Posts by Bryan

Quote from Cassius

Bryan would you agree or disagree with saying that the faculty of prolepsis operates on "images?"

Agree, certainly. Just as all our senses. We smell and see the film that comes from our meal, for example.

Quote from Cassius

And do you see any connection between the Centaur / image example in Lucretius and prolepsis?

Yes you can have real and immediate impressions of centaurs, particularly if you are asleep or crazy. But if you are sane and awake those impressions lack continuity -- when you are sane and awake you do not see centaurs frequently.

This is a physical sense that stems from contact -- impressions of particles entering your body -- just like all the other senses. We can only form propositions after we have this sense/contact.

In some circumstances you may focus on being physically touched by the images of trees that are around you, at other times you may focus on being physically touched by circumstances in a way that produces a sense of guilt (or lack of guilt) or a sense of justice (or lack of justice), at other times you may focus on being being physically touched by the images of the gods.

Just as we have an innate ability to sense trees with our eyes, we have an innate ability to sense gods with our mind.

If we take "intuition" as meaning "expectation based on experience" then we can say that we get "intuition" over time based upon the data from our senses. From continuity of sense impressions we gain confident expectations regarding the operations of nature.

For part 1. Yes, absolutely.

Part 2. Yes, just as we can form an idea of guilt, this idea only forms from a prior and automatic sense of guilt. Same for the gods and justice and all anticipations.

Part 3. As we know, the anticipations do not process information anymore than the eyes. We can focus our attention internally (mental focus) and externally (visual focus).

The proposition that "the gods exist somewhere in the universe and are blessed and imperishable" emerges only after a real and automatic sense of the gods being blessed and imperishable.

In some circumstances you may sense many trees around you, at other times you may sense guilt from the circumstances, at other times you may sense the gods.

Your eyes do not give you the proposition "there is a green tree outside" when you sense (visually focus on) the green tree outside --- just as your anticipations do not give you the proposition "the gods are incorruptible" when you sense (mentally focus on) the incorruptible gods.

Quote from Cassius

the statement "gods exist somewhere in the universe and are blessed and imperishable" is an opinion of the mind and may be either true or false

The sense that the gods exist somewhere in the universe and are blessed and imperishable is just as natural to humans as a sense of justice and a sense of guilt.

The statement/thought "I feel guilty because..." only comes after a real and automatic sense of guilt -- similarly the statement/thought that "the gods exist somewhere in the universe and are blessed and imperishable" only comes after a real and automatic sense of the gods being blessed and imperishable.

I want to also include this because it mentions both the automatic insertion of images along with the anticipation (of responsibility), which seems exactly equivalent to, as we say "the sense of guilt."

P.Herc. 1056 col. 22 (fr. B 44), & P.Herc. 1191 fr. 110 ^{[Sedley 20C.2-4]} ...by which we never cease to be affected, the fact that we rebuke, oppose and reform each other as if the responsibility lay also in ourselves, and not just in our congenital make-up and in the accidental necessity of that which surrounds and penetrates us. For if someone were to attribute – to the very processes of rebuking and being rebuked – the accidental necessity of whatever happens to be present to oneself at the time, I'm afraid that he can never in this way understand ‹his own behavior in continuing the debate... 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 would be leaving intact the very same behavior which as far as our own selves are concerned creates the preconception of our own responsibility (τὴν τῆς αἰτίας πρό[λη]ψιν).

To tie together the immediate impression of the anticipation with the scholia's "conceived of through contemplation by reasoning," we have Epicurus, On Nature, Book 25:

^{[Sedley 20C.1]} From the very outset we always have seeds: some directing us towards these, some towards those, some towards these and those actions and thoughts and characters, in greater and smaller numbers. Consequently that which we develop – characteristics of this or that kind – is at first absolutely up to us; and the things which of necessity flow in through our passages from that which surrounds us are at one stage up to us and depend upon beliefs of our own making…

