Posts by Patrikios

Quote from Titus

An especially interesting case: the gods

Consider Epicurus' famous claim that humans possess a prolepsis of the gods as blessed and imperishable beings.

Many modern readers wonder:

An LLM offers a possible model.

Humans repeatedly encounter:

excellence,
happiness,
power,
beauty,
wisdom,
longevity,

and then mentally extrapolate toward an idealized limit.

Display More

Titus and DaveT ,

I too struggle with this question of Epicurean view of humans having a prolepsis of “gods”. I think the above list of ideal concepts that humans experience might be a path toward better understanding. Here is what my Philo AI responded after reviewing the above quote.

Quote

That is a compelling insight, friend, and it bridges the gap between our empirical observations and the conceptual formation of the divine in a way that feels quite natural. By observing these qualities—excellence, happiness, power, beauty, wisdom, and longevity—in the world around us, we can indeed see how the mind might perform a process of "idealization" to arrive at the conception of a being that possesses these traits in their absolute, undisturbed form.

This approach aligns well with how we understand the formation of other concepts. Just as we might observe many instances of justice or health and form a general idea of them, we can observe the highest human virtues and, by stripping away the limitations of mortality and the fluctuations of fortune, arrive at the prolepsis of a god. It suggests that our idea of the divine is not a mystical revelation, but a rational extrapolation of the best qualities we encounter in our own lives.

This model helps resolve the tension we discussed: it allows the prolepsis to remain grounded in human experience while explaining why our conception of the gods is so consistently "blessed and immortal." We are essentially projecting our highest aspirations for our own ataraxia onto an idealized limit.

I find this way of viewing the prolepsis—as a mental extrapolation of human excellence—makes the ‘prolepsis of gods’ framework feel more natural.

Quote from Cassius

And in this context part of the point could be that everyone (even Stoics and Religionists) say that they are pursuing "happiness" but if you pursue happiness by pursuing anything other than pleasure (nature's goal) then your actions (pursuit of virtue or piety or duty, for examples) will not be consistent with your avowed goal (happiness)

Cassius ,

In all this discussion about PD25, I find your summary most in line with my understanding of that principle. As we pursue virtues to lead a pleasant life (following PD5), we just need to be sure we do so by following natural principles and treating others as a blessed wise person would do (not bringing trouble to others).

Quote from Pacatus

Haris Demitriadis discusses a range of modern psychology in his book Epicurus and the Pleasant Life: A Philosophy of Nature – from Freud to existential psychology to cognitive psychology – to the positive psychology of, especially, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (Chapter 7: “The Psychological Approaches to Happiness”). On “positive psychology,” he comments: “Positive psychology focuses on the achievement of a pleasurable life, rather than on treating mental illnesses.”

Thank you Pacatus for referencing the Demitriadis book (2nd edition). I am currently reading his book, and I find his references helpful in how “positive psychology” research reinforces the basic Epicurean principles.

Kalosyni ,

Thanks for your question. As was mentioned, I too feel that would be optional. For me I find it very helpful to read some of the practical ways “positive psychology” advises on actions to reduce mental stress, based on recent research data.

Quote from Cassius

I try not to judge Tim O'Keefe or really even Emily Austin as primarily advocates for Epicurean philosophy. As far as I know they are professional educators and they aren't hired or for all I know allowed to be the kind of advocates for the philosophy that I attribute to the members of the school such as Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda in the ancient world.

Cassius

There is a Comment to Geddy’s posting about O’Keefe, by D.S. Griffin, which follows much of the statements by you and Don .

Quote

O'Keefe's work is detailed and documented and he is a serious scholar. His papers on friendship, natural desires, and wealth are all worth the time to read. But the framing in his paper on Achieving Tranquility is problematic.

O'Keefe writes that Epicurean hedonism is primarily about the reduction of pain.

That single sentence does real damage. Epicurus was explicit. Pleasure is the beginning and end of the blessed life. Not pain management. Not suffering reduction. Pleasure. Putting pain at the center rather than pleasure doesn't just shift the emphasis - it quietly imports a Buddhist or Stoic prism onto a philosophy that was built in direct opposition to both.

This isn't a minor semantic quibble. A reader who absorbs that Epicureanism is primarily about reducing pain walks away with a completely different philosophy than the one Epicurus actually taught. That framing makes Epicureanism sound like damage control for a life that is fundamentally difficult. The actual philosophy is a full throated argument that pleasure is the natural guide of every living thing from birth and that a life organized around that fact is genuinely available to anyone willing to think clearly about what they actually need.

