Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

I am not sure you can square that with the "javelin" example in Lucretius, Don. Can you?

Sure. The javelin leaves our world and keeps going out into the infinite void, which is what Lucretius seems to be saying. I'd have to look closely at what words are being translated "world", "universe" etc.

For reference:

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, BOOK I, line 951

For my purposes, a more illustrative example is:

Therefore the living force of his soul gained the day: on he passed far beyond the flaming walls of the world and traversed throughout in mind and spirit the immeasurable universe; whence he returns a conqueror to tell us what can, what cannot come into being; in short on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deep-set boundary mark.

"flammantia moenia mundi" mundi (mundus) is just Latin for Greek cosmos. The flaming ramparts, the fiery sphere/dome of the stars and sun of our world-system, our cosmos.

"omne immensum" immeasurable All, ie, the totality of everything , the whole universe, The All, ΤΟ ΠΑΝ

I'm going to wade into this fray with a possibly tangential, possibly relevant topic. Y'all be the judge.
I am convinced that the "infinite worlds" that the ancient Epicureans - from the founder to the Romans to the Oenoandans - were envisioning were not of the same structure that we think of in modern cosmology. The cosmos the ancients were envisioning was (let's call it) a "bubble" of Order (literal meaning of "cosmos") surrounded by the primordial Chaos.
Now, the Epicureans did not accept Chaos as an idea or substance, but I do think they substituted (in a manner of speaking) the "infinity" of atoms falling in the void.
However, the cosmos they lived in was composed of the earth they stood on (plate or globe) surmounted by a vault/dome or, alternatively, surrounded by a sphere, that contained the fixed stars, wandering stars (planets), etc. That world-system was a coherent, ordered pocket floating (for lack of a better word) in the *infinite* void. Epicurus posited other pockets of order - other "gatherings of matter" - out there in the vast infinity that would have no contact with his world-system but would nonetheless exist with their own "diverse races of men and tribes of wild beasts." The All - To Pan ΤΟ ΠΑΝ - contained this infinity of cosmoi.
When we talk of "strange new worlds", we're talking about other planets orbiting distant stars in our galaxy or other galaxies. Maybe we're talking in other universes, but usually we're thinking in our observable universe. This structure , by and large, would have been incoherent to the ancients. Were there some who thought the stars were other Suns with their own Earths? Maybe. But I don't think that was a common view, and I don't think that was Epicurus's view from what I've read.
For me, the big takeaway from Epicurus's teachings on "infinity" and "gods" for my "modern Epicurean" perspective is:
The universe - however it's defined - is physical - either bounded or unbounded, jury is still out - and exists without the aid, support, or creation of any beings - natural or supernatural.
Whether the universe (observable) came into existence out of a larger infinite universe through quantum fluctuations or other physical processes is up for debate, but that doesn't shake my conclusion that all that did exist, exists, or will exist is governed by natural, eventually understandable processes.

Great find, TauPhi . There are some great lines in there. I especially like the last line:

dum vivam, dominus temporis ipse mei.

While I live, I am the master of my time.

(... The master of time is myself)

For your isonomia discussion:

Theories Concerning Epicurean Theology and Metaphysics
John Masson
The Classical Review 16 (9), 453-459, 1902
IN a-long chapter, entitled'The Epicurean Gods and the doctrine of Isonomia,'Giussani discusses the doctrine of'Isonomia,'that is to say of the'Balance of Forces in the universe'as bearing upon Epicurus's theology. A singular theory has been propounded on this subject by Scott which Giussani adopts and develops farther. Both scholars find a'very essential connection between the two doctrines. (Direct link to PDF below)

https://scholar.archive.org/work/y26knim64zc25iweopu4w664aq/access/ia_file/crossref-pre-1909-scholarly-works/10.1017%252Fs0009840x00204435.zip/10.1017%252Fs0009840x0020694x.pdf

cock-eyed Canons = διεστραμμενους Κανονας

διεστραμμενους < διαστρέφω ¨turn different ways, twist about, τὰ σώματα, as in the dance; also of persons, to have one's eyes distorted, or to have one's neck twisted; metaph., distort, pervert"

I'm going jump into this fray by saying I lean toward TauPhi 's position on this thread's topic. First, I will state that there are - let's call them - "similarities" between Epicurean/Democritean physics and their mechanism of sensation via eidola and modern physics and modern neuroscience. Those similarities are what attracted me to investigate Epicurean philosophy in the first place.

