Posts by Stefancuvasile

Epicurean prolepsis vs. Stoic prolepsis
1.1. Origin
Epicurus: generic images ("tree", "man") are formed by repeated sensations.
Stoics: prolepsis is a cognitively marked impression, ready to receive the assent of reason.
1.2. Function
Epicurus: serves to classify and evaluate pleasures and pains.
Stoics: provides a starting point for deciding whether an impression is kataleptic, i.e. infallible.
1.3. Trust
Epicurus: prolepsis can be corrected on the basis of new experience.
Stoics: a kataleptic prolepsis cannot be false, being accompanied by an internal "sign" of veracity.
Katalepsis: the Stoic standard of truth
2.1. Definition
Katalepsis (κατάληψις) = impression so clear and coercive that it admits of no false equivalent.
2.2. The criterion of non-contradiction
A cataleptic impression cannot generate internal contradictions; reason recognizes it as coming from the real object.
2.3. The role of logos
The rational mind validates cataleptic impressions, ensuring coherence between sensation and judgment.
The encounter with the Meno problem
3.1. The Platonic dilemma
How do you look for something you don't know and how do you know what to look for?
3.2. Stoic response
Paradigmatic prolepsis (universal notions) are "primary imprints" of reason, not innate transcendent ideas.
3.3. Epicurean contrast
Epicurus rejects any innate idea; concepts are formed gradually, through the repetition of sensory experiences.
Implications and criticisms
4.1. Skeptical criticism
Carneades and Sextus Empiricus attacked the dogma of infallible impressions (the illusion of the tower in the desert).
4.2. Stoic response
The adhesive katalepsis also includes the consciousness of clarity: an internal feeling that accompanies truthful impressions.
4.3. Modern resonances
Prefigurations of the contemporary debate on "justified true belief" and the illusions of perception.
Comparative conclusions
5.1. Epicurus
Modest epistemology: senses + adjustable prolepsis + non-contradiction.
5.2. Stoics
Aspire to an infallible criterion (katalepsis), grounded in a native rationalism.
5.3. Both schools
Rejected the transcendent world of the Platonic Forms, basing knowledge on experience and "incarnate" reason.

Epicurus' death reflects the "verticality" with which he lived his teachings:

1. Illness and suffering
According to Hermarch, his successor, Epicurus died in 270 BC, at the age of 72, following a blockage of the urinary tract (bladder stones) combined with severe dysentery. 2. Attitude in the face of death
Despite the terrible pain, he remained cheerful, continuing to teach and remind his disciples of the truths of his philosophy until the last moment. 3. The Letter to Idomeneus
One of the fragments included by Diogenes Laertius (sometimes marked by questionable authenticity) depicts Epicurus breathing easily on his very last day, content with the philosophical contemplation that sustained him in suffering. Thus, the way he faced his illness — without fear of death, with the serenity he preached — confirms the coherence between the Epicurean theory of ataraxia (peace of mind) and the practice of life.

Epicurean prolepsis vs. Stoic prolepsis
1.1. Origin
Epicurus: generic images ("tree", "man") are formed by repeated sensations.
Stoics: prolepsis is a cognitively marked impression, ready to receive the assent of reason.
1.2. Function
Epicurus: serves to classify and evaluate pleasures and pains.
Stoics: provides a starting point for deciding whether an impression is kataleptic, i.e. infallible.
1.3. Trust
Epicurus: prolepsis can be corrected on the basis of new experience.
Stoics: a kataleptic prolepsis cannot be false, being accompanied by an internal "sign" of veracity.
Katalepsis: the Stoic standard of truth
2.1. Definition
Katalepsis (κατάληψις) = impression so clear and coercive that it admits of no false equivalent.
2.2. The criterion of non-contradiction
A cataleptic impression cannot generate internal contradictions; reason recognizes it as coming from the real object.
2.3. The role of logos
The rational mind validates cataleptic impressions, ensuring coherence between sensation and judgment.
The encounter with the Meno problem
3.1. The Platonic dilemma
How do you look for something you don't know and how do you know what to look for?
3.2. Stoic response
Paradigmatic prolepsis (universal notions) are "primary imprints" of reason, not innate transcendent ideas.
3.3. Epicurean contrast
Epicurus rejects any innate idea; concepts are formed gradually, through the repetition of sensory experiences.
Implications and criticisms
4.1. Skeptical criticism
Carneades and Sextus Empiricus attacked the dogma of infallible impressions (the illusion of the tower in the desert).
4.2. Stoic response
The adhesive katalepsis also includes the consciousness of clarity: an internal feeling that accompanies truthful impressions.
4.3. Modern resonances
Prefigurations of the contemporary debate on "justified true belief" and the illusions of perception.
Comparative conclusions
5.1. Epicurus
Modest epistemology: senses + adjustable prolepsis + non-contradiction.
5.2. Stoics
Aspire to an infallible criterion (katalepsis), grounded in a native rationalism.
5.3. Both schools
Rejected the transcendent world of the Platonic Forms, basing knowledge on experience and "incarnate" reason.

