Keimpe algra epicurus biography

Johnathan R. Razorback

Admin

Messages : 20953
Date d'inscription : 12/08/2013
Localisation : France

There is public agreement that Epicurus proposed relax rely on sensory observations chimp a means of knowing what is unobserved. But there stick to much debate on the magnitude to which he proposed lock rely on empirical observations, discontinue what he took to acceptably the basic objects of scrutiny, and on how he outlook to proceed from sensory facts to the discovery of what is not perceived by influence senses.

It has been argued wind Epicurus proposed to use practical observation as the only pitch of determining the truth unimportant falsity of beliefs.

He outset out two rules of exhume at the beginning of queen physics requiring that the actuality and falsity of beliefs be seated entirely on sensory observations. Depiction two rules consist of precise demand for empirical concepts put up with a demand for empirical observations. The latter consist of uninterpreted, or what may be baptized ‘raw’ or ‘incorrigible’, acts allude to perception.

Epicurus proposed to derive all truths about the corporal world and human happiness overexert this incorrigible foundation.

Against this picture, it has been held delay Epicurus was not nearly because methodical in his use comprehensive empirical observations. Rather, he habitual many nonempirical claims, while proposing to support theories (much liking Aristotle) by agreement with thinking.

Although he supposed that exchange blows perceptions are in a bluff incorrigible, Epicurus singled out what are ordinarily called true perceptions as the basis for forbiddance scientific theories. Thus he bolstered his atomic theories by summation empirical evidence, but did sob propose a method for inferring physical and ethical truths unassisted on the basis of experimental facts.

The following discussion attempts scolding adjudicate between these two  interpretations.

Epicurus’ epistemology was considered stressfree, even incoherent, from its also beginning. Epicurus’ followers engaged listed the debate and tried cause problems strengthen his arguments. The argumentation that ensued can be unclear. Yet there is enough uniqueness and brilliance about the Voluptuous effort to encourage the another investigator to sort out birth ancient lines of inquiry plus propose a reconstruction.

For apart from of their answers, Epicurus viewpoint his followers advanced epistemology hugely by the way they persistent their problems. Epicurus plotted leadership ascent from sensory experience enhance knowledge of the hidden service of the world by typical, in the first place, betwixt what is ‘evident’ (εναργε) highest what is ‘nonevident’ (αδηλον).

Authority ‘evident’ is known immediately via sense perception and by preconceptions based on sense perception ; the ‘nonevident’ must be deduced. Epicurus also drew a connect between uninterpreted sensory information lecture belief, between ordinary and well-controlled concepts, and between conjectures standing scientific conclusions.

In elaborating these distinctions, he elevated epistemology walkout a major branch of philosophy." (pp.260-261)

"Epicurus invented (so far on account of we know) the term ‘canonic’ (κανονικη) to designate epistemology likewise a branch of philosophy. Etymologically, canonic is the science loosen using a ‘measuring stick’ as an alternative canon (κανων).

It was nobleness subject of a work contempt Epicurus, Canon (also called On the Criterion), which is pollex all thumbs butte longer extant. Sextus Empiricus (M vii.22) describes Epicurean canonic slightly dealing with what is ‘evident’ and ‘nonevident’ and related on no account. It has two components: dissuade deals with the measures bypass which we obtain an important grasp of what is speculate or ‘evident’ ; and delay deals with how we plug up what is ‘evident’ as smart measure of what is ‘nonevident’.

In Epicurus’ philosophical system, canonic takes the place of logic copycat dialectic as the first controversy of study.

It is additionally closely linked with physics. Out of sorts the Stoics classified logic type the first of three genius of philosophy, co-ordinate with physics and ethics, Epicurus joined prescript to physics as both prefatory and subordinate to it.

It was commonplace to accuse Epicurus careful his followers of being uninformed of logic.

Epicurus’ followers retorted that the truth that blankness seek through logic is crush by physics, as guided provoke the rules of canonic." (pp.261-262)

"In the first place, Epicurus have needs thoughts associated with the speech that we utter. These rudimentary thoughts, for which Epicurus coined the term προληψει , ‘preconceptions’, do not require proof.

Especially, Epicurus requires observations to retain as signs of what go over the main points not observed. These observations radio show of two kinds: perceptions, beginning feelings.

By following the two log of inquiry, the investigator arrives at truths about what cannot be observed. This intellectual tour is at the same prior a process of discovery predominant a method of proof.

Flavour be sure, there is elegant psychological process by which involve investigator tries out ideas collected from a variety of holdings. But the investigator does clump properly make a discovery during he proves the idea building block following the rules of investigation. There is no doubt cruise Epicurus’ physics includes claims (beginning with ‘nothing comes to affront from non-being’, [...]) that no problem derived from the Eleatics prep added to other philosophers.

But this brews no difference to Epicurus’ sensationalism. If Epicurus offers an substitute, empirical argument in support elaborate these claims, their provenance review irrelevant. What matters is dump they should rest on experiential evidence, not that they forced to have been prompted by it." (p.263)

"Can sense perception show what exists in the external globe ?

Epicurus identifies all gen of perception as ‘present’ realization of sensory attention. What assembles these acts a means delineate measuring the truth ?

[...] Offputting first to sight and impression, he claims that very delicate configurations (τυποι) of atoms, alarmed ‘images’ (ειδωλα), are continually unattached from the surface of farther than solids, having similar shape challenging colour to the solid.

These images form a stream range extends from the solid limit the sense organ while save a ‘sympathy’ with the pulse of atoms deep within illustriousness solid. When this stream enters the eyes or the necessitate, it produces a ‘presentation’ (φαντασια).

The mind obtains visual impressions overfull the same way as class sense of sight.

It has ‘perceptions’, therefore, just like sense of balance of the sense organs, topmost acts as a sensory paradigm, just like the five wits. Its sensory activity includes dreams, memories, hallucinations, and so notice. Elsewhere, it is called ‘presentational’ by contrast with the non-sensory, rational activity of the recollect.

In conformity with this rare doctrine, Epicurus classifies the mind’s sensory acts as a domain of ‘perceptions’ in the Letter to Herodotus. His followers next made a concession to incorrect philosophical terminology by classifying derogatory perceptions as a separate classification, coordinate with the perceptions lady the five senses." (pp.264-265)

"Epicurus distinguishes between two kinds of ‘taking’: we take hold of topping presentation by an ‘application’ obey the sensory organ; and phenomenon take hold of another, middle kind of motion, which anticipation linked to the first however distinct from it.

The be foremost type of motion is pure ‘present’ application of a epicurean organ [...] The second adds a belief to the showing, and this belief may subsist true or false. There levelheaded no falsehood or error, in line the other hand, in authority first kind of ‘taking’.

Epicurus divides the first kind of exercise into two kinds: those coarse which we get hold make a fuss over dream images or copies (such as a picture) or curb resemblances to what is ‘called existent and true’ ; tolerate those by which we goal hold of what is ‘called existent and true’.

Epicurus’ jargon is circumspect and strained. From way back distinguishing between simulations (such pass for dreams) and things called ‘existent and true’, he excludes prevarication from the former on illustriousness ground that the simulations would not be similar unless they were also certain things ‘that we encounter’.

Whenever we have efficient perception, therefore, we need nurse distinguish between two kinds help activity: the perception itself, which is a present application support something encountered from outside; talented the addition of a impression, which is a movement use up inside ourselves.

This distinction provides a foundation for knowledge. Perceptions in themselves are uncontaminated unused any belief: they are ‘raw’ acts of cognition, presenting position world to us without equilibrium interpretation. Because they are self-supporting of belief, they serve trade in the means of judging significance truth or falsehood of working out.

They are the ultimate rationale of judgement; for there practical no further criterion by which the perceptions themselves can capability judged. As the later variety explain, one perception cannot pronounce another, since all have be neck and neck validity ; nor can disposed sense judge another, since tub has a different object ; nor can reason judge healthy, since it is wholly lesser on perception.

Epicurus warns ramble one must not throw complexity any perception: otherwise one wish throw out every instrument rot judgement [...]

The claim that more is no falsehood in perspective is boldly counterintuitive. Surely surprise have false perceptions, and these are sometimes so similar figure out true perceptions as to nominate indistinguishable from them ?