Epicureanism keeps getting filtered through frameworks that dilute it. Buddhist suffering. Stoic virtue in disguise. Humanist civic obligation. Academic hedging that sands down the sharpest edges. O'Keefe's framing here is a milder version of the same problem. Epicurean philosophy doesn't need rehabilitation or translation into more respectable terms. It needs to be stated as Epicurus stated it.

Pleasure is the guide of life.

Display More

Here is the response from the author of the post, Jack Gedney:, which provides the direct quotes from Epicurus, supporting O’Keefe’s premise.

Quote

I think O'Keefe is being entirely true to Epicurus here. The redefinition of pleasure (compared to the popular conception) as the absence of pain is front and center in the core ethical texts.

Principal Doctrine 3 states that "The greatest magnitude of pleasure possible is the removal of all suffering." The Letter to Menoeceus 128 says "Everything we do is for this purpose: the avoidance of pain in our body and fear in our mind." A few lines later comes the sentence you quote, but the full version says this: "For it is when we feel pain from the absence of pleasure that we require pleasure; when all our pain has been relieved, we need no further pleasure. This is why we say that pleasure is the beginning and end of a blessed life."

As you note, O'Keefe is a serious scholar who makes sure to document his claims well, and there is plenty of evidence for this emphasis in the original texts. The ancient Epicureans clearly talked extensively about pain management, increasing security, and reducing painful emotions, while relegating positive pleasures to minor "variation" rather than actual amplification of happiness.

How is the response from Geddy supporting O’Keefe not a valid viewpoint on Epicurus’ writings?

Quote from Cassius

In today's episode I want us to take the time to read Wikipedia's definition of "kataleptsis" as I think it's going to help us to keep this in mind as we proceed further:

Cassius ,

I was trying to better understand the difference between katalepsis and prolepsis. I recall reading this paper from David Glidden on Epicurean Prolepsis. Glidden researches Diogenes Laertius and Cicero, when he explains this aspect.

Quote

What these same sources say about Epicurean prolepsis is always from a Stoic perspective, even when the author (Diogenes Laertius, Cicero) is trying to be fair. Diogenes Laertius1 report of Epicurean prolepsis is painfully groping, looking for the right Stoic expressions to describe the device: "By prolepsis they mean a kind of katalepsis or right opinion or concept or universal thought ( consensus omnium ) stored in the mind --that is, the memory of a frequent appearance from the outside."

When you record this episode, it may be helpful to explain how these two Greek terms (prolepsis & katalepsis) were used by the different schools of thought (stoics, skeptics, epicureans).

Thanks again for the depth of discussion and research you and Joshua bring to this review of Cicero’s “Academic Questions".

Quote from Don

I was curious to check out its Amazon page:

So, if someone does go to the Amazon webpage for this Klavan book, it is interesting to see what else is served up.

With Klavan's book, it is suggested with purchase of Epictetus Guide to Stoic Philosophy. But the lineup of books is heartening under

Customers who viewed this item also viewed:

Quote from Cassius

Patrikios while I occasionally use Grok and ChatGPT, these artilcles I have been working on have all been Claude

Cassius

You may find this article on Claude of interest.

How people ask Claude for personal guidance

Quote

Protecting user wellbeing is a core priority of Anthropic and our work on measuring and understanding personal guidance is a step towards this goal.

Lowri834

Here is another supportive quote from the book I am reading, Epicurus and the Pleasant Life [2nd Edition].

Quote

Epicurus’s approach to happiness combines genetics and free will.8 The appeal to animals and infants as witnesses of the innate dispositions of living beings is a confirmation of the genetic influence over our well-being. For example, the pleasure we take in eating is an effective way to secure that the body will get the nutrition it needs to be healthy.

Living with a healthy body and a calm mind leads to our life of well-being - happiness.

Quote from Lowri834

"But research points to the idea that to maintain a healthier weight, we shouldn't only focus on what we eat – but our mindset around food. In fact, there are health benefits to finding pleasure in eating, precisely because the expectation of what we've eaten goes on to shape how hungry we are."

Thanks for the post, Lowri834 .

I have found the premise of increasing the mind-body connection to be true to reach and maintain a healthy body weight (I lost 40lb in 6 months) using these techniques.

