Posts by Don

I like the quote:

"Most of us think of ourselves as thinking creatures that feel, but we are actually feeling creatures that think."

Jill Bolte Taylor, My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist's Personal Journey

Quote from Bryan

This chart shows clearly what I think is one of the more complicated parts of pronunciation.

That's one of the reasons I'm gravitating toward the Pompeian Variant of Lucian Reconstruction with fricative φθχ although I like the aspirated stops. That latter Classical pronunciation is used by Ioannis Stratakis at Podium Arts. It's just really hard, as an English speaker, to distinguish and produce the required contrast between aspirated and unaspirated stops. Plus we have Philodemus's connection to the area of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

This is the video I've been waiting on!!

Quote from BrainToBeing

is "prolepesis" the same as "prolepsis"?

Prolepsis is the singular. Prolepseis is just the plural.

fwiw, here's a 3-year-old post related to this topic:

Post

PD24 - Commentary and Translation of PD 24

Principal Doctrine 24 (PD 24) is one of the more convoluted doctrines with multiple phrases and conjunctions. I would like to provide some commentary and break the doctrine down into manageable words and phrases for everyone to get a more coherent understanding of what Epicurus was communicating. You may also want to take a look at this doctrine’s page on the Epicurus Wiki:

First the original text:

[…]

Now, let’s break it down before we put it all back together. I’ll provide a (mostly) literal…

Don

September 2, 2020 at 11:56 PM

Quote from Cassius

Well, isn't deciding whether something is pleasing or painful an "evaluation" of at least a sort?

I don't think so. Pleasure and pain have an automatic component to them. For example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091219302387

Quote

Pain is recognized to have both a sensory dimension (intensity) and an affective dimension (unpleasantness). Pain feels like a single unpleasant bodily experience, but investigations of human pain have long considered these two dimensions of pain to be separable and differentially modifiable.

There's also this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4425246/

That first paper talks about the sensory component of pain and then the "affective" dimension - the "feeling" of pleasantness or unpleasantness that follows (what seems like simultaneously). It seems to me that there is a sensory stimulus - if pain, touching a hot rack in the oven - our brains have predicted that we're if we experience damage to our hand if we let it in this spot, and immediately - automatically - pulls it away. Almost, but not quite, the "feeling" of displeasure is associated with that stimulus. THEN we can think cognitively *after* that that "I need to never do that again! That hurts! That's certainly not good!" We put a *value* judgement on the act - on the feeling - after we experience the sensory input and the pain in quick succession. Then we can cognitively think about "How stupid!" and all kinds of other thoughts.

Great stuff, BrainToBeing !! Glad to have you aboard our little boat here.

I really like your "bootstrap" contribution to the discussion. From my perspective, that dovetails in many ways with what we've (I've) been trying to articulate here on the forum for awhile. If I understand where you're coming from...

To go with a computer metaphor: We have innate, inborn "operating systems" and some basic software that can be applied to make sense of novel situations in our experience? We use those basics as the foundation for more complex behaviors and beliefs as we grow? We get thrown into a world, bombarded by sensory input, and our operating system and basic "programs" begin to sift, sort, organize, and construct our understanding of reality.

This reminds me of the work of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett (and others...I'm just more familiar with her name) who talks about our brains being "prediction engines." According to her work, our brains are constantly using past experience to predict what the flood of sensory data coming in "means," and therefore how to react to it. If we, in fact, DID only react to incoming stimuli after it came in...we'd end up dead. We can't "react" fast enough in real time. Our brains are constantly predicting what actions should follow and act on that. Which, as I understand, is why we jump away from a "snake" on the trail only to "see" later that it was actually just a stick. Our brains do a prediction THEN an observation like: "We're in the woods. What things do we expect to see in the woods? We need to be aware of dangers in the woods. We've seen long slender things before that are snakes. Snakes are dangers. Long slender thing on trail.. SNAKE! JUMP! Take a second observation.... Oh! Just a stick."***

For my part, I see those predictions as prolepseis against which incoming sense data is compared. BUT I can also see some of the bootstrapping to be connected as well.

I should also state explicitly that, as obvious as it is, Epicurus did NOT have access to the latest research in psychology, neuroscience, physiology, etc. He was working on observation and intuition and trying to make sense of his world with the tools he had. However, he came up with (or, at least, refined) the idea of atoms - tiny particles that make up the universe - LONG before we had observational evidence... So, I think he was doing pretty well with those tools that he had.

