E3
1. How was Aristotle both correct and incorrect about how the seasons changed? Pg. 27
2. What did the Epicureans regard as the most important contribution of philosophy to life? p. 28
2. What did the Epicureans regard as the most important contribution of philosophy to life? p. 28
3. The Epicureans wanted to free the gods from what? 29
4. What was the aim of scientific understanding, for Bacon and Descartes? 31
5. What were Locke's and Hume's laments? 33
5. What were Locke's and Hume's laments? 33
6. For Epicurus we can only have certain knowledge of what? 36
Discussion Questions
- If you believe(d) "His eye is on the sparrow," are you (would you be) happy? 27
- "Fearfulness promotes vigilance and caution" but may also reflect mistaken beliefs...28 Which prevalent contemporary fears are worth keeping, and which are a mistake?
- Do you think "the oppressive anticipation of punishment" 29 in a punitive afterlife is a significant cause of fear and suffering? Is the doctrine of eternal damnation inhumane?
- Do you think it will ever be possible to discover how and why the structure and activity of atoms in the brain and nervous system give rise to consciousness and the subjective feeling of selfhood?
- In light of the uncertainty in ongoing medical research (35), is the idea of a "moon shot to cure cancer" (etc.) realistic?
1. What was Epicurus's view of soul? 38
2. What do the life cycles of plants and animals indicate? Pg. 39
3. In the Timaeus Plato posits what? 40
4. The Epicureans were the target of what ostensibly-Stoic argument for the view that the universe was made for us? 41
5. What were the two Epicurean ideas that helped bridge the apparent gap between non-existence and the richly populated world, and the gap between matter and life? p. 44
4. The Epicureans were the target of what ostensibly-Stoic argument for the view that the universe was made for us? 41
5. What were the two Epicurean ideas that helped bridge the apparent gap between non-existence and the richly populated world, and the gap between matter and life? p. 44
6. What most puzzled ancient philosophers about the generation of life? 47
7. How is the Lucretian/atomistic view of sex contrary to that of Christianity? 50
Discussion Questions
- "The ancient Epicureans did not find the appearance of life overly puzzling." Did they lack imagination or a sense of wonder? Or do we lack an appreciation of the fecundity of nature?
- Was it plausible, prior to Darwin, to think that "variation and selection" or "time,chance, and the forces of the environment" could produce new species of life? Was the Epicureans ontology "rather thin" compared to other more popular creation accounts? 43
- What do you think of David Hume's "slight emendation"? Must finite particles, given an infinity of time, inevitably produce everything under the sun? (This sounds a lot like Nietzschean eternal recurrence, btw)
- What should we say to the "monkeys-with-typewriters" scenario, and generally to the idea that no conceivable expanse of time is sufficient to account for the complexity of our world? 45
- Do the "loves and desires of animals" (including the human animal) generally stabilize and sustain life? Do they conduce to our happiness? 50 Or do they contribute as much to destability and strife? Was old Empedocles right about love and strife being active principles of life? Do amorous motives really pervade nature, or does amor have nothing to do with it? (What would Schopenhauer say?)
- Do you agree that generation and dying are symmetrical processes? 51 In other words, do each of us owe the world a death? Do you find beauty and consolation in that perspective? Is death a peaceful sleep and a dispersal of spirit and soul atoms?
==
Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods"-featuring a dialogue between a Skeptic, a Stoic, and an Epicurean-
On the Nature of the Gods-Gutenberg etext.
==
Superfans... Are they happy? Are you a fan(atic) of anything trivial (like baseball, Star Trek, a pop musician, etc.)? Are you prepared to fight about it? Has our politics become another fan-platform? Is there a healthy-and-happy way to pursue fandom?Superfans: A Love Story
From “Star Wars” to “Game of Thrones,” fans have more power than ever to push back. But is fandom becoming as toxic as politics?
...“Fan” is short for “fanatic,” which comes from the Latin fanaticus, meaning “of or belonging to the temple, a temple servant, a devotee.” The vestal virgins, who maintained the sacred fire of Vesta, the goddess of hearth and home, were the Beyhive of their day. But “fanatic” came to be associated with orgiastic rites and misplaced devotion, even demonic possession, and this may explain why fan behavior is often described using religious terms, such as “worship” and “idol.” (One Trekker at Comic-Con told me that the show “replaced religion for a lot of people.”) NYker
If you believe(d) "His eye is on the sparrow," are you (would you be) happy? Yes, I would be happy.
