- 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 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"?
Sadly, most people don’t know this…
Why novels are a richer experience than movies
Novels solve what philosophers call "the problem of other minds." It's the problem that we can never know for sure what a person is thinking, or, from a metaphysical perspective, if they even have a mind at all! We must infer, we must guess, we must speculate. Novels, however, take place in an imaginary world where the problem of other minds does not exist, where mental states, like rage or ennui, can be referred to as directly as one does tables and chairs. There's an entire academic field that highlights this, like Dorrit Cohn's Transparent Minds, published in 1978, in which she emphasizes that this is "the singular power possessed by the novelist: creator of beings whose inner lives he can reveal at will." Or as another scholar put it: "Novel reading is mind reading." … (Nautilus)
Massimo Pigliucci
Novels solve what philosophers call "the problem of other minds." It's the problem that we can never know for sure what a person is thinking, or, from a metaphysical perspective, if they even have a mind at all! We must infer, we must guess, we must speculate. Novels, however, take place in an imaginary world where the problem of other minds does not exist, where mental states, like rage or ennui, can be referred to as directly as one does tables and chairs. There's an entire academic field that highlights this, like Dorrit Cohn's Transparent Minds, published in 1978, in which she emphasizes that this is "the singular power possessed by the novelist: creator of beings whose inner lives he can reveal at will." Or as another scholar put it: "Novel reading is mind reading." … (Nautilus)
Massimo Pigliucci
Old Friends
Attended the 70th birthday party of an old friend, a native Minnesotan who fittingly read this poem to us in gratitude (which was mutual):
Old Friends
Old friends are a steady spring rain,
or late summer sunshine edging into fall,
or frosted leaves along a snowy path—
a voice for all seasons saying, I know you.
The older I grow, the more I fear I'll lose my old friends,
as if too many years have scrolled by
since the day we sprang forth, seeking each other.
Old friend, I knew you before we met.
I saw you at the window of my soul—
I heard you in the steady millstone of my heart
grinding grain for our daily bread.
You are sedimentary, rock-solid cousin earth,
where I stand firmly, astonished by your grace and truth.
And gratitude comes to me and says:
"Tell me anything and I will listen.
Ask me anything, and I will answer you."*
Old friends really do compensate for most of the added aches and pains that follow time's arrow, and even the eventual subtraction of old friends.
* https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/151351/old-friends
Contingency plans
Or as Jimmy said, always take the weather with you everywhere you go. 🎶
SpongeBob SquarePants and Philosophy: Soaking Up Secrets Under the Sea!
Pop Culture and Philosophy - Open Court
@whywelovebaseball50: https://www.instagram.com/p/CxQasxzMdaa/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igshid=ZGUzMzM3NWJiOQ==
Why I love baseball
Sometimes it IS something you can't put into words, at least not words comprehensible to non-fans: a breathtaking catch, an elegant double play, a career-ending milestone... Sometimes it's the delightful spirit of uselessness the poet Wm Carlos Wms expressed: "The crowd at the ball game/is moved uniformly/by a spirit of uselessness/which delights them--" etc.
But mostly for me I think it's just the way it connects my 68 year-old self with the 6-year old who cheered for the '64 Cards in the WS against the Yanks, and with my dad, and my daughters... [like Ray with his dad and daughter in Field of Dreams...]
More than a feeling
I'm not one of those pointy-heads who automatically discounts anything Oprah touts. (Just ask Jonathan Franzen what happens when you do that!)
"Even the ancient philosophers struggled to agree on the definition of happiness. For example, consider the battle between Epicurus and Epictetus.
Epicurus (341–270 BCE) led a school of thought named after himself—Epicureanism—that argued that a happy life requires two things: ataraxia (freedom from mental disturbance) and aponia (the absence of physical pain). His philosophy might be characterized as "If it is scary or painful, avoid it." Epicureans saw discomfort as generally negative, and thus the elimination of threats and problems as the key to a happier life. Not that they were lazy or unmotivated. They didn't see enduring fear and pain as inherently necessary or beneficial, and they focused instead on enjoying life.
Epictetus lived about three hundred years after Epicurus and was one of the most prominent Stoic philosophers. He believed happiness comes from finding life's purpose, accepting one's fate, and behaving morally regardless of the personal cost—and he didn't think much of Epicurus's feel-good beliefs. His philosophy could be summarized as "Grow a spine and do your duty." People who followed a Stoic style saw happiness as something earned through a good deal of sacrifice. Not surprisingly, Stoics were generally hard workers who lived for the future and were willing to incur substantial personal cost to meet their life's purpose (as they saw it) without much complaining. They saw the key to happiness as accepting pain and fear, not actively avoiding them.
Today, people still break down along Epicurean and Stoic lines—they look for happiness either in feeling good or in doing their duty. And the definitions only multiply from there, especially as we travel around the world. Take, for example, the differences scholars find between Western and Eastern cultures.[ 4] In the West, happiness is usually defined in terms of excitement and achievement. Meanwhile, in Asia, happiness is most often defined in terms of calm and contentment.
Definitions of happiness even depend on the word for it. In Germanic languages, happiness is rooted in words related to fortune or positive fate.[ 5] In fact, happiness comes from the Old Norse happ, which means "luck."[ 6] Meanwhile, in Latin-based languages, the term comes from felicitas, which referred in ancient Rome not just to good luck but also to growth, fertility, and prosperity.[ 7] Other languages have special words just for the subject. Danes often describe happiness in terms of hygge, which is something like coziness and comfortable conviviality.[ 8]
If happiness were really this subjective—or even worse, a matter of feelings at any given moment—there would be no way to study it. It would be like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. This book would be two words long: good luck (or maybe good happ).
