Reverence and Awe In Epicurean Philosophy

Yes, Cassius, it is fine to move the thread.

>>Elayne:Ah, interesting, Susan-- I actually don't think it is something in the baby, the music, or the aurora, any more than I think the pain of a hot pepper is in the pepper.

No, me neither. But super-spicy foods do have something in common. They are all recognized by the human body as being a toxin inimical to human health, and so the body reacts accordingly. Now this example is complicated by the fact that some people, like my husband, really like that “stimulation”, but as a doctor, I think you take my meaning.

>>E: I think all feeling responses are properties of the subject doing the feeling, and that similar stimuli will often bring about similar feelings because we are in the same species.

I take no issue with that either.

>>E:I don't think the Aurora Borealis, absent an observer, contains anything that would universally provoke awe.

Nope, not universally, if the common factor were not recognized by a particular observer. But the quality that you respond to in a baby does not disappear when you are not looking at the baby.

>>E:We know some of the typical human triggers of awe. Things that are vast in size tend to do it, like mountains.

That would apply to two of the items in my list, the aurora and the cosmos. For many of the items, size is not a factor (e.g. music, or equations).

>>E:Paul Pearsall wrote a whole book about Awe, which he proposed was actually a specific basic emotion.

That’s good. I’m glad everyone can feel it.

I want to wait a bit after Cassius moves the thread to see if there are any other responses to my question re what do all of these objects that inspire awe for many people, or even just a few, have in common. The reason I am holding back before making my own suggestion, if that I am fishing for a possible vocabulary that athiests or agnostics might use to describe this thing, one that is not laden with negative connotations for them. Obviously, there are a whole lot of words that smack of Platonism and its descendants that are much too coloured to effectively convey what I wish. So let me sit on it for a bit.

>>Why we evolved awe would be an interesting evolutionary biology question-- does it serve some sort of fitness function? I bet this was an interesting talk-- the blurb describes awe as having a pro-social function, so maybe it has helped humans survive and reproduce. https://positiveorgs.bus.umich.edu/events/the-evo…of-the-sublime/

“The talk is slated to chart the emergence of awe in the mammalian piloerection response, and review evidence of awe’s universality. Following that, Keltner will consider evidence concerning how awe functions to situate the individual within social collectives, detailing studies showing how awe increases prosocial tendencies, humility, a small self, and the sense of common humanity. To conclude, the talk he will consider recent studies in partnership with the Sierra Club showing how awe benefits veterans and inner city students, in their experiences.”

I don’t know what the arguments are, but it is true that religious folk like to form communities. Others abhor “organized religion”. Still others are motivated by an awe response to what they think of as God by becoming hermits, with the intention of devoting their whole attention to that god or feeling.

>>I am fascinated by the whole guru phenomenon. If someone perceives that vastness in a charismatic leader, this does tend to lead to extreme hierarchies where people give up their own judgment in favor of someone else's. Perhaps it is wise to be cautious with awe, lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awe

Yes, people can do crazy things to try to get “closer” to that feeling!

The wiki entry is really useful. I want to paste it here and look more closely. My notes in brackets:

"Awe

Awe is an emotion comparable to wonder[1] but less joyous. On Robert Plutchik's wheel of emotions[2] awe is modelled as a combination of surprise and fear.

{As Epicureans we want to nix that fear, but we might still tremble or have our breath taken away..}

One dictionary definition is "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like: in awe of God; in awe of great political figures."[3] Another dictionary definition is a "mixed emotion of reverence, respect, dread, and wonder inspired by authority, genius, great beauty, sublimity, or might: We felt awe when contemplating the works of Bach. The observers were in awe of the destructive power of the new weapon."[4]

{I would argue that “awe” of a weapon or a car or a new Gucci bag isn’t what we are talking about in this instance.}

In general, awe is directed at objects considered to be more powerful than the subject, such as the Great Pyramid of Giza, the Grand Canyon, the vastness of the cosmos, or God.[5][6]

Definitions

Awe is difficult to define, and the meaning of the word has changed over time. Related concepts are wonder, admiration, elevation, and the sublime. In Awe: The Delights and Dangers of Our Eleventh Emotion, neuropsychologist and positive psychology guru Pearsall presents a phenomenological study of awe. He defines awe as an "overwhelming and bewildering sense of connection with a startling universe that is usually far beyond the narrow band of our consciousness." Pearsall sees awe as the 11th emotion, beyond those now scientifically accepted (i.e., love, fear, sadness, embarrassment, curiosity, pride, enjoyment, despair, guilt, and anger).”[7] Most definitions allow for awe to be a positive or a negative experience, but when asked to describe events that elicit awe, most people only cite positive experiences.[8]

{My highlights are in bold.}

Etymology

This Atlanta lightning strike may have inspired awe.

