Welcome BrainToBeing

Hi, I'm responding to the above "Welcome" and request for a post. So, let me start this way:

Decades ago I came across the following quote from Lucretius:
"But when the mind is excited by some more vehement apprehension, we see the whole soul feel in unison through all the limbs, sweats and paleness spreadover the whole body, the tongue falter, the voice die away, a mist cover the eyes, the ears ring, the limbs sink under one; in short we often see men drop down from terror of mind; so that anybody may easily perceive from this that the soul is closely united with the mind, and, when it has been smitten by the influence of the mind, forthwith pushes and strikes the body." As a neurologist, I thought: "That is the most insightful description of stress biology I've ever seen, and it was penned 2000 years ago!" I referenced the quote a number of times. (It did not reference the complex relationship between stress and pain; but, pain was not a popular discussion then as it is now.) Then I lost it. Only a short time ago I found it again - regaining a lost friend. And, recently I found your website with it.

While our technology has evolved dramatically, our philosophy has not kept pace. And, it amazing (to me at least) how insightful the early philosophers were. Certainly, we can see that with the dramatic expansion of our knowledge some of the perspectives of these brilliant, "elder statesmen" minds have not stood up to new wisdoms. Yet, that does not detract from their insights. Rather, in my opinion, it gives us insight into what may be concluded based on the information they had, versus what can be concluded based on the information we have. And, it puts into focus the importance of education which is focused on perspectives rather than just small facts.

Anyway, thanks for the invitation to say something. I'll be interested to see what the rest of you say!

Regards,

John

Wonderful post and insights. Welcome aboard!

Quote from BrainToBeing

While our technology has evolved dramatically, our philosophy has not kept pace.

“We are being destroyed by our knowledge, which has made us drunk with our power. And we shall not be saved without wisdom.” Will Durant (1885–1981)

Thank you! As a neurologist I've spent my career looking at behavior from an "organic" (biological) perspective. I can actually have a lot to say on the subject, if we (collectively) are interested.

A problem in healthcare has been the tendency to react to symptoms without adequate effort to discover the root causes of symptoms. This tendency derives from the fact that it is far simpler to react to symptoms than to understand how we get them. Yet, a purely symptom-oriented approach only works if the basic illness will take care of itself - recovering or healing on its own. In simple illnesses (e.g. a bump or bruise) this may work. In complex illness it doesn't. This bears on why we need to dig below the surface - thus advocating a "materialist" perspective.

However, when looking "at the structure of things" I do not seek to remove the romance from life, nor deny our individual experiences of it. So, in medicine I have been very aware of biological substrates for behavior and experience while simultaneously holding "space" for psychological and social elements of our life experiences. This invites, in our current context here, a consideration of sensation, and its implications.

Regards.

Quote from BrainToBeing

As a neurologist I've spent my career looking at behavior from an "organic" (biological) perspective. I can actually have a lot to say on the subject, if we (collectively) are interested.

I for one am interested, as this seems very pertinent to the Epicurean Canonic.

I agree with Godfrey ! At the risk of speaking for him, the intersection between Epicurean philosophy and modern neuroscience is an area that both he and I have expressed interest in for some time.

I've brought up the work of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, Dr. Anna Lembke, and others in bringing neuroscience research to a lay audience. They don't provide an Epicurean perspective, but I've brought up their work in light of the implications (I think) it has for understanding Epicurus's psychology (for lack of a better term) through a modern lens.

I would greatly enjoy reading your thoughts, BrainToBeing (John)!

Quote from Don

I agree with Godfrey ! At the risk of speaking for him

No risk there! I almost spoke for you when I posted

Thanks all. There is a lot we could all talk about from many, many perspectives - depending upon where the interests are.

Here is one reference that has interesting implications, and might be a topic of discussion - if you have not already discussed it to your sufficiency: "all good and all evil come to us through sensation". While there is a lot of wisdom in this statement, it needs consideration in this era - or at least definition. If "sensation" is a proxy for "thinking" then perhaps the statement still holds (though the bounty of nature would still stand as challenge vis a vis "good" coming from the planet). Alternatively, if "sensation" is held to be derivatives of sensing then we have problems.

