Epicurean and Stoic Epistemology

Today, we will be discussing some aspects of epicurean epistemology and stoic epistemology. Their similarities and differences will be elucidated upon in this essay, in hopes of trying to understand what knowledge is, what it is not, and what it can be.

To begin, the epicurean philosophy. Anything epicurean in the context of philosophy, is a form of thinking derived from the teachings of Epicurus. Some details regarding the famous philosopher are that he was alive from 341 to 270 B.C.E. He founded the influential school of thinking of epicureanism which is essentially an instrument for achieving happiness in ways beyond materialism and hedonism.

Now, as for today’s topic, Epicurus said that sensation is the foundation of knowledge. Sensation, is understood by the capacity for sense-perception, and these small, at first trivial, instances coalesce into a grander form of experience. Experience as a sort of coagulate of various translations of the senses, can be used to derive more refined and general elements, rules perhaps, that could be seen as knowledge.

An interesting aspect of Epicurean epistemology is how it deals with different perceptions of the senses. If from afar a person sees a tower and it appears to be round, but when approaching it closer, it appears square, instead of treating the former impression as false, the epicureans would treat both impressions to be valid, and in that way, treating the object as two, or in terms of however impressions there may be. This phenomena, is called distorted belief by Epicurus. Why so? Because it is not the senses that have led to this misunderstanding of the real and objective nature of the object. The element of vision conducted its job. It allowed the person to see, to see the tower in whatever way it has manifested in this situation. Thus, it is not the responsibility - a kind of primal responsibility - to see what is correct, simply to see what is there, what exists, within one’s peripheral view.

Another piece to the foundation of knowledge is concepts. Concepts to act as a supplement to sensation and experience, for concepts are used to organise and sort the perceptions of the mind, into the aforementioned coagulate of experience.

Delving into the nebulous space of where these concepts come from, is well rather daunting. Are concepts something that is a ‘preloaded’ feature of the human mind? Such that the ability to understand through applying some strange vague concepts is as old the mystery of humanity? There is the quandary of, if experience leads to knowledge, but experiences can only be made through the use of concepts, then are concepts not knowledge? Or this type of concept simply a tool? This is expanded upon by the stoics, which we will get too later.

Regardless, let us move on. Epicurus says that on the basis of the tangible, one must understand the world beyond the palpable. On the basis of the evident, the non-evident must be inferred, as is said in the history of western philosophy by Anthony kenny. Speculations are proven true if their characteristics align with the senses. If the supposition misaligns, then it is not true. But, when one uses the senses as the sole criterion for truth, a problem arises, which is that there can be a number of theories that correspond to the senses. However, there can only be one objectively true theory, so using senses as the foundation of truth leads to a predicament. The epicureans realised and understood this problem to their belief, thus they said that all theories, if all are applicable to the senses should be trusted.

Let us now move on to the Stoic side of epistemology, but first, a quick overview of stoicism. Stoicism is indeed a philosophy, but it is seen more as a way of life. Being stoic, when used as an adjective, means not showing emotion and feeling - essentially, vulnerability. The philosophy, however, does not entail how to facially animate, rather it is a philosophy of acceptance. Acceptance of the possibility of something bad happening in the inevitable and inexorable course of fate. Accepting it, means being ready for it, and eventually moving on. So, just as epicureanism, it too is a way to attain happiness.

The epistemological stance of the stoics is similar to the epicureans, in that they also believed that knowledge is based on sense-perception and concepts. The stoic idea of concepts is that when a child is born, the child’s mind is like a blank sheet of paper. As the child and the mind grow, the earliest concepts come from sense-perception, which are written on this sheet of paper. The accretive concepts help develop the mind towards reason, logic, and understanding. Eventually, concepts are not only taught by the elements of nature, but also by teachers. Once this sheet of paper is dense enough with concepts, further concepts can be derived from the preterite texts.

There is a new angle that the stoics introduced to the prism of epistemology. Within this philosophical school of thought, there is a knowledge and belief which has been discussed to an extent earlier with the epicureans. What the stoics introduced is the middle ground between knowledge and belief, and that is cognition.

Sextus Empiricus says: ‘Say there are three things connected to each other, knowledge and belief and located between them cognition. Knowledge is cognition that is sound and firm and unchangeable by argument; belief is weak and false assent, and cognition is in between the two: it is assent to a cognitive appearance.’

This definition of knowledge makes sense. It is sound and firm and unchangeable by argument. If one’s argument proves to be wrong compared to the opposition, then it is not the knowledge that is wrong - knowledge cannot ever be wrong, since its intrinsic nature neutral and true - but the application of this knowledge and its manipulation into an argument that is wrong, or not done very well. The definition of belief is also reasonable, considering that belief by nature has no grounds, no foundation.

But what is cognition, and cognitive appearance?

Cognition is the building of knowledge, but how can cognition be a middle ground if it only appeals to one side of the spectrum? Well, if according to the text, cognition is actually ‘assent to cognitive appearance’ then it mean that it is the human capability of recognising what is ostensibly knowledge and writing it on that sheet of paper. It is this capability that creates knowledge. If something does not pass through the great filter of cognition, then it is rendered as belief. But, the human mind is not robotic in being able to spot each boon of knowledge and each belief. So, though in theory the boundaries are very clear, in practise, it can become messy. And it could be argued that it has become so.

Before concluding though, do note that this understanding of cognition and cognitive appearance is more of an interpretation of mine. It may not be exactly what the stoics meant, but it is what I have derived from these slightly confusing terminologies, and it does make sense. At least to me.

To conclude, as with my previous, I do not wish to impose my interpretations as dogma, but merely an understanding. Please do share your interpretations in the comments. To abandon being pedantic, and looking at the bigger and general picture, the idea of knowledge as a product of sense perception is interesting and it may be true. It is interesting to thing that the experiences of being a child and running through a field has led to us being able to manage and navigate the labyrinthine course of life.

By Advik Lahiri

Image Credit: https://fee.org/articles/what-epicurus-can-teach-us-about-freedom-and-happiness/