Posts by DaveT

Quote from Rolf

Actually, could somebody take a crack at explaining fundamentally what prolepsis is? Is it innate knowledge that we’re born it? I’m more confused than I thought!

Rolf I’ve been doing (undoubtedly) superficial research on the internet to get this topic more firmly in my mind. How does this approach sound to make Prolepsis more concrete (ish) by comparing the major schools of the ancient era?
Prolepsis within Epicurus’ thought is the acquisition of knowledge, the process that comes from experience through the senses, and truth can be determined from repeated experience and thinking about what we know.

Prolepsis within Plato’s (stoic)thought is the acquisition of knowledge from innate sources, divine eternal universal truths.

Prolepsis within Skeptic (Phyrro) thought is that you can’t trust either of the above for definitive acquisition of knowledge since you can’t prove either is true.

I've been searching for a way to clarify for myself when or how Epicurus viewed the concept of prolepsis, I went to the Internet and Google's free AI, Gemini. It gave citations to back up its response, which I can paste into this discussion if anyone would like to see them.

Can our better educated friends here, give a deeper analysis of the response I got to my query; "prolepsis as discussed by Epicurus"? The answer it gave is in bold.

In Epicurean philosophy, **prolepsis** (plural: *prolepseis*) is a fundamental concept in their theory of knowledge, serving as one of the three criteria of truth, alongside sensations (*aisthêsis*) and feelings (*pathê*).

Here's a breakdown of prolepsis as Epicurus understood it:

* **Meaning:** Prolepsis translates to "preconception," "anticipation," or "pre-notion." It refers to a basic, general concept or idea that has been formed in our minds through repeated sensory experiences.

* **Formation through Experience:** Epicurus was an empiricist, meaning he believed that all knowledge ultimately derives from the senses. Prolepseis are formed when repeated sensory inputs of a certain kind leave a lasting impression or "trace" in the mind. For example, by repeatedly encountering dogs, we form a prolepsis of "dog" – a general idea of what a dog is.

* **A Criterion of Truth:** Prolepseis are considered self-evident and true. They act as a foundational, clear understanding against which we can evaluate new perceptions and opinions. When we encounter something new, we can refer back to our prolepsis to help us recognize and categorize it. If a new perception aligns with a relevant prolepsis, it is more likely to be true.

* **Precondition for Thought and Language:** Prolepseis are essential for rational thought and language. Without these pre-existing general notions, we wouldn't be able to name things, understand concepts, or engage in meaningful discourse. For instance, to understand the word "man," we must already have a prolepsis of what a man is.

* **Solution to Plato's Meno Paradox:** Epicurus' concept of prolepsis offered a solution to Plato's paradox in the *Meno*, which questioned how one could learn something new if they didn't already have some prior knowledge of it. Prolepseis provide this "pre-knowledge" or "preliminary concept" that allows us to recognize and learn.

* **Not Innate in the Platonic Sense:** While sometimes referred to as "innate," Epicurean prolepseis are not innate in the Platonic sense of being divinely implanted or pre-existing before experience. They are formed through a physiological, empirical process of repeated sensory input.

* **Role in Understanding Abstract Concepts (like the Gods):** Even for abstract concepts like "gods," Epicureans believed we form prolepseis. Our prolepsis of the gods, derived from common human experience and the appearance of living, blessed beings, leads to the Epicurean understanding of gods as tranquil, immortal, and not interfering in human affairs.

In essence, Epicurean prolepsis highlights the importance of direct sensory experience in shaping our fundamental understanding of the world, providing the building blocks for all subsequent knowledge and thought.

I'm continuing to try to understand the significance of this discussion within Epicurean prolepsis. Wikipedia search link below says: "Mammalian instinct refers to innate, genetically programmed behaviors essential for survival and reproduction, exhibited by mammals without prior learning, and often triggered by specific environmental cues or internal signals."

It is a biological event formed by natural selection only. No thinking is involved.

Google Search

Have I missed something? I tend to think that the prolepsis discussed by Epicurus was based on a limitation of his access to modern science 2,300 years ago. I think it is becoming clearer that a conception that you can know something before you apprehend it, or use your senses to learn it, is not how we know things.