***PS: Note - My example is an over-simplification of the process. For more detail, see the following:

The brain is a prediction machine: It knows how well we are doing something before we even try — Department of Experimental Psychology

Interoceptive predictions in the brain

Intuition suggests that perception follows sensation and therefore bodily feelings originate in the body. However, recent evidence goes against this logic:…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Quote

the brain forms neural representations that are constructed from previous experience. These function as a generative model of how stimuli in the environment cause sensations. Rather than neurons simply lying dormant until information arrives via the external sensors of the body (that is, the eyes, ears and taste receptors, among others), the brain anticipates incoming sensory inputs, which it implements as predictions that cascade throughout the cortex.

See also

How your brain creates reality, explained by a neuroscientist

Your 'social reality' isn’t an absolute reality. A leading neuroscientist explains why.

bigthink.com

fwiw...

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πρό-ληψις

LOL! "his framework for the concept." You'll get a wide range of answers to that request from a multitude of scholars, academics, and interested laypeople.

Some of us here have settled(?) on the idea of prolepseis as being the ability of the human mind to recognize patterns of significance in the flood of sense data that pours in. That's the very basic idea we've hit upon.

Somehow the autocorrect of 8 and ) to seems to work for mention of Horace.

To honor the poet, here's a link again to Natalie Haynes ' episode:

Natalie Haynes Stands Up for the Classics - Series 4 - Horace - BBC Sounds

Natalie Haynes stands up for Roman poet Horace. With guests Llewelyn Morgan and Ben Okri.

www.bbc.co.uk

Welcome aboard, frank1syl !

Many of us found Epicurus via the Stoics, so you're in good company.

Quote from frank1syl

All of Epicureanism interests me, though I admit to having the least interest in Epicurus's beliefs about the god

From my perspective, the primary things Epicurus wants to get across about "the gods" are that:

1. They didn't create the universe.
2. They don't control - or even have any interest in - our lives.

If that's as far as anyone goes, I think they've got solid ground to stand on.

We've had looooong threads about the nature of the gods, whether they're concepts or beings (from Epicurus's perspective), and so on. Epicurus lays vital importance on having a "proper" attitude towards "a god" but as long as one doesn't "fear" them, you're probably good to go for the most part.

You're also not the only one here that finds that topic of less interest, so you're certainly not alone in that sentiment.

Quote from BrainToBeing

"all good and all evil come to us through sensation". While there is a lot of wisdom in this statement, it needs consideration in this era - or at least definition. If "sensation" is a proxy for "thinking" then perhaps the statement still holds (though the bounty of nature would still stand as challenge vis a vis "good" coming from the planet). Alternatively, if "sensation" is held to be derivatives of sensing then we have problems.

I agree with Godfrey . Plus there's also Principle Doctrine 2:

"Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved into its elements is without consciousness, and that which is without consciousness is nothing to us."

That seems fairly uncontroversial to me.

ἀναίσθητος = conveys "unconscious, insensate, unfeeling; senseless"

I would also add that, as I understand it, "good" and "evil" only have relevance in Epicurean philosophy as "that which brings pleasure" and "that with brings pain," respectively.

As to the "tabula rasa," I completely agree that notion is outdated. I think the Epicurus's idea of prolepses addresses this, predispositions at pattern recognition are inborn. Many of us go back to the psychology experiments with babies, toddlers, and animals in awe and fairness, for example.

I agree with Godfrey ! At the risk of speaking for him, the intersection between Epicurean philosophy and modern neuroscience is an area that both he and I have expressed interest in for some time.

I've brought up the work of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, Dr. Anna Lembke, and others in bringing neuroscience research to a lay audience. They don't provide an Epicurean perspective, but I've brought up their work in light of the implications (I think) it has for understanding Epicurus's psychology (for lack of a better term) through a modern lens.

I would greatly enjoy reading your thoughts, BrainToBeing (John)!

Wonderful post and insights. Welcome aboard!

The articles are meant to be humorous, and Godless Mom's social media channels are amusing.