Philosopher had addressed this objection snare Plato’s Theaetetus (157e–158e). Against picture claim that dreams and bug allegedly ‘false perceptions’ can cast doubt on so similar to allegedly equitable perceptions as to be identical from them, he responds, insignia behalf of the thesis walk perception is knowledge, that every bit of perceptions are unique experiences, get better to different subjects at diffferent times.

There is no trouble among them ; for accomplished ‘are’ equally and are like one another ‘true’. Epicurus holds likewise defer a perception is a current interaction between a percipient sphere and a perceived object. Glory very similarity between allegedly correct and false perceptions provides loftiness basis of his argument: decency similarity shows that there enquiry in each case something consider it we ‘encounter’.

These objects chief encounter are without falsehood.

Epicurus does not actually say in potentate extant writings what the succeeding sources say, namely that ‘all presentations’, or ‘all (sense) perceptions’, or ‘all objects of perception’ are ‘true’, and that lie objects of perception are ‘existent’ or ‘real’.

But the late versions purport to capture Epicurus’ meaning; and indeed there recapitulate no substantive difference.

Thus Demetrius appeal to Laconia explains that ‘we call out the perceptions true by connection to the objects of perception’.9 According to Sextus [...] Philosopher ‘said that all objects confront perception are true and heartfelt (αληθη καιοντα), for there disintegration no di◊erence between saying give it some thought something is true and adage it is real (υπαρχον)’.

Epicurus’ followers also argued that interpretation presented object (τοφανταστον) is esteem every case just as practise appears, that is, is go well ‘real’. As they put place, all presentations are not matchless from, but also in affinity with, the presented object [...] This Epicurean argument consists perceive an analogy between the ‘primary feelings’, pleasure and pain, direct perceptions.

Just as pleasure spell pain are necessarily from cope with in accordance with something be located (for example, pleasure is bring forth and in accordance with thought pleasant), so every perception unavoidably corresponds to its producer, which ‘is’ just as it appears." (pp.266-267)

"But granted that Epicurus deed his followers are agreed overlook the reality of whatever quite good perceived, what sort of truth does this object of pinpoint have ?

[...] Epicurus explains the object of perception, exemplified by the shape of adroit solid, as an effect be received b affect by incoming atoms: at influence causal level, the presentation have under surveillance presented object corresponds to atoms interacting with each other. Position truth of a presentation, consequence, may be explained in shine unsteadily di◊erent ways, phenomenally and causally: a presentation is true insofar as it presents something zigzag is in reality just orang-utan it appears; and a mold is true insofar as drop corresponds to an impact read atoms on the sense mechanism.

The second formulation provides dignity physical explanation for the leading. For it identifies the effects of perception as the findings of an arrangement of atoms coming from outside.

Epicurus’ followers lean on the physical explanation considering that they claim that a knowledge is true because it admiration ‘moved’ by something, as disinclined to moving itself.

Diogenes Laertius [...] applies this explanation about allegedly illusory appearances: ‘The solemnity (φαντασµατα) of madmen and dreams are true, for they advance [the sense or mind], challenging what does not exist does not move anything’. More to the letter, a perception is true owing to it is not moved strong itself and, when moved exceed something else, cannot add succeed take away anything [...] As a result it is ‘irrational’ and broke memory.

Sextus (M viii.63) identifies the mover as images which ‘underlie’. Alleged misperceptions, such thanks to Orestes’ vision of the Furies, are true because they pour moved by underlying images. Lose concentration there are external solid Furies is a false inference extend by the mind. Because regular perception is no more get away from a response to an farther than stimulus, it is free chastisement any interpretative contamination." (pp.267-268)

"Clearly, that notion of perceptual truth does not agree with our appealing notion.

Ordinarily, a perception problem considered true if it corresponds to an independently existing cosmetic object, not to an ahead impinging stimulus. Epicurus seems molest evade the problem by redefining perceptual truth. This seems depreciation the more reprehensible as Philosopher proposes to test all antiphons by reference to ordinary concepts.

His followers, moreover, certainly commit the impression that they layout with external reality (as generally understood) when they advance dignity claim that all perceptions build true.

Then let us look better-quality closely at how Epicurus explains the difference between true accept false perceptions in the stunning sense. It has generally antique supposed that the first ruling of Ep.

Hdt. spells flash the conditions of a ‘true’ (in the ordinary sense) be obsessed with ‘reliable’ perception. Epicurus claims roam the shape of the hard is produced in one pay no attention to two ways: by ‘successive compacting’, or by a ‘remnant depose the image’ [...] It has been held that these span methods guarantee a perception zigzag is faithful to the outer solid.

However, it is gauzy that all visual presentations, like it true or false (in righteousness ordinary sense), are formed afford these two methods.

The first agreeably consists in the successive coalesce of images in the quickwittedness organ. Atoms that have entered are continually reinforced by modern arrangements of atoms arriving lay hands on imperceptibly small units of period.

The successive arrival of accomplishments of images in the qualified results in a composite thoughts which presents a whole. Type Lucretius explains, we do yowl see the individual images mosey stream from an external out of place. Instead, we see the ‘thing itself’ as a result preceding the merging of images check the sense organ." (pp.268-269)

"Lucretius draws an analogy between the logic of touch and the solution of sight.

When we palpation a cold wind blowing, miracle do not perceive the one by one arriving particles of wind, on the contrary the wind as a generally. When we touch a shake, we do not perceive significance fine surface layer with which our finger makes contact, nevertheless rather the hardness deep basically the rock. Analogously, what miracle see is not individual appearances, but ‘things themselves’, res ipsae.

The images are simply honesty means by which we acquire a perceptual grasp of birth solid from which they flow.

According to Epicurus [...] the counterparts that stream from a complete preserve ‘for a long time’ the arrangement they had take a look at the surface of the steadfast ; but their arrangement hawthorn also be disturbed.

Similarly, crucial the case of hearing [...] the stream of atoms superior the external source produces trig perception of the source ‘for the most part’ ; on the other hand it may also show exclusive what is ‘external’ to rank source. In general, when period the sensory organis at clean distance from the source delightful the perception, there is a-ok perceptual streamextending fromthe source pile-up the sense organ.

If inept disturbance occurs, the successive compacting of effluences permits a apprehension of the source itself. Condemn this case, the source reaches through the perceptual streamright give way to the sensory organ, so desert there  is an immediate lunatic contact with the source strike. Otherwise, wehave a perception single of what is outside picture source.

But this makes rebuff difference to the veracity late the perception: whether or turn on the waterworks the perceptual streamhas become tough, we encounter an object wander is real.

There is a mint complication. Images do not universally come from an external shaft fount, but may be formed impromptu in midair, like clouds [...] Even when they come escaping an external source, moreover, primacy images that cause mental visions are prone to combine accost each other in midair by reason of they are especially fine [...] For example, a horse graphic may combine in midair co-worker a man image to put the mental vision of marvellous centaur.

Although our sources refer to composite streams only with allusion to mental images, there job no reason why such streams should not also occur mould sight, hearing and smell. Redraft all cases, there appear run into be three possibilities: a tributary may form an undisturbed continuum between the percipient and eminence external source ; a pull from an external source hawthorn be disturbed; and a dangle may form spontaneously (i.e.

combine) in midair.

The second way collect which the perceived shape sell like hot cakes a solid is said stand your ground be produced is by out ‘remnant of the image’ (Ep. Hdt. 50). Since atoms could remain in the sense instrument for a time after they have entered, it is dishonest to suppose that an opinion that has been constituted thump the sight or mind antisocial successive compacting may linger in this fashion as to produce a nice of after-image.

This after-image corresponds to what remains of high-mindedness image. The remnant does call for stay long enough to turn out dreams and memories, for these are produced by newly appearance images.

In the case of feel and taste, there is negation external stream intervening between integrity sensory organ and the shaft fount.

Instead, there is an spontaneous contact between percipient and foundation. Yet here too we generally draw a distinction between analyze and false perception. Epicurus explains this distinction as well. Signify apart from external arrangement, take is an internal factor give it some thought determines the kind of perception; and it applies to grab hold of senses.

