Welcome Goblin!
I agree with previous comments that the test is based on a "wrong" interpretation of Epicurus. I blame my rather low score with Epicurus on that. It is not completely wrong because my highest score is actually with Epicurus and my lowest with Plato. Somehow, I am glad that my score with Nietzsche is very low, too. The overlaps with Kant, Hume and Aristotle do not bother me.
Welcome Jane!
If all meanings of "true" and "false" only apply to the verbal level, then the canon is lost.
To keep the canon, we need somehow be able to establish the truth of its pillars in particular instances.
Taking the analogy between prolepsis and pattern recognition as very strong, prolepsis can be false.
We weaken the meaning of "true to their cause" for the senses too much if we apply the same to prolepses.
The sensations inherit the truth from the real world and the proper function of the respective sensing system. The prolepses are generated by blending sensations with prior structures of the brain, and those structures can introduce error.
As both sensations and prolepses are non-verbal, it is not straight-forward to determine whether they are true or false in a particular instance. Once the result is verbalized, we have already confounded it with cognition, and then it may appear to be rather arbitrary to assign what level introduced the error.
One way to go around is to look at quick reactions. Between the very fast reflexes and slow pre-meditated actions are automated actions controlled by the brain stem, which do not involve cognition. An inappropriate action could then be interpreted as being caused by a false prolepsis.
Welcome Carmelo Sebastian!
Yes, please mention/recommend this site.
Using memes, graphics and the Lucretius Today podcasts from this site within your study group should be fine.
Since Emily A. Austin has published "Living for pleasure", her book is my new recommendation to start with. It is not for free but way cheaper than DeWitt's book "Epicurus and his Philosophy", which would then be great as the next book for completeness.
Audio/video material on Epicurus from BBC (within a BBC series on philosophy) seems to be fine but I do not know it firsthand and do not have a link.
It seems you already have enough future participants, which is great because the biggest hurdle to start a group is usually to find enough participants.
To avoid unproductive and divisive debate, it is best to establish rules which outline the scope of interest and exclude partisan politics (unless everybody in the group is politically on the same page, but then, there is no point in discussing politics either.)
Welcome Agrios!
Welcome Silverwater!
Welcome mwilliams!
Welcome Randall!
With Einstein and the models of modern physics the universe does not expand into anything.
This statement is misleading. As of current models and observations, both the universe and the space in which it exists are in accelerated expansion. The expansion of space seems to add so much that the distances between our galaxy and the most distant still observable galaxies seem to increase with more than the speed of light. The continued dilution of matter on the largest scale, the increase in entropy and the further development of stars will make the universe much different from now.
Welcome Adrian!
Welcome ScottW!
Welcome MaxImpala!
Comments at "Philosophy Matters" indicate that the article lacks depth, is a waste of time reading it.
"Carbohydrate Restriction (Adkins or Keto)" may produce stunning weight loss but both Adkins and Keto are controversial because they are unhealthy for most people.
"Carbohydrate Restriction by cutting down sugar and starch and increasing complex carbohydrates with fibers but not animal fats" is a healthy version of carbohydrate restriction. It would incur reduction of total calory intake, too.
Welcome Premster!
Welcome Plantpierogi!
Happy New Year!
Welcome Matthew!
