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.
Does that sound right? If so, I really like and respect that use of the word: a deep form of recognition that implies intimate knowledge of a thing.
I suppose that could work. I've never heard it put quite that way, but that's the general idea. Thoughts from others on this point are encouraged!
If that is not how the word is used here in EpicureanFriends then I'm happy to hear an alternative definition.
Ah! Thanks for that clarification. That helps to show where you're coming from on using that. So, yes, there is an English word "prolepsis" as defined by Merriam-Webster as
: ANTICIPATION: such as
a: the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished
b: the application of an adjective to a noun in anticipation of the result of the action of the verb (as in "while yon slow oxen turn the furrowed plain")
And the English word's etymology is from Greek prolēpsis, "from prolambanein to take beforehand, from pro- before + lambanein to take.
However, Prolēpsis within Epicurean philosophy is used to refer to a specific faculty of the mind/body. Epicurus chose it to refer to this epistemological faculty from the words available to him and gave it a specific connotation within his philosophy. It's been variously translated into English as anticipation, preconception, and some other terms. Using it with its modern English definition within English vocabulary is going to cause a little confusion in an Epicurean philosophy forum, hence my going off on the prolepsis tangent in that prior post. It appears there may have been confusion on both our parts on the use of that word. Mea culpa.
This is, of course, unfair at a number of levels.
BrainToBeing : First, I sincerely didn't mean any offense. My only purpose for that simile was to compare what you seemed to be doing in taking one word ("capital-T Truth") and equating it with something at a much more basic level. Likewise, I see some scientists who want to thread the needle, so to speak, wanting to be able to use the word God while referring to a more basic level of knowledge and/or practice.
On the other points, your using "objective truth" and "opinion versus objective accuracy" and "objective data" and so on is entirely consistent with an Epicurean approach. It is possible for there to be all of those things without there being some kind of transcendent, capital-T, universal Truth...unless you want to assign, semantically, the capital-T Truth word to "the way things are" in an effort to find out what is "objectively" true in a given situation. Epicurus, and even more so Lucretius and Philodemus, advocate for acquiring observation and evidence and not taking things at face value or assigning some supernatural cause to them. This seems to align with your wanting to diagnose your patients true needs against their profession of 10/10 pain in an effort to acquire opiates.
And, let me state explicitly, that the opioid epidemic was and continues to be a tragedy, especially in some rural communities from which I came and where I grew up. But a search for some universal Truth isn't going to make that better. The tragedy has to be addressed on a myriad of levels: personal, familial, societal, and governmental. As such, that topic probably falls outside the purview of this forum; however, as others have said, Epicurus's philosophy is a philosophy of personal responsibility, deep friendship, the support of a social contract that should have participants doing no harm and not being harmed, and the rejection of supernatural causes and the inefficacy of prayer for divine intercession (although Epicurus did say that "it is better to follow the stories of the gods" than to be fraught with the anxiety of hard determinism). You can apply those aspects of Epicurean philosophy as seems appropriate to that real-world situation.
Anticipating your possible question (prolepsis)
Actually, that's not how the word prolepsis or, in Engish, "anticipation" is used in the Epicurean philosophical sense unless you were using it in a humorous way. Prolepsis is somewhat of an enigmatic word and the texts are woefully few in explaining how Epicurus and the early Epicureans used the term. Speaking for myself, the canonic faculty of the prolepseis (plural of prolepsis), seems to be a faculty of pattern recognition that sorts through all the sensory data flooding into us and is able to pick out meaningful patterns. That faculty can then apply those patterns to sense data in the future, and, over time, then builds up a "library" of patterns against which to make sense of the world. That's one reason I find the work of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett and others in seeing the brain as a prediction machine intriguing, as it seems to align (imperfectly but pretty well) with this idea of the Epicurean prolepseis.
As far as the gods, Epicurus famously asserted "Gods exist," but what he actually meant by that statement continues to be argued among those of us on the forum 
and in academic circles. What is without question is that Epicurus did not think the gods - in whatever way he meant that word - took no notice of us and did not grant favors or inflict punishment. That said, the Epicureans - especially Lucretius - had no problem whatsoever in imagining other life forms, mortal like us, inhabiting other worlds. Lucian of Samosata, who was at the very least sympathetic to Epicureanism, wrote arguably the first sci-fi story, A True Story, where there is space travel, life on other planets, etc. The use of the word "true" in light of the other topics on this thread is interesting in that Lucian says his is the only "true" story because he tells everyone at the outset that he's making it up, unlike the old myths that attempt to say what they're writing actually happened.
