- The Epicureans' strong stands against Platonists, Skeptics, and popular religion were taken in the name of what?
- How was knowledge an epicurean "antidote"? Do you think of it that way? Do contemporary scientists adequately convey this dimension of knowledge "relating to human happiness"?
- Why do you think the Epicurean insisted that sensations are "infallible" and "irrefutable" unless misinterpreted? Is this related importantly to their rejection of "theological explanations"?
- What do you think of their attitude towards visions, dreams, and clear and distinct perceptions?
- Do you agree that choosing a higher paying career over a less stressful lifestyle is a moral issue? Or that overindulgence in anything (eating, drinking, socializing, sex, self-promotion) is bound to produce more pain than pleasure in the long run?
- Are the Epicureans "promiscuous" about explanation, or are they just exaggerating the importance of relating knowledge to experience when they say any explanation not contradicted by experience is admissible?
- What "conquest" did they say means a reduction in the sum total of human pain and suffering? How large a role do you think fear and superstition continue to play in frustrating the happiness of our contemporaries?
- What is the "whole existence" of Epicurean gods? Is this sufficient reason not to fear them?
I said I'd pose fewer questions going forward, but I'm only through section V... so help me out: what questions in sections VI and VII do you find most compelling? I'll refrain while y'all go ahead and pose your questions and comments about Epicurus or any other Happy talk...- I refrained but got no help! Can we try again next time? Help me pose questions for discussion Thursday. Meanwhile, ...
- How did the epicureans say they knew the gods? Did they really, or were they just fending off "the stigma of atheism"?
- What high ideals were summed up by ataraxia?
- How do the epicurean gods resemble Aristotle's Unmoved Mover?
- Epicurus's religion was contemplative, not what?
- What's the epicurean view of "cosmic purpose"?
- Do modern Epicureans really think of religion as an "evil word"? Did Epicurus?
- What is "the only possible Christian solution to the cold war"? Is it really?
- Was the U.S. "barbarous" to deploy a-bombs in 1945?
- What is the "mark of the free mind"?
- Well you see why I want help: left to my own devices I ask too many questions. I'm still not even out of section VI! I need your input to show me which parts of our text are most compelling to you, for purposes of discussion. Let's collaborate next time: you pose questions too.
Monday, September 18, 2023
Questions Sep 19
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Epicureans' strong stands against Platonists, Skeptics, and popular religion were taken in the name of what?
ReplyDeleteDover says that the strong stands against the Platonists, Skeptics, and adherents of popular religion were made "not in the name of science" but instead in the name of happiness. The Epicureans believed that happiness was dependent on a knowledge of the true nature of reality, and found the aforementioned groups all lacking such a knowledge for one reason or another. As such, they saw membership in these groups as a barrier to happiness.
Dover also explained that each of these groups would impede one's ability to achieve "ataraxia," the condition that arises when one has achieved unadulterated happiness, serenity, and detachment. As these traits are atrributed to his idea of "The Gods," he then laces the notion of "imatio Dei," or becoming God-like, with the Epicurean journey of finding ataraxia. I enjoy the idea of working to imitate your God, rather than following ages-old texts verbatim. A novel that plays around with this idea is "In His Steps," by Charles Sheldon. A group of church members are conftonted with the consequences of their apparent hipocrisy, which leads to a challenge imposed by the preacher to his congregation: for an entire year, he challenged them to make every waking decision by considering first what would Jesus himself do? Along with its commentary on religious immorality, the novel also has. lot to imply regarding the social and economical state of the country at the time.
ReplyDeleteDo you agree that choosing a higher paying career over a less stressful lifestyle is a moral issue? Or that overindulgence in anything (eating, drinking, socializing, sex, self-promotion) is bound to produce more pain than pleasure in the long run?
ReplyDeleteI consider choosing a higher paying career over a less stressful lifestyle is a moral issue, yes, for the very reason that I consider the economical and societal motivations for such a decsion to be a moral issue. I find the capitalist embedding in American culture inhumane, and its implications to the woking and lower classes to be cruel, prioritizing work, income, and status above all. More particularly today, keeping the cost of living so high, that if one does not prioritize these, they will not be able to afford a comfortable life anyways.
I agree with you that the capitalist nature of the United Sates demands that the question of pay versus stress-free living must be a moral one. As things become more expensive and the labour of the working class is exploited even further for less gain on their part, suffering increases. The increase of this suffering turns the question into a question of morals.
