ch5
1. How did the Epicureans depart from the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions? 522. The standards of meaning and truth are what, for Epicurus? 55
3. Epicureans believe that our beliefs about the physical world ought to be recognized as true or false how? (p. 59)
4. What alternatives to materialism appeared between the 17th and 18th centuries? Pg. 63
5. No contemporary investigator will accept what, but will nevertheless insist what? 65
6. The zombie thought experiment does and does not show what? 66
DQs
- Do you agree that the mind requires an animal body? 53 What do you think Epicurus would say about AI?
- Is the idea of a "distributed and corporeal" soul more appealing to you than an immaterial, dualistic soul in uncertain relation to the body/brain? Why or why not?
- Dualism holds that the conscious mind is incorporeal, or non-physical. Neo-materialism holds that brain activity is the cause of the conscious mind. What do you think; is there more to you than neural activity? Ed
- Following up on Ed's question: what kinds of experience do you find difficult to attribute to neural activity? Is there a parallel to the objections some lodge against empiricism, that matter could not possibly do x/y/z? -To which the reply must be: why not?
ch6
1. Epicurean gods have no what? 69
2. Why did Epicureans consider the gods "blessed"? 70
3. What is the Epicurean hope, with regard to the human tendency to invoke or solicit divine intervention in our lives? 72
4. What gave the clergy control and powers of preservation over philosophical texts in the middle ages? 73
6. What does Epicurean philosophy offer non-believers? (p. 80)
DQs
4. What gave the clergy control and powers of preservation over philosophical texts in the middle ages? 73
5. Epicurus asked what, regarding evil? 77
6. What does Epicurean philosophy offer non-believers? (p. 80)
DQs
- Is belief in god(s) natural but mistaken, and explainable? 70 (Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell supports this view...)
- What do you think of Spinoza's god? 74
- Baron d’Holbach said that theology was “ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system.” (p. 75.) If that is the case, what are the implications for religions based on a belief in a creator God that is involved with the affairs of men?
- Descartes believed that souls did not play a role in maintaining life, do you agree or disagree? (60) [a past student proposed this question, I'm not sure I accept the premise...]
- Are there cultural and social benefits from participating in religion, whether or not there is actually a God?
2. The standards of meaning and truth are what, for Epicurus? 55
ReplyDeleteSo, if perception is the standard for meaning and truth how would a detective bring a case to court where physical evidence is required to obtain a conviction? Would an architect be able to say a building looks like it should be structurally sound without applying the physically tested standards of structural engineering? How meaningful and true are the perceptions of someone high on psychedelic drugs?
Individual perception must of course always be weighed against that of the majority, where any impressive consensus obtains. Neither is guaranteed to be correct, and the perceptions of geniuses are often discounted as crackpot delusions... until they're not. It would be helpful to have a better standard than perception, when evaluating conflicting views, but so far none has been confirmed as indisputably reliable.
Delete4. What gave the clergy control and powers of preservation over philosophical texts in the middle ages? 73
ReplyDeleteLow levels of literacy and limited availability of books gave the literate clergy the power to possess written knowledge and limit access to philosophy and access to the purveyors of culture like literature and art. As copiers of written material clergy also at times became editors of that material leaving out those things they disagreed with or found to be immoral, distasteful, not Christian, or evil. In the realm of government, dictators have always sought to control media (books, radio, television, the internet). Our problem in the information age is that it is difficult to peruse the vast amount of available information let alone surmise what of that information is factual and true.
Yes, in the Information Age there's great advantage to those who know how to sift and evaluate the deluge. Our best bet is to consult a variety of sources, and retain open minds (but not let our brains fall out).
DeleteThis is an extremely interesting subject, as a religious studies minor i eat this stuff up. I think the main reason the church kept a grip on the people because religion has a way of unraveling without dogmatic domination. power only exists as far as a willingness to blindly agree on base principles exists. Otherwise you get people like me who ask more questions than there are answers already prewritten.
DeleteAre there cultural and social benefits from participating in religion, whether or not there is actually a God?
ReplyDeleteThis is clearly true. Witness the atheistic groups which gather for fellowship and community. In church parlance, they are called the "none's" as they would answer a survey asking what their religion is by checking the box for "None". Then there are the spiritualist movements which claim to be spiritual but not religious. You can seriously acquire ordination papers in a matter of minutes through the internet which allow you to legally perform a marriage today. Many people today actually think like Epicureans and see no need to be concerned about or fearful of God or gods.