Great first post, Eggplant Wizard !! Welcome aboard!
The spirit of Epicureanism is of course inclusive. Cicero would want education only for the 'good families'. I want basic education for everyone (although basic doesn't include things like algebra and grammar for me) and I want advanced education for talented people regardless of social background. I don't want a distinction between schools for working class families and schools for rich people. In fact I would prefer to abolish private schools altogether. So I think I have more in common with you in the way I view education than with Cicero.
Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for that clarification. That helps me understand your position a little better.
My follow up question is "What would you include in your 'basic education'?" Epicurus certainly wrote against παιδεία (paideia), the standard form of "education" or (better translated, in my opinion) "enculturation" of his time. I have even translated it "indoctrination" at times, trying to convey his rejection of it. So there may be echoes of that in what you're proposing if I'm understanding your position.
People today have the inclusive right to universal education (or rather obligation since many kids would rather not be in school if they could choose) but you don't have the inclusive right of protection from something as dire as homelessness. I think the second kind of inclusion is more important and more pertinent to people's well-being and pleasure. So we should keep in mind that symbolic inclusion and real inclusion are not the same thing and I am sure most people here understand that well.
Getting into "rights", inclusive or otherwise, is a tricky area. George Carlin's take on "rights" always struck me as near the mark: We don't have "Rights." We have "privileges," because if they can be taken away, they aren't rights. Epicurus's definition of justice - to neither intentionally harm others nor to intentionally be harmed by others - as part of the social contract seems a solid foundation with far -reaching ramifications.
First, impressive amount of work and a decent start.
Taking a quick look, it seems the transliterations from Greek to Latin script are a little idiosyncratic. The use of "oo" for ω while technically correct for the length can lead people to try and pronounce it like "boot." Same for ee for η, saying "beet" instead of just a lengthened ε. Also the use of both y and u for υ (upsilon):
δυναμένοις (du-na-me-nois) δυ-να-μέ-νοις: present middle/passive part. from the
verb δύναμαι (dynamai) → "to be able"
There underlining for the accents in the transliterations don't necessarily convey why their important. Plus all the accents are underlined the same way.
That said, this is a great start to an interlinear text for study purposes.
PS. The Greek to Latin letter issue is one of the reasons I decided against transliterations in my Menoikeus commentary.
In my view, Truth (with a capital T) is that which exists independent of our perspective of it. We are not the authors of truth, only at best its revealers and/or messengers. For example, the laws of physics existed long before we attempted to discover them. They existed independent of our perspectives.
You're simply describing "the way things are," as Lucretius' takes the title of his work. If that's what you're calling "Truth with a Capital T" that's like a physicist saying the sum total of all laws of physics can be called "God." Epicureans accept that the material universe exists "independent of our perspective on it." In fact, the universe existed before we were born and will exist after we cease to exist. That aspect of what you're calling "Truth" doesn't seem to be that big of a deal from my perspective.
So, I do think there is Truth, though we certainly may not know what it is.
Okay, but that doesn't address my question. If you're going to assert that there's some kind of ultimate "Truth," you need to at least say how you arrive at that conclusion. Is there a god that provides the source of the ultimate Truth? Is there some supernatural revelation that provides knowledge of this ultimate "Truth"? Conversely, if you're merely asserting that we find "Truth" - i.e., the way things are - by investigating nature via science and other means of measurement and observation and then apply those in technology (i.e., "the machine I'm now using"), that seems to me to be rather a banal "truth."
I mean no disrespect by saying this, but, I beg you..Please... Please stop using the phrase "great sages of the past." We're not concerned on this forum with the "great sages of the past." If this was a general philosophy forum, then that would be fine. This particular forum, however, is dedicated to exploring the philosophy of Epicurus, the interaction between the Epicureans and their rivals, the works of the early Epicureans, and the continuing influence of Epicurean philosophy up to our time. Again, this is sincerely not meant to be any disrespect to you or your individual interests and pursuits. But we need stay focused. If you have reactions to the individual Epicurean doctrines or Epicurean ideas, I believe we would all be interested to hear them.
And while "brilliant voices derived different fundamental conclusions at these philosophical levels," I would say not all conclusions are created equal. If, for example, one's "personal philosophy" relies on supernatural revelation, not verifiable or observable, I would see that as a red flag.