For example, we now know about genetics. And, the old theory of "tabula rasa" is clearly wrong, as we may evidently appreciate in behavioral genetics. Thus, some good and some evil come to us through genetics and our behaviors derived thereof. This is particularly relevant in this era because it is our behaviors derived from dispositions as an apex predator that now perplex our future. Only if "sensation" is taken to include evolutionary concepts does the Epicurean perspective hold in light of today's knowledge. Going a step further, both good and evil come from thinking beyond sensation (what Daniel Kahneman would call "type 2 thinking").

So, while the quotation of Epicurus reveals important insight, new information requires amplification of the discussion. Or, so it seems to me.

I don't know if any of this is of interest to any of you. It is to me because I'm very interested in the course of the planet under our tutelage, and it is our behaviors which will determine that.

Best to you all.

Quote from BrainToBeing

"all good and all evil come to us through sensation".

Let's begin with context. If I'm not mistaken, this quote comes from Locke. This passage from the letter to Menoikeus is, I think, the closest equivalent in Epicurean philosophy.

"Second, train yourself to hold that death is nothing to us, because good and evil consist in sensation, and death is the removal of sensation. A correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable — not because it gives you an unbounded span of time, but because it removes the desire for immortality. There is nothing terrifying in life to someone who truly understands that there is nothing terrifying in the absence of life."

There is a difference in nuance between these two quotations which shows some further points of discussion. Epicurus' quote is in the context of discussing why we shouldn't fear death; I'm not aware of the context of Locke's quote.

Quote from BrainToBeing

"all good and all evil come to us through sensation". While there is a lot of wisdom in this statement, it needs consideration in this era - or at least definition. If "sensation" is a proxy for "thinking" then perhaps the statement still holds (though the bounty of nature would still stand as challenge vis a vis "good" coming from the planet). Alternatively, if "sensation" is held to be derivatives of sensing then we have problems.

I agree with Godfrey . Plus there's also Principle Doctrine 2:

"Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved into its elements is without consciousness, and that which is without consciousness is nothing to us."

That seems fairly uncontroversial to me.

ἀναίσθητος = conveys "unconscious, insensate, unfeeling; senseless"

I would also add that, as I understand it, "good" and "evil" only have relevance in Epicurean philosophy as "that which brings pleasure" and "that with brings pain," respectively.

As to the "tabula rasa," I completely agree that notion is outdated. I think the Epicurus's idea of prolepses addresses this, predispositions at pattern recognition are inborn. Many of us go back to the psychology experiments with babies, toddlers, and animals in awe and fairness, for example.

There aren't many extant texts regarding the prolépseis. I'm really curious if and how these may relate to current neurology. As Don mentioned, some of us have been reading "popular" neuroscience books and, to us, there seems to be a connection. There are various threads in the forums discussing this.

Welcome John!

This is much fun!

While I can read and understand current concepts of prolepsis, I do not have any deep insight into how Epicurus conceptualized it. Can you all help me to understand his framework for the concept. When I have a deeper understanding of how you all are considering the word/concept then maybe I can provide a little neurological reflection.

LOL! "his framework for the concept." You'll get a wide range of answers to that request from a multitude of scholars, academics, and interested laypeople.

Some of us here have settled(?) on the idea of prolepseis as being the ability of the human mind to recognize patterns of significance in the flood of sense data that pours in. That's the very basic idea we've hit upon.

Oh, this is fun!

Don: I appreciate hearing what users here think, in general, as a practical definition of prolepsis. Of course, the "working definition" you provide is significantly different from the published versions by Webster's, Oxford, or even per generative AI. So, this group must have a shared insight leading to the important differences in perspective. If anyone can offer those, particularly with reference to quotes by Epicurus, I'd be interested to hear.

The relevance of this to me, and any contribution to the discussion I might be able to make, is that from my background and perspective that all behavior has biological substrates. We understand quite a bit about those, but we don't understand important pieces. So, discussions of biological substrates of behavior are necessarily based on limited biological information.

If we are going to discuss concept structures (such as prolepsis) then we need to understand at least how we circumscribe the concept (aka "define it"). So, without some consensus on such things the discussion becomes somewhat a Tower of Babel (or "tower of babble" if we are being amusing).

Anyway, I can jump in on discussing neurobiology of prolepsis if we can agree, more or less, on its definition (or a definition we would use for such discussion).

fwiw...

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πρό-ληψις