Top 10 Influential Atheists in History and Their Impact

The people from history who had a significant influence on atheism and atheists.

www.godlessmom.com

Godless Mom included Epicurus in her list of "influential atheists." Her take on Epicurus is obviously not meant to be exhaustive! And her "While not an atheist in the modern sense, his ideas laid the groundwork for secular thought" seems spot on to me.

Epicurus gets a longer look in "A Very Quick and Quite Silly History of Atheism"

A Very Quick and Quite Silly History of Atheism

Taking a brief look at atheism and atheists throughout human history.

www.godlessmom.com

Again, purposefully silly! She's not a historian. But it was a fun find, and I think does not misrepresent Epicurus. She, of course, mentions "bread and cheese" but at least she doesn't imply what many others do with that. I liked "chilling in his garden"!

To refer back to Cassius 's original post, here is a translation of Cleanthes' hymn:

Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus – Hellenion

I will freely admit I was being slightly provocative. Stoics aren't evil nor is their philosophy wholly without merit. Even Seneca, a Stoic's Stoic, makes some good points; and Marcus Aurelius appears to have been an honorable man worthy of respect. Do I think the Stoics are misguided or, in the case of many modern Stoics, fooling themselves? Yes, of course I do, or I'd be over there.

However...

Quote from TauPhi

There is a good reason why The Holy Church of Sticking Pencils into Eyeballs doesn't exist...An idea has to have some merit in order to get widespread and passed on.

Unfortunately, cultures and religions are full of meritless practices or movements not far removed from the Holy Church of SPiE, admittedly from my personal perspective. Medieval flagellant monks. Female genital mutilation. The Jonestown massacre. The Heaven's Gate mass suicide cult. The SPiE Holy Church doesn't (necessarily) last long in any one incarnation maybe, but it certainly keeps cropping up again and again.

Would I include Stoicism within the Holy Church of SPiE tradition? No, emphatically no. No question or equivocation. Do I agree with Dr. Austin "that many Modern Stoics are already Epicureans, at least by the standards of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius"? Yes, indeed!

I think we're trying to diagnose Martin from a distance everyone. I think he's okay.

Quote from TauPhi

It has to have some merit to it. If it fell away quickly, it would have been forgotten long time ago.

Your points are well taken. I'd just add as an aside that...

Remember that Stoicism and Neo-Platonism were palatable enough to early Christians that they could be co-opted into their religion. Merit isn't always what sustains something. Sometimes it's who you know.

Quote from Godfrey

Judging by this, "calculus" wasn't even a word in Greek. So "hedonic calculus" would be a later overlay onto choices and rejections, which probably doesn't add any clarity to this thread. 🤔

Jeremy Bentham came up with the idea of the "felicific calculus" although he didn't use that exact phrase in his An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). If you want to see someone apply mathematics to pleasure and pain, that book is a tour de force!

The words Epicurus used translate to things like decide, judge, etc. Section 129 of Menoikeus is probably the most succinct exposition. Here's my paraphrase/translation:

[129] Because we perceived pleasure as a fundamental good and common to our nature, and so, as a result of this, we begin every choice and rejection against this, judging every good thing by the standard of how that pleasure affects us (i.e., how we react to considering experiencing that pleasure). And because pleasure is the fundamental and inborn good, this is why not every pleasure is seized and we pass by many pleasures when greater unpleasant things were to result for us as a result: and we think many pains better than pleasures whenever greater pleasure were to follow for a longer time by patiently abiding the pain.

κρίνοντες “judging, deciding + (accusative” πᾶν ἀγαθὸν “every good thing,” i.e., “every pleasure” against or by the κανόνι τῷ πάθει “the standard of how we react to what happens to us when we experience - or consider experiencing - that specific good thing.

“And against this (that pleasure is a fundamental good and common to our nature), judging every good thing (i.e., every possible pleasurable experience) by the standard of how that pleasure affects us or how we react to considering experiencing that pleasure.”

By the way, I'm translating πάθει (pathei) in its literal sense as "that which is experienced."

See also:

DL 10.34 (Diogenes' commentary)

They affirm that there are two states of feeling, pleasure and pain, which arise in every animate being, and that the one is favourable and the other hostile to that being, and by their means choice and avoidance are determined

κρίνεσθαι < κρίνω "judge, decide"

So, it seems to me we're more of a judge than a mathematician.