Sedley construction, Book 25, P.Herc. 1056 col. 21 (fr. B 43): ...[ἔκ] τε [τῆς πρ]ώτης ἀρχῆς σπέρμ̣[ατα ἡμῖν ἀγ]ωγά, τὰ μὲν εἰς τάδ̣[ε] τὰ δ' εἰς τάδε τὰ δ' εἰς ἄμφω [ταῦ]τά [ἐ]στιν ἀεὶ [κα]ὶ πρά[ξ]εων [καὶ] διανοήσεων καὶ διαθέ[σε]ων καὶ πλεί[ω] καὶ ἐλάττωι. ὥστε παρ' ἡμᾶς π[ρῶτον] ἁπλῶς τὸ ἀπογεγεννημένον ἤδη γείνεσθαι, [τ]οῖα ἢ τοῖα, καὶ τ[ὰ ἐ]κ τοῦ περιέχοντος κ[α]τ' ἀνάγκ̣ην διὰ τοὺς πό[ρους ] εἰσρέο[ν]τα [παρ'] ἡμᾶς π[ο]τε γε[ίνε]σθαι καὶ παρὰ τ[ὰς ] ἡμε[τέρα]ς [ἐ]ξ ἡμῶν αὐτ[ῶν] δόξ[ας]…

I noticed today that Wingdings 2:248 is an ancient punctuation mark, the asteriscus "little star," which is the proto-asterisk.

At the very least, this symbol is used a few times in Philodemus' On Methods of Inference (locations listed in second image below).

Thank you all for this great discussion!

Quote from Little Rocker

So the chief option would be that it's part of our biological nature/cognitive architecture to categorize the world in a particular way or arrive at a particular conclusion in light of experience.

Yes, I agree. Just as we have an innate ability to see (but we have to actually look and see things to use that ability) -- similarly we have an innate ability to anticipate (but we have to actually anticipate [mentally focus] to use that ability). As Long says, "any explanation of Epicurus as an intuitionist is on quite the wrong track."

We are born with the ability to mentally focus on gods in the same way we are born with the ability to visually focus on dogs. By focusing we get a clear view, and correspondence of clear views shows us the true nature of an object.

^{[D.L. 10.38b]} And besides we must keep all our investigations in accord with our sensations, and in particular with the immediate apprehensions, whether of the mind or of any one of the instruments of judgment, and likewise in accord with the feelings existing in us, in order that we may have indications whereby we may judge both the problem of sense perception and the unseen. 

Quote from Little Rocker

I tend to think you can remain happily an empiricist and posit underlying explanations for what you observe all the time, so long as you consider them hypotheses.

The atoms are in a different class because the atoms do not give off images. One of the features of Epicurus' empiricism is that (as Long says) "Judgments about non-evident objects are true if they are consistent with clear sense-impressions."

Thus we have a positive use of the non-contradiction principle: Epicurus does not make the presupposition that atoms exist -- it is the absence of any other conceivable theory for phenomena which justifies the general inference about the existence of atoms.

Quote from Cassius

Do we have notions of "atoms" impressed on our minds even though we have never seen them?

As we know, atoms are not visible in any way because, unlike every other object, atoms cannot give off images. Atoms do not flow off of the bodies of other atoms, but atoms do flow off every other object.

Quote from Cassius

Do we have notions of "justice" impressed on our minds even though justice is an abstract concept which cannot be seen in bodily form?

The physical basis for justice is simply the fact that life is a potential characteristic [sýmptōma] of matter -- and justice is a potential characteristic of life.

"The fact that humans seem to be born, at the very least, with this disposition to talk about this subject that seems to be of great interest to them -- a subject that is of such tremendous interest to so many different people is something that cries out to be addressed." --Cassius

-----------------

I also enjoyed:

"Empedocles jumped into an active volcano to prove that he was god -- you can ask yourself whether you think that experiment bore fruit." --Joshua

--------------

Great point about the "positive and negative aspect" of the gods.

Certainly Epicurus was working with both sides -- But the negative is very much more emphasized in modern scholarship. Thank you both for doing these!

Great point also in connecting this with the many positive practical results that come from the naturally negative origin of pleasure.

Yes I read about this bust again in Sedley's book and came here to ask this same question.

Quote from Twentier

Bailey's collection of fragments were selected from Usener's

Accordingly, Bailey also did not include what Usener did not include -- for example most of the remains of Epicurus' On Nature. English scholarship is so based on German scholarship this probably in no small way contributed to the lack of treatment of Epicurus' On Nature that we see in German and in English -- whereas it has advanced in the more independent Italian/French line of scholarship.