Cassius I'm not clear how to work the copy paste of a quote but I'd like to chime in on your comment: "The pleasures Don lists which can be achieved by "getting out of the way" of them is a valid approach if you are able to maintain those and have confidence in their continuance and your satisfaction with them, but there are also other pleasures that you will never experience if you do not pursue them vigorously."

Yes, I agree with your overall comments, and those other pleasures might be the natural but not necessary pleasures.

I think about the possible foundations of Epicurus' teachings, and then how they might be adopted more widely. I guess he studied the beliefs of other philosophers, and looked around to see how people generally behaved on a daily basis. He must have seen how they tried to live well and avoid the anxiety of daily life. From what I've learned here in Epicurean Friends, his Garden included average people as well as intellectuals.

As I understand it, modern science is disclosing how our brains work, and it's not just a matter of paying attention to the teacher. Some among us can conceptualize to a higher degree, and intellectually discipline ourselves because of their particular brain structure. They are the lucky ones and not the average person. They have that capacity while the majority of people don't have the same ability to focus on the pursuit of higher pleasures. Making a living, raising a family, trying to be comfortable after a busy week takes up the majority of time for most of us, whether highly gifted or not.

So, I tend to appreciate the way Don addressed the more effortless process to pursue a happier life. I don't know how that way of life can be widely adopted unless monotheistic thought is abandoned widely. Thoughts?

I'm enjoying this conversation. As I read and look to apply the lesson to myself, I'm reminded of Thomas Jefferson's language in the American Declaration of Independence that we are entitled to the "Pursuit of Happiness". It's not a static state. To me, the message of Epicurus is to think about what we do as we pursue a contented daily life. Constant awareness is not possible, I think. But doesn't Epicurus teach that we are to be mindful of our short and long term choices? Especially when hard times hit? My dad used to chastise me as a kid when I made the wrong choices, "Just use your head!"

I've followed this discussion, but I don't understand why discussions of human behavior in extremis (at the point of death) are relevant to the average person. It sounds like argument for argument's sake. I don't intend to be argumentative, but why should we care how a person's prior state of happiness affects them moments before death? Is that supposed to prove anything about the value of living well?

Quote from Kalosyni

I just found this result on Google:

Plus I found this interesting podcast with transcript:

"Speaking of Psychology: The psychology of superstition, with Stuart Vyse, PhD"

https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/…gy/superstition

Thanks. That was a fun read.

Quote from Bryan

Quote from DaveT

four cardinal principals

Quote from Don

Tetrapharmakos

Yes, here is Tsouna on that section:

"The expression τὰ τέτταρα refers to the Fourfold Remedy. We suggest that it should be distinguished from τὰ κυριώτατα (1. 8). τὰ τέτταρα are precisely four principles originally expressed by Epicurus and later constituting the Fourfold Remedy. On the other hand, the term κυριώτατα in its technical sense is intended to cover all the fundamental principles pertaining to a certain subject and enabling the Epicurean student to confront particular problems and to solve them on his own."

Thank you. That is helpful.

Bryan Thanks for sharing. However, I'm not clear about his reference to the four cardinal principals and what they specifically are. "it is also obvious that, aside from those misadventures, they are totally worthless people. This is said because of what has been stated about the four cardinal principles,..."

After Sunday’s Zoom on the topic, I listened to Episode 282 again. I wonder if Cicero’s elevation of infamy over pain as an evil might, from an Epicurean point of view, be an affirmation of pain being the ultimate object to be avoided.

It looks like, though we can’t know what was truly on his mind, that Cicero’s point of reference was his own internal “pain” or mental anxiety from doing an infamous act. Perhaps he could be forgiven for failing to recognize that by avoiding infamy, he was actually avoiding mental or physical pain resulting from an infamous action. Whether he was looking at his own present perception of how he might react to an infamy, or reflecting upon an act in the past that brought him infamy, it was still avoiding the “pain” of anxiety.

Robert, your question makes me wonder how I might incorporate some aspect of Epicurus' general guidance into my daily life.