ReplyDelete"Fearfulness promotes vigilance and caution" but may also reflect mistaken beliefs...28 Which prevalent contemporary fears are worth keeping, and which are a mistake?
I am not sure there is a fear worth keeping, fear response is necessary for the excretion of adrenalin when there is immediate danger which requires rapid action. Unless your life is in danger there is nothing you should fear. Even death should not be feared, I am eased by death, for those who have lived a particularly difficult life the idea of death can bring a sense of calm. All fear is undesirable and the first step to overcoming it is no longer fearing death. This is my view.
Do you think "the oppressive anticipation of punishment" 29 in a punitive afterlife is a significant cause of fear and suffering? The idea of punishment and reward seem to be Neolithic concepts which were made by the ruling class to keep the agricultural slaves in line, they needed a ruling body of conduct to maintain order. In my opinion the idea of punishment itself should be done away with. And to answer the question yes, fear of punishment for all our sins is undoubtable a cause of a lot of guilt and shame. Nothing is ever gained by punishment or fear of punishment, the Norwegian justice system testifies to this fact. There are a small minority of psychopathic and quasi psychopathic predatory people however that complicate things a bit, since no amount of kindness toward them will change their heart. Is the doctrine of eternal damnation inhumane? Very, but why be primarily concerned with the pain and suffering of humans, most of the beings on this planet in suffering are not human.
Do you think it will ever be possible to discover how and why the structure and activity of atoms in the brain and nervous system give rise to consciousness and the subjective feeling of selfhood? Yes there is going to be a scientific explosion in biology especially and other fields soon enough. But I am entirely convinced the more materialistic and specifically sophisticated of material understanding we have of the processes that make us up, the less we will understand what we are, what it is to be alive, or why we are alive. Aliveness is presence, and all materialistic science can do is strip presence from us, for a future which will never come. There will never be some utopian future that will emerge from complete scientific understanding of nature, so the whole endeavor is pointless from my point of view. Nature is indifferent to us, we can learn something from that indifference and learn to mimic it.
In light of the uncertainty in ongoing medical research (35), is the idea of a "moon shot to cure cancer" (etc.) realistic?
If you believe(d) Cancer has been described as a sort of biological glitch, but perhaps in my limited medical understanding is just another result of the industrial pollutants, so why not just get rid of the pollution? To answer the question yes it is realistic, almost everything materially achievable once some of these newly emerging technological sciences converge, such as AI, cybernetics, Bio-technology, Gene editing, nanotechnology. According to Kurzweil it will be possible make anything in any quantity or scale with nanotech, and this can be merged with neural enhancements which allow quasi telepathic command of these nanotechnologies to assemble in any form our mind can imagine. It could even be we command these nanotechnology to at the level of nanometer-remove every bit of pollution from the very bottom of the ocean to the lower atmosphere of the planet.
"why be primarily concerned with the pain and suffering of humans" -- Humane and empathetic humans have the capacity to care about all gratuitous sentient suffering, human and otherwise. I can't think of a good reason not to be.
Delete"There will never be some utopian future" -- by definition. Utopia means no-place. But there will be a future, for better or worse, if we can manage not to destroy ourselves in the mean time. I for one am banking on science and humane technology to make it better. What's the alternative? But Kurzweil and company seem a bit over the top. And beware the nano gray goo... https://science.howstuffworks.com/gray-goo.htm
Hoping Bill Joy was not a prophet. https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/
"The ancient Epicureans did not find the appearance of life overly puzzling." Did they lack imagination or a sense of wonder?
ReplyDeleteNo, they were a practical and materialist people, they had no need or want for grand explanations. A simple answer for their purposes was effective enough.
Or do we lack an appreciation of the fecundity of nature?
We indeed lack an appreciation of the fecundity of nature.
Alienation is the source of all this if we go back to origins, and I mean alienation from nature or a fissure where we began to no longer identify with nature. Than see ourselves as apart from it and increasingly at war with it.
Was it plausible, prior to Darwin, to think that "variation and selection" or "time, chance, and the forces of the environment" could produce new species of life? Prototypes for nearly all of "Darwin's" ideas were intuited before Darwin. He was just the first to provide a clear, articulated theory binding all these intuited connections together. However the idea of full speciation was entirely original from my understanding. It would have been unthinkable in any other time to theorize random mutations from adaptions to the environment across time could eventually lead to full speciation from one to the other. However even now there is little evidence to support this theory of speciation, never once has there been observed a species leapfrogging from one species to another. Or evidence of a species that is in-between two species. There is species at different stages of development but no inter-species jumps. Like a chimp that is half man half chimp to offer a perhaps crude simplistic example.
