Epicurean Preconceptions

in Phronesis
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.

Help

 

Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?

Connect

This paper provides a comprehensive study of the Epicurean theory of ‘preconception’. It addresses what a preconception is; how our preconception of the gods can be called innata, innate; the role played by epibolai (active mental focusing); and how preconceptions play a semantic role different from that of ‘sayables’ in Stoicism. The paper highlights the conceptual connections between these issues, and also shows how later Epicureans develop Epicurus’ doctrine of preconceptions while remaining orthodox about the core of that doctrine.

Sections
References
  • AlgraK. InwoodB. ‘Stoic Theology’ The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics 2003 Cambridge 153 178

  • AlgraK.BarnesJ.MansfeldJ.SchofieldM. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy 1999 Cambridge

  • ArmstrongD. FitzgeraldJ. T.ObbinkD.HollandG. S. ‘All Things to All Men: Philodemus’ Model of Therapy and the Audience of De Morte Philodemus and the New Testament World 2004 Leiden 15 54

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AsmisE. ‘Lucretius’ Explanation of Moving Dream Figures at 4.768-76’ American Journal of Philology 1981 102 138 145

  • AsmisE. Epicurus’ Scientific Method 1984 Ithaca, NY / London

  • AthertonC. FredeInwood ‘Lucretius on what language is not’ 2005 2005 101 138

  • Babut ‘Sur les dieux d’Epicure’ Elenchos 2005 26 79 110

  • BaileyC. Epicurus: The Extant Remains 1926 Oxford

  • BarnesJ. ‘Epicurean Signs’ Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1988 Supplementary Volume 91 134

  • BarnesJ. GiannantoniGigante ‘Epicurus: Meaning and Thinking’ 1993 1993 197 220

  • BlankD. GiannantoniGigante ‘Philodemus on the Technicity of Rhetoric’ 1993 1993 585 596

  • BrittainC. FredeInwood ‘Common Sense: Concepts, Definition and Meaning in and out of the Stoa’ 2005 2005 164 209

  • ChiltonC. W. Diogenis Oenoandensis fragmenta 1967 Leipzig

  • De LacyP.De LacyE. A. ‘Epicurean ἐπιλογισµός’ American Journal of Philology 1958 79 179 183

  • De LacyP.De LacyE. A. Philodemus on Methods of Inference 1978 2nd edn Naples

  • DelattreD.PigeaudJ. Les Épicuriens 2010 Paris

  • FineG. The Possibility of Inquiry: Meno’s Paradox from Socrates to Sextus 2014 Oxford

  • FishJ.SandersK. R. Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition 2011 Cambridge

  • FredeD.InwoodB. Language and Learning 2005 Cambridge

  • GiannantoniG.GiganteM. Epicureismo greco e romano 1993 Naples 3 vols.

  • GliddenD. ‘Epicurean Prolepsis Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1985 3 175 217

  • GoldschmidtV. BrunschwigJ. ‘Remarques sur l’origine épicurienne de la “prénotion” ’ Les Stoiciens et leur logique 1978 Paris 155 169

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HammerstaedtJ. GiannantoniGigante ‘Il ruolo della prolēpsis epicurea nell’ interpretazione di Epicuro, Epistula ad Herodotum 37 sg 1996 1993 221 237

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IerodiakonouK. MorrisonB.Ierodiakonou ‘The Notion of Enargeia in Hellenistic Philosophy’ Epistēmē etc. Essays in Honour of Jonathan Barnes 2011 Oxford 60 73

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • InwoodB. Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism 1985 Oxford

  • InwoodB. Reading Seneca 2005 Oxford

  • JankoR. Philodemus: On Poems i 2000 Oxford

  • KonstanD. ‘Commentary on Morel’ Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 2008 23 49 54

  • LongA. A. Aisthēsis, Prolēpsis and Linguistic Theory in Epicurus’ Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 1971 18 114 133

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LongA. A.SedleyD. N. The Hellenistic Philosophers 1987 Vol. 1 Cambridge

  • MansfeldJ. Algra ‘Theology’ 1999 1999 452 478

  • MansfeldJ. ‘Aspects of Epicurean Theology’ Mnemosyne 2003 46 172 210

  • ManuwaldA. Der Prolepsislehre Epikurs 1972 Bonn

  • McIntyreR. ‘Concerning “Men’s Affections to Godward”: Hobbes on the First and Eternal Cause of All Things’ Journal of the History of Philosophy forthcoming

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McKirahanR. GiannantoniGigante ‘Epicurean Doxography in Cicero, De natura deorum Book I’ 1993 1993 865 878

  • MorelP.-M. ‘Method and Evidence: On Epicurean Preconception’ Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 2008 23 25 48

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NataliC. LaksA.SchofieldM. Oikonomia in Hellenistic Political Thought’ Justice and Generosity. Studies in Hellenistic Political Philosophy 1995 Cambridge 95 128

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ObbinkD. ‘The Atheism of Epicurus’ Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 1989 30 187 223

  • ObbinkD. ‘ “What all Men Believe Must be True”: Common Conceptions and Consensus Omnium in Aristotle and Hellenistic Philosophy’ Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1992 10 193 231

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ObbinkD. Philodemus and Poetry 1995 Oxford