However...

Those similarities do not translate - for me - into Epicurus or Democritus being prescient about particle physics or electromagnetic energy/waves or RFID or radio/television transmission. And, for me, their paradigms don't have to be prescient to still be impressive For the times they lived in, they were revolutionary! For the times they lived in, they figured out a lot from mere thought-experiments and working through problems in their heads. For me, their huge contributions toward a more scientific world-view included:

1. The world is physical without the need for gods to step in to create or to fine-tune.
2. Everything in the cosmos is composed of innumerable arrangements of tiny "uncuttable" (a-tomos) particles which we can't see.
   1. In fact, we could never see (Thanks to TauPhifor bringing up the 2-atom idea. Even more so, an "atom" couldn't give off eidola).
3. Our eyes do not give off beams like a lantern that perceive things in our environment. Our eyes - and other senses - are impacted by stimuli (eidola) streaming from material things.
   1. Superficially, light bouncing off something and then interacting with our eyes could seem like "That's just like eidola" but not if we honestly assess the paradigm Epicurus was working under as in "The bodies themselves give off films."

And so on...

Some of those things have superficial analogies in our modern understanding (like the light example above), but once the details are worked out and the underlying paradigms are applied, I don't believe the idea that "They were onto something" holds up. It seems more like cases of parallel or convergent evolution of ideas; however, I will fully agree that later "natural philosophers" and scientists built on Epicurus (sounds mostly like via Lucretius) ideas of atoms and the rest.

I respect Epicurus's ingenuity and deeply respect the direction he set scientific thought. However, I don't think we need to shoehorn his φυσικός (physikos) into modern physics to appreciate that ingenuity.

All that said, I am more than open to additional ideas on this or citations and references to texts that provide additional details to consider! That's one thing I deeply appreciate about this forum is the free and open exchange of ideas on Epicurean philosophy. What's the saying "Iron sharpens iron"? (Oh, no! That turns out to be Biblical although it appears from that link that Horace and Euripides had similar sayings)!

I encourage everyone to head over to Internet Archive and the free to borrow The Hellenistic Philosophers and read Long & Sedley's commentary on the God section:

The Hellenistic philosophers : Long, A. A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

2 volumes : 24 cm

archive.org

Just register for a free account to borrow for one hour at a time.

Quote from TauPhi

I don't want to make this topic even more complicated, but I'm curious about the direction of the images' flow. Can someone confirm if the images flow from the gods or to the gods according to Epicurus?

My understanding is that the text explicitly says "to the gods." Translators said "it can't really say that, so we'll correct it" and substituted "from the gods."

Quote from Little Rocker

Unless that gamma is actually a tau, of course, then it is panta instead of pan gar.

Exactly! The difference between Γ and Τ could obviously be open to interpretation (or even a slip of the scribe's hand!) on a charred fragmentary scroll Our access to the papyri is paradoxically open and amazing but also at the same time limited and circumscribed by what was transcribed in the 19th century.

Fingers firmly crossed for more actual photos and AI technology and that the public and academics will have wide access 🤞🤞

I would be very cautious about accepting Obbink's reconstruction of Col.66 of On Piety. According to Papryi.info, the engraving of the papyrus looks like this (Engraved 1844-1852 by Ferdinando Ventrella):

τῶν καὶ πο[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]
λη[- ca.12 -]
ον· πᾶν γὰ[ρ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]
οἴεται καθάπ[ερ ὁρί-]
ζεται χρό[νος, εἶναι]
πρόληψιν· [καὶ κα-]
θάπερ κἀν̣ [τῶι δευ-]
τέρωι καὶ [τριακοσ-]
τῶι, καὶ τῶν [θεῶν ἐ-]
10ναργείαι φησ[ὶν κατα-]
λαμβάνεσθα[ι τὸ ὄν],
καίπερ ἓν τῶν [ἐν ὑπο-]
κειμένοις ὄν, [τὴν δὲ]
φύσιν διανο[ητὴν]
15[ἧ]ττον ἔχον [τῶν]
ἄλλων ὄντων [καὶ κα-]
[θόλ]ου πρὸς τὴ[ν ̣ ̣ ̣]
[7 lines missing]

That's A LOT of bracketed reconstructions. And its placement in the order of the text is a best guess, too, from my understanding.

