Posts by DaveT

I have a hard time dealing with the words “skeptic, skepticism, etc.” Sometimes people use them carelessly, and other times, perhaps after thoughtfulness, they use them in a narrow sense. His use seems to be that of the ancient Greek Skeptics. We’ve all looked at the chart that came from the article that I read. I’m skeptical about the author’s credibility (he’s a music critic). But, okay.

The chart is alleged to show possible results from his diagnosis of societal problems caused by AI, but these are possibilities that have no relationship to the probability of anything he wrote about occurring. Sadly, mental illness is a curse for those trying to survive in our modern world, but come on! Blaming AI? Already? For sure, we need guardrails on any new application of advanced technology, but his chart could be a list of fearsome results from the discovery of mRNA vaccines.

As far as his chart goes, yes, those are bad things, bad, bad, bad things for any society’s common welfare. (I’m getting out of breath here.) I could blame those ills on many things affecting individuals yesterday, today, or tomorrow. So, meh.

I reject his scare tactics, and more specifically, I reject his definition of skepticism as a negative behavior. Skepticism is healthy when properly used. My definition varies depending on the topic. A general usage to me is that I’m skeptical of any proposition that seems to lack proofs, and I’m willing to suspend my belief or disbelief until I see enough proof to satisfy me.

Quote from Don

Quote

Benatar explained. “But compare that with a scenario in which that person never existed—then, the absence of the bad would be good, but the absence of the good wouldn’t be bad, because there’d be nobody to be deprived of those good things.” This asymmetry “completely stacks the deck against existence,” he continued, because it suggests that “all the unpleasantness and all the misery and all the suffering could be over, without any real cost.”

I don't know anything about this subject yet, but this quote reminds me of the nonsensical quip: I'd like to have a ham and egg sandwich if I had some ham, if I had some eggs.

In addition to the texts here on the website, I've just started reading "The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia" by Brad Inwood and L.P.Gerson. I find it easier to read than DeWitt. In addition to the usual texts, I am anticipating getting to the part containing extensive short fragments and testimonia from other various ancient sources. It's about 100 pages in total. DeWitt's argumentative and old fashioned professorial style is a chore for me.

I follow the issue discussed here, but my perspective is a bit different. First, not too many people are going to read this book. On Amazon, it has 27 reader reviews, and it’s been out since last January. Second, it is a self-help book as much as any other content, to help people deal with the 21st century. Third, his market is an overwhelmingly Christianized western world, which is dominated by the belief in an Abrahamic divinity’s providential influence as trials and tribulations upon mankind. (Whew!)

To me, the earlier Austin reference by Don. It cuts to the perhaps largest issue when comparing the similarities and distinctions in the Stoic vs Epicurean debate. And this debate is essentially the same one that mental health counselors, psychiatrists and many other professions that focus on helping people cope with the struggle to live better in our modern western world (without regard to religion). I don't see how one wins or loses in this philosophical battle over a book that only partially addresses Epicurus’ truths. I think perhaps any discussion of Epicurus is a good one. Kind of like the cynical quip, “I don’t care too much what you write about me, just spell my name correctly in the newspaper.”

Cassius  Don Like so much of Epicurus' thoughts, I find his logic fascinating. Whether he is correct or not as our technology discovers more of nature, is not so important to me. However, I wonder if this concept of all matter being constructed from atoms is one more reason some other schools of philosophy were threatened by his conclusions on nature. Rather than saying everything was made up of water, or fire, he bypassed both and posited that water and fire were composed of atoms. Thoughts?

Cassius: Thanks. I respect your scholarly analysis and your cautions to me on the Introduction above. I have read Austin and just reviewed Nikolsky's Abstract <https://www.academia.edu/11301216/Epicu…work_card=title>

But it seems to me they and most of the textual histories are far deeper than I am inclined to dig into. Records here on EpicureanFriends are satisfactory guidance from a master logician and communicator for my level.

The distinctions of types of pleasure you point out haven't concerned me that much for two reasons: most of the writers in ancient times up to the present, seem to have a motive, dare I say an ax to grind, and I usually take everything I read, including expert translations of texts supporting Epicurus as useful, with at least a small grain of salt. And secondly, my nature is to try to boil down complex thoughts to the simplest analysis I'm able to absorb so that I can structure a lifestyle I'm comfortable with.

I didn't read the section on the Introduction to the Plutarch's writing I posted above to be anything more than my discovery of an interpretation by a scholar, who among so many others was trying to make sense of Plutarch's thoughts. Since it looks to me that almost everything we attribute as Epicurus' thoughts are second hand except perhaps the few original records extent we are forced to accept those records as good faith efforts by other men who support Epicurean philosophy.

Cassius Thank you for posting the above. I found the Introduction from pps. 2-10 very clearly described the translation of Plutarch that followed. And in particular, at p.4 the following quote caught my attention regarding our discussion on last Sunday's zoom comparing and contrasting the two types of pleasures Epicurus said we experience."
“Pleasure, according to the Epicureans, is the highest good ; it is the ultimate aim of all our activities past, present, and future. It is of two kinds, pleasure of a settled state, and pleasure in motion. The settled pleasure is the same as the absence of pain ; indeed only those pleasures in movement are chosen that are incidental to the riddance of pain.