  • ObbinkD. Philodemus On Piety Critical Text with Commentary 1996 Part 1 Oxford

  • PurintonJ. ‘Epicurus on the Nature of the Gods’ Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2001 21 181 231

  • SantoroM. Demetrio Lacone La forma del dio: PHerc. 1055 2000 Naples

  • SchofieldM. SchofieldM.BurnyeatM.BarnesJ. ‘Preconception, Argument, and God’ Doubt and Dogmatism. Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology 1980 Oxford 238 308

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SchofieldM. FredeM.StrikerG. ‘Ἐπιλογισµός: An Appraisal’ Rationality in Greek Thought 1982 Oxford 221 237

  • ScottD. Recollection and Experience 1995 Cambridge

  • SedleyD. N. BarnesJ.BrunschwigJ.BurnyeatM.SchofieldM. ‘On Signs’ Science and Speculation 1982 Cambridge 239 272

  • SedleyD. N. GriffinM.BarnesJ. ‘Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World’ Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society 1989 Oxford 97 119

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SedleyD. N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom 1998 Cambridge

  • SedleyD. N. FishSanders ‘Epicurus’ Theological Innatism’ 2011 2011 29 52

  • SedleyD. N. ‘Lucretius, Physics, and Mental Projection’ unpublished

  • SmithM. F. ‘New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda’ American Journal of Archaeology 1971 75 357 389

  • StrikerG. ‘Κριτήριον τῆς ἀληθείας’ Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1974 2 48 110 [Reprinted in Striker 1996: 22-76.]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • StrikerG. Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics 1996 Cambridge

  • TsounaV. Auvray-AssayasC.DelattreD. ‘Cicéron et Philodème: Quelques considérations sur l’éthique’ Cicéron et Philodème. La polémique en philosophie 2001 Paris 159 172

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • TsounaV. IoppoloA.-M.SedleyD. N. ‘Philodemus and the Epicurean Tradition’ Philosophers Politicians and Patrons 2006 Rome 339 397

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • TsounaV. The Ethics of Philodemus 2007 Oxford

  • VerlinskyA. FredeInwood ‘Epicurus and his Predecessors on the Origin of Language’ 2005 2005 56 100

  • WarrenJ. ‘Epicurean Immortality’ Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2000 18 231 261

  • WarrenJ. Facing Death 2004 Oxford

  • 6

    So Morel 200841-2. Both Morel 2008 and Konstan 2008 make important advances in our understanding of Epicurean preconception Although I disagree with certain aspects of Morel’s analysis (see Section 4 below) I am greatly indebted to both these authors.

  • 12

    See e.g. the analysis in Long and Sedley 1987100-1.

  • 13

    See Long and Sedley 198789who emphasise however that although the ultimate justification of the trustworthiness of preconception lies in its empirical origin nonetheless the more general ground offered to justify the criterial role of preconception is ‘its indispensability as a starting-point in philosophy’ (cf. Epicurus ad Herod. 37-8 and below p. 172).

  • 14

    See Morel 200832-3. Morel’s interpretation of the self-evidence of preconception bears on his view that a preconception is not merely a representation but also an active movement of the mind a ‘focusing’ (epibolē). See below Section 4.

  • 16

    Goldschmidt 1978; Morel 2008. See also Section 4 below.

  • 26

    See Sedley 201146. Other interpreters too defend similar positions.

  • 29

    See McKirahan 1993. The point holds I think even though Velleius is not a spokesman for the Presocratics but for Epicurus and his system.

  • 30

    On this issue see especially Mansfeld 1993.

  • 35

    So for instance Long and Sedley 198789-90.

  • 36

    So Goldschmidt 1978; also Glidden 1985. Goldschmidt indicates that his interpretation is inspired by Kant insofar as it implies that for Epicurus as for Kant our perception and conceptualisation of the world is always mediated by the mind. Berkeley’s repeated criticisms against Locke are pertinent to this matter: the ideas cannot play the role that Locke wishes to ascribe to them if they are determined in the way in which Locke determines them i.e. as inert images in the mind.

  • 37

    Morel 200830and others make a similar claim about aisthēsis: it is contended that aisthēsis too is not just the passive reception of a physical imprint from the outside but also an active movement by which the mind grasps the content of that imprint and relates to it.

  • 39

    See the reply to Morel 2008 by Konstan 2008.

  • 43

    Long and Sedley 1987101 state with admirable caution the following: ‘If then [sc. preconceptions] can be taken to serve as the meanings of words in the Epicurean theory Plutarch’s criticism (which looks Stoic-inspired) will prove to be ill-founded.’

  • 44

    See e.g. the analysis in Long and Sedley 1987100-1.

  • 49

    See the remarks of Long 1973.

  • 53

    See the incisive comment of Verlinsky 200569 with n. 34.

  • 60

    A notable exception is EpictetusDiss. 1.22.1-3.9-10 (= ls 40S).

  • 66

    See Janko 2000419 with n. 6. I use Janko’s text and translation of On Poems 1 and I am also indebted to his commentary and notes.

  • 68

    Cf. Janko 2000421 with n. 1.

  • 70

    See Tsouna 2007394-5.

  • 84

    See Barnes 1993201.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 208 207 48
Full Text Views 298 297 3
PDF Downloads 37 36 1
EPUB Downloads 8 8 0