Just because something fits in the number of letters doesn't necessarily convince me that that is the correct reconstruction. That said, the word πρόληψιν is tantalizingly right there. And I believe that the πᾶν doesn't have the usual definite article for it to refer to TO PAN "The All" "the universe." The author (again could be Philodemus or Phaedrus) could be referring to "all (somethings)" and not The All.

This exactly demonstrates my reluctance to rely too heavily on any of the Herculaneum papyri that are too heavily damaged to reliably read blocks of text and not interpolate and reconstruct what *might* have been there. There are good reliable sections of the On Piety papyri like Col. 75 for example. Unfortunately, Col. 66 isn't necessarily one of them from my perspective... even if we would REAAALLLY like to have more context for that πρόληψιν.

So, riffing off of Cassius ' posts, do we have a new T-shirt/bumper sticker?

Epicurus: The Antidote to the Absurd

That specific paper annoyed me with using words like "ratiocinative." That is some opaque academic writing! I'm still curious about Camus but that paper didn't really help.

FYI

Camus' Sisyphus Complex: Epicurus, Pindar, Valéry

In this chapter I consider the origins and philosophical significance of Camus&#39; Sisyphus, looking at how the meaning of the &quot;Sisyphus complex&quot;…

www.academia.edu

Lots of coverage of Epicurus and Lucretius starting on p7 of the paper...

Although having read it...I still can't tell if the author of the paper is saying Camus was or was not feeling positively toward Epicurus.

Oh, TauPhi , Little Rocker , and UnPaid_Landlord ... I am intrigued now! I read one of Camus' works (the Sisyphus one, of course) back in 2016 when I was looking for a philosophical direction (having given up the Buddhist direction... Although still seeing some positive notes in that btw) . I didn't really get Camus then although it helped me then ...But the video was very intriguing! I can see some Epicurean echoes... "The passion to pursue the joy of being for the sake of it..." And so on.

Well, if the video is accurate... color me absurdly curious.

Welcome.

We are big fans of Dr. Austin's book. I personally think it is the most-accessible, user-friendly introduction to Epicurus's philosophy currently available.

We also have two episodes of the podcast where we interviewed her, 156 & 157

The Lucretius Today Podcast Listing, Page 2

Quote from UnPaid_Landlord

Does it faithfully represent the authentic Epicurean view ?

Yes, and she does a masterful job of dispelling from some of the misconceptions like Epicurus's supposedly being an ascetic. Her adherence to the actual texts is well done without being pedantic.

4.99 stars out of 5 (Wouldn't want to not leave any room for more Physics for the 2nd edition )

I decided to dive back into Long & Sedley's The Hellenistic Philosophers to see which citations they use for the gods (or God) as they say in their table of contents. Some of the citations are expected, but a couple were noteworthy at least to me:

• Lucretius, 5.1161-1225
• Lucretius 6.68-79
• Lucretius 5.146-55
• Epicurus, Letter to Menoikeus, 123-4 (the famous passages that starts "First, believe that the god is a blessed and imperishable thing as is the common, general understanding of the god.")
  • Menoikeus, 135 as well
• Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus, 76-7
  • we are bound to believe that in the sky revolutions, solstices, eclipses, risings and settings, and the like, take place without the ministration or command, either now or in the future, of any being who at the same time enjoys perfect bliss along with immortality. [77] For troubles and anxieties and feelings of anger and partiality do not accord with bliss, but always imply weakness and fear and dependence upon one's neighbours. Nor, again, must we hold that things which are no more than globular masses of fire, being at the same time endowed with bliss, assume these motions at will. Nay, in every term we use we must hold fast to all the majesty which attaches to such notions as bliss and immortality, lest the terms should generate opinions inconsistent with this majesty. Otherwise such inconsistency will of itself suffice to produce the worst disturbance in our minds. (Emphasis added to highlight an explanation of PD01 )
• Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 1.43-9 (probably redundant to place here since Cassius and Joshua are knockin' out of the proverbial park on the podcast!)
• Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors 9.43-7
  • 
• Scholion on Epicurus, Principle Doctrines, 1
• Philodemus (Phaedrus), On Piety, 112.5-12 (Usener 87)
  • Philodemus, On Piety, Vol. Herc. 2, II.82 [p. 112 Gomperz] {Obbink I.19.5}: ...as in the 12th book, he also reproaches Prodicus, Diagoras, and Critias among others, saying that they rave like lunatics, and he likens them to Bacchant revelers, admonishing them not to trouble or disturb us.
• Anonymous Epicurean treatise on theology: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 215
  • https://archive.org/details/oxyrhy…up?view=theater
• Long & Sedley also cite Plutarch, Against Epicurean Happiness 1091B-C (Usener 419)... but we're going to take Little Rocker 's caveat to heart on Plutarch and not cite that reference