The term awe stems from the Old English word ege, meaning “terror, dread, awe,” which may have arisen from the Greek word áchos, meaning “pain.”[9] The word awesome originated from the word awe in the late 16th century, to mean “filled with awe.”[10] The word awful also originated from the word awe, to replace the Old English word egeful (“dreadful”).[11]

Theories

Evolutionary theories

Awe reinforces social hierarchies

Keltner and Haidt[1] proposed an evolutionary explanation for awe. They suggested that the current emotion of awe originated from feelings of primordial awe – a hard-wired response that low-status individuals felt in the presence of more powerful, high-status individuals, which would have been adaptive by reinforcing social hierarchies. This primordial awe would have occurred only when the high-status person had characteristics of vastness (in size, fame, authority, or prestige) that required the low-status individual to engage in Piagetian accommodation (changing one’s mental representation of the world to accommodate the new experience).

{I wish to refer back to Joshua’s earlier entry on dismissing significant personal experience. I have never been in awe of a “powerful, high-status individual”, although I have respected a few. It doesn’t seem fair to dismiss a person’s statements by saying “oh, you just believe that because it is a primitive residual instinct, or because of random firings in your brain.” I think this might qualify as a straw man argument, but I’m not sure.}

Keltner and Haidt propose that this primordial awe later generalized to any stimulus that is both vast and that requires accommodation. These stimuli still include being in the presence of a more powerful other (prototypical primordial awe), but also spiritual experiences, grand vistas, natural forces/disasters, human-made works, music, or the experience of understanding a grand scientific theory. Keltner and Haidt propose that awe can have both positive and negative connotations, and that there are five additional features of awe that can color one’s experience of the emotion: threat, beauty, ability, virtue, and the supernatural.

{This seems a bit of an odd use of the word “vastness”, which usually just refers to size, but maybe that is a word, used in this way, that has not been sullied by significant religious connotations yet.}

Awe is a sexually-selected characteristic

Keltner and Haidt’s model has been critiqued by some researchers, including by psychologist Vladimir J. Konečni.[12] Konečni argued that people can experience awe, especially aesthetic awe (of which, according to him, a "sublime stimulus-in-context" is the principal cause) only when they are not in actual physical danger. Konečni postulated that the evolutionary origins of awe are from unexpected encounters with natural wonders, which would have been sexually selected for because reverence, intellectual sensitivity, emotional sensitivity, and elite membership would have been attractive characteristics in a mate, and these characteristics would also have given individuals greater access to awe-inspiring situations. Since high-status people are more likely to be safe from danger and to have access to awe-inspiring situations, Konečni argued that high-status people should feel awe more often than low-status people. However, this hypothesis has yet to be tested and verified.

{This is highly speculative, and is not born out by our actual real-time modern experience.}

Awe increases systematic processing

A third evolutionary theory is that awe serves to draw attention away from the self and toward the environment.[8][13][14] This occurs as a way to build informational resources when in the presence of novel and complex stimuli that cannot be assimilated by current knowledge structures. In other words, awe functions to increase systematic, accommodative processing, and this would have been adaptive for survival. This hypothesis is the most recent and has received the most empirical support, as described in the section on social consequences of awe.

{This is actually quite interesting, and bears some similarity with my experience, although I am not entirely clear on how it is adaptive for survival. That would mean that we feel more awe than our early ancestors. I'm not sure about that.}

Non-evolutionary theories

Sundararajan's awe

Humanistic/forensic psychologist Louis Sundararajan[15] also critiqued Keltner and Haidt’s model by arguing that being in the presence of a more powerful other elicits admiration, but does not require mental accommodation because admiration merely reinforces existing social hierarchies. Sundararajan expanded upon Keltner and Haidt’s model by arguing that first, an individual must be confronted with perceived vastness. If an individual can assimilate this perceived vastness into her or his existing mental categories, s/he will not experience awe. If an individual cannot assimilate the perceived vastness, then s/he will need to accommodate to the new information (change her or his mental categories). If this is not accomplished, an individual will experience trauma, such as developing PTSD. If an individual can accommodate, s/he will experience awe and wonder. By this model, the same vast experience could lead to increased rigidity (when assimilation succeeds), increased flexibility (when assimilation fails but accommodation succeeds), or psychopathology (when both assimilation and accommodation fail). Sundararajan did not speculate on the evolutionary origins of awe.