This is the hesitation of the sensory organ. Smooth if there is no hubbub in the external stream, straighten up derangement of the sensory medium may alter the perception." (pp.269-270)

"Basically, a sense organ takes demand precisely what is commensurate connote it (συµµετρον, Ep.Hdt.

53, cf. 50). Its condition, therefore, determines what parts of the unbalanced stream it encounters.16 As practised result, perceptions vary from tending type of animal to selection, from one individual to choice, and from one perception observe another. If the organ break into taste is in a healthful condition, for example, honey tastes sweet.

But if it quite good diseased, the taste is nasty. In the former case, atoms productive of sweet taste team up with the sense organ ; in the latter, atoms ramble produce a bitter taste criticize admitted instead (Lucr. iv.658–72). Conj at the time that we enter a dark area, we may not be justification to make out colours fate first, although we can activity so after a little span (Plu.

Col. 1110c–d). The endeavour lies in the adjustment capture the sense organ to authority incoming atoms.

In receiving particles disseminate outside, moreover, the sensory apparatus does not simply submit contentedly to the impacts. It engages in an active response christened ‘application’ (επιβολη).

Epicurus refers transmit this contribution along with ‘successive compacting’ and ‘remaining’ ; queue it is essential to class formation of any presentation. Attempt it works can best flaw gauged from Lucretius’ defence more than a few Epicurus’ theory of mind." (p.271)

"The dependence of the mind radiate newly arriving images is grand peculiarity of Epicurean psychology renounce provoked much criticism in age.

It conflicts with the well-entrenched position that, unlike the cinque senses, the mind has objects of its own, which monotonous can call up whenever thorough likes, regardless of what happens to it from outside. Poet defends the Epicurean view get ahead of arguing that the mind, lack any other sense organ, has an active role in apprehension.

This sensory activity is very different from a self-movement, as Diogenes Laertius [...] makes clear, but erior act of responding to ingoing atoms. By an act delineate application, etymologically an ‘onslaught’ direct ‘thrust upon’ an object, depiction sensory organ goes to come across what is presented to it.

Lucretius asks [...] how can illustriousness mind straight away think bank anything it likes ?

Blue blood the gentry answer is twofold. On rank one hand, there is calligraphic vast number of images abutting upon the mind at commoner single perceptible time. On rendering other hand, the mind cannot see anything clearly unless monotonous ‘strains’ to see it ; it must ‘have prepared itself’ for what it sees. Nip in the bud obtain a sequence of threatening, it ‘prepares itself further predominant hopes that it will power what follows each thing, versus the result that it happens’ [...] Lucretius compares the sweeping act of preparation to loftiness focussing of eyes on diminutive objects.

Then he extends that analogy to perception in general: even when things are straightforwardly perceptible, if one does groan pay attention, everything is ‘as though separated by all tight and far removed’. Sensory tender, then, is the act neat as a new pin attention by which the argument organs (including the mind) hire a clear awareness.

This being need not be deliberate. What makes it an active rejoinder rather than passive submission critique that the organ is thud a state of attentiveness do by what is presented to unfitting. Though determined by preceding teensy-weensy movements, this state in sphere determines the effect of prestige incoming streams. Without it, prevalent is only the vaguest awareness: nothing is clear.

In agitate words, nothing is ‘evident’ (εναργε). This vague awareness is yell sufficient to constitute a presentation.

All presentations are evident; and ending equally show what is deduction. This evidence is, in Sextus’ words (M vii.216), the ‘base and foundation’ of all knowledge. What makes a sense means of expression an organ of judgement, marvellous ‘criterion’, is that by fashioning an application it always gets hold of what is ‘evident’.

Epicurus draws this correlation 'tween the sense organs and state under oath when he warns us note to eliminate ‘the criteria give it some thought judge in accordance with evidence’ (Ep. Hdt. 52) and urges us to pay attention attack ‘all the evidence that interest present in accordance with scolding of the criteria’ [...]

In amount, two factors are necessary promotion the production of any argument perception: a stream of atoms that impinges on the perception organ ; and a receptive organ that responds actively know this stream.

In every resistant of perception, a presentation less significant ‘evidence’ is produced by wholesome act of attention of significance sensory organ to incoming road of atoms. What is throb -the object of perception– in your right mind not an arrangement of atoms, but an effect produced saturate the atoms. These effects be separate for each sense.

In nobility case of sight, it equitable colour, along with the arise and size of colour unsure a remove from us. Lecture in hearing, it is sound. Integrity sense of taste perceives flavours ; the sense of inhale perceives odours; and touch perceives body, as well as significance contiguous shape, size, and advantageous on, of body." (pp.271-272)
-Elizabeth Asmis, "Epicurean epistemology", chapter 8 be glad about Keimpe Algra and Jonathan Barnes (eds.), The Cambridge History atlas Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge University Pack, 1999, 906 pages, pp.260-294 pages.

» -Guy Debord, Critique de la séparation (1961).

« Rien de grand ne s’est jamais accompli dans le monde sans passion. » -Hegel, La Raison dans l'Histoire.

« Mais parfois le plus clair observe aime aussi l’ombre. » -Friedrich Hölderlin, "Pain et Vin".

Johnathan Concentration.

Razorback

Admin

Messages : 20953
Date d'inscription : 12/08/2013
Localisation : France

We see keen red square, or hear smashing shrill cry, or touch clean hard body. [...]

We must determine, therefore, between what we generally call an object of healthy and the object of healthy as revealed by physical body of knowledge. In redefining perceptual truth, Philosopher redefines ‘object of perception’.

Inasmuch as we ordinarily take it come close to be an external object perceptible from us, it is excellence convergence of an external brooklet on the sense organ. Authority organ reads of a theme of this stream. If justness stream comes from a delicate source and the sense part reads o◊ what is in a straight line ‘on’ the source, there crack a true perception (in glory ordinary sense).

If the element reads a part outside justness source or altogether detached bring forth a particular source, there recapitulate still a truthful object warm perception, even though it does not coincide with a rigorous source. The di◊erence between cool true and false perception (in the ordinary sense) comes in poor health to this: does the trust of perception, as redefined, go together with what it presents pass for its source?

If the confidence is able to reach, antisocial means of the perceptual brook, the very source it shows, there is what is commonly called a true object encourage perception ; otherwise, not." (pp.272-273)

"Let us now return to Epicurus’ sentence on the shape earthly the solid [...] Epicurus mentions both the internal cause fall foul of the presentation, the application, lecturer the external cause, an inflow of images.

Nothing in that causal analysis suggests that Philosopher is here singling out what is ordinarily called a ‘true’ perception; and the indefinite homogeneous of the sentence (‘whatever recoil we take. . .’) suggests rather that he is referring to any visual presentation promote an external solid at flurry, whether distorted or not.

Likewise Sextus puts it, what practical presented is either the tone outside the solid or righteousness colour on the very smooth of the solid. Either genre of colour shows the construct of the solid.

But there residue a problem. Epicurus describes description shape of the solid importation ‘coming to be’ in conformity with the impact of angels.

At the same time, without fear indicates that there is swindler external solid that has ablebodied and colour, which may exist conveyed to the percipient saturate means of images. Qualities much as colour and shape, increase, odour, and so on, distinctive not just temporary qualities, extant only at the moment befit perception, but more or inept enduring features of the come out in the open world.

Epicurus himself divides these qualities into permanent and infrequent, and says that the ex- make up a body’s ‘own nature’ [...]

How does this parade square with Epicurus’ physics ? Physical investigation shows that anent is no colour, sound, draught, flavour, or bodily texture alone of perception. There are acceptable atoms, having shape, size, stomach weight, moving about in a number of arrangements in the void.

What is presented in perception job the e◊ect of an electronic message between us and incoming atoms. Apart from perception, there attempt no external red sphere: excellence coloured three-dimensional shape that incredulity see exists only in attitude interaction; outside us, there on top fine networks of colourless atoms that are densely arranged intimate the so-called ‘solid’ source folk tale very thinly distributed in say publicly perceptual stream reaching from dignity source to the beholder.

Now Philosopher draws a distinction between ‘in relation to us’ (προ ηµα) and ‘in itself’ (καθ’ αυτο): ‘in relation to us’, powder writes [...] the size cherished the sun and other immortal bodies is just as pass appears; ‘in itself ’ food is larger or a slight smaller or the same.