I'm going to leave Eikadistes 's intriguing suggestion of Epicurus's ingestion of "chemicals that were intended to induce an altered state of consciousness" for later; although I have absolutely zero problems whatsoever with the idea that Epicurus drank wine throughout his life and probably did as part of his participation in the city festivals and definitely, likely undiluted, when he was dying. What I wanted to address here briefly is Eikadistes 's mention of Epicurus's participation in the festivals and sacrifices for anyone who finds this a new idea. It is not a new idea, seems relatively well-attested, and we have an Epicurean source to rely on. Thanks to Eikadistes for reminding me of this!

The primary evidence for this (to the best of my knowledge) is the work On Piety (scholarly consensus as attributed to Philodemus but also very possibly written by Phaedrus, a scholarch of the Garden).

Col. 28/9: Epicurus wrote to Phyrson during the archonship of Aristonymus (289/8 BCE) about Physon's countryman from Colophon, Theodotus, Epicurus says that he (Epicurus) shared in all the festivals... Epicurus celebrated the festival of the Choes and the urban mysteries and the other festivals at a meagre dinner, and that it was necessary for him (prob. Theodotus) to celebrate this feast of the Twentieth for distinguished revelers, while those in the house decorated it most piously ('ολως) and after making invitations to host a feast for all of them.

My Notes

• For festivals, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthesteria
• The Choes were part of this festival dedicated to Dionysus
• The "urban mysteries" refer to the Attic Dionysia, either the Lenaea (in the month of Gamelion, Epicurus's birth month) or Lesser Mysteries during 20-6 Anthesteria, both in honor of Dionysus.
• I find it interesting that the festivals mentioned were dedicated to Dionysus. It could just be coincidence that those are mentioned; or Athens had a lot of Dionysian festivals; or Epicurus had an affinity for Dionysian festivals or the god. No way to tell from what I've read so far.

and, btw, Column 28 is fairly well intact for a change:

Col. 29: Epicurus advised them to retain asservations made by means of these and similar expressions, and above all to preserve those made by Zeus himself (maintain the practice of swearing by Zeus by name νή Δία!)... Not merely "it must be so!"

My Notes

• LOL...So, Epicureans, feel free to pepper your writing and conversation with νή Δία! "By Zeus!"

Col.31: Epicurus, in a letter to Polyaenus, writes: "(It is necessary for us) to conceive of their nature as accurately constituting the notion of benefit according to the epistemological standard (kriterion). Let us sacrifice to those gods devoutly and fittingly on that proper days, and let us fittingly perform all the acts of worship in accordance with the laws, in no way disturbing ourselves with opinions on matters concerning the most excellent and august of beings. Moreover, let us sacrifice justly, on the view that I was giving. For in this way it is possible for mortal nature, by Zeus, to live like Zeus, as it seems. And concerning obeisance (προσκυνήσεις) in [Epicurus's] On Lifecourses [Περί βίων]"

My Notes

• devoutly and fittingly 'οσιως και καλως
• "in accordance with the laws (νόμους)" can also be translated as in accordance to custom" http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=no%2Fmos2
• obeisance (προσκυνήσεις) refers to "the custom of kneeling, prostration, or throwing kisses before statues of them gods or as marks of honor to important humans." Obbink recounts in the notes the story of Colotes embracing Epicurus's knees during a teaching session when Colotes was overcome with reverence toward his teacher.

