! I fondly remember nighttime going to bed "rituals". One of ours was reading short books, mostly by Sandra Boynton, especially the Going To Bed Book. I can still repeat it after oh my... Well over a decade now! Time flies! Enjoy your child every step of the way!

It might be helpful to know the specific prayer your toddler enjoys saying. I know the one I would say when I was very young was traumatizing to think of now, including ..."if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to keep."

I think a toddler is too young for the Tetrapharmakos. And besides it also introduces death, do I'd steer away from that for now.

I don't have any specific saying of Epicurus or Lucretius right now, but one option might be focusing on gratitude. What are you most thankful for today? Or come up with a rote litany like a prayer: I'm thankful for ... And... And...

Or pleasure. What made you the happiest today? Let your toddler reflect on what makes them happy throughout that day. Or again let them come up with a rote list and make that into a "prayer."

There might also be something about Nature you could use.

This is an intriguing question you pose. I'll continue to give it thought and share anything I can come up with. I think you also open up a new area in the idea of how to introduce Epicureanism to children.

An even more striking line from Cicero's Epicurean is:

Quote

I am not going to expound to you doctrines that are mere baseless figments of the imagination,

He's going to use observation and evidence to the best of his ability.

But...

Do we hold the ancients' reasoning from their evidence to our standard of knowledge? Or do we approach them on their terms and limits?

We know there are not "hooked atoms" and "smooth atoms" but do we applaud them for using their available observations (e.g., fishhooks in a box) and extrapolating a natural explanation of nature, free of supernatural and divine intervention?

I'll admit I was out of my depth on Godfrey 's post on necessary and sufficient. This site helped explain it for me, especially the examples.

Looking forward to 33.

From what I can read from those categories, the ancient Epicureans would have had a lot of phenomena stuck at 2b whereas modern science, with its extension of the senses (e.g., microscopes, telescopes, etc), is able to have many more move into 2c. Major 2b ones that we still wrestle with are the deep structure and origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc. BUT we can literally see into deep space and "see" deep into matter at the interactions of atoms and molecules with experimentation and even deeper to understand sub-atomic particles via instruments like the Large Hadron Collider.

I also think when Epicurus and Lucretius talk about things like hooked "atoms" (*their* atoms, not our atoms) in, for example, diamond, they were intuiting the rigid crystalline atomic structure of this substances without realizing what we know today. In their experience, something with hooks could become entangled (a box of fishhooks, let's say). Likewise, "atoms" with hooks would result in a material difficult to disentangle. Same way with the smooth "atoms" in liquids. In their experience, smooth grains of sand slide past each other. At the "atomic" level, smooth "atoms" would allow a substance to flow.

Now, in modern times, we know these properties have to do with atomic and crystalline structures and the properties of molecules, etc. We don't see atoms (our atoms, not Epicurean atoms) as un-cuttables or fundamental particles but through the ancients' observations, they reasoned that if things like hooks and sand behaved one way, that if similar structures were analogous at their "atomic" level, that's how things too small to see could account for the things we see. You can go down to that unseeable world and still have unchanging particles that could give rise to things we can see. The "smooth atoms" and "hook atoms" don't change, merely their arrangements. But if you insisted on dividing below the level of the atoms** infinitely, there's nothing that could hold together to form matter and you'd end up with nothing being able to be formed. Essentially, there'd be nothing for the universe to be made of. Stopping at the "atoms" provides the universe's building blocks.

**NOTE: To be clear, I'm talking here about the Epicurean atoms/seeds. I have no problem at all "dividing below the level of the [modern] atoms" to discover quarks, mesons, quantum fields, etc.