Was the Epicureans ontology "rather thin" compared to other more popular creation accounts? 43. Yes, but for their needs and purposes that was not a problem. It is simple, that is the point.
"Atoms and void" is simple in conception, but if it's true then it's anything but simple in manifestation. Ours is an ever-complexifying, growing, changing world, a world of wonders. So to come back to the ancient Egyptians, their practicality did make them a bit unimaginative it seems. A spartan ontology can nonetheless give birth to a rich and wondrous and HAPPY existence.
DeleteWhat do you think of David Hume's "slight emendation"? Must finite particles, given an infinity of time, inevitably produce everything under the sun? (This sounds a lot like Nietzschean eternal recurrence, btw). I am not sure about that, Nietzsche's reiteration of the Ancient Greek view of cyclical history was something more like there are certain forms which bear repeating eternally, fully formed forms, which bare out or die out over and over to varying degrees deterministically depending on the cycle. The Heroic, age, Golden Age, and so forth is the proliferation of certain desirable qualities, or forms, and certain stages of ascent. Compared to the dissolution of those forms or qualities in the Ages of decline. In Vedic scripture, these are called the Yugas. This Vedic version is probably the fullest and most complete articulation of the idea of cyclical or traditional history.
ReplyDeleteWasn't Nietzsche's thought experiment inviting us to imagine that ALL forms are liable to repetition, and that the heroic mind embraces that prospect while the timid and fearful mind recoils? But this contrasts interestingly with the Epicurean emphasis on accepting life's experiential finitude, and enjoying it while we can... understanding that we'll not enjoy it recurrently in our present instantiation. All things must pass.
DeleteWhat should we say to the "monkeys-with-typewriters" scenario, and generally to the idea that no conceivable expanse of time is sufficient to account for the complexity of our world? But to answer I think that idea is total nonsense. At no point would completely random action somehow organize into an ultra-sophisticated, coherent, robust masterwork. Artistic production for just an example is not random, even nonrepresentational art has some purposiveness as part of its production. Anything at sufficient degrees of complexity must have some inner governing purposefulness to be realized. Or at least to be realized in a robust and coherent form. 45
ReplyDeleteDo the "loves and desires of animals" (including the human-animal) generally stabilize and sustain life? It depends on the scale and order of complexity, a tribal person doubtfully would have the desire and loves which would destabilize, since from observing early anthropology it can be shown about 99% of human history in this type of living was unbelievably stable, and life-sustaining for the humans who lived in it and the animals to whom they interacted with.
At higher levels of complexity, the exponential growth of potential problems and potential solutions to those problems occurs. The problems increase in proportion to the level of complexity. Complex orders of life can only lead to increased and then rapidly increasingly complicated orders of life. Like a positive feedback loop, and like all positive feedback loops it leads to instability, and sometimes even death. At the lowest levels of complexity, there is no desire, and instability and death are somewhat meaningless questions.
Do they conduce to our happiness? 50 Or do they contribute as much to detestability and strife? It depends on the scale and order of complexity. Anything small and simple enough can have at least a high probability of happiness. Each additional factor can only lead to another factor to account for in detracting from the happiness of the whole.
Was old Empedocles right about love and strife being active principles of life? Yes, nothing is a better symbol for life than sex, however, strife is not so much. Nature is perfectly harmonious, one’s individual life might not be but even their body exists in perfect equilibrium, there are struggles but life is order. The active principle of strife has no connection with life.
Do amorous motives really pervade nature, or does amor have nothing to do with it? Sex is neutral, it is governed by the same processes as everything else, but the fact of having sex for the individual person or animal is totally relative to that person or animal. Literally, anything can be ascribed to sexuality depending on the experience or perception of the partaker. Rapture, bliss, death, torture, sex is anything to anyone. Sexual motives do not pervade nature. (What would Schopenhauer say?) Few were as detesting of life and love and happiness as Schop, so probably something like: what is the point of sex in a world of suffering.
Do you agree that generation and dying are symmetrical processes? 51 In other words, do each of us owe the world a death? No, I ascribe to death negation, and to life affirmation. I owe this world nothing and this world owes me nothing. Nothing is more impersonal and indifferent than life. Neither have any inherent meaning, neither does their decline or ascent.
I ascribe no Do you find beauty and consolation in that perspective? No I do not, there is no peace in the idea that my death or anyone else's has a point, because whether it has a point or not rotting still has a stench.