This thread is an offshoot of this thread:

Post

RE: Episode 234 - Cicero's OTNOTG - 09 - Dealing With Marcus Aurelius And The Canonical Basis For the Epicurean View Of Divinity

[…]

Say it ain’t so, Don! I mean, at least Santa emits eidola, right?!

[…]



Cicero, though largely hostile, and burdened with the conceit of a talented undergrad, does seem to me to have one redeeming quality—his Academic Skepticism required him to take seriously and weigh competing positions, never fully accepting any of them. And his bestie was an Epicurean. So I generally take his reports of Epicurean views seriously, unless it seems to set the Epicureans up for a too easy dismissal by…

Little Rocker

July 2, 2024 at 10:05 AM

In dealing with the prolepseis over there, I decided to turn to Long & Sedley's The Hellenistic Philosophers (which is available to borrow on Internet Archive with a free account) to see what they have to say. It turns out they cite a number of instances of mention of the prolepseis/preconceptions. Their numbering system (ex. 21A 4) uses their individual section, cited text, then their subsection of that text. What I've done is cite their citation then cite the specific text with their translation. There are more mentions in Lucretius and Epicurus than I at first realized. I'll dig into a consideration later, but for now I thought this might prove useful or at least interesting:

Long & Sedley's examples of the use of prolepsis/preconceptions in the ancient texts:
body 12E 2
- Lucretius 2.730-833
- - (2) You are quite wrong if you think that the mind cannot be focused on such particles. For given that those who are blind from birth and have never seen the sun's light nevertheless from their first day know bodies by touch without any association of colour, you can be sure that our mind too can form a preconception of bodies without any coating of colour. In fact, we ourselves sense as colourless everything that we touch in the blind darkness...

man 13F 4
Lucretius 5.156-234
Also, from where did the gods get a model for the creation of the world, and from where was the preconception of men first ingrained in them, to enable them to know and see in their mind what they wished to create, or how did they come to know the power of the primary particles and what they were capable of when their arrangement was altered, if nature itself did not supply a blueprint of creation?

utility 13E 4, 19B 4, 22B 2
Lucretius 4.823-57 (13E 4)
Quite different from these are all the things what were first actually engendered and gave rise to the preconception of their usefulness subsequently. Primary in this class are, we can see, the senses and the limbs. Hence, I repeat, there is no way you can believe that they were created for their function of utility.

Lucretius 5.1028-90 (19B 4)
Besides, if others had not already used sounds to each other, how did he get the preconception of their usefulness implanted in him? How did he get the initial capacity to know and see with his mind what he wanted to do?

Epicurus Key Doctrines (22B 2)
(37) What is legally deemed to be just has its existence in the domain of justice whenever it is attested to be useful in the requirements of social relationships, whether or not it turns out to be the same for all. But if someone makes a law and it does not happen to accord with the utility of social relationships, it no longer has the nature of justice. And even if what is useful in the sphere of justice changes but fits the preconception (prolepsis) for some time, it was no less just throughout that time for those who do not confuse themselves with empty utterances but simply look at the facts.

truth 16A 2-3
Lucretius 4.469-521
And anyway, even allowing that he knows this, I'll still ask him: given that he has never before seen anything true in the world, from where does he get his knowledge of what knowing and not knowing are? What created his preconception of true and false? And what proved to him that doubtful differs from certain? (3) You will find that the preconception of true has its origin in the senses, and that the senses cannot be refuted.

all properties of bodies 7B 6
Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus 68-73
Now another thing that is important to appreciate forcefully is this. We should not inquire into time in the same way as other things, which we inquire into in an object by referring them to familiar preconceptions.