I interpret what I have learned so far from Epicurus is that he essentially says something like; here's my idea of how people live life to the fullest; pursue happiness and avoid unhappiness. Do this by asking if some activity gives you pleasure (or the promise of pleasure) or does it reduce mental or physical pain (or promise to do so)

Fortunately he didn't lay out rituals, unless it is an admonition to think about the consequences of your natural desires and actions either beforehand or afterwards.

So, looking at one of the Vatican sayings: VS71. Question each of your desires: “What will happen to me if that which this desire seeks is achieved, and what if it is not?” simply requires I create a daily/weekly/monthly practice to ask myself that question. Whether that becomes my personal "ritual" to live a happy Epicurean life remains my task.

• Organizing is hard work, so thanks for thinking about this topic. Although I am reluctant to do so, may I suggest a couple of my thoughts on this type of zoom, considering that you may have discussed these ideas before I joined?
  • I'm thinking that probably most new members are readers, which is a rather solitary learning experience, and since there is such a rich collection of written materials here on the site, I'm wondering if a survey might be a way to ask, what further topics new members might want to discuss in a give and take zoom.
  • Then perhaps creating a syllabus for a set number of zooms, perhaps less than half a dozen, might help you get feedback.
  • And as far as timing: staggering possible dates among two or three start times along the way to get a grip on how many members can make one or more times might be helpful.
  • Lastly, Is there a way to record the zoom, and make it available for a set time so anyone missing it, can comment and perhaps revisit the discussion at the following zoom?

Cassius Thanks. I have just figured out my personal computer settings that were blocking me from signing in and replying to conversations and notifications. Yes, I did read the novel by Frances Wright. Ironically, the style is "modern" and colloquial when compared to the translations from the ancient Greek materials. I kept in mind to treat is as fictionalized history and enjoyed reading it.

I will attend. Will you send brief details how to join in? Thank you.

Quote from Pacatus

Another “interesting take” on Don ‘s position above (which was a game-changer for me), that I came across in my reading. The quote is about the Aristippian Cyrenaics, but seemed to me to be relevant here: some pleasures may not be contingently choiceworthy because they would lead to greater pains – but pleasure itself, in se, is intrinsically choiceworthy.

“In [the example cases, a particular] pleasure is not choiceworthy given the circumstances, since its acquisition involves more than countervailing pains. But it remains choiceworthy for itself and in itself. In other words, its intrinsic ability to motivate choosing is a matter of its self-evident phenomenal character, which is not altered by prudential circumstances.”

– Kurt Lampe, The Birth of Hedonism: the Cyrenaic Philosophers and Pleasure as a Way of Life. [My generalizing edits in brackets.]

Pacatus, I'm not familiar with the Cyreniacs, though I have to say your post brought back a memory and concrete example of this to me. Many years ago, I attended a McKenzie clinic for certain lower back issues. Part of his treatment method involved prescribed body stretches to alleviate physical pain. I was taught to never put up with pain for one minute, but rather do the stretches that were prescribed. We were not to just suffer and wait for the pain to ease.

Quote from Don

I sincerely don't care if Epicureanism is defined as "psychological hedonism" or Axiological hedonism or Ethical hedonism or whatever-ical hedonism or hedonism at all. Epicurus had an insight into the motivation of all living beings that they move toward pleasure and move away from pain, and he used this starting point to shed light on how living beings interact with their world and ultimately what is the goal of life of living beings, with humans being able to take that information and to move toward eudaimonia.

The meaning of the telos or the "supreme good" is that thing which is the telos or the "supreme good" is that for which ALL actions are ultimately motivated by. One may say virtue is their ultimate motivating factor, but why? Keep asking why? And it is going to be that it gives them a sense of satisfaction that they're doing what's right. And what is a sense of satisfaction? It is pleasure. One can dress up their motivation and their rationalizations and their justifications. They move toward the supreme good which is pleasure.

People lie all the time to themselves to get through the day and through their life. People can convince themselves of almost anything!