Is death a peaceful sleep and a dispersal of spirit and soul atoms?
I sure hope not, I would like for death to be an end, a true end, not a rearrangement of materials that is endlessly being shuffled and reshuffled. Especially if how that occurs is deterministic and I have zero impact on what happens.
You must have some really good coffee, Sam.
Delete4. What did the Epicureans regard as the most important contribution of philosophy to life? p. 28
ReplyDeleteThey felt that Epicureanism alleviated the pain and suffering caused by fear and anxiety about death and the retributions of the gods which might lead to eternal suffering. We can certainly appreciate their desire for this outcome in our stressed out drugged up modern society. The pharmaceutical industry depends on this ongoing suffering for most of the business they do in their drug trade. Huge numbers of people are on anti-depressants, anxiety reducing medications, and many other meds to treat the physical symptoms of stress and anxiety. Suicide seems to be on the rise. Add to that the stresses of living during a pandemic, political polarization, increased weather related disasters due to climate change, and the general apocalyptical atmosphere of the modern world and one might conclude that we could all benefit by becoming Epicurean gardeners.
I think I would enjoy a Garden holiday, that is, a mindset that would transport me to a figurative garden when I needed to be there. Getting ourselves back to the Garden, then, would be something like James's moral holidays: not a brief and occasional respite from life's stress but a daily form of renewal and reclamation of perspective.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it will ever be possible to discover how and why the structure and activity of atoms in the brain and nervous system give rise to consciousness and the subjective feeling of selfhood?
ReplyDeleteI do think their are other dimensions of life and reality yet to be more fully understood. Matthieu Ricard's research and writings suggest that global change is possible through the use of meditation and other non-physical/technical/mechanical means. There is more to human infrastructure than concrete and steel. I am afraid that too many people today have never had even a moment of inner peace/contentment/happiness/well-being and are resigned to frantic and unsatisfying living lacking in self-awareness as a norm.
"There is more to human infrastructure than concrete and steel." Indeed! But have you noticed that new monument to concrete (etc.) going up on the other side of campus? Says something about who we collectively seem to think we are, doesn't it?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWas it plausible, prior to Darwin, to think that "variation and selection" or "time, chance, and the forces of the environment" could produce new species of life? Was the Epicureans ontology "rather thin" compared to other more popular creation accounts? 43
ReplyDeleteBTW: Darwin married a Wedgwood (British spelling) and the family was known by that last name until he became famous enough to regard his last name to be more prestigious.
Creation accounts are often misunderstood as attempts to literally and scientifically describe the beginnings of life. The real point of the Christian creation stories, for example, was to point to God as the creator. A Creationist view, in my opinion, completely misses the point. The atomic theory of the Epicureans was obviously "too thin" to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Just the existence of sub atomic particles, the splitting of the atom, test tube babies, growing meat and even human body parts in the lab, and gene splicing make this theory "too thin".
You're in the Darwin-Wedgewood family tree? But of course we all are, that's the point.
DeleteEvery theory of life's origins so far has been too thin, but as noted above we must suppose that atoms and void go quite a long way to producing the vast and expanding complexity of our world. As James said of matter, the fact that it could take on the precious form of a dead parent or child should make matter (atoms) sacred ever after.
• Do you think "the oppressive anticipation of punishment" 29 in a punitive afterlife is a significant cause of fear and suffering? Is the doctrine of eternal damnation inhumane?
ReplyDeleteI would say that I would 100 percent agree that “the oppressive anticipation of punishment” in the sense of an afterlife is by far a significant cause of fear and suffering. I feel like, in my experience at least, the ideal of what my mother would call “a spiteful god” is what is most commonly taught in churches. The unwavering rules and regulations tend to cause fear and anxiety about under performing or disappointing god. I would it’s a lot more reassuring that I don’t feel like I have to prove myself to anyone, and that I only have to live up to the standard that I set for myself, rather than one predetermined for me. I wouldn’t necessarily use the world “inhumane” because I think the structure and purpose that the idea of eternal damnation gives some people is a wonderful thing.
Maybe we can talk about that, I've yet to encounter anything wonderful in how people process and express the idea of eternal damnation.
Delete• Do you agree that generation and dying are symmetrical processes? 51 In other words, do each of us owe the world a death? Do you find beauty and consolation in that perspective? Is death a peaceful sleep and a dispersal of spirit and soul atoms?