The deepest dilemma in Epicureanism arises from the very definition of pleasure as the supreme good: how do you choose – at every moment – between multiple pleasures and pains, so as to achieve happiness (ataraxia + aponia) without causing yourself unnecessary suffering.

The fundamental dilemma: short-term pleasure vs. lasting happiness

Immediate pleasures vs. future consequences
An intense pleasure today (heavy meals, drinking, fleeting passions) can generate a chain of later pains (indigestion, hangover, addiction).
The dilemma: is it worth sacrificing peace of mind and physical well-being for a punctual satisfaction?
Choosing Desires
Epicurus classifies desires into:
Natural and necessary (simple food, shelter, friendship)
Natural but unnecessary (moderate luxuries)
Unnatural and unnecessary (fame, excess wealth)
Dilemma: where do you draw the line between reasonable effort for “useless” pleasures and the risk of losing balance?
Sacrifice for friendship vs. prudent self-isolation
Friendship is essential for Epicurean happiness, but it involves vulnerability (pain of loss, conflict of interest).
Dilemma: when is it wise to involve your resources (time, emotions, money) in the community and when to keep your distance to protect your own ataraxia?
Why is it so profound?

Because there is no mathematical recipe: decisions are always contextual, personal and influenced by concrete circumstances.
Even the virtue of prudence – the faculty that selects the right pleasures and pains – must be applied without falling into decisional paralysis: too much analysis can prevent you from enjoying life.
“Of all pleasures, the greatest are those that bring no pain.”
— Epicurus, Capital Maxims
Every moment we are questioned:

“Can I obtain this pleasure without disturbing my peace?”

“Is it worth the effort to remove a small pain if it puts me in an endless race of remedies and worries?”
How does this dilemma help us in practice?

Self-knowledge – identifying your own threshold of discomfort and essential needs.
Constant reflection – reviewing the choices you have made, giving up desires that have proven unsustainable.
Cultivating prudence – do not repress every pleasure, but do not obsessively chase it either.
In essence
The Epicurean dilemma is a subtle dance between two extremes:

Excess pleasure which – paradoxically – generates pain.

The fear of suffering which – in turn – enslaves life.

The solution is not a fixed algorithm, but the art of balance through prudence and friendship, so that pleasure remains “gentle” and pain – bearable and curable.

In Epicureanism, “objective truth” (of things as they are, independent of our preferences) is based on three “criteria of truth” proposed by Epicurus. We will see below what this “objective truth” means, to what extent Epicurus and his disciples considered it canonical, and some relevant quotes.

1. What is “objective truth” in the Epicurean sense?

Epicurus argues for the existence of an external reality that we perceive through the senses and about which we can confidently state that “it is as it is shown to us.” “Objective truth” means, for Epicureans:

There are things independent of our interpretation – for example, “pigs”, stars, atoms, the pains and pleasures of the body.
Sensory perception faithfully renders this world: what we see, hear, smell, etc. are direct signals from reality.
Mental prolepsis and intellocutions allow us to classify and reason correctly about these sensory data, without distorting them through superstition or prejudice.
“Nothing is real and true, objectively, without relying on sensation.”
— Epicurus, quoted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Doctrines of Illustrious Philosophers, X.83
2. Epicurean Criteria and Objectivity

Epicurus identifies three sources of knowledge, all converging towards a truth about the world:

Sensation (αἴσθησις)
Primary axis: each sensation is true “in itself” (ἐν αὐτῇ).
Example: we see a pig; the sensation of a pig objectively confirms to us that there is an animal of that type.
Preconception or prolepsis (προλήψις)
Generic image, formed by the repetition of sensations.
It helps us to immediately recognize a pig in different poses (seen up close, from afar, in the dark, etc.).
Tuphos or mental “darkness”
In a first meaning, it designates confusion – that is, errors of judgment.
Epicurus uses them as a negative reference point: if an impression leads us to contradiction (e.g. infinite Socratic paradoxes), we reject it.
“The criteria of truth are those by which we distinguish objects with certainty and make valid judgments.”
— Epicurus, Vatican II fragment 72-73
By bringing together these three filters, the Epicureans claim that we can reach an objective truth: we know what exists and we know how to appreciate the effects of things (pleasures, pains) without getting caught up in infinite questions like “What is a pig?” armed with only empty concepts.

