Search Results

1 - Godfrey those last quotes about essentialism are from LFB? 2. - Thank you for all the effort in those posts! 3. - I am going to have to reflect for a while on what you wrote, but as usual I have this starting point: It looks to me like we are going to run into the usual danger here: Are we talking about "concepts" and "conceptual thinking" or are we talking about "preconcepts"? In other words, in the broader discussion everyone seems to agree that there is such a thing as "conceptual thinkin…

Sorry Godfrey when you posted I had not finished my item three -- it is finished now!

For ease of reference here is the section on anticipations from DeWitt If someone needs the rest and doesn't have it, let me know. This doesn't necessary help with understanding LFB's points at all, but it will help with the higher-level issue of whether the mechanisms she is talking about are the same category of phenomena as what Epicurus was talking about, or a separate category of phenomena. As I see it, the crux of the issue is in this paragraph as circled - are we talking about something t…

Godfrey we crossposted again! This quote from you I think highlights the issue. Your first sentence is the contention of Bailey and others, and that is NOT the contention of DeWitt. Dewitt argues based on his references that anticipations are in fact "innate" and programmed from birth, not by "early in life" experiences that we have forgotten. Whether one agrees with Dewitt or not, it's important to address what Velleius was saying about etching and so forth and wrestle with the question of "inn…

One of the issues here is that we can dig deeply into the details of LFB's analysis, conclude that what she is saying does (or does not) make sense, and yet that conclusion may not necessarily move us one iota closer to having addressed the Velleius / PRE-conception material. If in fact DeWitt is right to allege that Velleius points to something that is going on before all experience of the thing under consideration, then all the analysis in the world about the processing of experiences will nev…

Yes I agree - the "faculty of pattern recognition" is something that would appear to exist at birth, prior to ANY experience with a thing under consideration. To that extent, the existence of such an innate faculty, and how it would unfold over a lifetime, is where DeWitt is going but which Bailey et al exclude. DeWitt is saying I think that there is affirmative input that results from the way pattern recognition faculty works, just like there is input from the way the eyes work or the ears work…

"This barrage of sensory input was not random: it had some structure. Regularities. Your little brain began computing probabilities of which sights, sounds, smells, touches, tastes, and interoceptive sensations go together and which don’t.” I would see in that sentence the issue of two phenoma: (1) the sensory input was not random because the sense faculties received and presented their findings in ways influenced by their functional makeup (ears hearing only at certain frequencies, eyes seeing …

No doubt Don will sort all of this out for us when he wakes up in a couple of hours! (Except for the fact that this might be a part of the DeWitt book that he didn't finish, so he might have to have more time to check those references. )

(Quote from Godfrey) Also: I think "pattern recognition" is a very useful term. I would also think "pattern detector" would be good. Continuing to think again about the words, in "canon of truth" I think we are referring to "canon" in the sense of "measuring device" or "ruler" or "yardstick." The measuring device does nothing but measure, it contains no data about the thing being measured. We also need to examine "truth" but for now maybe what we're talking about is a conclusion which allows us …

Yes and I want to repeat that I do not mean my comments to derail discussion of details of the LFB book. My main point is that to the extent we devote time to analyzing it under the category of anticipations it would be best if we make clear what view of anticipations we're talking about as we discuss her observations. I'm not sure how to categorize the two competing alternatives, but they generally fall under something like (1) "anticipations as product of an innate faculty predating experience…

(Quote from Don) This is a point that I think deserves discussion over time. Have you seen a commentator assert that the "order is meaningful," or do you have other reasons for making that deduction? I believe if I recall correctly that DeWitt asserts that they basically go hand in hand, rather than sequentially. I see why it would be tempting to order them in the way that you have, as that would coincide with an order of processing if "prolepses" are equated with "concepts," but again that is p…

On the "sequence" issue I think this is probably the key section of DeWitt's view on that question: With the continual caveat that (1) Epicurus' philosophical perspective might not be the same at all as what modern science is looking at, and (2) we need to be constantly on guard as to the implications of any particular approach. I believe DeWitt to be correct at least insofar as he is stressing that there is a human functioning process that Nature set up for us to use to determine what to consid…

(Quote from Don) LOL! Probably that should be a caveat to at least 3/4 of what most everyone (including me!) posts here on the forum!

Also on the topic of "take-aways" I think it's useful to review these couple of paragraphs from DeWitt. As I read it, it's possible that he is right or possible he is wrong about the way he is interpreting the functioning of the anticipations. However I think in his diagnosis of what Epicurus was trying to do, he is almost certainly correct. If we (Epicurus) want to defeat both rationalism and skepticism, we have to be able to articulate a totally natural (non-abstract-logic-based) process which…

(Quote from Godfrey) Agreed, with the question always being "Does this increase detail in understanding actually produce that result?" What I am not sure about, since I haven't gone as far into the details of LFB as you guys have, is whether the result increases confidence in resisting rationalism and idealism in thinking, or the reverse. I think there is a constant tension in the pursuit of any "detail" or "tool" that we not get so consumed in the detail that we lose sight of the reason we are …

(Quote from Don) How does "equilibrium" square with: "For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good." Is talk about "equilibrium" going to carry one down the road to "tranquility" - or even Buddhism - instead of to "pleasure?"

(Quote from Don) Absolutely agreed that there is nothing inconsistent about that, the issue would be that of being strictly rigorous in identifying the goal - the "end of nature," rather than getting sidetracked on lesser issues that are only part of the goal, like some people tend to do when they focus on the means rather than the end. As for the distinction between "living pleasurably" and "pleasure" I think that the issue revolves around the context in which you're discussing the issue. If yo…

(Quote from Godfrey) OK we're going to need some definitions soon! (Quote from Don) What is this "may" stuff? Two thousand years of it and you can bet your life the misrepresentation / confusion will last another two thousand years too! I'm afraid this is something we just have to live with and do our best to avoid, but not by watering down the true philosophy. (Quote) More seriously you are of course right, but the issue that takes precedence (at least in my mind, and in many circumstances) is …

Yeah I thought about not using the "rabble" word but I couldn't remember the "hoi polloi"! Actually neither term fits my target, because I don't mean to say anything demeaning about those who innocently misconstrue. My focus is on the strictly philosophical debate i referenced earlier, in with "pleasure" is the more technical term and "living pleasurably" is the more colloquial description. (I was thinking there was a passage about "the crowd" but couldn't put my finger on it.)

(Quote from Don) Right, but it's possible to use the same construction and say that you voluntarily choose pain in order to achieve pleasure if you define the pleasure you're talking about as "the greatest net" pleasure or "ultimate pleasure." The wording is clearly tricky and I keep coming back in my mind that the use of the construction "pleasure" makes sense mainly as a reply, and in the context of choosing between, "virtue" or "piety" or "wisdom" or some other very high level abstraction.