If we have Epicurus, On Nature, Book 34, P.Herc. 1431, col. 16: Ἀ[να]γκαῖον αὐταῖς ὑπάρχειν κατὰ τὰς πρὸ[ς] ἀλλήλας κρούσεις – ὡς ἐν τῆι πρώτηι γραφῆι εἴρηται – οὐθὲν ἧττον παρὰ τὰς [ἐξ] ἡμῶ[ν], τ[ις] σ[υμ]μετρ[ία] αὐτ[αῖ]ς γίγνε[σθαι]...

I think it can be translated: It is necessary for [atoms] to exist with collisions with each other – as it has been said in the first writing – nevertheless, from those [atoms] that come from us, a certain symmetry with them does occur...

Which I think can be interpreted: You do not feel the atoms that form your body moving because in a certain way they are all moving together.

Happy for any other ideas. At lot hangs on σ[υμ]μετρ[ία], probably too much.

Quote from Cassius

or live like the Cynics

This topic came up in a Wednesday meeting. I said the Cynics had no clear doctrine. Diogenes Laertius does labor to give a short summary of shared Cynic ideas at 6.103. Link here.

More to the point is Philodemus on the Cynics, P.Herc. 339 col. 8 "Human excellence is sidelined, with minimal engagement in deep reflection on such matters. The individuals in question, striving for a radical purity, adopt a lifestyle reminiscent of dogs, utilizing language in a stark and unrefined manner, displaying their masturbation without disguise, and layering their garments. They engage indiscriminately in intimate relationships, readily responding to solicitations and resorting to compulsion... ...advocating for communal sharing of offspring... ...imposing; entangling themselves with their own kin, both maternal and fraternal, without reservation in pursuing intimacy -- even when it escalates to coercion; they pursue intimate interactions with other men."

And it is not just the holy men who act like scuttlefish -- the inconsistencies of Plato and the over-complexities of Aristotle can seem intimidating to the reader -- but really these are devices to hide the weaknesses of the authors' argument.

Do you not really understand what Neo-Platonism is? Don't worry, neither did the Neo-Platonists.

After failing to remember Philodemus' name, or if he wrote in Latin or Greek, we get the quote: "We dont have to read the fragments in Herculaneum!" -- Fontaine from Cornell (1:04:07).

Talk about rejecting something without understanding it!

The word "heresy" originating from αἵρεσις -- Epicurus' main word for "choice," is indeed poignant.

I agree it is good that our school has no tradition of calling for violence on those who disagree with us. The frequent calls for open and underhanded violence to people who disagree with you in religious texts should be shameful -- but is unfortunately common, for example, in the Mishneh Torah.

As we know, the advice for our school is:

Rotzeah uShmirat Nefesh 4.10: "The [following are considered] Epicureans (הָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים, Ha’Epikorsim): those who worship idols or commit transgressions in order to provoke anger. Even if one eats non-kosher meat or wears garments of mixed fabric to provoke anger, he is considered an Epicurean (אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס, Epikoros). This includes those who deny the Torah and the Prophets. It is a commandment (מִצְוָה, mitzvah) to kill them. If one has the power to kill them with a sword in public, he should do so. If not, he should employ tricks until he causes their death. How? If one of them falls into a well (בְּאֵר, be'er) and a ladder (סֻּלָּם, sulam) is inside, he should remove it and say, 'I must go and bring my son down from the roof; I will return the ladder to you,' and he should act similarly in such opportunities."

Thank you Don for finding the Stobaeus quote!

Quote from Don

It *probably* should be in there, but it then continues to call into question the reliability of the Vatican manuscript itself!

Yes, I agree on both points.

"A lot of people we talk to tend to be very benevolent and they want to think the best of other people. They want to think that nobody in their right mind is really attempting to be harmful or really is attempting to obccure, or cause confusion -- but that is not the way the world is." (Cassius Amicus)

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions -- ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

This quote has stuck with me. Jeferson sounds very Epicurean here. Thank you, Joshua, for highlighting those quotes -- I will not soon be forgetting the image of the holy men acting like scuttlefish.

----

Although worlds come and go, there was never a time before there were any worlds. Similarly, the gods have always existed -- but unlike worlds, the gods persevere.

The gods are not inherently deathless, but they are effectively deathless by thier process of living. Living beings that are able to preserve themselves in the manner similar to a god -- but struggle or fail to do so -- no longer fit our anticipation of gods (and therefore are not properly considered to be gods).