Such are the pleasures of the body. Pleasure of the mind is a reflection of these. Absence of perturbation (atarazia) corresponds to the settled pleasures of the body, and animation (euphrosyné) at the anticipation or remembrance of a pleasure in movement of the body is a pleasure in movement of the mind. Because it is not limited to the present but draws also on past and future, pleasure of the mind admits of greater stability and permanence than pleasure of the body ; it is thus the proper object of the philosophical life.”

Does anyone care to elaborate on this explanation?

I recently read that the Roman religious beliefs were accepting of other religious concepts. It was given that this was why the Greek religious (philosophical?) beliefs were followed as they were before and after the C.E. This adaptability then was posited as the reason that formerly pagan Romans eventually accepted Christian beliefs after they initially tried to stamp them out. Certainly the story is much more complicated than that, but perhaps it is a partial factor.

Comments please.

I've come across the following post questioning the attribution of VS 47 to Epicurus himself: VS 47" I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well."

SOURCE: https://www.epicurism.info/etexts/VS.html#**

Cassius (forgive the Bold type, I can't see how to change it) Regarding your comments about the Krauss book above, and physics for the layperson. His book is from 2013, and over the last 12 years there have been around 30000 reviews posted on Goodreads. That's 2500 per year. I doubt many lay people will ever read this book, and fewer yet among spiritualists. I often try to ask about the potential impact of anything presented as fact from the position of the layperson, also. Not sure it matters to ask about the impact of modern physics, when it comes to philosophical inquiry, though. As a basis for argument among the well educated, OK, fine, but for ordinary teaching and learning? Only the process of logical deduction (like in science) is important when discussing Epicurus, right?

I like this quote from Richard Powers who wrote that there is not anything that is “a matter of fact….there is only observing and humility." I think that is a fair request for the layperson as well as the experts in any field. And as for the foundations of physics, scientific discovery is never 100 percent certain, the scientists always challenge their community to disprove their conclusions, and that is the search for knowledge, isn't it?

And if I can add, paraphrasing Brian Greene; I come from the stuff of stars and to that state I shall return, and I'm happy with that.

Allow me a respectful comment on this thread. I think it is not helpful to compare and contrast the physical world hypotheses of the various ancient thinkers with our complex modern science of physics. Sometimes, an ancient thinker, by a fortunate coincidence, deduced and sensed a scientific principle later proven true by modern science. The fact that they hit on something that has now been proven to be true is a fortunate coincidence, does not diminish the power of their thinking, nor does it confirm who was correct or incorrect in their deductive powers about the physical world. In my view, Epicurus is worthy of consideration not as a soothsayer, but as a logician who bucked the tide of ancient metaphysics and religion, and developed a doctrine that many found to be a fulfilling lifestyle. As Inwood and Gerson write in The Epicurus Reader, The Four Point Cure (via Philodemus’ reporting) is: Don’t fear God, Don’t worry about death; What is good is easy to get, and What is terrible is easy to endure.

Do our learned friends here take issue with the following discussion by DeWitt? Please be specific and explain why the below is inapposite to this thread.

I ask because the posts discussed earlier are overwhelming me. The following comments and quotations in DeWitt seem to respond to the original query in this thread.

“EVIDENCES FROM SPECIFIC CONTEXT
In the extant texts of Epicurus the term prolepsis occurs four times
in a specific context. The first has reference to the divine nature and the
second and third to justice; the fourth applies to the concept of time.” P.146 DeWitt

“The discussion of the divine nature is found in the letter to the
youthful Menoeceus.44
It is there declared "that the pronouncements
of the multitude concerning the gods are not anticipations (prolepseis)
but false assumptions."” p.146

“The second and third examples of the term prolepsis are found in
Authorized Doctrines 37 and 38; the topic is justice. Just as in the case
of the divine nature, the first requisite is to discern the essential attribute
or attributes. It is Nature that furnishes the norm and implants in men
the embryonic notion or prolepsis of justice in advance of all experience.
Hence it is called "the justice of Nature," as in Doctrine 31: "The justice
of Nature is a covenant of advantage to the end that men shall not injure
one another nor be injured." Setting aside the idea of the covenant,
which is a separate topic,...” p.147

Rolf I hope I'm not abusing a topic, but I committed myself to reading DeWitt. DeWitt is hard reading for me, because he is constantly on both the offense and the defense.

Anyway, FYI if you choose to read more, in his chapter: VIII SENSATIONS, ANTICIPATIONS, AND FEELINGS, he gets into a discussion of Prolepsis at p. 143 under the topic of Anticipations of Epicurus' thought.

Long ago, my college speech prof put it simply, "Take your audience into account."

Quote from Rolf

Actually, could somebody take a crack at explaining fundamentally what prolepsis is? Is it innate knowledge that we’re born it? I’m more confused than I thought!

Rolf I’ve been doing (undoubtedly) superficial research on the internet to get this topic more firmly in my mind. How does this approach sound to make Prolepsis more concrete (ish) by comparing the major schools of the ancient era?
Prolepsis within Epicurus’ thought is the acquisition of knowledge, the process that comes from experience through the senses, and truth can be determined from repeated experience and thinking about what we know.