May also include data of introspection:
our own responsibility or agency 20C 4,8
Epicurus, On Nature 34.26-30
<He may simply choose to maintain his thesis while in practice continuing to> blame or praise. But if he were to act in this way he should be leaving intact the very same behavior which as far as our own selves are concerned created the preconception of our responsibility. And in that he would be at one point altering his theory, at another <...> ...<On the other hand> if in using the word 'necessity' of that which we call our own agency he is merely changing a name, and won't prove that we have a preconception of a kind which has faulty delineations when we call our own agency responsible, neither his own <behavior nor that of others will be affected...>

desirability of pleasure 21A 4
Cicero, On Ends 1.29-32, 37-9
Some of our school, however, want to transmit these doctrines in a subtler way: they deny the sufficiency of judging what is good or bad by sensation, saying that the intrinsic desirability of pleasure and the intrinsic undesirability of pain can be understood by the mind too and by reason. So they say that our sense that the one is desirable and the other undesirable is virtually a natural and innate preconception in our minds...

Quote from Little Rocker

Criterion 1: the text is the chief constraint. If we want to take Epicurus on his own terms, the text itself has to support, or at least not decisively rule out, a viable reading, and I prefer, all things considered, to keep my body of primary text reasonably narrow (as in, what we have from Epicurus, not what Plutarch or Clement of Alexandria say about Epicurus).

I concur with that. While not using Plutarch, Clement, et al. limits what's available, limiting oneself to *actual* Epicurean writings at least removes some of the likely anti-Epicurean bias inherent in "quotations" from those opposed (vehemently) to the Epicurean school.

Where do you come down on Cicero? Valuable? Reliable? LOL I find Cicero insufferable as a commentator, but he preserved some pivotal information... but how much to trust him as a conveyor of Epicurean teaching?

Curious also about your view of using the Herculaneum material: Philodemus, the fragments of On Nature, and so on. I'm inclined to make use of it where there is a reasonable amount of intact text, but skeptical of a lot of what might need "reconstruction."

Quote from Little Rocker

Criterion 2: I know this is contentious, but I also think we should seek the most philosophically and empirically charitable account the text can sustain.

Sure, I got no problem with that. We have such little text (although, relatively speaking, we have a treasure trove!) that we have to read between the lines sometimes.

Quote from Little Rocker

That means we should rule out interpretations that unnecessarily saddle Epicurus with untenable positions, if a more plausible position can be attributed to Epicurus within the bounds of textual evidence.

Yep, agree with that as well. For me, an example of this idea would be that Epicurus was an ascetic as seems popular in some circles. A more plausible position from my perspective is that he may very well have tested himself from time to time to see how much he could live on and still be satisfied... but I certainly don't see him doing this day in day out. I have source amnesia but seem to remember one author talking about "from time to time" Epicurus would test the limits of this kind of thing and to better appreciate abundance when one has it. I think of Lent or Ramadan in a regular religious context.

Quote from Little Rocker

Which is to say I think it's totally fine, Don, to consider whether Epicurus might be in striking distance of what might count as a viable contender of a view today. I think it's always good to ask, 'how close is he to our current understanding?' Even if, in the end, it turns out the answer is, 'nowhere near.'

I can see that. I think my issue is trying to retrofit modern understanding into an Epicurean context. That's why I think (and, trust me, this is a recent realization on my part) it's vitally important to understand what Epicurus thought, taught, and understood within his own contemporary historical and philosophical context. Once that is reasonably well understood, then we can look for parallels or echoes or similarities to modern understandings. Heck, the ancient Greeks coming up with atoms - fundamental building blocks of matter common to everything across the cosmos - is pretty darn impressive... even if our modern "atoms" are not per se Epicurean or Democritean "atoms." Coming up with a material cosmos and making supernatural gods unnecessary was a great leap forward. It wasn't science but it gets you walking toward a scientific understanding of the universe. Kudos to them!

That said, I'm finding that I'm unable to be as generous when it comes to the psykhe and the mind and memory and all that. Our minds don't seem to grasp eidola from their air to conceive of things. Is it impressive that Epicurus posited a material cause for sensation, and the interaction of "soul atoms" to describe the activity of what is actually the human nervous system? You betcha! But Epicurus was working with a completely different paradigm when it comes to the mind. I just don't think we'll find exact parallels of prolepseis from a modern understanding... but I remain open to the idea!! There are several old posts of mine where I've done exactly that after all For example...

Thread

Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett on The Functions of the Brain

I just started reading Dr. Barrett's book How Emotions Are Made (2017) and find it fascinating. I just finished the first chapter, so, in looking for something to listen to on the treadmill this morning, found her TED talk.