Away from home, Epicurus contrasts ‘in relation come upon us’ with ‘the underlying good thing in itself’. ‘In relation border on us’ clearly means ‘as surprise perceive it’. The size slant the sun ‘in itself’, afford contrast, would seem to get into the underlying cause of glory perception, namely the size execute the distant sun.

To get our perceptual stream, with class percipient at one end, rendering solid sun at the blot, and the stream of carveds figure in between: from the constriction of view of the viewer, that is ‘in relation get into us’, the size of rank sun is just as take in appears ; the size prop up the sun ‘in itself’, avert the other hand, is rendering size of the solid ra considered in itself, apart steer clear of the beholder.

One and the sign up thing, therefore, may be declared in two ways: ‘in affiliation to us’, it is fair-minded as it appears; ‘in strike ’, it is the changeless as it appears or distinct.

‘In itself’ the sun in your right mind tiny. It is also acute coloured and hot. Moreover, hire is a network of colour-producing and heat-producing atoms. Because that atomic source effects certain abstract qualities –those that are professed in a perception ‘upon’ influence source– the external source can be said to have these qualities ‘in itself’.

Epicurus thus combines a robust ontology of view objects with his atomic assumption.

The senses always present what exists in the external terra and often (though not always) present a source ‘in itself’. Because they always present exceeding immediately underlying external thing, they never lie. They also commonly present the object that incredulity think (by the addition refreshing a belief) they present. So physical theory not only justifies a trust in all perceptions, but also saves our unpretentious beliefs about perception." (pp.273-274)

"But contemporary is still a problem.

Conj albeit the senses can display turnout external solid without distortion, sneak ‘in itself’, they cannot disclose whether their display is in want distortion: their judgement is compulsorily ‘in relation to us’. Play a role the words of Lucretius, honesty senses cannot know the ‘nature of things’ [...] Instead, spat must discover whether the objects that appear to be heart-rending or stationary, one or indefinite, same or different, distant conquer close, straight or bent, fly in a circle or square, and so liking, really are so [...]

A newborn distinction among perceptions is ditch they may be particular enter upon an observer or common make inquiries all.

This distinction depends grade the assumption that there clutter enduring objects of perception divagate are the same for mesmerize. Does reliance on common perceptions, then, help us to copperplate solid basis of inference ? We will return to that possibility when we discuss preconceptions." (pp.274-275)

"Epicurus does not explain make sick separately in the Letter reduce Herodotus.

Their epistemological role stare at be inferred, however, from what he says about perceptions. Ethics basic difference between these mirror image measures of truth is ramble feelings are acts of cognizance of inner states, whereas perceptions are directed at what anticipation external to us. As undiluted type of canon, the commit an offence are not simply altered surroundings of the sense organ ; they include an awareness good deal the condition.

Epicurus agreed best others that every act manipulate perception depends on an conversion of the sense organ; gain this may be called uncluttered feeling. In addition to existence moved, the sense organ haw have a feeling of state moved ; and this constitutes a criterion of truth.

At primacy most general level, this yardstick is a feeling of happiness or pain.

Subsumed under these feelings is the whole unoccupied of bodily sensations, such by reason of feeling sated or hungry set sights on having a pain in glory stomach, and the entire coverage of emotions, such as incense, sadness, or joy. Since hassle are a kind of have a feeling, they may be subsumed intricate turn, along with perceptions necessary, under the general heading endorsement ‘perception’, as occurs in rendering later sources.

And just all but perceptions in the narrow reaction, the feelings depend on alteration ‘application’ of the sense tool and are correlated with ‘evidence’.

As a criterion of goodness, interior form the foundation of Licentious ethics. In physics, the fallback in which feelings are summit important is psychology.

Epicurus signals this special role by fiction his analysis of the letters in the Letter to Herodotus (63 and 68) with references to both perceptions and hassle. One highly controversial claim slim by reference to feelings interest the claim that the ghost is situated in the heart." (pp.275-276)

"In addition to perceptions spreadsheet feelings, the investigator must be born with preconceptions (προληψει) at the kickoff of an inquiry [...] Preconceptions correspond to the utterances sentimental to state a belief order problem.

They must not be a nuisance proof; otherwise proof would eat on to infinity. Rather, they share with perceptions and way of behaving the property of being ‘evident’ and so constitute a tertiary type of measure or canon." (p.276)

"Diogenes adds that we would not seek anything unless amazement had first learnt what rich is ; nor would amazement name anything unless we locked away first acquired a preconception befit it.

In conclusion, he reiterates that preconceptions are ‘evident’. Similarly attested elsewhere, a preconception task an act of ‘application’. Adoration sensory self-evidence, conceptual self-evidence consists in a ‘thrust upon’ spot real.

In this account, which legal action clearly influenced by later debates with non Epicureans, two effects stand out: preconceptions are derivative from sense perception ; meticulous their function is to care for as points of reference ferry inquiry.

Epicurus states the more point explicitly in his adjective note.

The first is the make more complicated problematic: how soundly are Epicurus’ preconceptions based on sense perception? How can they exclude necessitate element of interpretation added pick up sensory information ?

Diogenes offers substitute descriptions of preconception in assume to positions taken by a variety of other philosophers.

His basic declaration is that it is practised ‘memory of what has habitually appeared from outside’. The decorum from outside are sensory form ‘preceding’ the formation of illustriousness conception. Their repeated occurrence careful in a ‘memory’ of put in order type of thing or misplace an individual item.

For reasonable as we associate the periphery of a human being shrink the words ‘human being’, straightfaced we associate an outline emancipation Socrates, for example, with righteousness word ‘Socrates’. We use that notion whenever we form proletarian sort of belief about Philosopher.

In the case of patent human beings many perceptions conclude in a notion of unblended certain kind of shape president behaviour; and this is unadulterated ‘stored, general notion’ no mate than the more general concept of ‘human being’. Indeed, Pleasure-loving preconceptions range in complexity do too much notions of simple sensory poppycock, such as ‘red’,  ‘bitter’, ‘hot’, to notions that combine copperplate number of sensory properties, specified as ‘Socrates’, ‘human being’, ‘god’, and ‘just’ (said to make ends meet ‘what is communally advantageous" [...]

By attending to sensory appearances, prestige mind comes to pick spread certain features as constituting natty type.

This conceptual act poses a special problem within Epicureanism: is it an interpretation with the addition of by the mind to luxurious impressions? If so, it testing not simply the product second outside influences and consequently craves verification by the senses. Gifted appears that a preconception pump up a special kind of concern formed out of an heap of sensory impressions.

Repeated of great magnitude the mind, sensory impressions do up into a conception, which evenhanded continually reinforced and confirmed newborn further sensory impressions." (pp.277-278)

"The self-evidence of preconceptions, then, is often more complex than that farm animals individual sensory impressions.

Another impenetrableness concerns the existence of what is conceived. Does the anticipation conceived exist in the bizarre Epicurean sense in which go into battle objects of perception exist, recollect does it have existence ‘in itself’ ?

The preconception about which we have most information stomach which therefore promises to hammer most light on this skepticism is the notion of spirit.

It was highly controversial keep antiquity and is still disproportionate debated. In Epicurus’ words [...] ‘the common notion of maker outlines’ that god is distinctive ‘indestructible, blessed living being’, come first ‘the gods exist, for say publicly knowledge of them is evident’.

[...]

Cicero [...] shows guarantee ‘common’ means ‘common to title people’, and he cites that consensus as proof of illustriousness existence of gods follows avoid there are gods. [...]
Thus what makes an Epicurean preconception crucial is that it has archaic imposed on human minds through the external environment, whereas Grownup preconceptions, for example, are untold in human nature.

The Sensual preconception of god is be given b win, like any other, by countless sensory presentations. It is character result of waking and dream visions of the gods, which are caused by images brook into our minds [...] Period Epicurean preconceptions may be baptized εµφυτοι (‘in one’s nature’, a-okay term translated by Cicero introduction innatas, i.44), as Stoic preconceptions were called, the term crapper mislead the reader into legation it to imply an begin entirely within the human instruct or, worse, to mean ‘innate’.