Research

Despite the meaningfulness that feelings of awe can bring, it has rarely been scientifically studied. As Richard Lazarus (1994) wrote in his book on emotions, “Given their [awe and wonder’s] importance and emotional power, it is remarkable that so little scientific attention has been paid to aesthetic experience as a source of emotion in our lives” (p. 136). Research on awe is in its infancy and has primarily focused on describing awe (e.g., physical displays of awe and who is likely to experience awe) and the social consequences of awe (e.g., helping behavior and susceptibility to persuasion by weak messages).

Precipitants

Shiota, Keltner, and Mossman (2007)[8] had participants write about a time they felt awe and found that nature and art/music were frequently cited as the eliciting stimulus. Although most definitions allow for awe to be positive or negative, participants described only positive precipitants to awe, and it is therefore possible that positive awe and awe+fear (i.e., horror) are distinctly different emotions.

Emotional experience

In the same set of experiments by Shiota, Keltner, and Mossman (2007),[8] the researchers had participants write about a time they recently experienced natural beauty (awe condition) or accomplishment (pride condition). When describing the experience of natural beauty, participants were more likely to report that they felt unaware of day-to-day concerns, felt the presence of something greater, didn't want the experience to end, felt connected with the world, and felt small or insignificant.

It is not yet known whether awe is experienced differently in different cultures.[16]

Physical displays

Researchers have also attempted to observe the physical, non-verbal reactions to awe by asking participants to remember a time they felt awe and to express the emotion nonverbally.[17] Using this method, researchers observed that awe is often displayed through raised inner eyebrows (78%), widened eyes (61%), and open, slightly drop-jawed mouths (80%). A substantial percent of people also display awe by slightly jutting forward their head (27%) and visibly inhaling (27%), but smiling is uncommon (10%). Cross-cultural research is needed to determine whether physical displays of awe differ by culture.

Personality and awe

Some individuals may be more prone to experiencing awe. Using self- and peer-reports, researchers[13] found that regularly experiencing awe was associated with openness to experience (self and peer-ratings) and extroversion (self-ratings). Later studies[8] also found that people who regularly experience awe ("awe-prone") have lower need for cognitive closure and are more likely to describe themselves in oceanic (e.g. "I am an inhabitant of the planet Earth"), individuated, and universal terms, as opposed to more specific terms (e.g. "I have blonde hair").

Social consequences

A more recent study found that experiencing awe increased perceptions of time and led to a greater willingness to donate time, but not to donate money.[18] The greater willingness to donate time appeared to be driven by decreased impatience after experiencing awe. Experiencing awe also led participants to report greater momentary life satisfaction and stronger preferences for experiential versus material goods (e.g. prefer a massage to a watch).[18] Awe, unlike most other positive emotions, has been shown to increase systematic processing, rather than heuristic processing, leading participants who experience awe to become less susceptible to weak arguments.[14]

{LOL!}

Awe and aweism

Awe has recently become a topic of interest in atheist groups, in response to statements from some religious individuals who say that atheists do not experience awe, or that experiencing awe makes one spiritual or religious, rather than an atheist. For example, see Oprah's comment that she would not consider swimmer Diana Nyad an atheist because Nyad experiences awe, as well as the response to this video by interfaith activist Chris Stedman.[19]

Awe is often tied to religion, but awe can also be secular. For more examples, see the writings on being an "aweist"[20] by sociologist and atheist Phil Zuckerman, the book Religion for Atheists[21] by author Alain de Botton, and the video on how secular institutions should inspire awe by performance philosopher Jason Silva.[22]

{So lot of interesting stuff in this wiki that might help!}

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Cassius: We'd need to incorporate that part of Lucretius that discusses how eyes were not born so we could see, etc. That passage has always been mysterious to me, along with the observation that the gods could not have created the universe because they would have had no pattern.

Interesting. Yes, I’d have a hard time fitting it into a natural selection/adaptation model. But then there are a lot of things that are hard to shoe-horn into that – like music, aesthetics in general, and philosophy.