3. The canonical concern for truth

Yes, the concern for an objective truth is central to the Epicurean system. Epicurus places himself in a dialogue with skeptics and Platonists:

To the skeptics ("How can we know anything?"), he replies: "We have solid criteria!"
To the Platonists (ideal, transcendent truths) he gives up: the essential world is the perceived one, without supersensible registers.
"We do not ask for anything that has not been given by the senses, and we do not fall into the abysses of unfounded ideas."
— (Diogenes Laertius, VII.115)
Therefore, the "objective truth" — that there are pigs, atoms, the fact that food satisfies our hunger — is canonical: entire ethical (choice of natural pleasures) and physical (Epicurean atomism) arguments start from it.

4. Key quotes

Sensation as a foundation
"Sensation never errs."
— Epicurus, Vatican II Fragment 19
Wherever there is prolepsis, confidence is born
“By prolepsis we form firm concepts which give us the certainty that objects really exist.”
— Diogenes Laertius, X.86
Rejecting unfounded ideas
“We must not let ourselves be sheltered under the umbrella of empty ideas: every notion must be verified by the senses and by reason.”
— Epicurus, Vatican II Fragment 33
Conclusion
To say that there is an “objective truth” in Epicureanism means to accept the reality of the external world as it is presented to us by sensations and to confirm it by prolepsis and by eliminating contradictions. This approach is certainly “canonical” in the Epicurean school, as can be seen from ancient texts and from the testimonies of Diogenes Laertius.

Epicurean philosophy, prolepsis (προλήψις) is one of the three “criteria of truth” that Epicurus proposes as the foundation of knowledge, along with sensation (αἴσθησις) and mental “correction” or «tuphos» (πῠρρός, in the sense of confusion, which shows us the limits of error). Here are the key points:

1. What is prolepsis?

Preliminary notion: prolepsis is an “anticipation” of what we understand by general terms – for example “man”, “tree”, “fire”, etc.
Formation: it is born from the repeated experience of sensations. When you see a tree many times, you slowly outline the generic image “tree”.
Function: it serves as a mental schema through which you immediately recognize and judge living objects and ideas, without having to analyze them from scratch each time.
Epicurus insists that, because of prolepsis, we can say that:

“Prolepsis is something acquired by nature [φύσει], not by learning [διδασκαλία].”
– (Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Doctrines of Illustrious Philosophers, X.86)
2. Prolepsis, “innate” or acquired knowledge?

Epicurus does not claim that prolepsis are innate in the Platonic way (as reminiscence would be in Plato).
They are not transmitted from birth in a complete state, but:
They start from sensation: the senses (sight, hearing, etc.) provide the raw material.
They crystallize through habit: repetition of experiences creates mental patterns.
Thus, we have a kind of “innate potential” to form prolepsis — the natural capacity of the mind to resort to them — but not the content already formed at birth.
Therefore, prolepsis are “innate” in the sense that they are part of our natural way of knowing, but their content is fixed along the way, with each repeated encounter with the objects of the world.
3. The role of prolepsis in knowledge and ethics

Criterion of Truth
Without prolepsis we would have no fixed meanings: we would not know what “mountain” or “family” mean when we encounter them.
It allows us to quickly judge whether or not a new sensation corresponds to an already familiar image.
Establishing norms of pleasure and pain
Prolepsis are landmarks when we decide what is good for us and what is bad for us:
We know “in advance” (through prolepsis) what ugly versus tasty foods look like.
They help us recognize natural and lasting pleasures and distinguish unnecessary desires that bring anxiety.
4. Why do confusions arise?