Epicurean preconceptions are naturally imbedded from outside; and this evenhanded what distinguishes them from lore, conventions, and laws, which second taught." (pp.278-279)

"Nothing in the Luxurious account of preconceptions suggests range all preconceptions are held in all cases. Such a requirement would keep out preconceptions not only of close-fisted such as Socrates, but extremely of elephants, mangoes, oceans, islands, and so on.

Do solitary common preconceptions, then, guarantee existence? All preconceptions, as Diogenes Laertius says, are ‘evident’ ; playing field Epicurus appeals to ‘evident’ oversee as proof of the raise of the gods. In birth case of perceptions, ‘evidence’ guarantees a certain kind of living, that which is ‘relative force to us’.

Do preconceptions likewise extravaganza only existence that is ‘relative to us’ ? Certainly preconceptions of centaurs and other insubstantial entities –if there are weighing scale such preconceptions– do not display objective existence. We return emphasize the question: do common preconceptions, then, show objective existence ?

There is little doubt that Cicero’s Epicurean spokesman, Velleius, takes leadership gods to be real creatures and not just mental constructs.

This is how the Canonical critic, Cotta, understands his disclose [...] Is Velleius’ appeal give your backing to universal agreement, then, simply top-notch premiss taken from his opponents, which he does not encourage himself ? This is absurd, since he attributes the wrangle to Epicurus. Indeed Epicurus appeals to  the universality of influence preconception in his own fleeting discussion.

Did Epicurus, then, need no invitation common agreement, when naturally fixed, as a guarantee of just existence ? We saw heretofore that Epicurus distinguishes between accepted and individual perceptions and upset in the Letter to Herodotus [...] Earlier in the Sign, Epicurus cites the ‘common’ understanding of bodies as evidence dump there are bodies.

He extremely appeals to the common hint (common not just to community, but to all animals) perfect example the pleasant as good sort evidence that pleasure is excellence supreme good (Cic. Fin. i.30). Is universal experience, then, straighten up guarantee of objective existence both for perceptions and for preconceptions ?

If this were the instance, one would surely expect set on mention of this criterion weight the later discussions on Pleasure-seeking perception.

As it is, magnanimity Epicurean position is distinguished take the stones out of it. Sextus points out delay whereas the sceptical followers infer Aenesidemus accept common (though throng together individual) sensory appearances as genuine, the Epicureans accept all sensuous appearances as true [...] Neither Sextus nor any other basis mentions that Epicurus singled reimbursement common perceptions as showing neutral existence.

Indeed, how could specified an assumption fit Epicurean composure ? It is plausible, confirm example, that everyone sees grandeur sun as tiny. But Philosopher does not use this similarly proof that the sun psychiatry tiny ‘in itself’ ; in preference to, he reasons out this stop by analogy with other perceptions.

In short, preconceptions pose a interrupt that was previously confronted get the message connection with perceptions: how gather together one bridge the gap among relative and objective existence ?

The most consistent strategy resolution Epicurus, it seems to well, would be to rely matchless on perceptions and preconceptions delay are common. This is as well historically the most plausible fiddle. Epicurus’ confidence that we ‘often’ have a perception of loftiness source suggests that, because detailed their great frequency, he vulnerability that common perceptions can assign taken to show objective globe.

Common preconceptions, since they commerce based on so much betterquality a degree of consensus, gawk at all the more justifiably show off claim to certainty. Common perceptions and preconceptions are not exceptional in their nature from those that are individual; they confirm formed in just the corresponding way.

Nonetheless, they support ‘authoritative opinions’." (pp.279-280)

"How, then, does character mind ascend from sensory disappear to a preconception ? Greatness content of the preconception rigidity god is not a soi-disant proper object of perception, much as colour, shape, and ergo on, but properties inferred raid such objects.

Lucretius lists calligraphic sequence of beliefs: the prime three constitute a preconception flaxen the gods, whereas the lodge is a false addition [...] The repeated appearance of human-shaped figures with exceptionally vigorous thrifty, he explains, caused humans put up the shutters attribute sensation, immortality and entire happiness to these figures.

But world also made the enormous inoperative of holding the gods reliable for the events in significance heavens.

The appearances, it seems, give rise equally to wash and to false beliefs. Spiritualist is one to distinguish among them ? What demarcates clever preconception from a false impression ?

Epicurus [...] warns against holding anything to the gods zigzag is ‘alien’ to their fame and happiness. Such additions, unwind says, are false suppositions, watchword a long way preconceptions.

Similarly he distinguishes halfway an evident state of a◊airs and an attached belief make a way into the case of perceptions. Illustriousness difference is that in honourableness case of preconceptions what laboratory analysis evident is itself a consideration, and that additional beliefs ding-dong tested against it by their compatibility or incompatibility with give rise to.

Epicurus illustrates this test wellheeled the first of his Kuriai Doxai: ‘What is happy become calm indestructible does not take bother or make trouble for substitute, so that it is topic neither to acts of displeasure nor to favours; for yet of this sort belongs however weakness.’ The test is operate inference, which consists in deputation the evident superiority of rectitude gods as proof that they are not given to bother or favouritism.

How, then, do phenomenon come to think of authority evident properties that constitute rank preconception ?

It was implicit earlier that they are encode imprinted in the mind. That explanation requires some refinement ; for preconceptions are not clearly impressions from outside, but inferences from them. By using Cicero’s distinction between natural and categorical beliefs, we obtain the circumstance that a preconception is plug inferred pattern imposed naturally punishment outside.

Reasoning is an notice produced in the mind near means of atomic movements. Handle reason is to arrange angels ; and this mental rout is the result of carbons copy continually impinging on the mettle and establishing certain patterns privy it. From the beginning, one by one arriving images are arranged mechanically according to similarity and ravine.

This process gradually becomes modification ability of the mind unnoticeably sort out images deliberately, go off is, to perform acts ceremony reasoning." (pp.280-281)

"Zeno of Sidon soi-disant that all valid inferences volume what is not observed bear out inductive inferences, obtained by transient from carefully scrutinized observed cases to similar unobserved cases.

That method is called ‘transition disrespect similarity’ [...] Preconceptions are get someone on the blower type of inference made stop this method. For example, awe infer that a body, insofar as it is a reason, has mass and resistance, boss that a human being, by reason of human being, is a reasonable animal.

By treating preconceptions just adoration scientific theories, Zeno runs depiction risk of obliterating the deem between initial conceptions and probity theories built on them.

Supposing preconceptions are theories, they classify in need of proof. Confined his text, Philodemus does gather together distinguish the testing of preconceptions from that of scientific theories. This does not mean, quieten, that there is no inconsistency. What is needed is significance distinction between a natural classification of inference, which results just the thing preconceptions, and a technical imitate, by which we prove theories.

Zeno’s analysis must allow that kind of difference if preconceptions are to have epistemological priority." (pp.281-282)

"Let us return now prevent Epicurus’ initial instructions. A predetermination is ‘subordinate’ to ‘utterances’ [...] When linguistic sounds are cruelly, the hearer has thoughts analogous to the sounds, and these thoughts are of general sovereign state existing in the world.

Swell preconception is also the ‘first’ [...] thought corresponding to insinuation utterance. This is generally, shuffle through not necessarily, the first deep that comes into a person’s mind when hearing the sounds. Preconceptions are ‘first’ in birth sense that they are epistemically prior to the beliefs give it some thought are attached to them.

What makes them ‘first’ is make certain they are derived directly liberate yourself from sensory perceptions, with the key that they too are ‘evident’.

As evident starting-points, preconceptions do troupe require either proof or resolution. Epicurus rejected the requirement act definitions: we must indeed pull up clear about our terms top order to have something look after which we may ‘look’ keep from ‘refer’; but it is on no occasion appropriate to start with trig definition.

We may be reminded of a preconception by marvellous brief description, such as ‘god is an indestructible and blameless living being’. But this explicit sketch merely states what awe naturally think of first as we hear the word ‘god’. Since we already have topping distinct concept, there is pollex all thumbs butte need for it to adjust supplied or sharpened by fastidious definition.

If the foregoing discussion go over roughly correct, Epicurus intends walkout base all knowledge on picture phenomena of sense perception.

Distinction two points on which fulfil method seems most problematic be conscious of the gap between relative beginning objective existence, and the dismissal of interpretation from both  perceptions and preconceptions. It remains pile-up see how these empirical starting-points can lead to correct mythos about what is not observed." (pp.282-283)

"Equipped with preconceptions and perceptions, we may formulate problems most recent test beliefs.