Prolepsis within Plato’s (stoic)thought is the acquisition of knowledge from innate sources, divine eternal universal truths.

Prolepsis within Skeptic (Phyrro) thought is that you can’t trust either of the above for definitive acquisition of knowledge since you can’t prove either is true.

I've been searching for a way to clarify for myself when or how Epicurus viewed the concept of prolepsis, I went to the Internet and Google's free AI, Gemini. It gave citations to back up its response, which I can paste into this discussion if anyone would like to see them.

Can our better educated friends here, give a deeper analysis of the response I got to my query; "prolepsis as discussed by Epicurus"? The answer it gave is in bold.

In Epicurean philosophy, **prolepsis** (plural: *prolepseis*) is a fundamental concept in their theory of knowledge, serving as one of the three criteria of truth, alongside sensations (*aisthêsis*) and feelings (*pathê*).

Here's a breakdown of prolepsis as Epicurus understood it:

* **Meaning:** Prolepsis translates to "preconception," "anticipation," or "pre-notion." It refers to a basic, general concept or idea that has been formed in our minds through repeated sensory experiences.

* **Formation through Experience:** Epicurus was an empiricist, meaning he believed that all knowledge ultimately derives from the senses. Prolepseis are formed when repeated sensory inputs of a certain kind leave a lasting impression or "trace" in the mind. For example, by repeatedly encountering dogs, we form a prolepsis of "dog" – a general idea of what a dog is.

* **A Criterion of Truth:** Prolepseis are considered self-evident and true. They act as a foundational, clear understanding against which we can evaluate new perceptions and opinions. When we encounter something new, we can refer back to our prolepsis to help us recognize and categorize it. If a new perception aligns with a relevant prolepsis, it is more likely to be true.

* **Precondition for Thought and Language:** Prolepseis are essential for rational thought and language. Without these pre-existing general notions, we wouldn't be able to name things, understand concepts, or engage in meaningful discourse. For instance, to understand the word "man," we must already have a prolepsis of what a man is.

* **Solution to Plato's Meno Paradox:** Epicurus' concept of prolepsis offered a solution to Plato's paradox in the *Meno*, which questioned how one could learn something new if they didn't already have some prior knowledge of it. Prolepseis provide this "pre-knowledge" or "preliminary concept" that allows us to recognize and learn.

* **Not Innate in the Platonic Sense:** While sometimes referred to as "innate," Epicurean prolepseis are not innate in the Platonic sense of being divinely implanted or pre-existing before experience. They are formed through a physiological, empirical process of repeated sensory input.

* **Role in Understanding Abstract Concepts (like the Gods):** Even for abstract concepts like "gods," Epicureans believed we form prolepseis. Our prolepsis of the gods, derived from common human experience and the appearance of living, blessed beings, leads to the Epicurean understanding of gods as tranquil, immortal, and not interfering in human affairs.

In essence, Epicurean prolepsis highlights the importance of direct sensory experience in shaping our fundamental understanding of the world, providing the building blocks for all subsequent knowledge and thought.

I'm continuing to try to understand the significance of this discussion within Epicurean prolepsis. Wikipedia search link below says: "Mammalian instinct refers to innate, genetically programmed behaviors essential for survival and reproduction, exhibited by mammals without prior learning, and often triggered by specific environmental cues or internal signals."

It is a biological event formed by natural selection only. No thinking is involved.

Google Search

Have I missed something? I tend to think that the prolepsis discussed by Epicurus was based on a limitation of his access to modern science 2,300 years ago. I think it is becoming clearer that a conception that you can know something before you apprehend it, or use your senses to learn it, is not how we know things.

Cassius I'm not clear how to work the copy paste of a quote but I'd like to chime in on your comment: "The pleasures Don lists which can be achieved by "getting out of the way" of them is a valid approach if you are able to maintain those and have confidence in their continuance and your satisfaction with them, but there are also other pleasures that you will never experience if you do not pursue them vigorously."

Yes, I agree with your overall comments, and those other pleasures might be the natural but not necessary pleasures.

I think about the possible foundations of Epicurus' teachings, and then how they might be adopted more widely. I guess he studied the beliefs of other philosophers, and looked around to see how people generally behaved on a daily basis. He must have seen how they tried to live well and avoid the anxiety of daily life. From what I've learned here in Epicurean Friends, his Garden included average people as well as intellectuals.

As I understand it, modern science is disclosing how our brains work, and it's not just a matter of paying attention to the teacher. Some among us can conceptualize to a higher degree, and intellectually discipline ourselves because of their particular brain structure. They are the lucky ones and not the average person. They have that capacity while the majority of people don't have the same ability to focus on the pursuit of higher pleasures. Making a living, raising a family, trying to be comfortable after a busy week takes up the majority of time for most of us, whether highly gifted or not.

So, I tend to appreciate the way Don addressed the more effortless process to pursue a happier life. I don't know how that way of life can be widely adopted unless monotheistic thought is abandoned widely. Thoughts?