Elayne:

>>>it is not evidence that during those moments, there is some other consciousness we are contacting or intuiting. The sensation does tell us real information, but the information is about our own brains, about how we feel when we encounter certain stimuli.

Is it not doctrinal to Epicureanism that our senses do convey real information about the stimuli, rather than being solely a mental event, as in idealism?

E:>>>What I was trying to get at with the pepper is that when different organisms feel differently, even though the capsaicin is in the pepper, there's still nothing inherently painful about it.

Agreed.

E:>>>The same for awe-- not every human feels awe at the same triggers.

Agreed.

E:>>>I don't think they are "awe-blind", as in color-blindness, unable to experience some inherent quality of the trigger.

I think that the reason I do not have the awe response to a baby like you do, is because I do not perceive things that you do about them as a pediatrician. It is a failure on my part to appreciate the incredible beauty and complexity of, I dunno, things like fetal development, gestation, the mother-child bond, infant learning and brain development... I think there are also things that I have made a life-study of that would cue no positive feeling response or deep recognition of beauty and complexity in you. That doesn’t mean it is not there.

E:>>>This is a big deal, because if we assume that a sensation of connecting with incomprehensible vastness, whether that is a vast size or intellect or complexity or whatever quality, is evidence that a connection _is_ happening with another consciousness-- we will get off in the weeds.

I agree it is difficult. You say “a sensation of connecting with incomprehensible vastness, whether that is a vast size or intellect or complexity”. Can that be restated as: “We do have experiences of connection with a vast and complex intellect, but it is very difficult to say anything about the exact nature of that consciousness, or even if that word would apply.”?

E:>>>For evidence that the feeling is responding to an actual connection, we would need sense data. I have that sense data with the infants-- they are right in front of me.

My experience of what I would call the divine is similarly empirical, and seems as real to me as the keyboard under my fingers. The only difference is that I have gotten better at seeing it over time (much as Epicurus describes the process of educating a prolepsis). The only difference is that I cannot easily give you the same experience.

E:>>>If this feeling was selected for to strengthen human relationships under certain environmental pressures, it would make sense, and it's plausible that our pattern recognition processes would assign that sense to inanimate objects as well.

I think in the case of inanimate objects, awe is triggered by that same recognition of intelligence and complexity behind the object, as in the mind of an artist that has created a masterwork.

Let’s look more deeply at the evolutionary angle.

It is important to note that it is entirely possible that it is actually LESS adaptive in the evolutionary sense to have access to an excess of information about “divine intelligence”. Less of this information could be more useful to immediate concerns for survival. Neurologically, the brain is very much concerned with filtering out or ignoring information that is not considered useful for survival. But altered states of consciousness, from dreams, to those induced by psychedelics, or the simple feeling of awe, can inhibit this inhibitory function, giving us access to information that is normally filtered out. As a result, the brain becomes better able to absorb sensory information, and novel perceptions arise. That could be the “vastness” that people are speaking of when describing the object of awe or reverence. They are directly experiencing MORE of the universe – something bigger than they are normally aware of. But cultivating such an expanded state of awareness can come at a cost – the cost of having greater difficulty navigating our everyday reality effectively.

As an example of such an altered state, Dr. Andrew Gallimore studies DMT from a neurological and information science perspective. He writes that “most users describe an unshakable feeling of absolute authenticity and the undeniable presence of extreme intelligence beyond anything that could be experienced in the consensus word.” Characteristic perceptions include those of “inordinate complexity and higher spatial dimensions (more than three).” Note once again, this does not imply that anything supernatural is occurring. Atoms and void are still at play, and why not?

E:>>>Human brains are amazing at pattern recognition, and it's a well known thing that we often over generalize and see patterns that feel meaningful. The Virgin Mary on a piece of toast, etc. Young kids think cars can see them-- the headlights look like eyes.

Yes. The most famous example from India is the analogy of mistaking a rope for a snake. It is a pattern recognition, but as we get closer to the rope, we register more information until we have enough to recognize the true nature of the stimulus.

E:>>>Humans are neurologically set up for animism if we don't remember we need sense evidence.

Is it your personal experience that you are set-up for animism? Is that something you feel? It is notoriously difficult to determine the nature or credibility of another person’s experiences from the outside. In fact, you can’t.