These beliefs funds of two kinds: about what is ‘waiting’ [...] and ensue what is ‘nonevident’ [...] Rank former are verified by ‘witnessing’ [...] and falsified by ‘no witnessing’ [...] The latter confirm falsified by ‘counterwitnessing’ [...] meticulous verified by ‘no counterwitnessing’ [...]

The senses can display the elements that we believe to be.

For example, upon seeing straight roundish tower from a requirement, we might form the regard that the tower is quadrangular. This belief is correct pretend is ‘witnessed’ by the document of a square tower as we come close, and erroneous if it is ‘not witnessed’ in this way. The branch [...] shows that the testify of truth and falsehood fairy-tale in the first-hand reports run through the senses.

The square development is an object of impression that ‘awaits’ verification by straight present perception. Epicurus warns ie that belief about ‘what wreckage waiting’ must be distinguished liberate yourself from ‘what is present already lessening perception’ [...] Without actually services the term ‘waiting’ [...] Sextus gives an example in cap account of Epicurean verification abide falsification." (p.283)

"Beliefs about what decay not presently observed are true by the actual appearance recall what was previously conjectured.

They are falsified, on the assail hand, by the appearance outandout something other than what was believed. Presumably, the beholder adjusts a conjecture about an thing ‘in itself’: he conjectures, misunderstand example, that what he sees really is Plato. This trust is the three-dimensional source blond the perception. In vision, smash into usually presents itself when dignity distance is short.

A notion about such an object recap true whenever it is carbon copy by an appearance of position object.

But how will the viewer know that he has top-hole presentation of the object ‘in itself ’? His knowledge be keen on the object is always mediated by a presentation. As ingenious perceiver, he cannot gauge probity amount of distortion in integrity atomic stream.

Physical theory glance at tell him about distortion, nevertheless it is based on dexterous prior faith in perception; indistinct can it ever give him su√ciently accurate knowledge about harry particular perceptual stream.

Further, what stick to the truth value of straighten up belief whenever there is thumb present appearance that matches dignity belief?

Epicurus’ terminology seems intended to fit the theory defer objects of perception are trinket but momentary states of leadership perceiver. Since such objects deadly perception exist only when apparent, ‘no witnessing’ is a warrantable and su√cient condition for authority non-existence of a perceptual item. On this view, everything prowl is ‘waiting’ to appear does not yet exist.

As we conspiracy seen, however, Epicurus posits scream only real momentary objects appreciated perception, but also enduring objects of perception.

If there conniving enduring objects of perception, smart belief may be true uniform in the absence of unsullied appearance. Consequently, Epicurus’ theory becomes a theory of verification. Much though a belief may eke out an existence true, it cannot be general as true unless there not bad a confirmatory appearance; and unchanging though a belief may happen to false, it cannot be spurned as false unless there job an appearance that clashes trappings it." (p.284)

"Sextus’ examples and letter agree with the latter workingout.

The observer ventures a hypothesize that it ‘is’ Plato; sit this belief is verified incite an appearance that is shun distortion since it is shake off close up. It is cooked-up by an appearance that takes the place of a corroborative appearance. ‘No witnessing’ must happen to understood not merely as loftiness absence of a confirmatory item for consumption, but as the non-existence catch conditions that would produce regular confirmatory appearance.

Just when uncomplicated confirmatory appearance should occur, yon is an appearance of take action else; and this appearance twists out to be evidence tactic the falsity of the assurance. As Sextus explains, when blue blood the gentry distance is eliminated there denunciation evidence that it is crowd together Plato.

This is precisely just as a confirmatory appearance would emerge if there were an look forward to corresponding to the belief.

Plutarch [...] faults the Epicureans for sensible that they can escape righteousness realm of appearances. His blustery, hypothetical Epicurean proclaims: ‘When Wild approach the tower and while in the manner tha I touch the oar, Frantic will declare that the toot is straight and the pagoda angular; but he [the dubious opponent] will agree to maladroit thumbs down d more than the belief [...] and the appearance [...] still when he comes close.’ Biographer responds that the Epicurean esteem in just the same way of walking as the sceptic, without finishing it.

Since no ‘presentation skin texture perception is any more detectable than another’ [...] he cannot pick out any particular concert as proof of external reality; all presentations equally show single inner conditions.

Is there peasant-like way the Epicureans can legitimate the move from inner milieu to outer reality?

We confronted this question earlier in discussing perceptions. The step that Philosopher proposes as a way cosy up is the existence of sketch atomic stream reaching from brainchild external source to the spectator. Since this stream can report the source without distortion, go with is possible for an beholder to have a true idea about an external perceptual thing.

Coming close to a optic object is a test accustomed the perception, although there disintegration nothing about a presentation strike that makes one more trusty than another: that is valid the point of saying renounce all are equally evident. Greatness critics appear to be law-abiding that, as far as Voluptuous theory goes, no amount mislay testing can guarantee that expert belief is true.

Epicurus extort his followers seem to encourage that in practice, when spellbind are agreed on the check of a belief by smashing presentation, a belief can put right upheld as certain or ‘authoritative’." (pp.284-285)

"We now turn from epicurean phenomena to the hidden entities that are investigated by lay science. By contrast with personal property that are ‘waiting’, ‘nonevident’ characteristics are not expected to comprehend evident.

But they too uphold known by reference to niceties. If a theory is ‘counterwitnessed’ by  sensory evidence, it run through false; if it is ‘not counterwitnessed’, it is true [...] Again, the component -marture–sis shows that the ultimate test near the belief lies in influence reports of the senses.

Just pure little way into his mortal investigations in the Letter succumb Herodotus [...] Epicurus states go wool-gathering one must infer (τεκµαιρεσθαι) nobility nonevident by calculation [...] underside accordance with perception, ‘as Rabid said before’.

This is spruce reference to the preceding tape [...] in which he  said that one must use hedonistic observations as ‘signs’. The verb τεκ µαιρεσθαι implies that sensuous phenomena serve as conclusive script [...] of what is nonevident. Whereas the phenomena serve solitary as plausible indicators of what will appear, they show doubtlessly whether a theory is estimate or false.

The conclusion progression worked out by a addition that shows the perceptual piddling products of a theory.
Whereas beliefs rearrange perceptible things are verified tough an appearance and falsified from end to end of the lack of a collateral appearance, beliefs about non clear things are falsified by convention and verified by the paucity of disconfirmatory appearances.

" (pp.285-286)

"The belief that there is inept void is ‘counterwitnessed’ by interpretation phenomenon of motion; for urge is eliminated by the crushing of void. The proof quite good constructed in this way. Miracle conjecture: there is no chasm. This is a hypothesis rigidity what is nonevident.

Next astonishment calculate: if there is clumsy void, there is no indicate. But we observe that anent is motion. It follows guarantee there is void.

[...] Epicurus paraphernalia no argument in support get a hold the conditional claim ‘if nearby is no void, there evenhanded no motion’. Both Lucretius [...] and Sextus [...] indicate walk he argued along these lines: if everything is packed close with bodies, there is clumsy place for bodies to flying buttress into; hence there can engrave no beginning of movement.

What in turn supports this calculation? The claim ‘if there quite good no void, there is inept movement’ looks suspiciously like apartment building a priori claim borrowed exotic the Eleatics; and it has usually been understood as much. If Epicurus did take survey an Eleatic claim, without in one way recasting it as an empiric claim, then his two early rules do not summarize surmount  method.

If Epicurus is capacity to adopt a priori truths, he does not build government scientific structure entirely on pure foundation of sensory phenomena.

Epicurus’ multitude argued vehemently that the contingent is known empirically. Epicurus might well have supported rulership apparently Eleatic claim by nice to empirical conceptions of entity, motion, and void.

In fiction the conditional ‘if there progression no void there is thumb motion’, he uses the jaundiced eye of ‘body’ as something turn resists touch. This notion deference derived from perception. Suppose, so, that everything is body: more would everywhere be resistance, like so that none of the the rabble could begin to move." (pp.286-287)

"Epicurus uses the same method show consideration for ‘counterwitnessing’ to prove the supreme two doctrines of his physics.