"Truth" (with a capital "T", a universal truth)
What do you mean by capital-T Truth? What would a "Universal Truth" be? And what would your authority for asserting the particular Universal Truth be?
PS. Godfrey was spot on in his description of the Epicurean position in "universal Truth."
Interestingly, the modern Stoics seem to have largely stepped away from this idea.
Here's Dr. Austin's essay on that very topic.
I would interpret sensations to reference derivatives of the senses and sensory information.
I would interpret anticipations to reference expectations derived from experience.
And, I would interpret feelings to reference emotions derived from sensations, interpretations and thought.
Since this is an Epicurean philosophy forum, I thought it might be helpful look at whether your interpretations of those words line up with Epicurus's interpretation of those words. Here one the relevant passage from Diogenes Laertius, The Live of the Eminent Philosophers, Book 10.31-34:
Now in The Canon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and preconceptions and our feelings are the standards of truth ; the Epicureans generally make perceptions of mental presentations to be also standards. His own statements are also to be found in the Summary addressed to Herodotus and in the Sovran Maxims. Every sensation, he says, is devoid of reason and incapable of memory ; for neither is it self-caused nor, regarded as having an external cause, can it add anything thereto or take anything therefrom. Nor is there anything which can refute sensations or convict them of error : [32] one sensation cannot convict another and kindred sensation, for they are equally valid ; nor can one sensation refute another which is not kindred but heterogeneous, for the objects which the two senses judge are not the same45; nor again can reason refute them, for reason is wholly dependent on sensation ; nor can one sense refute another, since we pay equal heed to all. And the reality of separate perceptions guarantees46 the truth of our senses. But seeing and hearing are just as real as feeling pain. Hence it is from plain facts that we must start when we draw inferences about the unknown. For all our notions are derived from perceptions, either by actual contact or by analogy, or resemblance, or composition, with some slight aid from reasoning. And the objects presented to madmen and to people in dreams are true, for they produce effects--i.e. movements in the mind--which that which is unreal never does.
[33] By preconception (i.e., anticipation) they mean a sort of apprehension or a right opinion or notion, or universal idea stored in the mind ; that is, a recollection of an external object often presented, e.g. Such and such a thing is a man : for no sooner is the word "man" uttered than we think of his shape by an act of preconception, in which the senses take the lead. Thus the object primarily denoted by every term is then plain and clear. And we should never have started an investigation, unless we had known what it was that we were in search of. For example : The object standing yonder is a horse or a cow. Before making this judgement, we must at some time or other have known by preconception the shape of a horse or a cow. We should not have given anything a name, if we had not first learnt its form by way of preconception. It follows, then, that preconceptions are clear. The object of a judgement is derived from something previously clear, by reference to which we frame the proposition, e.g. "How do we know that this is a man?" [34] Opinion they also call conception or assumption, and declare it to be true and false50; for it is true if it is subsequently confirmed or if it is not contradicted by evidence, and false if it is not subsequently confirmed or is contradicted by evidence. Hence the introduction of the phrase, "that which awaits" confirmation, e.g. to wait and get close to the tower and then learn what it looks like at close quarters.
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; and that there are two kinds of inquiry, the one concerned with things, the other with nothing but words. So much, then, for his division and criterion in their main outline.
With those perspectives then I don't think those three cover beliefs or values.
The canon (feelings, anticipations, sensations), the epistmology of Epicurean philosophy, by definition, doesn't include beliefs and values. The canonic faculties, according to Epicurus, provide "pre-rational" data from which beliefs arise. And also according to Epicurean philosophy, there are beliefs built on solid foundations and there are "empty" beliefs such as the belief that the gods care how we conduct our lives.
Beliefs are, IMO, overarching views of how the world works and how we work within it.
I see no problem with that definition.
Values are, IMO, constraints on perspectives and actions. Values entice certain behaviors within the framework of personal values, and restrict actions that are inconsistent with personal values. Both of these cognitive frameworks are very important guides of behavior.
What are "values" other than those honorable, just, and noble acts an individual does that also give them pleasure (ie, satisfaction to echo a previous post). The "guides of behavior" in Epicurean philosophy are pleasure and pain.
See, this is precisely the problem. You apparently want to grant "intelligence" as something transcendent - something which cannot be explained as the result of our 86 billion neurons interacting or reproduced by adequately sophisticated non-biological systems.