DeleteIsn't everything a moral issue, can't you always imagine making better and worse choices? But not all choices are about "morals" as some narrowly define them.
DeleteIn regards to the reading, pursuing the greatest chance of happiness for the greatest amount of people, I would say today's socio-economic state inexcusably calls morality into question. When a very small portion of the population is controlling something so crucial to the entire people group's well-being and pursuit of happiness, morality should be the first thing to consider in this situation.
DeleteDo you agree that choosing a higher paying career over a less stressful lifestyle is a moral issue? Or that overindulgence in anything (eating, drinking, socializing, sex, self-promotion) is bound to produce more pain than pleasure in the long run?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I would consider this a moral issue. I believe that moral issues typically only regard one's interactions with others, rather than within. I believe I personally would prefer a less stressful lifestyle, but I do not think that choosing a higher paying career instead is necessarily a bad thing. I believe that overindulgence can definitely result in pain for a myriad of things, but I believe that giving a simple "no" or "yes" to that question would be a tad reductionist, as it would be impossible for me to account for every single possible thing.
I tend to think or moral issues as involving others as well. However, choosing a less stressful lifestyle may enable to you to moral good elsewhere. Or perhaps even choosing a higher paying career would help you do moral good elsewhere. So while it may seem like an isolated choice, without impact on others, but likely it will have a huge impact on how you interact with others.
DeleteSo if you were living the life of Robinson Crusoe you'd be an amoralist? I think I'd still subject myself to moral scrutiny, with regard to how I was going about my solitary daily business, thinking about my predicament, etc. I'd still think about my choices and thoughts in terms of better and worse. Probably would be even more self-critical than when in company with others. Not sure that'd be entirely healthy, but...
DeleteI think the biggest issue that makes the question a moral concern is how work within our society is made to be an exploiting action between people. One person exploits another and usually does so in order to gain more. This isn't to say that the higher paying job within this question is one that serves to exploit, but nevertheless the worker becomes exploited even at that high wage. Sometimes the exploitation is more seen as well at the high wage. If one can choose to forgo that exploitation of themselves, it would bring a less stressful life.
DeleteWhy do you think the Epicurean insisted that sensations are "infallible" and "irrefutable" unless misinterpreted? Is this related importantly to their rejection of "theological explanations"?
ReplyDeleteThe Epicureans being staunch empiricist, they cannot concede that sensations are potentially fallible, as if they were their entire system of beliefs is then built upon a shaky foundation.
And yet, every subsequent empiricist in our tradition has acknowledged the fallibility of sensations. I still wonder what it was about their version that resisted that concession.
ReplyDeleteDo you agree that choosing a higher paying career over a less stressful lifestyle is a moral issue? Or that overindulgence in anything (eating, drinking, socializing, sex, self-promotion) is bound to produce more pain than pleasure in the long run?
ReplyDeleteOverall, I do not feel that choosing a higher paying career over a less stress lifestyle is an issue or morality. Opportunities come and go in people's lives. It is our job to weigh the pros and cons of certain opportunities and decide what we want to do. If you feel you can handle extra stress and get paid more to do it, then do it! If not, then do not do it!
I think that overindulgence is a tricky subject. By nature, humans are imperfect and will overindulge at some point in their life. Just this weekend I may have overindulged in drinking too much at the MTSU tailgate and game. However, I do not think it will lead to more pain than pleasure. Yes, drinking is not the healthiest thing ever, but I made great memories with friends and family members that will last much longer than a hangover. Again, I think humans need to weigh their options and make the best decision for themselves. Now, if one were to continually overindulge, that is when it would become a severe problem and need to be addressed.
Do you agree that choosing a higher paying career over a less stressful lifestyle is a moral issue? Or that overindulgence in anything (eating, drinking, socializing, sex, self-promotion) is bound to produce more pain than pleasure in the long run?
ReplyDeleteThe first question I disagree with because there are reasons outside of greed that compel people to make more money than they need for themselves. On the flip side though, I do think that too much of a good thing is not a good thing. There might be exceptions to this, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head. But choosing a higher paying career over a less stressful lifestyle is not a good example of this phenomenon. Some people like living fast paced lives. Some people are ambitious and want to see how far they can go. Some people are passionate about the work they do and could care less about the money. Some people have kids to feed or loved ones with expensive medical needs. Some people find their own less stressful lifestyle in obtaining financial security. Some people’s love language may be gift giving. Saying the only reason that people pursue a high paying job lies in overindulgence is painting with too broad a brush stroke.