Some interpreters confuse prolepsis with an “innate idea” in the scholastic or rationalist sense. Epicurus, however, avoids innate ideas as an independent source of pure knowledge.
Furthermore, prolepsis are not permanently fixed: if you repeatedly observe something unforeseen (e.g. a new fruit), prolepsis adjusts.
In short
Prolepsis = generic concept formed on the basis of repeated sensations.
It is not a full content from birth, but an innate capacity to form and adapt these concepts.
Essential role in establishing truth and in guiding Epicurean ethics (choosing pleasures and avoiding pains).
I hope you now envision more clearly how Epicurean prolepsis works! If you still have questions (e.g. about the difference from Stoic or skeptical perceptions), let me know and we will clarify them.

According to Epicurean teaching, the effort you have to put in to pursue pleasure — and, on the other hand, to eliminate pain — is always about reason and measure. Here's how things are structured:

1. The effort needed to pursue pleasure

Identification of "natural and necessary" pleasures

Examples: food, shelter, the company of friends.
Effort: the minimum necessary to obtain them.
Too little effort → lack of food, security, social support.
Too much effort → stress, anxiety, risk of generating more pain (e.g. excessive work for money).
"Natural but unnecessary" pleasures

Examples: sophisticated food, luxurious comforts.
Effort: modest at best, because satisfying them does not contribute essentially to lasting happiness.
Too much effort → imbalance ("hunting" pleasures that complicate your life).
“Unnatural and useless” pleasures
Examples: desire for fame, excessive wealth, political power.
Effort: rational, if you want — but Epicurus considers them “traps” that bring more anxiety than satisfaction.
Ideal: avoid them completely, because no amount of effort is worth the endless fear and desire they give you.
Conclusion: there is an “optimal level” of effort that corresponds to the discovery and moderate satisfaction of natural and necessary pleasures. Too little leaves your essential needs unmet; too much throws you into a chain of new desires and worries.
2. The effort required to eliminate pain

Aponia (absence of bodily pain)
Effort: to realize what pains are real (the needs of the body) and to cure them through simple measures (food, rest, modest medical care).
Too little effort → prolonged suffering (untreated diseases).
Too much effort → invasive, expensive interventions that can generate new pain (side effects, anxiety).
Ataraxia (lack of mental restlessness)
Effort: exercise of reason to understand the limits of desires and release fears (especially fear of gods and death).
Too little effort in reflection → persistent anxieties and superstitions.
Too much intellectual effort → moving away from simple pleasures and moving into a state of excessive concern for philosophical details.
Conclusion: to eliminate pain, you need to balance: enough care and reflection to free yourself from essential suffering, but not so much that you create unnecessary suffering through overly complicated or excessive methods.
3. The Epicurean “middle way”
In both cases — the pursuit of pleasure and the removal of pain — the key is prudence (φρόνησις). It shows you:

What is worth the effort (natural pleasures, the elimination of real pains).
Where effort becomes a cause of pain (unnecessary desires, excessive interventions).
How to help maintain balance: regular introspection, support through friendship, simple meditation practices on mortality (“memento mori”) and on things you can control.
Thus, there is no “hard work” in the modern sense of the word, but constant rational support: neither too little nor too much. Under the rule of prudence, we continually adjust the level of effort so that pleasure remains a gentle master, not a tyrannical mistress.

Hello and thank you for the warm welcome!

I first encountered Epicurus’s philosophy in college when I read the “Letter to Menoeceus” and was fascinated by the idea of ataraxia—inner tranquility achieved by eliminating unfounded fears, especially those concerning the gods and death. Later, I studied the “Principal Doctrines” and research on the community at the Garden, where friendship was regarded as the foundation of a happy life.

I created this account to continue exchanging ideas with fellow enthusiasts of Epicureanism and to explore together how ancient teachings can be applied to today’s challenges—from managing anxiety to finding balance in a digital world.

I look forward to learning about your interests and questions regarding Epicurus and his circle of friends!

Cupiditas (temptation) directly affects mental balance (ataraxia) and bodily comfort (atonia).
Ataraxia (peace of mind) is impossible if temptations (cupiditas) are not kept under control, and if the body is not in harmony (atonia).
Atonia (absence of bodily pain) is necessary for mental peace (ataraxia) and becomes difficult to achieve if there are excessive temptations (cupiditas).
Thus, each state is strictly linked to the other two, in absolute dependence, forming an inseparable triangle. Without strict harmony between all three, maximum Epicurean efficiency is impossible.
These states aroused my curiosity.