ReplyDeleteI actually entirely agree with the Epicurean philosopher view that generation and dying are symmetrical processes. I think the Lucretius quote that Wilson included was an almost perfect representation on my views on death. Lucretius goes on to describe the process of us returning our energy back to the earth from which we were created from. For me personally this is the most logical explanation, as well as the most comforting explanation, which is an unusual combination. I don’t know if I necessarily believe that death will be like a long peaceful sleep, I more so think in more of a Epicurus view as in when death is here we are not. Sleeping is still a state of being and I don’t think death will even be that, it will be the exact opposite I think, the lack of experiencing.
In death we are not, but in contemplating all the ways and forms in which our atoms (which were never really OURS, they were just on loan) may persist we can gain some purchase on eternity in the here and now. The race, the continuous human community goes on. And all the non-human communities too.
DeleteA vision of happiness from a southern rock band:
ReplyDeleteSimple Man
A Lynyrd Skynyrd cover
[Verse 1]
Well, Mama told me when I was young
Said, "Sit beside me, my only son
And listen closely to what I say
And if you do this, it'll help you some sunny day"
[Verse 2]
"Oh, take your time, don't live too fast
Troubles will come and they will pass
You'll find a woman, and you'll find love
And don't forget that there is a someone up above"
[Chorus]
"And be a simple kind of man
Oh, be something you love and understand
Baby, be a simple kind of man
Oh, won't you do this for me son, if you can?"
[Verse 3]
"Get your lust from the rich man's gold
All that you need now is in your soul
And you can do this, oh, baby, if you try
All that I want from you my son is to be satisfied"
[Chorus]
"And be a simple kind of man
Be something you love and understand
Baby, be a simple kind of man
Oh, won't you do this for me son, if you can?"
[Verse 4]
"Oh, don't you worry, you'll find yourself
Follow your heart and nothin' else
And you can do this, oh, baby, if you try
All that I want from you my son is to be satisfied"
[Outro]
"And be a simple kind of man
Oh, won't you do this for me, son, if you can?
So, baby, be a simple
Be a simple man
Oh, won't you do this for me, son, if you can?"
Never thought of Skynyrd as an Epicurean band. I'll hear this song differently now.
ReplyDeleteBut not Sweet Home Alabama.
If you believe(d) "His eye is on the sparrow," are you (would you be) happy?
ReplyDeleteThat would be a comforting thought, would it not? It’s the idea that no matter how busy an omnipresent and omnipotent God may be, He/She still manages to make time for even the smallest of creation. I believe such an assertion, if it is assumed that the god in question is a benevolent one, would bring much happiness to myself. It would be knowing that you always have a supporter behind you no matter the occasion or disaster.
Of course, I suppose that if one constantly wishes to lead a life of sin in affront to the ever watchful God, this idea may not be as comforting. After all, the possibility of eternal judgment had kept a many of people, whether through fear or faith, from committing harmful behavior, both externally and internally. But, this would once again not take into account that a just God would not leave you to your vices. Instead, if He/She was just, they would seek to save you from your sin; thereby, leading you to a path of greater happiness.
So, perhaps in the end, the result is all the same.
Do you agree that generation and dying are symmetrical processes? 51 In other words, do each of us owe the world a death? Do you find beauty and consolation in that perspective? Is death a peaceful sleep and a dispersal of spirit and soul atoms?
ReplyDeletePerhaps the most intriguing part of this question is that it does not quite matter what I think. I do not believe there will ever be a way for mankind to avoid death. But, this does not prevent me from engaging with he question and possibly defending the declaration that death is a beautiful thing.
Let me first ask this: does anyone want to live forever? Most people to which I’ve asked this question has answered negatively. The thought of an infinite existence where there’s all the time but no motivation often deters many thinkers, and that’s exactly the point I wish to make.
Death is beautiful as it provides a motivation for all that is good in this life. Death forces one to build a legacy of treating others justly and putting forth effort to better the community in which one lives. Whether one does this for something as general as mankind or individual as a loving spouse, the end result is the same. We wish to be thought well if in our death.
So, without death there would always be tomorrow. It’s the dilemma of time that we seem to all face. Some push all of their work to the final hour. Other will rush to achieve their goals due to a high level of stress in response to an approaching deadline. What seems to unite these two motives is the finite nature of human existence. It’s a fundamental part in the basis of all motivation.
So, in a way, I truly do believe that death is a beautiful thing. It’s a deadline by which all of our thoughts, prayers, promises and lifelong goals must be concluded. And while you may not care much for these things when you are dead, perhaps it matters to you what those who are still living think of your endeavors.