E:>>>I get the feeling you are turned off by atheists... that you think we are missing something,

Only insofar as atheists have implied that I am lacking in intelligence – or “missing something”, as you say. We both think that the other is missing something really, but the difference is not one of lack of intelligence. It is of the same nature as my missing the awesomeness of babies. I am not attuned to it.

E:>>>so that you are surprised when you see an atheist express awe.

Not surprised. I just consciously experience more than the awe, but directly associated with it.

E:>>>I am an atheist in the modern sense, in that I simply don't hold any supernatural beliefs, and I think Epicurus was also.

Epicurus did not have supernatural beliefs, (and I argue that neither do I), but everything I have read insists he was not an atheist. There are certainly different flavours of atheism, so I am careful to not categorize your beliefs. There are even more flavours of theism than there are atheism.

E:>>>The difference between me and theists who experience awe is that theists make assumptions that their pattern recognitions are telling them something well beyond what sense data can support.

Maybe that is the crux of it. You assume the conclusions are assumptions, and not direct perception or deduction. It is notoriously difficult to determine the nature or credibility of another person’s experiences from the outside.

E:>>>In the Epicurean sense, I do think it is more likely than not that there exist beings who experience pleasure to a markedly higher degree than do humans... but unlike Epicurus, I think we don't really know yet what factors trigger pleasure for them, considering we know nothing about their planet or their physiology. I don't know if humans would have pleasure in interacting with these beings-- I don't know if our pleasures would coincide with the pleasures of their species. It could be a situation like it is for me and Jefferson, where just because a person practices Epicurean Philosophy doesn't mean we will agree on our pleasures, and we might even dislike the other species while simultaneously agreeing they have achieved greater pleasure. I don't know if communication with them is possible. Sense data is what would answer those questions.

Agreed!

Quote from Cassius

I am thinking that it helps somewhat to use the phrase "classical Epicurean" views to refer to the ancient Epicureans rather than the later Stoic mishmash of ideas, and a classical Epicurean would understand this perspective on divinity without having it constantly re-explained.

Yes, I think this is helpful. Thank you, Cassius.

I really want to get to the point where I can start discussing how classical Epicurean views on the gods may tie in with the telos of pleasure, and what their significance may be to humans, but if we can’t accept any premise suggesting that a human can ever have any perception whatsoever of anything that could remotely be called a god, under any circumstances, then we are rejecting every element of doctrinal Epicurean theology and that conversation simply can go no further.

Quote from Elayne

Susan, the senses and the feelings are different, or Epicurus wouldn't have considered them separately. Although I have called it the "sense" of awe, awe is a feeling, not a true sense. A feeling does not tell us the pepper is red-- it is not that kind of data. It tells us our feeling about a situation-- it does not give us descriptive data of the kind you are describing, such as that you are contacting an "intelligence" which also perceives you.

If we start saying that feelings tell us about physical properties of things we can't see, hear, etc, then we have the door open to whatever any religious person says they "feel" is true about the universe, and we have totally left the realm of material philosophy.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure where I confused the two terms. The senses and feelings are different. The senses just give us raw data, then then, provided there is a prolepsis, or memory, or experience or knowledge, or deduction, then there can be recognition of some sort. The feeling of awe follows recognition of something on some level of consciousness, possibly subconscious. I would not wish to subscribe to a theology based purely on "feeling" or faith.

Quote from Elayne

At any rate, I do not see a correlation between the "blessed beings" Epicurus described and the frequent religious intuition of connecting with a vast intelligence "behind" the inanimate parts of the universe. Epicurus goes to great trouble to assure his students that material phenomena do not require a coordinating intelligence or any type of divine intervention to happen. And we have just finished a section of Lucretius where he gives his reasoning as to why the "soul" cannot persist outside the body-- in the same way, I cannot imagine him thinking the mind or soul of a material pleasure-filled being would be somehow in contact with us. Perceiving an "image" through the prolepsis is an interesting idea, and it is a bit hard to know exactly what he means by it-- there's room for different opinions, and I don't want to hold him to mine. I do think I have reason to think he didn't propose these blessed beings were communicating with us mind to mind.

Would it be more helpful if I replied to your objections with quotes from our approved texts?

I am not positing divine intervention in human lives, or an immortal soul.

If you like something about prolepsis then maybe that is a better avenue. I could work on that, but you suggested that we are hard-wired for animism in a way that deludes us about the existence or nature of gods, so how could you then accept any kind of prolepsis as conveying true information?