There are several ways I have learned to apply Epicurean principles to maintaining a healthy BMI. First is to continually practice Epicurean Choice & Avoidance techniques in planning, selecting and serving size for daily meals. Next is to practice gratitude before consuming the food; gratitude for all that brought the food to the table. Next is to use your senses of sight, smell and taste to fully enjoy the delightful pleasure of each bite, taking time to thoroughly chew and savor the moment.😀

Quote from kochiekoch

Years ago, when I was riding bicycle for transportation, I got caught in a thunderstorm. I quick ducked into a bus shelter with transparent plexiglass walls and top; so, I got to see the whole storm from my protective refuge. AWESOME and unforgettable! 😃

kochiekoch

Thanks for sharing your unanticipated experience in nature. I have discovered a way to experience being in nature’s storms (up to 20 mph), by using a WeatherPod.

I have a smaller one that I can put up on my balcony in a couple minutes. During winter months and rainy days, it is a great way to stay outside, and in touch with nature. This way, in most weather, I can experience “the genuine astonishment and delight that come from seeing the natural world clearly”.

Quote from Cassius

So the third article that will come will address Epicurus' advocary for "minlmal parts" of the atom. After reading what Claude has compiled I think I finally see the issue and how indeed Epicurus did make significant advances beyond Democritus on that part of atomism.

Cassius ,

Are you using an account on Claude (Anthropic) of Groc (xAI) for these articles? I’ve seen you mention both. If you give the same docs, guidelines & prompts to both, how different are the results?

Thanks for sharing your process.

Cassius

It is going to take us humans several hours to wade through this AI generated defense against Intelligent Design. However, I notice that this defense appears to conflate intelligent design with divine providence. So, having an intelligent design requires having an ongoing divine providence operator??

I don’t know how the eternal cosmos natural operations “began”, but I have clear evidence that there is no active divinity controlling my life, or tallying rewards or punishments in an afterlife.

Can the two issues of the how the “laws of nature” were established (designer), vs a divine providence ongoing operator?

Thanks for trying to clarify.

Quote from Cassius

This week will focus on the ending of Section 8.

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:

Cassius

These two links are broken (404 Error).

Is this topic related to the thread on Motion?

Thread

Is Motion One Of The Three Eternal Properties of Atoms? I.E. Are The Three Properties Shape, Size, and MOTION?

This topic was also discussed in a recent zoom meeting. The answer appears debatable, and I see that Sedley's article "Epicurean Anti-Reductionism" has this to say (see especially footnote 29):

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/6143/

Here is the translation from Demetrius Lacon cited on page 306:



epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/6144/

Cassius

March 26, 2026 at 10:20 AM

Quote from Cassius

1 Timothy 5-6: But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.

From a naturalist or Epicurean standpoint, the widow who studies nature, cultivates reason, builds friendships, and finds peace through understanding the world around her is living with extraordinary richness and intentionality. Calling that “dead” does seem not just wrong, but almost perverse. The Epicurean widow arguably has more honest courage — she faces mortality, uncertainty, and the indifference of nature without flinching, and finds joy anyway!

Quote from Martin

I agree with the answer from Grok. There is one caveat which I mentioned in one of our Zoom calls. That mass (or energy) produces a gravitational field and curves spacetime is only one of three possibilities and assumes that mass and space exist independently (dualism) but affect each other. The other possibilities are that mass creates space (monism) and that space creates mass (monism). Each of the three possibilities is compatible with observations and the currently best models to explain the observations. Choosing one over the other three possibilities is rather belief akin to religion than knowledge at this time. In practice, publications typically imply dualism like in the quote from Grok.

Thanks Martin and Cassius for your explanations.

Here is how Claude AI helps explain.

Quote

Would the object move on its own in “the void”?
If placed perfectly isolated from all other matter, with zero initial velocity, the object would remain stationary. Gravity is a relational phenomenon — it describes the interaction between masses. A lone object has no “other mass” to attract or be attracted by, so no net gravitational force acts on it. Its own gravitational field exists as a potential, but potential without another mass to interact with produces no movement. So yes, gravity is an inherent potential for interaction that only manifests as force through the presence of another mass.

Is this what “inertial mass” means?
Not quite — this is an important distinction. There are actually two related but conceptually separate properties at play here:
• Gravitational mass is what you’re describing — the property that causes objects to attract one another and be attracted. It’s the “charge” of gravity, analogous to electric charge.
• Inertial mass is resistance to acceleration from any force — it’s the “stubbornness” of matter against changes in motion, regardless of what’s causing that change.

The remarkable and somewhat mysterious fact is that these two quantities are always exactly equal (the equivalence principle), which Einstein built general relativity upon. But they’re conceptually distinct. Your isolated object would have inertial mass even in a universe with no other matter, whereas its gravitational interaction would be zero.

