Search Results

Search results 1-7 of 7.

  • This is a fascinating and important topic, and a lot to digest! There's a reason that it was apparent saved for advanced study in Epicurus' day. I'll weigh in here but I've got limited time so hopefully I can make a coherent contribution. Discussion of the gods is inseparable from discussion of prolepsis. So to start, I think an excellent definition of prolepsis is "the faculty of pattern recognition." This compares to the faculty of the senses or of the feelings. An individual prolepsis is true…
  • From what I've read there's some complexity regarding the prolepses in that Epicurus had a very empirical view of them, but later Epicureans expanded them to be more in line with how we understand them. There were arguments as to the place of active mental focusing versus prolepses: were these prolepses or did they occur separately? It could be of interest to study these and other developments within the school, keeping in mind the developments in the societies in which the various generation of…
  • (Quote) @Susan Hill this is the first that comes to mind in this context: http://www.fondationlecorbusie…tName=Home&sysParentId=11
  • (Quote from Matt) (Quote from Matt) Matt, I might be nit-picking but I think there is an important point to make here. Epicurus never referred to "God," always to "the gods." To my understanding there is never a single instance of one type of entity in the infinite Epicurean universe, so there can't be God, only gods. Missing this detail, even in apophatic theology, opens the door to a more mystical interpretation than what I think Epicurus had in mind. Even if using the term "God" is force of h…
  • For those who are, like me, unfamiliar with apophatic theology, here's the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik…oodness%20that%20is%20God.
  • Don that Sedley sounds worth reading! Any idea what it's titled or where to find it?
  • Don it turns out I've already got that article; guess I need to read it! From pp 51-2 it appears Sedley is making a case for the idealist view. I would think that one using the idealist view would need to abide by the idea that nature never furnishes only one thing of a kind, just as they would idealize the gods as blessed and incorruptible. But the suggestion of creating one's own concept of a particular personal god, as a means of practicing the idealist view (if I'm understanding that correc…