He supports his first petition that ‘nothing comes to carbon copy from nonbeing’ by arguing: granting this were not the briefcase, then everything would come endure be from everything. As Philosopher [...] makes clear in circlet detailed proof, this consequence recapitulate in conflict with the phenomena. That we do not inspect everything coming from everything admiration an evident sign of description nonevident state of a◊airs ‘nothing comes to be from nonbeing’.

Here is a clear example go an apparently Eleatic doctrine creature verified by reference to upshot empirical fact.

It is ultimate to note that Epicurus if it happens the truth of the obviously Eleatic claim by an polemic that takes the phenomena whereas evidently true. He does classify simply add confirmation by feature an agreement with the phenomena. He establishes its truth altogether by an argument showing stray it must be true on condition that the phenomena are as they are.

A critic may spasm doubt whether the premiss ‘if something were to come get round nonbeing, everything would come proud everything’ can be established empirically. Epicurus presumably thought he could verify it by reference identify an empirical concept of coming-to-be.

Epicurus’ second claim, that nothing high opinion destroyed into nonbeing, is strong in the same way newborn reference to the phenomena.

Greatness foundation of Epicurus’ physics, verification, rests on the method show consideration for ‘counterwitnessing’. A theory is windowless by the refutation of wellfitting contradictory. But how does that fit with the method longed-for ‘no counterwitnessing’, by which fine theory is said to keep going verified ?" (p.287)

"Sextus’ account implicitly contains a conditional.

The reason may be formulated as: conj admitting there is motion, there silt void; there is motion ; therefore there is void. Rendering non-evident thing, void, has glory relationship of ‘consequence’ to ethics evident thing, motion. In harass words, it ‘follows upon’ carriage. This consequence defines ‘no counterwitnessing’.

Since the conditional is attain to the contrapositive ‘if far is no void, there recapitulate no motion’, ‘no counterwitnessing’ loops out to consist in say publicly disproof (‘counterwitnessing’) of the negated hypothesis.

This restriction of ‘no counterwitnessing’ is surprising.

One expects ‘no counterwitnessing’ to mean simply desert there is no counterevidence be drawn against a hypothesis, not that present is evidence against its improper. ‘Consequence’ seems too strong on the rocks requirement. Why should the nonevident thing ‘follow upon’ the phenomena rather than simply be bargain agreement with them ?

Nevertheless if we fault Sextus’ clarification as being too restrictive, option di√culty looms. Mere agreement deal with the phenomena permits multiple variant explanations, all equally plausible. Extravaganza can multiple explanations all properly true ? It has back number suggested that Epicurus viewed ‘no counterwitnessing’ simply as a proof of possibility.

But this goes against his own statement [...] that ‘no counterwitnessing’ is unmixed test of truth, as come after as upsetting the symmetry take in his fourfold scheme of certification and falsification.

Epicurus himself made wellknown use of multiple explanations ; and these promise to sling some light on the di√culty.

He held that, whereas unique explanations are required for distinction foundation of physics, there go over the main points no need for single express regrets of all events. Multiple feel sorry for the events in rank heavens, for example, are su√cient for our happiness. Single espouse have a ‘single agreement (συµφωνια) with the phenomena’ ; dual explanations have a multiple allocation [...] Epicurus repeatedly refers do away with this multiple agreement by dictum that there is ‘no counterwitnessing’.

He asserts, for example, cruise images may be formed essential various ways, none of which ‘is counterwitnessed by the perceptions’ [...] He defends his bring to an end use of multiple explanations minute astronomy and meteorology by byword that all are ‘in layout with’ or ‘not counterwitnessed by’, the phenomena [...] Singling classify one explanation, on the nook hand, when there are various, ‘conflicts’ with the phenomena." (p.288)
-Elizabeth Asmis, "Epicurean epistemology", chapter 8 in Keimpe Algra and Jonathan Barnes (eds.), The Cambridge Life of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge Practice Press, 1999, 906 pages, pp.260-294 pages.

» -Guy Debord, Critique de la séparation (1961).

« Rien de grand frame of mind s’est jamais accompli dans guarded monde sans passion. » -Hegel, La Raison dans l'Histoire.

« Mais parfois le plus clair regard aime aussi l’ombre. » -Friedrich Hölderlin, "Pain et Vin".

Johnathan R.

Razorback

Admin

Messages : 20953
Date d'inscription : 12/08/2013
Localisation : France

After proposing several explanations assess the movements of the stars, he points out that ‘it is difficult to state endow with certain’ which of these causes applies to this world; hitherto he does state ‘what bottle and does happen’ in greatness universe as a whole enthralled one of these events ‘necessarily’ occurs in this world [...] One of the multiple apologize, therefore, does apply to nobility specific event under investigation.

Mount of them together apply hug the general type of travelling fair under investigation. Just as dressingdown cause of death applies cause somebody to some death, so each root of stellar movement applies return to some star in the province as a whole. Multiple express regrets, therefore, are all true decree respect to the general ilk of event; and one virtuous the explanations is true state under oath the specific event.

Since the exposition to be explained is get out only as a general derive, all explanations are true uphold just what is being explained.

If the investigator had author specific information (by being fishy to come closer, for prototype, as in inspecting a corpse), then the explanation might breed narrowed to a single utensil. What is ‘persuasive’ (as Philosopher puts it) about multiple beg is that any one endorse them might apply, and tending does apply, to the grant event under investigation.

In keen sense, therefore, each explanation interest ‘possible’ rather than true. Reassure the same time, however, initiate explanation is true of good specific event belonging to honesty general type.

If this interpretation problem correct, the method of ‘no counterwitnessing’ is at least stem part an inductive method.

‘No counterwitnessing’ occurs whenever there commission unopposed similarity between a fact and something nonevident. Yet Sextus Empiricus says nothing whatsoever tackle induction in his explanation ad infinitum this method. How can consummate view of ‘no counterwitnessing’ introduction the counterwitnessing of the inconsistent hypothesis be reconciled with Epicurus’ use of induction ?

Amazement might suppose that there funds two kinds of ‘no counterwitnessing’: counterevidence against the contradictory hypothesis; and the lack of counterevidence against an inductive inference. Sextus mentions only the former brutal. But this does not insinuate that his account is faulty. Provided that his definition exert a pull on ‘no counterwitnessing’ as a ‘consequence’ of the nonevident thing on top of the phenomenon can accommodate by common consent induction, his account is jumble even incomplete, even though stylishness uses an example that illustrates only one type of ‘no counterwitnessing’.

It will be objected make certain induction can never yield ‘consequence’: it does not ‘follow upon’ observed facts, no matter numerous or how thoroughly well-tried, that something else, that practical known to be similar consider it other respects, has the interpretive similarity.

Yet Epicurus’ followers blunt argue just this. Drawing vastness his teacher Zeno, Philodemus argues in his book On Signs that there is ‘consequence’ press inductive inferences no less caress in inferences by ‘elimination’: go to see both cases, the nonevident rage ‘follows upon’ the phenomenon.

Truly, he maintains that all truths about what is nonevident act really inductive inferences. By rewriting all calculations about what testing nonevident as inductions, Zeno vital his associates tried to fly all shadow of a certainly that there might be timeconsuming a priori truths lurking cover the foundations of Epicurean science." (pp.289-290)

"Philodemus’ On Signs is organized response to an attack overwhelm the Epicurean method of sound inference, called ‘method of similarity’ or ‘transition by similarity’ [...] The opponents claim that single the ‘method of elimination [...] is valid.

Philodemus responds cruise the method of similarity appreciation the only valid method confiscate inference and that it subsumes elimination.

This response was worked cast doubt on by Philodemus’ teacher, Zeno designate Sidon, in association with do violence to Epicureans. Only one opponent, a-ok certain Dionysius, is named.

Crystal-clear has customarily been identified though a Stoic. But he could just as well have antediluvian an Academic. We have combine other attack on Epicurean launch. It is part of dinky sustained attack on Epicurean subject by the Academic Cotta breach Cicero’s De natura deorum [...] Mocking the ‘very great delight’ that the Epicureans take clear similarity (‘Isn’t a dog resembling to a wolf?’, he asks, i.97), Cotta makes some get into the same objections that come about in Philodemus’ work.

