On Nature, Book 28

Epicurus, On Nature 28.10.1a (Sedley reconstruction) "πραγματικῶν θεωρημάτων ἐνδίξει καὶ τὴν μερίληψιν... τῆς δόξης... περὶ ταύτης τε τῆς εἰς τοῦτο ἐμβαλλούσης ὑπολήψεως. ὄντων δ' οὖν τοιούτων οἶον... τούτων κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν πραττόντων... τῆς ἐπαγωγῆς γιγνέσθω τῆς πραγματικῆς..."

Looking at that quote, which is very difficult, I wanted to revisit ἡ λῆψις "reception," these are all words used by Epicurus. I am only really struggling with #5.

1. ἡ ἀντίληψις (hē antílēpsis): Opposition, "Con-ception"
2. ἡ διάληψις (hē diálēpsis): Interruption, Distinction, Dialogue
3. ἡ κατάληψις (hē katálēpsis): Comprehension, Capture, (full) Perception
4. ἡ λῆψις (hē lēpsis): Taking, Seizure, Reception
5. τὴν μερίληψιν (tēn merílēpsin): Part-taking, Partiality, Fragmentation
6. ἡ πρόληψις (hē prólēpsis): Preconception, Anticipation, Presupposition
7. ἡ ὑπόληψις (hē hypólēpsis): Assumption, Hypothesis, Underestimation

Here is a rough general outline of Sedley's list the Tρόπος that Epicurus mentions:

(1) Observational – engaged in focus and attention

• Φανταστικὸς Τρόπος (Phantastic thinking style): creative approach, visionary mode
  • Awareness of external observations
• Ἐπιβλητικὸς Τρόπος (Epibletistic thinking style): empirical approach, objective mode
  • Focus on external observations
• Ὁμοιοτικὸς Τρόπος (Homoiotistic thinking style): comparative approach, affinity mode
  • Focus on similarities and likenesses

(2) Empirical – engaged in quantifiable assessment of evidence:

• Ἐπιλογισμὸς Τρόπος (Epilogistic thinking style): sensible approach, reasonable mode
  • Distinguishes fundamental characteristics based on awareness of observations (experience and feelings)

(3) Logical – engaged in arriving at conclusions based on given premises or evidence:

• Ἀναλογισμὸς Τρόπος (Analogistic thinking style): comparison approach, analogy mode
  • Focus on internal observations (experience and feelings)
  • Focused comparison of our experiences
• Cυλλογισμικὸς Τρόπος (Syllogistic thinking style): logical approach, reasoning mode
  • Focus on logical deduction and structured argumentation
• Θεωρητικὸς Τρόπος (Theoretistic thinking style): speculative approach, conceptual mode
  • Focus on possibilities and conceivability
• Διαφορικὸς Τρόπος (Differential thinking style): contrastive approach, distinction mode
  • Focus on differences and distinctions
• Περιληπτικὸς Τρόπος (Perileptistic thinking style): comprehensible approach, grasping mode
  • Focus on lack of possibilities and inconceivability

Quote from Bryan

I am struggling with #5.

Quote from Don

Sedley has περ̣[ίληψ]ιμ where you have μερίληψιν (Sedley pi π.., your mu μ..).

Thank you very much Don! That goes far to explain my struggle! Thank you! I have fully re-checked my transcription and found two additional errors.

LSJ gives us "comprehension" and "inclusion" for περίληψις, but I feel that "comprehension" is closer to the meaning of κατάληψις.  That would give us this tentative list:

1. ἡ ἀντίληψις (hē antílēpsis): Opposition, "Con-ception"
2. ἡ διάληψις (hē diálēpsis): Interruption, Distinction, Dialogue
3. ἡ κατάληψις (hē katálēpsis): Comprehension, Capture, "Perception"
4. ἡ λῆψις (hē lēpsis): Taking, Seizure, Reception
5. ἡ περίληψις (hē perílēpsis): Summary, Overview, Encirclement
6. ἡ πρόληψις (hē prólēpsis): Preconception, Anticipation, Stereotype
7. ἡ ὑπόληψις (hē hypólēpsis): Assumption, Hypothesis, Underestimation

As you say, the section is shredded, Sedley does not translate any of it -- I agree that a full and coherent statement cannot be gleaned from what remains. The topic seems to be that errors in opinions manifest practical consequences.

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

Don, what are your thoughts on "v final, followed by a labial, without exception becomes μ; followed by a guttural, in about 30% of cases becomes γ" (Sedley)

Do you suppose it would be too idiosyncratic to preserve that spelling?

Some further notes on Book 28

Αἱ Πλάναι: “wanderings, errors”

1. We can use common words, but it is important to recognize that those words can contain errors.
2. To avoid retaining errors in the use of common words, we must perceive each object fully and we must align the basic and original meaning of a word to that fully perceived object. To keep from making mistakes with common words, we should really see things clearly and make sure the word's true meaning matches what we sense.
3. Errors arise when our ideas are misaligned with our sensations (i.e., our preconceptions, perceptions, and receptions). Mistakes happen when what we think does not fit with what we sense.
4. As much as possible, we should identify errors in the use of words by identifying the harmful behaviors that come from the error. We should try to spot mistakes in how words are used by looking at the harmful actions they lead to.

Data that is empirical (ἐπιβλητικός) is derived from impressions (φαντασίαι) that we perceive clearly through the focus (ἐπιβολαὶ) of our faculties (κριτήρια). These faculties are the [1] sense-organs (αἰσθητήρια) which we use to focus on something clear (τι ἐναργὲς), and the [2] intellect (διάνοια), which we use to focus on the clear thought of the subject (τὴν ἐναργῆ τοῦ πράγματος ἐπίνοιαν).