Fortunately, we can do a lot better than this today. It's true that different cultures define happiness somewhat differently, which is why the happiness comparisons among countries you always see in the news are not very useful or convincing. It is also true that feelings are associated with happiness. Your emotions affect how happy you are, and how happy you are affects all your emotions. But this doesn't mean that there are no constants across all people, or that happiness is a feeling..."
— Build the Life You Want: The Art and Science of Getting Happier by Arthur C. Brooks, Oprah Winfrey
I always wonder how stoics figure out what their duty is without the guidance of happiness, How do you gauge how you should treat a person without considering how your action would effect their happiness, someone else's happiness, or your own happiness? I know stoics are deontological, but how does one decide whether something is a virtue without consulting how that action effects other peoples happiness?
ReplyDeleteStoics see virtue as doing what’s right by reason, not by how much happiness it brings. True happiness comes from living virtuously, not chasing pleasure. So duty is about acting rightly, regardless of the outcome.
DeleteThe Epicureans' strong stands against Platonists, Skeptics, and popular religion were taken in the name of what?
ReplyDeleteEpicureans stance against Platonists, Skeptics, and popular religion was taken in the name of ataraxia, the state of untroubled peace of mind, and aponia, a state free from physical pain, which Epicurus defined as the natural end of life. Yet his objection to each school was distinct:
Platonists - because they revered Eternal Forms and other-worldy realities that epicureans thought distracted people from the simple nature of reality.
Skeptics - because suspension of judgement leaves people unsettled and vulnerable to fear.
Popular Religion - because myths about eternal punishment in the afterlife fosters terror rather than peace.
Epicureans didn’t like Platonists, Skeptics, or popular religion because they thought they caused worry and pain. They said Platonists made things confusing, Skeptics made people unsure, and religion scared people with punishments. Epicureans wanted people to live peaceful and pain-free lives.
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"?
ReplyDeleteYes, these two concepts are connected. Epicurus formed his ethics and physics from the foundation that all knowledge begins with sense-experience. Epicureans insist that sensations themselves are never false, only our interpretations of them can be. For example, when you *see* a round ball, the image is merely an atomic imprint on your senses, infallibility only happens when our mind attaches an unwarranted belief to it (such as "it's round").
Because every inference is dependent on sense-data, when allowing senses to deceive, the entire foundation of knowledge dissolves. By declaring the senses trustworthy and explaining appearances in terms of atoms and void, Epicurus cuts off appeal to divine intervention. For him, there must be a physical explanation for the cosmos because the senses' *raw data* never explicitly determines "God did it."
Epicureans called sensations infallible because they are basic, uninterpreted contact with reality. This is the spine of their natural science which undercuts theological explanations and the fears of divine punishment that tend to obstruct ataraxia.
Epicurus's religion was contemplative, not what?
ReplyDeleteHis religion was contemplative but not cultic or ritualistic. He posits that gods exist as blissful, deathless beings but live in serene detachment without ever intervening in the world. For him, true piety was quiet contemplation that imitates their calm perfection rather than public and ritual worship.
Epicurus’s religion was about calm thinking. He said gods don’t mess with the world. True worship is being calm like the gods, not doing ceremonies.
DeleteI get how established religions would have seen this as antitheistic though. If you're telling people that the gods are here and you profit from people thinking they need to tithe to them, then it would behoove you to misrepresent the Epicurean position to avoid losing followers.
DeleteQ - 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?
ReplyDeleteA - I wouldn't say it's a moral issue as much as it is a "choosing your sacrifice" issue. Classifying it as a moral issue would force me to condemn one side, and I don't think that would be possible to do. In a society, we have to have both -- people who choose the higher paying career and those who choose less stress. It's the whole "leaders and followers" adage in play. Both are necessary for having a functioning society.
I do believe that overindulgence in anything eventually leads to more pain than pleasure in the long run. I have often said that if you abuse something for long enough it will start to abuse you back. Too much of anything is bad. Too much water will destroy your electrolyte balance and can kill you. Too much sun will burn you and potentially lead to melanoma. There is a balance that can be found for everything, and I try to find that balance regularly.
[1] 1. The Epicureans' strong stands against Platonists, Skeptics, and popular religion were taken in the name of what?
ReplyDeleteThey resisted rival schools in order to protect confidence in sense-experience as the foundation of knowledge and thereby preserve the basis for the good life.
They took their stand in the name of human happiness (ataraxia), defending the reliability of the senses and attacking superstition that produced fear.
[2] 4. What do you think of their attitude towards visions, dreams, and clear and distinct perceptions?
The Epicureans regarded dreams and visions as real experiences caused by atomic films (eidola), but that error arises when we add interpretation or belief to them.
[3] 8. What is the "whole existence" of Epicurean gods? Is this sufficient reason not to fear them?
The gods exist only as blissful, immortal beings dwelling beyond the world, wholly detached from human concerns. This very detachment is what makes fear of them unnecessary.
5. Picking a higher paying career instead of a less stressful lifestyle isn't always a moral choice, but it can turn into one if it ends up affecting the people around you. Overindulgence is kind of the same way. Doing too much of anything whether it's eating, drinking or even seeking attention. It might feel good in the moment but it usually leads to more problems and stress than actual happiness in the long run.
ReplyDelete