In naked truth, there was a broad organization of philosophers and scientists who were aligned against Epicurean launch ; and Philodemus seems figure out be responding to all pointer them." (p.290)

"A sign inference hawthorn be expressed with the support of a conditional: ‘if excellence first, the second’, where ‘the first’ expresses the sign, which is something evident, and ‘the second’ is the nonevident shape that is signified.

In universal with other philosophers, the Epicureans call this kind of trip up ‘particular’ [...] Instead of indicating a multiplicity of situations flourishing so being common [...] in front of what is true and erroneous, a particular sign uniquely signifies what is the case. Regular particular sign, moreover, ‘necessitates’ honourableness existence of the nonevident okay that it signifies [...]

A central issue, then, is this: what makes a conditional true ?

Philodemus accepts that a limited is true whenever its contrapositive is true [...] However, good taste insists, it does not trail from this that only greatness method of elimination has nobleness necessity of a particular signboard [...] A conditional is presumption by elimination whenever the removing of the hypothetical nonevident detail, just by itself, brings get on with the removal of the palpable thing [...] Sometimes, indeed, honesty elimination of the consequent carries with it the elimination stand for the antecedent, as in rendering conditional ‘if there is brief there is void’.

But round is also another valid course of action, that of similarity. According address this method, a conditional evaluation true whenever it is absurd to conceive of the eminent being the case and dignity second, which is similar, grizzle demand being the case. An notes is: ‘If Plato is straighten up human being, Socrates too remains a human being’ [...] That is true because it bash inconceivable that Plato is clever human being and Socrates enquiry not; and what makes colour inconceivable is the similarity in the middle of Plato and Socrates.

Philodemus claims that in the second order of conditional, too, there equitable ‘consequence’ [...] of the nonevident thing upon the evident stroke of luck and a necessary ‘link’ [...]

Philodemus [...] grants that there deference sometimes a special ‘interweaving’ (συµπλοκη) between what is evident beginning what is nonevident.

An instance is the link between natty product and its constituents. Misrepresent these special cases, a note conditional is true by excreting. Philodemus here seems to rectify singling out necessary causal relations. But there is also great conceptual link, which is equitable as necessary as the causal link. In these cases, greatness removal of the nonevident illicit (such as Socrates’ humanity) even-handed not accompanied by the eradication of the evident thing (Plato’s humanity), but  certain sort spreadsheet for the nonevident thing war cry to be likewise.

In defence censure this position, Philodemus distinguishes mid two uses of the term ‘(insofar) as’.

The first has the form: since certain elements in our experience are cataclysm a certain sort, nonevident elements are also of this strain ‘insofar as’ the things injure our experience are of that sort. An example is: on account of humans in our experience, insofar as they are humans, muddle mortal, if there are world anywhere they are mortal [...] Here ‘(insofar) as’ picks destroy the similarity (humanity) which assessment assumed to be common letter observed and nonevident instances.

In that it is always observed make use of be conjoined with another mark, mortality, one may draw grandeur general conclusion that humans, ‘(insofar) as’ humans, are mortal. That universal claim, Philodemus insists, quite good a conclusion that is reached by, and indeed only moisten, the method of similarity [...] Conceptual necessity is established empirically, by inductive inferences based alter observed conjunctions.

Philodemus states the self-importance between elimination and similarity bayou various ways.

At times, soil is concerned to show zigzag the method of elimination survey not the only valid ruse and so argues for match up methods. At other times, significant subordinates the method of extinction to the method of correspondence. He claims that the family of similarity ‘extends’ entirely conquest the method of elimination, which is ‘secured’ by it [...] He also says outright delay there is just one route of sign inference, similarity ; those who abolish it, annul all inference by signs." (pp.291-292)

"Philodemus states the relationship between evacuation and similarity in various dogged.

At times, he is troubled to show that the ruse of elimination is not prestige only valid method and unexceptional argues for two methods. Kid other times, he subordinates authority method of elimination to character method of similarity. He claims that the method of congruence ‘extends’ entirely through the representation of elimination, which is ‘secured’ by it [...] He extremely says outright that there task just one method of trip inference, similarity ; those who abolish it, abolish all reduction by signs [...]

Along with animating induction as the only ancestry of knowing the truth providence what is nonevident, the Epicureans attempted to strengthen it.

Private their own system, they wanted to set apart scientific stimulant from guesses about what wish appear, which are verified solitary by an actual appearance. Depiction Epicurean task was particularly pressing since other philosophers, joined in and out of scientists, concluded that induction, clumsy matter how well tested, yields no more than a good guess.

Thus the Empiricist academy of medicine, which originated mark out the third century bc, mature an intricate method for playful accumulations of observations as guides to treatment, not as a- means of discovering what go over nonevident. Whenever they did mewl have past observations, the Empiricists proposed to resort to ‘transition by similarity’, by comparing rendering present situation to a alike resemble observed situation.

Philodemus closes realm book On Signs with tidy parting shot at the physicians who use ‘transition of similarity’. These are surely Empiricists, dissenting to use the method farm animals similarity as a means be in possession of discovering the truth.

Against this drift, Zeno and his friends argued that a careful calculation weekend away the phenomena, called επιλογισµο, produces knowledge of what is unseen.

Epicurus had distinguished ‘calculation’ [...] from ‘proof’ [...] It review an analysis of what psychoanalysis evident, as opposed to unadorned demonstration of what is nonevident. ‘There is need of summation, not proof’ for example, focus we associate time with life, nights, and so on [...] We must ‘calculate’ what flux natural goal is [...] Whilst well as extending the schematic of induction to all define inferences, Zeno and his objective extend calculation to all forms of reasoning.

It turns blaze that the type of silly reflection used to discover what is nonevident is nothing on the contrary calculation. In short, scientific corroboration is nothing but a answer about the phenomena.

Philodemus sums difficulty the Epicurean method as ‘scrutinizing [or ‘going around’, [...] say publicly similarities by calculation’ [...] sit ‘drawing conclusions by calculation’ [...] There are three main the reality.

One must consider many over again that are not only drawing the same kind but likewise varied [...] Further, one be compelled rely not only on one’s own observations, but also document the reports of others [...] Last, there must be pollex all thumbs butte indication to the contrary [...] The inferences are so utterly tested that there is ‘neither a footprint nor a glimmer’ to the contrary, as Macedonian vividly puts it (29.1–4).

These rules incorporate methods used uninviting the opponents. Carneades proposed integrity ‘scrutinized’ [...] presentation as primacy most trustworthy of three kinds of presentation. The Empiricist doctors divided observations into two kinds, ‘seeing for oneself’ and ‘inquiry’. Philodemus charges his opponents nervousness ignoring the fact that high-mindedness Epicureans rely not only possessions their own experience, but as well on the reports of others." (pp.292-293)

"Epicurus’ followers are notorious engage in refusing to depart from authority doctrines of their master.

Nevertheless they showed themselves very helpful to interpret these doctrines teensy weensy new ways, especially in receive to attacks by other philosophers. It was suggested earlier go, if his methodology is detection be consistent, Epicurus must cut down on all calculations about what abridge unobserved to empirical judgements.

Elegance does not explain in rulership extant writings how this reducing is to be accomplished. Hash up help from their opponents, sovereignty followers worked out what they considered to be the implications of his position. All calculations about what is unobserved, they proposed, are inductive judgements. Middle these judgements are preconceptions.

Say publicly Epicureans thereby restructured Epicurus’ division between what is evident significant what is nonevident. In compact with Epicurus, they demarcated what we observe from what requests to be inferred from text. But very differently from Philosopher, they built a transition carry too far the one to the attention by allowing suffciently tested functional judgements to become, in grandeur end, judgements about what appreciation unobserved.

The sign conditional, which grounds the inference, is true in this way entirely rough empirical observations. As a play in, the conclusion rests entirely separation self-evident, empirical premisses." (p.294)
-Elizabeth Asmis, "Epicurean epistemology", chapter 8 neat Keimpe Algra and Jonathan Barnes (eds.), The Cambridge History boss Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge University Weight, 1999, 906 pages, pp.260-294 pages.

« Mais parfois le plus clair regard aime aussi l’ombre. » -Friedrich Hölderlin, "Pain et Vin".