True, gregarious natures come from every end of the religious/irreligious spectrum. The School of Life aims to be a kind of atheist church. So does Sunday Assembly in Nashville, where I have "preached"--just talked, really--in the past.
DeleteTo be a corporeal sole seems less apt to deal with the disconnect between perception and brain activity, which I believe seems to suggest some incorporeal aspect to the mind. Unless one was to subscribe to some form of panpsychism.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the disconnect between perception and brain activity?
DeleteThere may be a functional aspect of mentality that we don't want to reduce to strict physicality, but surely all aspects of mind depend upon anchorage in a brain.
I would say there are definite social benefits to participating in religious activities and rituals regardless of belief. The connection that comes from a common since of identity and purpose religion offers is hard if not impossible to replicate which I believe is part of why in recent years you see the rise of atheist churches like Sunday assembly in the UK or the Oasis Project in Dallas Tx.
ReplyDeleteI think it's possible for secularists and humanists (etc.) to derive a similar sense of connection. They just don't have as much institutional and historical infrastructure (Gary's word again) in place. Give them time. But it may also be true that many who describe themselves as non-religious are also not "joiners" to the same extent as their religious counterparts.
DeleteDo you agree that the mind requires an animal body? 53 What do you think Epicurus would say about AI?
ReplyDeleteI would say that I do agree that the mind requires an animal body. I think that the true consciousness absolutely requires a “physical host”, so to speak. I even further agree with Lucretius’s views that the mind grows up with the body and develops, rather than a disconnected entity waiting to “interject itself into a body”, for lack of a better phrase. I think the idea of AI would seem to Epicurus the same way it does to me, disingenuous and scary. By the same logic that Lucretius uses talking about the mind growing with the body, and not surpassing it’s physical body’s capabilities (example of the deer being timid and the human beings making rational thoughts), AI completely defies that logic. The “mind” can far surpass the physical host, and at a lot faster rate than a human could, which is very scary to me.
Funny enough this reminds me of a black mirror episode on Netflix. The concept what that old people, in order to help with demencha, would be throught into a virtual world that they were familar with. For instance if a man was young in the 1980s he would be transported to an arcade in the 80s or something. Anyway, at the end of their life they are presented with a choice. Either they can die normally or they can have their consciousness downloaded into this virtural world. Interesting right?
DeleteDualism holds that the conscious mind is incorporeal, or non-physical. Neo-materialism holds that brain activity is the cause of the conscious mind. What do you think; is there more to you than neural activity?
ReplyDeleteI would definitely say that there is more to the soul than just a manifestation of neuron activation. Though, I may be biased considering my Christian background. To me, the complexity of the human mind and soul will never be fully understood. Perhaps, it shouldn’t be. Would it not be a bit dangerous for society to know how to manipulate them? There’s some serious moral implications there, well assuming that you can manipulate all that you understand. Either way, I may be getting ahead of myself.
Though, it must be noted here that the soul is highly reliant on the body. Without it, it seems that we lose all avenues of communication and materialization. Or, well, in this world perceived by us currently. Maybe even those psychics and mediums would disagree with me here. Anyhow, there are definitely some effects in the body that directly affect the soul of mind. Pain and discomfort is an obvious one. However, while the message of these feelings are sent through our nervous system, it is our soul that judges them and determines how we process the feelings in relation to our past, present, and future experiences.
• What do you think of Spinoza's god? 74
ReplyDeleteSpinoza’s god is particularly interesting to me because it closely resembles what I understand to be reality. I too believe that there is a singular substance and that everything else is modes of that one substance. I think is explanation of how people have come to think otherwise in the appendix is of note as well. I remember thinking that he was a genius while writing my extrapolation on the subject. However, I can’t entirely commit myself to the rationalist school of thought. I can see the points of empiricists like David Hume who said that we can’t trust our senses to be anything other than that. Considering this self-discovery, I have come to respect Immanuel Kant for his attempts to explain a connection between rationalism and empiricism. My final answer of what I think of Spinoza’s god, at this point in my education, is that I believe in Spinoza’s god as far as I can trust my senses to tell me something about the world around me. However, I am not entirely sure that I can do so.