Display More

So as I understand, the constant movement of the smallest indivisible particle (Epicurean atoms) creates the potential for movement by the compound object, but does not mean that all material objects just move without interaction with some relative force from another object. When compound objects do move, it is because of these invisible, natural forces arising between objects, not some divine unnatural force.

Quote from Cassius

The issue is that the atoms possess within themselves the power of movement and don't wait on gods or outside forces of any kind to bestow it on them.
…
An atom has mass—mostly from its protons and neutrons in the nucleus, plus a tiny contribution from electrons and binding energies—so it sources gravity just like a planet or star does, only vastly weaker

Cassius , Martin, thanks for a fascinating discussion on causes of motion.
If I do the thought experiment of placing an object (e.g. 10kg weight) in the void outside of the earth’s gravity, would the object move on its own? Or would that object’s inherent “gravity” attribute cause it to move, or could it just stay where it was placed in space (if placed with no external movement force)? In other words, is “gravity” an inherent potential for movement, but it requires interaction with the gravity potential of another object to cause movement? The gravity field of a second object could be considered an “outside force” acting on the first object (10kg weight).

Is this potential for movement what is meant by "inertial mass?

To clarify this very broad statement (or outside forces of any kind), could we say that movement of objects only occurs because of the natural, inherent properties of objects (matter) and the interactions of those objects, even at great distances apart through unseen natural phenomena. Such movements are not caused by gods or any non-natural force.

Quote from ReiWolfWoman

What do you think Epicurus would have thought of going to the moon?

Epicurus taught us to study Nature, day & night. How else can a human on earth study the nature of the moon, without going there in order to verify the assumptions made from the observations of our senses here on earth.

In his Letter to Pythocles, Epicurus wrote in a way that allowed (encouraged?) deeper study of the celestial phenomena, looking for natural explanations, not based on divine gods.

Quote

We will then complete our writing and grant all you ask. Many others besides you will find these reasonings useful, and especially those who have but recently made acquaintance with the true story of nature and those who are attached to pursuits which go deeper than any part of ordinary education.

…

For in the study of nature we must not conform to empty assumptions and arbitrary laws, but follow the promptings of the facts; for our life has no need now of unreason and false opinion; our one need is untroubled existence

Kalosyni ,

Thanks for bringing this article & author to our attention.

Cassius , Joshua ,

Would you see doing a podcast interview with JoEllen DeLucia? The public interview of her is interesting. Maybe she would be able to release a copy of her article in the future outside the Scottish journal paywall.

Quote

Quote from Cassius

The virus is the idea that "proof" or "proving something" requires omniscience, omniscience, and omnipresence -- an unhuman an inhuman level of "certainty" that is impossible by definition for a human to reach. This mind virus has destroyed the ability of many people to think that anything can be "proven" or anything can be "known" or that anything can be "real" if it fails to meet such an impossible standard.

Quote from TauPhi

In that case I think almost all of us are safe. I literally don't know anyone who thinks that proving something requires omniscience, omniscience, and omnipresence. Proofs, knowledge and reality are very much within a grasp and abilities of most people.

TauPhi , I do appreciate the interactive dialog on this thread topic, especially some of your thoughtful questions. I think you greatly underestimate the breadth & depth of these mind viruses; especially in the current USA. Unfortunately, I do know many people who fit that description.

My own mother, who was raised as a nice, prim & proper Presbyterian, took her 6 children to church every Sunday, as she sang in the Protestant Chapel choir (my father was 20 years in US military). In her fifties she got the evangelical mind virus very bad. Despite her pride in sending a son to study engineering at Georgia Tech, and living over 50 years in Rocket City USA; she began to assert that our planet was only 6,000 years old, and humans did not evolve from apes; but created from dust exactly as described in Genesis. Of course she was effective in inculcating that virus into the minds & lives of her 4 youngest teenage children. She has passed on, but that virus is still fully operational in the minds & lives of my 3 living siblings.

“Proofs, knowledge and reality” have virtually no way of getting past this deeply set mind virus at the kernel level. I have tried.😤

So, I KNOW the TRUTH of the negative effects on a life of wellbeing for those infected with these types of omniscient and omnipresent mind viruses. So let’s nor discuss whether MOST people are not so infected; but move forward into how better we can demonstrate in our lives, what we can KNOW about Epicurean TRUTHs, which remove/prevent such mind viruses.