I see implications and applications to Epicurean philosophy (I think). She talks about the basic experiences all humans have from birth like pleasure and displeasure (I'm calling that pain). Overlaid on these basic sensations are the emotions our brains build from contextual…

Don

December 15, 2020 at 7:49 AM

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/conversation/381-homeostasis/

Quote from Godfrey

In a manner analogous to pulling your hand from a hot stove, I would interpret jumping back from the "snake" as a reflex rather than an instantaneous opinion.

But how would we define a "reflex" in ancient Epicurean terms as opposed to other mental or physical activities?

Honestly, in some ways, I think we're trying to do two different things here, and I admit I've contributed. On the one hand, it seems to me, we're trying to get a grasp on Epicurus's understanding of the mind and sensations and prolepsis and how he understood thought and memory etc. On the other, I'm trying to shoehorn a 2,000+ year old round peg into a modern neuroscience square hole. The understanding of Epicurus's perspective is interesting, valuable, and worthwhile from a philosophical and historical perspective but I'm skeptical if it's possible to "translate" that perspective and connect it to a modern neuroscience understanding of the brain, perception, sensation, etc. Understanding the brain and sensation in a modern setting and requiring a lining-up of Epicurus's terms or ideas with that seems fraught with difficulties. I'm beginning to think it might be better to simply acknowledge that the two frames are irreconcilable, and move on to understanding each (the ancient and modern) separately.

Quote from DL 10.37-38

"In the first place, Herodotus, you must understand what it is that words denote, in order that by reference to this we may be in a position to test opinions, inquiries, or problems, so that our proofs may not run on untested ad infinitum, nor the terms we use be empty of meaning. [38] For the primary signification of every term employed must be clearly seen, and ought to need no proving; this being necessary, if we are to have something to which the point at issue or the problem or the opinion before us can be referred.

"Next, we must by all means stick to our sensations, that is, simply to the present impressions (ἐπιβολὰς) whether of the mind *or* of any criterion* whatever (εἴτε διανοίας εἴθ᾽ ὅτου δήποτε τῶν κριτηρίων), and similarly to our actual feelings (παθη), in order that we may have the means of determining that which needs confirmation and that which is obscure.

I read this as Epicurus conveying that words can be - should be - referenced back to and denoting impressions of the senses. He urges Herodotus to test "opinions, inquiries, or problems" in reference to real sensations impressed upon the senses (including the mind) from the real, true external-to-ourselves world.

I see "or of any criterion"* as referring to the other senses - tasting, hearing, etc. - and he includes the mind (διανοίας "thinking faculty, intelligence, understanding" LSJ) specifically in that list of "sensations" as all members in his list of criteria.

The "every term... ought to need no proving" appears to also say that words need to refer back to a mental/physical sensation of some kind, an impression from the real world.

The criteria of truth then, to me, are the sensations, the prolepseis, and the feelings, precisely because they all interact directly with the "real external world." They are the impressions set upon us from the world outside ourselves. These criteria are our first line of contact, unmitigated by "opinions, inquiries, or problems", with the real, true, existing world in which we live.

Now, are opinions almost instantaneous sometimes, following directly on the heels of sensations and prolepseis? Sure! I have no problem with that. Consider you're walking through the woods, your sensations register a long skinny shape on the ground, your prolepseis have identified this shape as a danger in the past (the grooves are well worn in your eye's and mind's apprehension of the shape... so the "prolepseis" slips right into the groove, metaphorically).. your reason jumps in with "Snake!" and you jump back. It is only seconds later that you realize it was a discarded rope. Your opinion was in error, even though there was indeed a long slender shape that registered in your sensations from our external environment. Your sensations were true. Your prolepsis faculty registered the pattern seen and reinforced. Your feelings registered pain. It was your opinion layered on top that got it "wrong."

That's a VERY rudimentary scenario illustrating where my mind is at right now on this topic. To get a "modern Epicurean" take on things, I still think it is fruitful to dig into the work of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett and her colleagues. I think that line of modern research has a lot of ideas worth exploring when it comes to really understanding how the mind actually works, and I still find a number of very interesting Epicurean echoes if not parallels in it.