(Epicurus - On Nature - Book 28, P.Herc. 1479 col. 1) ἰδιοτήτος τῷ σοφῷ καὶ μὴ σοφῷ διε[φώ]νεις, οὐδέμ παρε[μ-]βάλλων [τοῦ π]ερὶ τῶν οὐκ ἐπιμαρτυρήσεων κα[ὶ] ἀντιμαρτυρήσεων. ἐτίθεις δ[έ] τινα τῶν ὀνομάτων εὐθὺς διὰ τῆς αὐτῆς λέξεως, καὶ τὴν κατ’ αὐτὰς τὰς αἰσθήσεις πλάνην τῶν πολ[λῶ]ν ἀπο[σ]ημαίνων, οὐ μό[νον] τὴν ἔν[νοιαν .

(Sedley trans, "fr. 11, col. 2") In your search for verbal individuality you were in conflict [as much] with the wise man as with the unwise, by including nothing about lack of confirmatory evidence and the presence of counter-evidence. You fixed some of your vocabulary directly with the same language, also representing the error of most men with regard to what they actually perceive…

Epicurean Epistemological Terms:

1. Confirmation (ἡ ἐπιμαρτύρησις): Affirmative evidence. The evidence that supports or validates a specific claim or hypothesis; crucial for establishing truth or credibility.
2. Non-confirmation (ἡ οὐκ ἐπιμαρτύρησις): Lack of affirmative evidence. The absence of evidence to affirm or support a claim; important in scenarios where a statement or hypothesis cannot be substantiated. Disproves an idea about the perceptible.
3. Contradiction (ἡ ἀντιμαρτύρησις): Counter-evidence. The presentation of evidence that directly opposes or refutes a given claim or hypothesis, playing a key role in dialectical and critical discourse to test and challenge assertions. Disproves an idea about the imperceptible.
4. Non-contradiction (ἡ μὴ ἀντιμαρτύρησις): Lack of counter-evidence. The situation where no evidence exists that contradicts a claim, often leading to its tacit acceptance or the lack of opposition in argumentative processes.
5. Error (τὸ διημαρτημένον): The error or misalignment of terms. Always comes from the intrusion of opinion when a fact awaits [1] confirmation or [4] the absence of contradiction and then is [2] not confirmed or [3] contradicted.

In case it's of use, these epistemological terms also feature in Philodemus' On Signs. There are hints as well in PD24, and in the Letter to Herodotus 10.39-40. And Long and Sedley discuss them in The Hellenistic Philosophers, Volume 1, in their commentary in the Epistemology section. I'm sure that they can spotted elsewhere, if one is looking for them.

Excellent points about idiosyncratic idiots and honest martyrs!

Godfrey, absolutely! In a way this is my preparation for revisiting the rather difficult On Signs.

Don, regarding ἡ ἐπιμαρτύρησις et al., I know we have -ησις as a general suffix to form abstract nouns. But I feel that ἡ ῥῆσις "saying" "manner of speaking" must also part of the construction. I cannot quite tell right now if this is obviously there or if I am forcing it.

Quote from Don

Maybe your revisitation will spur me to try digging into it.

A result much to be desired!

I think that we've made some progress in bringing out the importance of the "logical sparring" between Epicureans and the Stoics/Platonists, but there's much more to do. Philodemus' "On Signs" is an important part of what remains so we can dig further into the canonics.

The caution I think anyone tackling this needs to remember is that the authorities seem to agree that the opening material that survives is not discussing the Epicurean viewpoint but the Stoic viewpoint, so if you don't know from the beginning which is which, then it can be super confusing to figure out what is arguing for and what is being arguing against.

And you have the central issue "contraposition" which needs an explanation before you can get very far as well.

But there's a lot of good background in Sedley's articles and in the appendices to the DeLacy book "On Methods of Inference" (even though they don't always agree with each other).

Good question. I will make sure that they are and link back here.

Looks like the Answer is yes.

Here is the main forum link and I will be sure both are linked within that one. I don't think we have the 1970's update to the DeLacey book however!

Philodemus On Methods of Inference

And yes this thread contains the key links, thanks in large part to your former self:

Thread

"On Methods of Inference": Notes For Review And Discussion (Including David Sedley Article: "On Signs")

[EDIT BY CASSIUS: Here is a link to theDeLacey Translation including the DeLacy Appendix which gives a lot of background on the epistemology issues.]


(Note: these are my personal notes. Not all of these notes are from the book; some are from Google to help me further understand the basic ideas, and some are my"notes to self".)

Signs: what you see or what you think about

"All instruction is either about things or about signs; but things are learnt by means of signs. I now use the word “thing”…

Godfrey

August 26, 2021 at 1:51 AM

1. Divine Origin Theory. Words are given to humans directly by a divine entity or through a supernatural act.
2. Intentionalist Theory: Word meanings are shaped by what the individual speaker intends to communicate, regardless of conventional language norms.
3. Constructivist Theory: Words are a constructed tool, deliberately invented and developed by humans to meet their communication needs.
4. Conventionalist Theory: Words are products of social conventions and agreements among members of a language community over time.
5. Naturalist Theory: Words have a natural basis. Humans, like other animals, naturally produce specific sounds in response to specific circumstances, leading to a natural foundation for each language. While cultural and social factors have influenced language development, there is a core link between words and their meanings that is rooted in human nature.

Epicurus and Metrodorus originally took a fully conventionalist view of language. By 296 BC, (when On Nature, Book 28 was written) Epicurus came to see that humans naturally created relationships between objects and words, just as animals naturally create a relationship between their circumstances and their vocalizations. Therefore, language is not purely conventional. There is, for any group of people in any environment, a natural connection between their words and the objects that they label.