Nope. Human "intelligence" or "consciousness" is exactly an emergent property of the interaction of our 86 billion neurons and our physical environment and our gut biome and our other physical, chemical, and biological processes. Whether intelligence or consciousness can arise in a complex non-biological system is an open question. I've seen arguments for and against from neuroscientists, biologists, technology experts, philosophers, etc. There is nothing transcendent about the phenomena but there may be something unique about the biology that makes it possible, at least for any foreseeable far future.
Even at this very early stage, answers I get from ChatGPT are very commonly better than answers I can get from discussion with anyone (including all my university colleagues). And, this is only the beginning.
This is only the beginning. ChatGPT and large language model platforms like it give the verisimilitude or veneer of intelligence. But it's all smoke and mirrors put together by clever programmers and the ingestion of innumerable inputs of text and images. It passes the Turing Test in many ways because we're pattern-seeking and agency-seeking beings due to our evolution.
If the word "pleasure" is interpreted to mean "consistent with personal ethics, beliefs, values, expectations, attitudes, goals and habits" then I guess doing what I did could be claimed to be consistent with my "pleasure". However, I guarantee you it did not feel like pleasure.
If you got personal satisfaction from doing what you felt was the right thing to do, that would align with Epicurus definition of the spectrum of pleasure.
FYI...
One Small Voice: Montaigne and Lucretius
I would find that fascinating.
Along those lines, I just listened to a podcast with Ben and David Crystal talking about their new book Everyday Shakespeare with lines for different days of the year
- Yet, we do now have science.
- We do now believe there is some way to understand the world other than by preferred belief systems.
- We do now recognize the relationships of the species.
- We do now understand far more about the universe in which we live.
- We do now know that consciousness is inside the brain rather than floating around as a mist, or a spirit outside of it.
- We do now even know how to create intelligence.
- So, there are reasons for optimism.
I wanted to break those out in to individual assertions to address each in turn and to try and turn this thread back into an exploration of Epicurus and his philosophy. We've gone far afield in this particular thread 
.
Oh yes, if we are considering the whole line of hominid evolution then certainly brain size has markedly increased. I thought we were just talking about our species.
Yes, sorry for talking past each other. My only point for all that was to illustrate that over the course of evolution our "human" brains have changed considerably. However, since H. sapiens came on the scene 10s if not hundreds of millenia ago, we've basically had the same brain structures.
This tells me that those living in caves and hunting mammoth were as clever, curious, and seeking of understanding of their world as Epicurus was as Lucretius was as I am. We don't inhabit some lofty perch from which we can "look down" on our forebears. We have more information, but I wouldn't say we necessarily have more wisdom.
Don, though I appreciate the insightfulness of your perspective (brain hasn't changed since species began) I hope you are wrong
The brain has changed dramatically in volume and structure since our early hominin ancestors. I believe that photo comparison from the Smithsonian is comparing early hominin brain size to "modern" humans 200,000 years ago. The general timeframe for homo sapiens (that "sapiens" had always struck me as being a little to full of ourselves!) appearing seems to be at least 300,000 per this article:
"In the case of H. sapiens, known remains only date back some 300,000 years"
It sounds like you're headed toward the ideas expressed by the "extended mind" thesis.
Extended mind thesis - Wikipedia
Rejection of science, diversion into "alternative facts", and unfounded intellectual belief systems, based on preference rather than any objective data, are getting us into trouble. In this era of planetary perspective we need to be objective, but many reject that simply out of preference.
Just a word of caution (not that I disagree!!), but don't start heading too fast or too far into contemporary political ramifications or discussions of those ideas. Just a heads up.
"Has the human brain changed in the last couple of thousand years?"...And, to answer IMO, the human brain has changed little in the ensuing 2000+ years.
I would completely agree. In fact, I would argue the human brain hasn't changed much since we evolved to evade predators, organize hunts, gather beneficial plants, and begin to tell stories around the fire. Human brains seem to have taken their modern shape about 300,000 years ago. The rest is culture.
We'll put, Martin .
I would add that what has changed in 2000+ years is culture. Human nature is pretty much the same.
All the way back to Gilgamesh and Enkidu, 4000+ years ago, the stories talk about the fear of death, the search for immortality, the grief of losing loved ones, desire for sex, and so on. The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the ancient Indians and Persians, the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Medieval philosophers, were all addressing how we, as finite mortal beings, make sense of and interact with an infinite cosmos. How do we come to grips with the fact that we die? How do we skillfully understand our desires? The culture in which we humans all live has changed, but the fundamental questions they were addressing with their religions and philosophies remain.