I am not saying we MUST convince everyone we come in contact with that "Pleasure is the supreme good and why you do what you." We pick our battles. But the more I look at the world and how people act, I can see them trying to comfort themselves, to mask their insecurities, to belittle others to aggrandize their own self-image. They are in pain and are trying to move toward pleasure. The feelings are only two after all. BUT Epicurus calls us to make prudent choices, to live nobly, well, and prudently, to try to fill our lives with more pleasure than pain. That's what I believe ALL living beings are doing. And Epicurus was brilliant in his attempt to explain this. Not everyone is going to listen. Not everyone is going to be convinced. Not everyone is going to accept that universal truth. But that is exactly what I believe is going on in the psyche of every living being.

To me, this is a near perfect recitation of what I look for in Epicureanism. I look at every living thing as seeking to maximize their potential (for humans--happiness). This is the beauty of the teaching. Indeed, one might say everything down to the smallest particle of matter or energy is following its nature to maximize its potential to be what it is. That looks a bit weird as I write it, but nothing needs to be sentient to naturally seek its potential, its highest potential as declared by Epicurus.

Quote from Joshua

Quote from DaveT

He taught that there is no un-caused cause; there is nothing that comes from nothing.

This is getting into semantics, but one could perhaps say that the atoms themselves are the uncaused causes.

Cicero In his De Finibus says this;

Quote

"The swerving [of the atoms] is itself an arbitrary fiction; for Epicurus says the atoms swerve without a cause, — yet this is the capital offence in a natural philosopher, to speak of something taking place uncaused."

However, the atoms are uncaused if we are speaking in terms only of their existence. The particular motion of the atoms is partially caused by an infinite regress of other causes (an endless chain of billiard balls bouncing, hooking, clinging, separating, and hurling apart through the void inertially), and partially, as in the swerve, their motion is caused by their own nature.

I thought that his conception that nothing is un-caused was a rebuke to those who believed that an omnipotent being created things. Of course in modern knowledge, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Our understanding of our world and universe has depended on this and it has been verified to the degree that it is a scientific certainty. I also thought Epicurus' conception of atoms was what we now know as molecules. The logic was perfect and certain, but was limited by his limited technology.

Such an interesting topic containing so many variables that raise new issues!

I'm new to the study of Epicurus' actual teaching. But here's what I get out of the texts linked to this website. He taught that there is no un-caused cause; there is nothing that comes from nothing. His gods were not supernatural. They were immortal beings who existed in and above the earth. They could be prayed to for intervention in earthly affairs, but only intervention through natural causes rather than magic. That's why, for instance, blood sacrifices were done, to gain favor, and avoid disfavor (originally, perhaps as a last ditch act that coincided with the coincidental coming of a rain after a drought) .

As for the gods created by humanity over the last ten thousand years, the variety and involvement of those gods sometimes coalesced into religions managed by priests and kings to define virtues either by experience of what works to keep the peace among the populace, or by interpretation of non-material (faith based) unexplained occurrences within the natural world to keep peace, order and solidarity.

As peace keeping tools, the virtues discovered by humans, served to solidify the community to prosper and defend itself against outsiders.

I just don't see Epicureanism as either a faith, or a religion in the sociological sense. It is his explanation of natural human behavior, practiced by everyone, that includes the value of avoiding pain, accepting temporary pain and finding happiness in its absence. Certainly, if a group of people in a community practiced the individual nature of his teaching while exercising his virtue of prudence, happy and loving communities would result.

And in closing, science, in the true sense of being a method of discovering truth about the physical universe, by rational methods, can never be a religion any more than can Epicueanism.

I'm looking forward to hearing anyone's thoughts how my rather terse analysis can be clarified or corrected.

Hello, Martin. I appreciate your welcome message. I first became familiar with Epicurus' through Matthew Stewart's book, Nature's God. He traced the impact of Epicurus' thoughts in De Rerum Natura through early American history and it's impact on Thomas Jefferson and other leaders of the revolution in formulating the goals of American national goals of achieving Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

As a now retired attorney and an author, I have always been fascinated with the historical underpinnings of the founding of the United States. Now, having been exposed to Epicurus, as well as my own newly begun comparative study of the ancient Greek philosophers with Epicureanism I've happily discovered EpicureanFriends.com and this community. I'm hoping to deepen my understanding of past and present philosophy through this community. Best, Dave